Message

-----Original Message-----
From: John R. Venrick [mailto:jacksranch@qwest.net]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 11:18 PM
To: Ron Sims; Carolyn Edmonds; Bob Ferguson; Kathy Lambert; Larry Phillps; Dwight Pelz; Rob Mckenna; Pete von Reichbauer; Dow Constantine; Steve Hammond; Larry Gossett; Jane Hague; David Irons; Julia Patterson
Cc: Rep. Dan Roach; Seattle Times Newspaper; Seattle PI Newspaper; KING5TV KING5TV; KIRO7TV KIRO7TV; KOMO1000AM KOMO1000AM; Courier Herald Enumclaw; KVI KVI; John Carlson KVI
Subject: Simple Thoughts on Politics and The King County Council

I hope somebody is tracking all the emails and appearances people are making for and against the not so critical Critical Area Ordinance.

When I was at the third hearing there were only 3 people, I believe, that spoke for the CAO; the rest of the full room were protestingf against it. I assume it was about the same make up for the last two hearings?

There must be many more property owners protesting this than want it. Certainly the vast majority of rural property owners do not want this intrusion! How many people have time or are even aware of this problem to voice their opinion that Ron Sims has created?

It appears to me, the only people who want this are Ron Sims and 7 of his fellow Democrat Council members and a few of the green party people who appear to not be property owners in the rural areas affected.

This struck me as so extremely odd it became seemingly all political. The person doing most of the talking at the last hearing was Ron Sims Attorney. This man does not represent any of the rural property owners. He only represents Ron Sims and maybe the green people. Interestingly it is us property owners who are paying for this high priced lawyer to draw up ordinances to intrude on our own property rights.

Also the other thought I had was the 7 Democrat's own district constituency would probably NOT support what they are proposing? Again this smells political. I cannot imagine that the majority of reasonable property owners in the URBAN areas would want to impose these extreme controls on anybody's property urban or rural knowing that what goes around will ultimately come around to them.

This is all rather simple at first glance but the more I thought about it the more striking these simple apparent truths became.

If all the property owners voted on this ordinance it seems to me there is an extremely high probability it would be voted down handily! Simply said, there appears to be gross misrepresentation of the property owners on the Council. It appears the Council's agenda may be different than the property owners, rural or urban.

Even more interesting is the simple thought that the other 6 Republican council members who are voting No on CAO do not all represent the rural areas. It appears they must be casting their RURAL AND URBAN constituency vote against CAO. What is odd is that 6/13 of the King County Council Republicans think their people don't want CAO and the other 7/13 of the King county Council Democrats think their people want it! Isn't that odd? Are some council members misreading their own tax paying property owners or are they just voting party line?

Another simple thought here is that it does not make any sense for a council so over weighted to the urban areas both in population and politically to vote on rural property controls. I hear there are 85% of the King County people in the urban areas and 15% in the rural. Rural people should decide their own controls. This whole process that the King County has is simply unbalanced, politically strong armed and a gross misrepresentation of the tax paying rural property owners.

This should not be a Democrat or Republican issue! Who is making this political? Rhetorical question that need not be answered as we all know who. This is a property owners issue! Nobody came to me or my area to ask for input. But you sure received a lot of input from the Washington green parties. Ron Sims and 7/13 of the King County Council and a few green people have put together a rural property owners nightmare and thrown it over our fence.

I think it was www.propertyrights.org that mentioned that all/most of the urban land has been development and paved over. So now what does the Council do but conjure up another scheme to undevelop our farm lands so they can feel better for over developing their own land! Don't forget years ago they passed the King County Agricultural Preservation Act and spent tens of millions of taxpayer money to buy up dairy farms to stop development at least temporarily. Then they pass the Growth Management Act, then Public Benefit Rating System for Open Space Land Classification and now Critical Area Ordinance. Who knows what else we don't know of.

I'll never forget one of the environmentalist at the hearing saying to the Council something to the effect " I leave you with the words Preserve, Preserve, Preserve". I thought to myself, why don't you buy my "ranch" and come out here and pay the taxes every 6 months and work it day and night for 28 years and dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into it and preserve it yourself you idiot! I left out the four letter expletives!

----- Original Message -----

From: Reamer, Grace

To: Irons, David

Cc: McKague, Jeanette ; Strege, Neil

Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:15 PM

Subject: CAO Update from David Irons

Thank you for participating previously in the process to update King County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Critical Areas, Stormwater, and Clearing and Grading Ordinances. We would like to update you about the process and encourage your continued participation in this crucial discussion.

Tuesday, Aug. 24, 1:30 p.m. - The Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee will meet in the King County Courthouse (516 Third Ave., Seattle) 10th Floor Council Chambers to discuss the Critical Areas Ordinance (including the 65-10 proposal), the Stormwater Ordinance and the Clearing and Grading Ordinance. See agenda below. Public testimony WILL NOT be taken at that time because of a major briefing the Committee will receive about wetlands. An opportunity to present public testimony may be available at the next meeting on Sept. 14 before the Committee votes on these proposals. (The Sept. 7 meeting has been cancelled because of the Labor Day holiday.) No final vote will be taken at the Aug. 24 meeting.

If you oppose the approval of these ordinances in their current form, you are encouraged to attend this meeting or submit your comments via e-mail in support of amendments to make these proposals more balanced between environmental protection and property rights. You also can watch the proceedings live on Civic Television (CTV), cable Channel 22.

As additional meetings are scheduled, we will endeavor to keep you informed about the progress of the CAO legislation. Additional opportunities for public comment will be available when these proposals go before the full Metropolitan King County Council this fall. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact our office at any time.

David Irons
King County Councilmember
District 12
(206) 296-1012
david.irons@metrokc.gov

Approval of July 20, and July 27, 2004 meeting minutes.

Discussion

The committee will be briefed by county council and executive staff and state agency staff on the following wetland topics:

Executive-proposed legislation
      * Wetland classification
      * Wetland buffers
      * Allowed alterations in wetland buffers
      * Wetland complexes
      * Mitigation requirements
      * Buffer modifications

Best Available Science
      * Approach to BAS review
      * Range of citations and applicability
      * Findings of BAS literature and evaluation of proposed wetland buffers

State DOE Wetland Classification and Buffer Proposals
      * New classification system
      * Wetland buffer options

2. Proposed Ordinance No. 2004-0122 Mr. Constantine

AN ORDINANCE relating to critical areas . .

3. Proposed Ordinance No. 2004-0123 Mr. Constantine

AN ORDINANCE related to surface water . . .

4. Proposed Ordinance No. 2004-0124 Mr. Constantine

      AN ORDINANCE relating to clearing and grading . . .

Other Business

Adjournment