To the King County Council, County Executive, Rural
Landowners and the news media:
The following article (see below) appeared in the King County Journal this
morning. Carolyn Duncan is quoted as saying in the article: ``We had a major change in land-use regulation and we had a
duty to explain those changes to citizens,'' Duncan said. ``It's a standard
communication tool.''
What Carolyn Duncan, a shill for
County Executive Ron Sims, and her Democrat Colleagues on the Council, had
a duty to do, was to abide by the Constitution of the United
States and the State of Washington, which they chose to totally
ignore, along with 12 of the 13 goals and objectives of the Washington State
Growth Management Act, because they are blinded by the environmentalist's mantra
of protect the environment at any cost, including your
freedom, liberty, increasing taxes and property rights.
From our Public
Disclosure Act document request, what Carolyn Duncan and multiple
department staff members actually said, "in
their own words", is as
follows:
On November 10th 2004 in an e-mail
from Jessie Israel to Laurel Preston, cc: Carolyn Duncan (Subject "The
Brochure") where it quotes "Laurel, I got a message from Carolyn
[Duncan] that she wants this to get mailed out sooner rather than
later." Why the
hurry?
On November 12, 2004, even before staff obtained quotes for the
brochure, Carolyn Duncan in an e-mail to several staff recipients says;
"We need to get the brochure to the print shop Tuesday. We still don't have the cost estimate
for printing and mailing, but will have that by Monday." So to Hell with the cost, they were
going to do it anyway.
On November 17, 2004 in an e-mail from Jessie Israel to Karen Wolf,
Jessie says; "Waiting to hear back about how long the print shop will take
but they are ready and willing to move fast." Does this sound like a long-term, well
thought out informational piece to be distributed on a rational basis to rural
landowners? Hardly.
On or about November 19, 2004 Laurel Preston said in an e-mail to
other staff that; "We just got notification that we need to get legal
approval prior to printing. I don't
know for sure if this will affect my 10 AM projected ready time tomorrow, but it
seems likely." They were
worried about legal approval?
On November 29, 2004 in an e-mail from Wendy Collins to other staff,
she says, "The full-color CAO brochure that you just sent out from
printing for Laurel was so well received that the Exec's office (Ron Sims)
wants to print 120,000 additional copies. The Exec's Office is very anxious
to get this reprinted as soon as possible." So what's the rush if not for it
being an advocacy piece?
So well received by whom?
Then on December 1, 2004 comes an e-mail with suggested talking
points from Susan Oxholm to Jessie Israel and Karen Wolf, with copies to Carolyn
Duncan and others.
Subject: CAO for urban audiences
From Susan Oxholm and I quote:
"Here are some quick comments:
1.
Make clear that the clearing restrictions (be they 65 or 50%) (and
stewardship planning) don't apply in urban areas - only rural
areas.
2.
Speak more to urban audience i.e. stream and wetland buffers in most
urban areas are considerably lower than rural. This is in step with the intent of the
spirit of the GMA to concentrate growth in urban areas. It is not our intent to hamper growth in
urban areas.
3.
Highlight the preservationist ethic of maintaining the natural systems,
beauty and resource of a functioning rural area. (You know
how much city slickers enjoy your Sunday drives in the
Country)
4.
King County conducted an analysis of potential effects of this ordinance
in urban areas and concluded that no measurable reduction in the ability to
build in the urban areas would result from the land use constraints found in the
CAO. (This was controversial with
the Master Builders, but its been our line all
along…)"
Please take note of the statement in
parentheses in Item 3, highlighted in blue. Pretty condescending, isn't
it? I'll bet Susan wishes she had never made that statement now that it is
public.
Now you decide if the above
statements boil down to a "standard
communication tool", as Carolyn Duncan says, or
was it rushed into print for the sole purpose to derail the signature gathering
drive for Referenda to repeal the CAO in violation of state law.
Hopefully, the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) will see through their smoke
screen and investigate, but I'm not holding my breath. As I was quoted in
the following article, the PDC is just "government overseeing
government".
Complaint alleges tax dollars
used
to illegally promote Critical
Areas Ordinance
A Fall City man has filed a complaint
with the Public Disclosure Commission against King County, claiming the county
illegally used taxpayer dollars to promote the new Critical Areas
Ordinance.
Ron Ewart's target is a brochure the
county sent to about 125,000 rural and urban households in late 2004 and early
2005 to explain the county's new environmental regulations.
However, the mailings were timed, he
said, to derail a citizens' effort to collect enough signatures on petitions
calling for a vote to rescind the new regulations.
About 18,000 signatures were
collected, but a Superior Court judge later ruled that a referendum can't be
used to overturn state-mandated regulations.
``The CAO brochure was misinformation
at best and blatant propaganda at its worse,'' Ewart wrote in his complaint. He
is one of the most vocal critics of the new regulations as an attack on private
property rights.
Carolyn Duncan, a spokeswoman for
King County Executive Ron Sims, said that's not the case. ``We had a major change in land-use regulation and we had a
duty to explain those changes to citizens,'' Duncan said. ``It's a standard
communication tool.''
The county spent about $82,000 for
brochures and newspaper ads to alert the public to the initial meetings about
the critical areas ordinances and to explain how they work.
Ewart said he's not expecting much
from the Public Disclosure Commission. ``That's government overseeing government,'' he
said.