Letter about gravel pit purchase
Dear Editor,
posted 08/10/04
From the outset, we have been struck most forcefully by what those eager
to acquire this "park" have omitted--deliberately, perhaps?--from the
fantasies they imposed on us in re: the resurrection of the gravel pit.
Commissioner Nielsen propjected on the barren hole a perhaps well-meant,
yet nonetheless grandiose vision of numerous playing fields, each devoted
to a different sport. Island Rec followed her, its group persona morphing
from that of an eager-to-please civic entity to one of hubristic disregard
for the monetary realities of what must exist before the pit ever could
become a park, and what else had to come into existence, once it finally
became a park.
To wit: once the land were acquired for a park, with athletics amenities
envisioned, we needed to, but did not, receive concrete, fact-based answers
to these questions:
What does one level, tamped, carefully maintained football field--or
soccer field--or tennis court complex--or baseball diamond [softball AND
hardball??]--or field-hockey or rugby field cost to establish, then
maintain, manicure, and mark, each season? What is the cost of lighting
EACH FIELD for the night games so fully imagined by the scheme's backers?
What is the cost of providing seating AT EACH FIELD for spectators? What is
the cost of providing plumbing for toilets and sewerage disposal to
accommodate spectators and athletes AT EACH FIELD? (Or is the cost of
rented Porta Potties AT EACH FIELD part of the picture?) What would be the
added cost of using school buses to transport students to their various
competitions and league games after school?--the venue is not exactly in
easy walking distance of the schools. In addition to the base cost of land
acquisition, these physical plants, installations, and amenities would run
into additional millions; costs of the permanent staff needed for their
upkeep (salaries funded by taxpayers, of course) would run into hundreds of
thousands of additional dollars.
And yet further: what is the cost of safety, that is, improving, widening,
and lighting the roads leading to these fields? What is the cost of
establishing and maintaining on-site parking lots for the traffic that will
bring the spectators that Island Rec envisioned filling the seats at each
site? Would we pay to run school buses in the summer too? or would each
spectator family arrive in its own vehicle?
And finally, the most important consideration: what would be the
costs--monetary, logistical, emotional--of impacts on homeowners of the
neighborhood? When an urban order of noise, traffic, and multiple-field
night-lighting were to render their homes unlivable, would Island Rec then
propose the community raise yet one more levy to buy them out, perhaps?
In short, the cost of acquiring this property is merely--in terms of the
ultimate visions of the scheme's begetter and supporters--the beginning of
what would become a burden of indebtedness upon this community that only a
major, prosperous, metropolitan city could propose to take on with even the
slightest degree of fiscal reality on its side.
Last November we voted overwhelmingly against the far-fetched idea of
turning this sow's ear into a silk purse. Today we need to tell the County
Commissioners and Island Rec to let this wholly inappropriate,
hallucinatory acquisition scheme fade away. Talented girls and boys are
unlikely to head to the major leagues from Friday Harbor's fields; it is in
college that they will be scouted and identified. Island Rec and sports
supporters would perform a real service to the community by instead turning
their attentions to improving existing sports facilities--an attainable
fiscal goal--and perhaps eventually participating in developing the tract
the school district already owns for a few additional sports venues.
Sports are a wonderful accessory in young lives. But we all need to be
aware that in professional-grade athletics, many are called, but few are
chosen. Young athletes need to be encouraged and counseled to focus on
their educations.
Lorna P. Dittmer
Robert Dittmer
Dear Editor,
On April 5, 2004, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) denied an
application submitted by Friday Harbor Sand & Gravel/Lafarge for State
approval of the reclamation for the company's gravel pit on San Juan Island.
The DNR ruled that the Company must first obtain approvals from the San Juan
County Department of Planning and Community Development. The Griffin Bay
Preservation Committee(GBPC) had submitted written comments to DNR urging
the Department to deny the application on these grounds. "Griffin Bay is
gratified that the DNR has agreed with our position" said Don Ragsdale,
President of GBPC. Years earlier, County Planning Officials had demanded
that the Company obtain local approval for the reclamation activities.
However, after the County entered into a purchase and sale agreement to buy
the Company's pit property, County officials changed their position and
retracted the demand that the Company obtain County zoning approval. GBPC's
comments to DNR pointed out the long history of the gravel pit's
noncompliance with State reclamation regulations and the improper political
pressure brought to bear on County planning department staff to get them to
change their earlier decision to require local approval.
The San Juan County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) removed nearly all
of the contingencies to the sale at a Board meeting last December. However,
The reclamation plan condition was not waived. While the County could waive
the reclamation plan condition as well, and complete the sale before DNR
approves a reclamation plan, this could potentially make the County liable
for reclaiming the property to DNR standards--at public expense. This is a
risk that the County cannot accept. "It is just another example of the BOCC
putting us all at risk by subverting the rules" said Georgia Baciu, GBPC
member.
Donald Ragsdale
President
Griffin Bay Preservation Committee
posted 11/21/03
Boyd and Lovel Pratt wrote: "The Lafarge property park is a wonderful opportunity for this community, but what it ultimately will include can be determined and developed in the future."
I whole heartedly agree! The purchase of this property is an opportunity not to be missed. How often does the county get a chance to buy 65 acres ANYWHERE on this island let alone a piece that includes shoreline access? As I look at our local real estate listings, 1.5 million for 65 acres sounds like a heck of a deal to me. Any shoreline property that can be kept in public hands, is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
Lisa Henderson
Commissioners Miller and Evans,
posted 11/21/03
Wednesday last, at the public forum hosted by the public entities involved in planning and implementing the acquisition of the LaFarge property, i.e. the gravel pit, it became crystal clear that no amount of public input or opposition will change the mind of Commissioner Nielsen in regards to this issue. Therefore, I implore you, Commissioners Miller and Evans, on behalf of myself and others, to meet your responsibilities in your capacity as elected county officials and fulfill your fiduciary duties to the tax paying public by ending this folly. There are too many unknowns and too many unanswered questions. You have it within your power to overturn your earlier decision and withdraw the County from its agreement to purchase the gravel pit property.
In light of this week's decision by the BOCC to increase the proposed bond issue to a total of $3.75 million by further indebting the County for an additional $1 million worth of bonds for the Cattle Point Road project, the above request does not seem to be unreasonable.
Chris Sly-Prochnow
Dear Editor,
posted 11/17/03
It seems to me that the extraordinary amount of brain power that is going into supporting the gravel pit purchase could easily spare a tiny amount to meet with the school district and create a solution for using that land.
The school district does not, apparently, want to go it alone, but does see that as a great spot for ball and other fields. So, instead of "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" the County and Park district should work on a winning idea.
Bob Querry
Dear Editor,
posted 11/17/03
The opposition to the County's purchase of the Lafarge property may be organized, vocal, and very well funded, but it does not speak for the majority of the residents of this island.
The County has the opportunity to purchase 65 acres of land, which includes the only existing deepwater barge landing site on San Juan Island for only 1.5 million dollars. Regardless of what happens to the upland property - whether it becomes a park with hiking trails alone or with a full complement of athletic fields - is not the critical issue. The Lafarge property park is a wonderful opportunity for this community, but what it ultimately will include can be determined and developed in the future. However, what is imperative is that the residents of San Juan Island have access to a publicly owned deep-water barge landing site.
Remember when Orcas Island lost their ferry landing? They were able to bring in groceries and other essential supplies at their barge landing site until the Orcas ferry landing was back in service. What sort of emergency back-up options do the residents of San Juan Island have if the ferry terminal in Friday Harbor is out of service?
The purchase of the Lafarge property is an opportunity that San Juan County cannot let pass by, since it is absolutely critical that San Juan Island residents have access to a publicly owned deep-water barge landing site.
Boyd and Lovel Pratt
Dear Editor,
posted 11/16/03
Ignoring a three-to-one vote may, in what is generally considered to be a democratic environment, be called ignorant and arrogant. Perhaps, however, this is part of the make-up of a politician, in which case both the attitude and the politician could be taken with a grain of salt.
Calling oneself a visionary exceeds what even a politician can get away with, unless the, ah, visionary refers to visions of grandeur. Since the word itself is not one that is heard on the street very often, I decided to get the trusty dictionary out. As usual, it provided enlightenment! A few of the explanations of ‘visionary’ are: marked by or tending to apparitions; not practicable, Utopian; one given to speculative or impractical ideas, dreamer.
More required looking up. ‘Apparitions’: a ghostly figure, specter and that word itself, ‘specter’: a phantom; a threatening or haunting possibility.
I think, Ms Nielsen, that I get the drift of what exactly you meant with your statement. Now if I can only find understanding for your infatuation with something the voters have overwhelmingly turned down. A threatening or haunting possibility indeed, how perspicacious!
Ary L. Hobbel
Dear Editor,
posted 11/16/03
Dave Dysart made the following statement to the panel at the public informational meeting on November 12, about the La Farge Gravel Pit purchase, "The public saw the recent ballot levy measure as the only way to register their disapproval of the purchase of the LaFarge Gravel Pit property." Commissioner Nielsen replied, "That wasn't so," and attributed the negative vote to the general apathy about taxes and government.
Chairman Marriner replied, "The Island Rec Board did not consider the vote a mandate from the public. We don't look at it as a defeat of the park." It is apparent that neither Commissioner Nielsen nor Chairman Marriner read the voter's pamphlet statements written by the Island Rec Levy Committee. The statement for the levy clearly spoke of future park developments. As ambiguous as this statement is, it was made clear in the statement against the levy written by Jack Cory who stated, "They claim they need this tax increase because their programs are under funded, but the chairman recently stated that the increase is needed to become land owners of the gravel pit." With a 3 to 1 rejection by the voters against the expansion of Island Rec's responsibilities and the liability of the La Farge Gravel Pit purchase.
If you don't consider this as a public mandate of rejection by the voters you are not living on San Juan Isle but on the Isle of Denial.
Don Ragsdale
San Juan Island
Dear Editor,
posted 11/16/03
At the Lafarge Park meeting there was expressed a need for the park for sports fields and walking trails. Since we already have two national parks, one state park and several county parks, plus a walking trail on the west side of the airport, all within a few miles to a maximum of twelve miles from all of the residents of San Juan Island, all of which currently see very little use by the island residents, why do we need more?
Frank Brame
Dear Editor,
posted 11/15/03
Although I have a very hard time envisioning baseball fields in the gravel pit I have no problem seeing the dugout.
This park will change the face of the game. The players will have one leg shorter than the other for standing on the hillside and sliding into home plate will look like the Omak Stampede Suicide Race.
Did I say suicide?
Scott Bell
Dear Editor,
posted 11/15/03
How dare she call us apathetic! I am deeply offended by this state ment of Darcie Nielsen's. The overwhelming vote was NO - now perhaps the people who did not vote could be called apathetic, but the majority of the people who did vote do not spend our tax monies on this park. Darcie Nielson is not hearing her public correctly. It looks like it is time to replace this commissioner and get someone to take her place who hears what we are saying.
Ask me to vote on a levy that is guaranteed to be spent on safer roads, perhaps bicycle lanes, and fixing Cattlepoint Road BEFORE it falls away and I will be happy to support it. As it is, road monies are going to be spent buying the LaFarge property for Darcie's pet project.
Patricia Hobbel
Commissioners Miller and Evans,
posted 11/15/03
At the meeting on 11/12, it was apparent that the voters got the message they sent, but the proponents of the Lafarge acquisition and development did not. Commissioner Nielsen claims she is a visionary, but her vision is blinded by power and agenda. I believe you both know in your hearts and minds that there are more prudent, fiscally responsible solutions to the needs and desires of the people.
The voters of this county defeated both tax levies by an overwhelming margin, due in part to serious concerns about the vague plans and high costs for the Lafarge property. Stop and listen to the people paying the price for your choices. They are demanding relief!
We were told at this meeting that despite any concerns the public expressed, or vote that was cast, the purchase would go forward! "It is a done deal." But it is not, and you have the power to fix this mistake. In order to purchase this property, you have authorized a bond that will indebt the taxpayer for years. The only way to satisfy this debt is to raise taxes or cut services. You are choosing to cut services. There is a better choice. Don't create the debt. The taxpayers do not want it and have said so resoundingly. Can you hear them?
Chris Clarke
Dear Editor,
posted 11/14/03
Darcie Nielsen is committed to shove the proposed Griffin Bay barge facility down the throats of the islanders no matter what the consequences. The majority of us do not want this illegal action to take place. What is her agenda and why? It seems to me she is acting like a dictator not a "leader or visionary" as she claims. The costs of this whole LaFarge project will overwhelm the community. The Commissioners bleat continually about their lack of revenue. I ask why do they even contemplate spending well over l million dollars on this project. It is insanity.
Sidney Thorson
Dear Editor,
posted 11/14/03
I was unable to attend the meeting discussing the Lefarge Park project, but I can not believe that some people still think this is a good place for ball fields. I walk past the park site at least two to three times a week and more often than not the wind blows stinging sand into my face so bad that I have to cover it. This is where you want your children to stand for hours waiting to kick or run after a ball?
I am not against a park, I think the gravel pit would be a wonderful refuge for the natural flora and fauna of the islands, that are rapidly being squeezed out due to development. Just think of the natural jewel this area could become, attracting both locals and tourist who enjoy the great outdoors. Besides who is going to pay to cut and maintain these ball field lawns? What about fertilizer and pesticide runoff into Jackson’s Beach. If this community so desperately needs ball fields why not work with the school district and build them on Carter Street where it makes more sense?
Lorie Narum
Commissioners,
posted 11/14/03
What happened to majority rule?
We the people DO NOT WANT the Lafarge park.
We don't want the debt.
Use the land the school acquired.
Hear what your taxpayers are saying.
Adamantly,
Susea McGearhart
Letter about Island Meeting on Lafarge acquisition
Dear Commissioner Nielsen,
posted 11/12/03
I am sharing with you my concerns regarding your "Community Discussion on
the Lafarge Acquisition" this coming Wednesday and hope that we can come to
a thoughtful understanding that will be in the best interest of our
community.
When I organized the October 28th meeting at the Community Theatre to
discuss the Lafarge project, I tried to balance the panel by inviting both
proponents and opponents. As you well know, many islanders were
disappointed, angered and shocked that both the Land Bank and Island Rec.
refused to participate on the panel.
I believe the focus of your public forum (limiting the panel of participants
to the five public agencies involved in the gravel pit project)should now
shift in light of the fact that three out of four islanders voted against
both Island Rec's and Public Work's levies.
To achieve a more balanced group discussion, it would behoove you to invite
both Dr. Chris Clarke and Jack Cory to be participants on your panel on
November 12th.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mary Ann Anderson
Dear Editor,
posted 11/01/03
I personally want to thank Commissioner John Evans and the standing room
only crowd at the San Juan Community Theatre last night for contributing
to a badly needed question and answer forum regarding the Lafarge Land
Acquisition. In light of the huge tax levy that Island Rec is asking us to
vote on, I was most disappointed that Island Rec refused to
participate in our panel discussion.
For the record, I would like to correct Commissioner Nielsen's statement
to the SanJuanIslander that the Island Meeting on October 28th had been
scheduled without consultation with the BOCC.
Although I do not think that we Islanders should have to "consult" with
the BOCC if we want to hold a meeting, I must remind Commissioner Nielsen
that I did ask the BOCC several weeks ago at Citizen Access Time to hold a
public meeting before November 4th to discuss the Lafarge Land
Acquisition, the viability of turning the gravel pit into a grand park
with a multi-sports complex, and the tax implications that will affect
all islanders. Commissioner Nielsen replied that she would not attend the
October 28th meeting, but would plan her own meeting and that it would be
held after the election.
The Island Meeting will be telecast on cable TV, Channel 19 at 8:00pm on
November 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, courtesy of San Juan Public Access
Television. If you cannot get Channel 19, have a friend record it for
you. It really was a wonderful Island meeting.
Mary Ann Anderson
Dear Editor,
posted 11/01/03
The public forum this past Tuesday evening in the Gubelman Room at the Community Theatre where the issue of the County's purchase of the LaFarge gravel pit site was discussed at length was a very worthwhile experience. This meeting was extremely well attended by members of the public with "standing room only."
Members of the panel were introduced by the moderator and each spoke for a few minutes, giving a synopsis of their position. Noticeable by their absence were the Land Bank and San Juan Island Parks and Recreation Department (Island Rec).
When the meeting was opened to the floor for questions from the audience, some very insightful and probing questions were asked of the panel. Some went unanswered and some were only partially answered due to the fact that there was no "official" representation on the dais by anyone from Island Rec. It was indeed disappointing and a bit disturbing that more than a dozen members of the LaFarge Park Steering Committee and their Design Subcommittee were unable to find one available person to represent their position. Ironically, there were in fact some members of these committees in the audience. None were willing to be on the panel and be questioned.
In speaking with numerous attendees subsequent to the meeting, the general consensus was that the only public forum being held prior to this Tuesday's election was not important enough to warrant the attention of Island Rec.
Chris Sly-Prochnow
Letter from Nielsen re gravel pit meetings
Dear Editor,
posted 10/28/03
Recent notices and ads regarding an island meeting Tuesday, October 28th to discuss the County's Lafarge gravel pit acquisition are misleading. This meeting has not been organized or sponsored by the County. Due to previous commitments and on the advice of Prosecuting Attorney Randy Gaylord, neither Commissioner Miller nor I will be attending the meeting. Also, due to scheduling conflicts, staff from the Public Works Department and Land Bank will not be able to attend. The October 28th meeting was scheduled without consultation or consideration of public agency efforts already underway to organize a community meeting to be held on November 12.
The November 12 meeting will be held at the Friday Harbor Middle School Commons from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and will include a panel of individuals representing the five public agencies involved in the gravel pit project: San Juan County, Island Rec, the San Juan Island School District, the Land Bank, and the Port of Friday Harbor. Representatives from Friday Harbor Sand and Gravel (Lafarge Corp.) have also been invited. The meeting will provide a broad public forum for citizens to ask questions and discuss the gravel pit acquisition, essential barge access to the island, and Island Rec park planning.
By the way, despite the efforts of some individuals to tell you otherwise, the County General Fund property tax levy proposal has nothing to do with the gravel pit acquisition. The shoreline portion of the gravel pit is being purchased for transportation purposes with revenue from the Road Fund, a completely separate tax levy. Lafarge is donating the balance of the property to the County. Also, while the additional revenue from the Island Rec levy proposal would help the community park happen much sooner, the project is not dependent on the Island Rec levy increase.
I look forward to seeing you on November 12th!
Darcie L. Nielsen
Commissioner, District 1
San Juan County
Response to prosecutor's response
posted 10/20/03
Randy Gaylord's press release in response to the Griffin Bay Preservation
Committee's complaint is an example of why the complaint was necessary. His
response is filled with half-truths and distortions.
Mr. Gaylord states that "Barges have been arriving and departing from this
property for as long as anyone can remember" but omits the fact that this
activity occurred offshore at a wharf where barges were loaded with sand and
gravel for export as part of the permitted La Farge Sand and Gravel
operation. The barges were specifically prohibited from touching either the
shore or the sea bottom during this operation. The County has allowed
Lafarge Friday Harbor Sand and Gravel to move that operation onshore. To
facilitate these barge landings on shore the County has allowed LaFarge to
bulldoze the beach, to build a new road along the shoreline and to build a
new ramp across that shoreline. All of these activities require permits and
compliance with shoreline development rules. The County has required none of
these.
Mr. Gaylord claims these uses and developments were based upon the doctrine
of grandfathered rights. He is well aware that documentation does not
support this claim. In fact, there has been no documentation produced to
support this (see SJC public notice summary of minutes BOCC August 11-12,
2003). The documentation that has been produced shows a pattern of other
code violations the county failed to stop. Further, all of the governmental
agencies did not acknowledge these rights. The Corps of Engineers
specifically rejected this claim and ordered the new ramp removed.
Once again Mr. Gaylord tries to attach the history of Jackson Beach (owned
by the Port) to the Lafarge owned beach it is trying to purchase. The 1987
Citizen Transportation Committee did not identify the Lafarge property
anywhere. It did identify the boat ramp on Port property next to the
cannery, but did not recommend it as a good location for a county facility.
Instead the report said, "Roche Harbor would be the optimal location for a
county facility. The County should diligently pursue the leasing, joint use
construction of a public dock in this area."
Mr. Gaylord's claim that he turned over enforcement authority is the most
ludicrous. He did write a letter requesting that the Attorney General take
over his responsibility. This is just one more convenient exercise in
misdirection. Even if the Attorney General had accepted, which he didn¹t,
the bottom line is that the prosecuting attorney has a sworn duty to enforce
of all laws including our land use and shoreline development regulations.
Our prosecutor has refused to do that. The central theme of Griffin Bay
Preservation Committee's complaint is to compel Mr. Gaylord to do his job.
Don Ragsdale
President GBPC
MacDougall supports park
posted 10/20/03
If you have been reading the letters to the editor about the Community Park project and Island Rec the last few weeks, you might be a little confused. Several people, in a very self serving attempt to stop the acquisition of the barge landing at Jackson's beach and the building of a community park, have been playing very fast and loose with things like facts and the truth.
Many of the things that have been written are just plain false. They also have left things out of their letters such as they live near Jacksons beach and will do (or say) anything to stop the further use of the barge landing there. Others have advocated building fields at the Carter St. school property. This will not happen for many very good reasons. The school board of directors made clear in a recent letter why the schools will not be developing any high school sports fields on the Carter St. site. And some things that have been written clearly demonstrate that the writers have no understanding of the facts regarding the LaFarge property.
The Griffin Bay Preservation Committee, although only a tiny minority of the people who live in the vicinity of Jackson's Beach, apparently have plenty of money to hire expensive lawyers to keep throwing legal monkey wrenches in an attempt to thwart the County's acquisition of the existing barge landing for the benefit of all San Juan Islanders. They are even trying to stop the reclamation of the gravel pit by LaFarge. Why? And who really are these people who hide anonymously behind a "Committee?" Open and honest debate is not only welcome, but a hallmark of a healthy democracy. We must keep the emphasis on "open and honest" though.
Even before I proposed the idea of having a park at the gravel pit site, the Public Works Department had already identified the barge landing as something that they fully intended to acquire as essential for public ownership. The purchase of the nine acres of shoreline and barge landing by Public Works along with the Port and the Land Bank, for $1.5 million, is easily a fair price and perhaps even a bargain. Maintaining this barge site is essential for our island community. Does having a barge landing where one has been in use for over 40 years seem like a radical proposal to you?
Some letter writers have also asked about the cost of developing the park. That's a fair question. First, a complete plan will have to be developed with public input, like the island wide survey that was done almost a year ago. All the different components will get price tags attached to them and an overall estimate of costs put together. I think getting 55 acres of land for free is a pretty good start in anyone's book. Then, there are many government agencies and philanthropic organizations that provide grant money for projects just like this one. They especially like it when different public and private agencies work together for one purpose. Private donations will, I'm sure, also be a major source of funds for the park. There are any number of people on this island who could themselves underwrite the entire project if they so chose. After these sources there could also be a bond measure that would have to be approved by you, the voters.
There are many examples of parks, like the one being proposed, being built in reclaimed gravel pits. Representatives from the island have even gone to visit one up in the Vancouver area. Please know that the people involved in trying to make this community park a reality are well aware of all the issues that must be addressed. They are your friends and neighbors and have the best interests of islanders at heart.
Only part of the money that Island Rec is asking you to approve in this next election is for preliminary development costs associated with the park. Based on my own property tax bill, if the Island Rec levy is approved it will still only be about 3% of my total tax bill. Even if you are mad about taxes, does it make sense to punish Island Rec, arguably one of the best stewards of your tax dollars, and a provider of services that are of enormous benefit to our community? Are most people aware that we in San Juan County have the lowest property tax levy rate (by a large margin) in the entire state of Washington? Yes, we have been experiencing an economic downturn, but there are already many signs of recovery. The American economy is nothing if not resilient.
I will leave you with some questions to ask yourself. Do the people of San Juan Island deserve a park that will have active and passive recreational opportunities for islanders of all ages, just as Orcas and Lopez do? Do we owe it to our children and future generations to have the vision and will to seize this incredible opportunity? Is this community, with its wealth of human resources and commitment to volunteerism, capable of making this park a reality? Can you picture in your mind a beautiful green park, next to town, where you can go with family or friends to have a picnic, go for a walk or jog on landscaped trails with water views, watch kids play ball, or just sit and have lunch under a shady tree on a summer day? I can.
John MacDougall
Letter against sports park
posted 10/10/03
Turning the gravel pit into a community park is a nice thought, but a totally unrealistic plan for our island community. If the actions follow through we'll be turning an eye-sore of one kind into another. Where are we going to get the water needed to maintain the elaborate park that is being proposed? What sort of fertilizers, fill, and chemicals will it take to turn a tired old sand pit into lush green sports fields? And do we really need the stench of more port-a-potties wafting on the breeze? The area through which the road travels through should be constructed into a small park and the rest should be left to restore itself naturally or turned into a self-supported terrain park.
Jenny Rice
Letter to BOCC asking for public meeting re gravel pit
posted 10/10/03
I am requesting the Board of County Commissioners to schedule, as soon as
possible, a public meeting on the acquisition of the LaFarge property.
Among the many concerned islanders are Commissioner John Evans, Auditor Si
Stephens, and Prosecuting Attorney Randy Gaylord, all of whom have heartedly
supported holding a public meeting to air things out quickly.
When I talked with Randy, he suggested the public meeting be held at the
Community Theatre and recommended a panel be formed, including Island Rec.
LaFarge, Dept. of Public Works, the BOCC, the Dept. of Ecology and, of
course, the Prosecuting Attorney's office. Commissioner Evans thought that
a two to three hour meeting would be very beneficial for everyone concerned
about this controversial project. Refreshments could be served.
As John said, "I work for the citizens of San Juan County and if you want a
public meeting to talk about this issue, than I highly support holding a
meeting as quickly as possible."
Mary Ann Anderson
Letter opposing gravel pit acquisition
An Open Letter to the Board of County Commissioners:
posted 10/09/03
Week after week, month after month, questions and controversy have swirled regarding purchase of the LaFarge property, ostensibly for a park. The BOCC tells us this is too good an opportunity to pass up, that it is a bargain. How do we know, when we don't yet know how much it is going to cost, or who is going to pay? It doesn't matter how cheap it is, a bargain is only a bargain if you can afford it, and the current budgetary crisis demonstrates that the county is in extremis and cannot afford it.
The BOCC has now approved a $2,000,000 bond issue, the purpose of which, as stated in the BOCC minutes, is the acquisition of property for a Public Works yard and a county barge landing site. No mention is made of a park. The bonds are payable by a county-wide road fund levy, the only money the BOCC could find to purchase this property. This means that every taxpayer in the county (not just San Juan Island) will be paying for
15 years to purchase what amounts to a huge hole in the ground, which taxpayers will then be required to pour money into for the foreseeable future.
As a former member (and chair) of the State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, I have a long-standing commitment to outdoor recreational opportunities for the public. But public support is essential. In this case, it is not being done for the public but to the public, and for purposes not compatible with outdoor recreation. No wonder the public is outraged!
This is destined to be a festering sore dividing the community for years to come. The BOCC could go a long way toward preventing that by holding a public forum, to get not just all of the questions out on the table but the answers as well; real answers, not just the platitudes that have been forthcoming so far.
Micaela Brostrom
School board explains its position on Lafarge Park
Dear Editor,
posted 10/06/03
The Board of Directors of the San Juan Island School District wishes to set the record straight with regard to our support of the Community Park project.
In 1997 the District acquired 30 acres located between the Foxhall and Village Grove developments (now known as the Carter Street property) for the intended purpose of building a new school and related sports fields due to anticipated increases in student enrollment. While current enrollment projections do not indicate the immediate need for additional classroom space, the property is held in reserve until such time as the District needs additional classroom space.
In 2000 the District began to pursue planning to address needs for additional playfield space. Specifically needed were a permanent baseball field, a full size soccer field, and a softball field. Mr. John Hart of Hart Pacific Engineering was contracted to determine the feasibility for these fields on the Carter Street property. Initial cost estimates ranged between $2 million and $4.6 million depending upon different options for the fields. Included in the estimates were costs associated with site development, field development, and Town requirements for street improvements and parking. This project would have been funded through a voted capital levy or bond. Not addressed were the annual operating costs for field maintenance, bathroom maintenance, utilities, and security. Such costs would have been paid from the District's operating budget through program reductions and/or reallocations.
Since the Community Park project was getting underway at this time, the Board decided that it made better economic sense for the School District to be a partner in that project which could easily fulfill the needs of the schools until such time as it actually became necessary to build a high school at the Carter Street site. The park facilities would also be able the fill the increased need for fields for youth and adult sports (which the school facilities are no longer able to fully accommodate) as well as passive and active recreational opportunities for islanders of all ages. The types of fields that would be built at the school site, by their nature, would only be marginally usable by community groups.
The Board of Directors of the San Juan Island School District endorses the Community Park project because we feel it is in the best interest of our schools and our community. The development of the park will ultimately be determined by island residents.
Our primary mission is the education of our island youth. We cannot stress how important it is for them to have appropriate recreation opportunities. Island Recreation and other youth sports organizations provide healthy experiences that enhance a high quality academic education. All will share in the benefits of a community park.
It is our opinion that it would be extremely short sighted to pass up an opportunity to provide a wonderful park for islanders now and generations to come.
Board of Directors
Boyd Pratt, Chair
John MacDougall
Emily Orr
Bob Mancuso
Sally Bryant
County can't afford park
Dear Editor,
posted 10/06/03
The BOCC is like a child that sees candy and wants it but doesn’t have the money to purchase it.
They can’t afford their current obligations, but they want to buy the "once in a lifetime" gravel pit property for $1.5 million. As adults, we know that we can’t have everything we want, especially when we can’t afford it.
They propose to turn the 55 acre "pit" into a park. There are problems with the property:
- If a portion of the pit is below sea level, it will have water retention problems as there is no place for the water to go.
- Because there is little soil, it will be difficult to plant and maintain the grass necessary for the play fields - it may even be necessary to install artificial turf, at great expense.
- There is no source of water. The city is no longer obligated to provide water to the site. LaFarge initially rinsed the gravel with salt water until they contaminated the aquifer, ruining the private residential wells in the area.
Island Rec is spending money on the project even thought the purchase of the property has not been finalized. They want us to pass a levy, an increase to three times the current rate, this November when the purchase will not be finalized until December.
Isn’t this the cart before the horse. It is an irresponsible use of taxpayer funds to spend this money before the property has been purchased. If the purchase fails to go through, the money will have been wasted. As a property owner who experienced an increase of 50% in my property taxes two years ago and notice of another substantial increase in evaluation last week, I am opposed to any more levy increases.
There are other serious questions regarding this proposed purchase. The $1.5 million is just a down payment, and does not include the costs of the proposed development of the site. Many refer to this as a "hole in the ground in which to pour money". There is also the question of the illegality of the barge landing and what materials will be barged into this environmentally sensitive area. The gravel pit will no longer feed the shoreline. There is a real possibility that storms will erode the beaches until they return to the state they were in before the gravel pit began operation. Storms have already started to erode the beach in the area of the barge landing. Maintenance will be costly.
This is a "once in a lifetime" purchase that the county cannot realistically afford at this time.
Lynn C. Loring
Friday Harbor, Washington
Commissioner explains strings attached to tax money
To Editor:
posted 08/07/03
Since the reporting of the Lafarge Purchase and Sale Agreement, several staff and elected officials have been asked how the County can afford to buy the Lafarge property when it has a huge budget shortfall and is asking for more taxes. This is an excellent question and begs for an answer.
Tax monies have strings attached to their use by law.
- Real estate excise taxes can only be used for capital facility projects, or certain infrastructure like sewer and water. This money cannot be used for County operations.
- There is a special real estate excise tax for only the Land Bank established by law.
- The road tax can only be used by the Road Department for its work for road and transportation purposes.
- The lodging tax can only be used for tourism-related activities or promotion.
- The Public Facilities Financing Assistance Program monies can only be used for things that foster economic development such as the public stage in the Eastsound Village Square.
- The sales tax can be used for County operations, as can the County's portion (not the County Road portion) of the property tax.
If this sounds complicated, just imagine that there are also federal and state grants and loans that also have all kinds of strings attached. We are very careful about what monies can be spent for what.
The Lafarge property is being purchased with the Road funds to establish a barge/pier/ramp transportation portal for San Juan Island. This money cannot be used for our General Fund operations shortfall.
The shortfall is a result of low retail sales and thus low sales tax, dramatically low income on our investments due to very low interest rates, increasing medical and liability insurance costs, and results of inflation that are higher than the 1% tax cap established by law. The County General Fund for County operations is dependent on the property tax and the sales tax.
Rhea Y. Miller
Commissioner
District 3
Closure of Jacksons beach barge site
three years ago created "emergency"
Dear Editor,
posted 02/01/03
In response to Port Commissioner Greg Hertel's letter (1-30-2003; re barging), please post the following letter to the BOCC delivered nearly three years ago.
April 18, 2000
To: San Juan County Commissioners
Re: Port Closure of Barge Site at Jackson Beach
Dear Commissioners,
We have been informed that the Port has approved a remodel of the Jackson Beach boat ramp that will eliminate the only public barging facility on San Juan Island. We suspect that they are using this as the excuse to have new barging facilities developed at the gravel pit. As you are well aware, the Port has long been interested in permanent commercial development of this site despite its residential zoning. As in the past, the Port is altering its existing facility in such a manner as to hamper or destroy some historical use, and then looking to another site to expand its domain as the solution to the contrived problem.
We protest this obvious attempt to create an artificial crisis and increase the shortage of barging sites. The Port should be stopped from eliminating the current facility unless or until an alternative has been approved and developed.
Please comment on your position regarding this matter.
Christopher D. Clarke
President, Hillside Homeowners’ Association
None of the Commissioners responded to our concerns until recently when they declared that we "suddenly" have a crisis. It appears that Mr. Hertel forgot he was instrumental in eliminating the only legal public barge site on San Juan Island. Neither the County nor Port Commissioners are innocent or ignorant in this matter. Jointly they have planned and written the drama they are now acting out.
Chris Clarke
Dear Editor,
posted 02/01/03
Port Commissioner Hertel brings up some valid issues, such as the ever decreasing ferry space, and decreasing revenues. One solution that I have not heard anyone speak of, however, is the possibility of the County purchasing a ferry of our own that would possibly make just one or maybe two round trips per day, five days a week, for trucks only (with passenger vehicles on a space available basis). That way, purveyors of merchandise and builders of homes would be paying for those services, and we, the rest of us, would not be subsidizing the cost of concrete (for example) unless we actually purchase some concrete.
As the County would surely face many lawsuits concerning not only the legalities of this issue, but also, if approved, such other issues as diminshed property values, trespass of dust and noise, etc; running our own ferry for bulk transport could be a viable option.
- We already have a ferry landing on four islands
- Space on WSF ferries would be freed up for vehicles
- Property complaints would go away and or island could heal another episode into the past
Lets not think outside the box until we finish exploring all possibilities inside the box!
Peter DeLorenzi
Local barging issue reflects national stage
An Open Letter to the Board of County Commissioners:
posted 02/01/03
Just as many citizens of this nation are demanding that their elected
leaders justify going to war with Iraq, many citizens of San Juan County
are asking their elected leaders to justify their actions regarding barge
landing sites.
Just as many citizens of this nation suspect that the real motivation
behind war with Iraq is not the threat of Saddam Hussein but control of
Iraq's oil fields, many citizens of this county suspect that the real
motivation behind barge landing sites is not fear of proliferation or
closure, but the designation of Jackson Beach as a commercial/industrial
barge site to accommodate special interests.
Just as it appears that our national elected leaders have an unspoken
agenda, it appears that our BOCC's unspoken agenda is to appropriate Public
Works funds for the Jackson Beach purchase. And in order to make this
"legal", they are determined to declare Jackson Beach the only designated
public commercial/industrial barge landing site on San Juan Island,
violating county, state and federal environmental laws throughout the
county in the process.
Just as citizens of this nation are asking their elected leaders to explore
all possible remedies before going to war, citizens of this county ask that
their elected leaders explore all possible alternatives, including other
sites, instead of this egregious process they have embarked upon.
Three decades ago, we trusted our elected leaders to be smarter and wiser
than we, the voters. This is no longer the case. A thoughtful and
deliberative process for land-use planning involving the public is the
precedent in San Juan County. County citizens are ill-served by the BOCC's
current bluster and rush in the guise of an "emergency", and I urge
citizens of San Juan County to speak out against this political charade.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Brostrom
Barge site essential island facility
Dear Editor,
posted 01/30/03
We live in changing and challenging times. Washington State Ferries, the
backbone of our island transportation system, is going to be more expensive
for riders and its frequency and level of service will decrease. In a dozen
years the ferry system may be very different from the one we now enjoy. If
nothing else, the price of moving vehicles and passengers will rise
dramatically. This should be no surprise. Long range trends to underwrite
services through user fees and the unwillingness of taxpayers to pay taxes
to the state and federal government mean that islanders will be expected
to pay far more for traveling by ferry than we have in the past.
As the cost for users to ride the ferry increases, it will make even less
sense that it does today to carry low value high volume cargo on the decks
of our ferries. Trucks on the ferry will displace islanders' cars. Ferry
space is too valuable and the cost is too high to use this space for what
amounts to bulk cargo.
The Port Commission has worked with and encouraged the County Commissioners
to acquire the Friday Harbor Sand and Gravel site and, most importantly,
the portion of the gravel pit that can be used for a barge landing. This is
an essential island facility that needs to be preserved for our
transportation future. While it is conceivable that a barge landing could
be sited elsewhere, there is no other site on San Juan Island where barges
have been loaded and where there has been an industrial use on adjoining
property that is adequate, and can be used for buffering and other
public services.
The Port Commission holds that the Friday Harbor Sand and Gravel site
is critical to San Juan Island's future transportation needs. We also
understand that neighbors near the site have legitimate concerns about the
way the site is used. However, we cannot survive on this island in the
manner we've become used to without a good transportation system. The Port
Commission believes that the debate concerning a barge landing needs to
change from whether a barge landing can be established where Friday Harbor
Sand and Gravel operated their barge loading facility, to how such a landing
could developed with the least possible interference to the area neighbors
and with the least possible harm to our environment.
We cannot assume that the state will take care of us for transportation
needs in this century (or even this decade). We need to develop many
options and have the flexibility to accommodate change in these challenging
times. There is always a chance that we, the state's voters, will approve
new taxes that will subsidize the ferry system operation, rebuild the
terminals and construct new boats to replace the ones that are wearing out
so that we will pay only token fares again. But we don't think we should
bet our island's future on that unlikely occurrence. We must be ready to
play a bigger role in developing our island transportation system.
This will have some impact on adjoining land and every effort must be made
to minimize that impact. Fortunately, the large size of this site makes
buffering and mitigation more practical here than in any other location.
Just by being here we impact and change our community. In turn, we are
impacted by those with whom we share this island. The discussion should now
be about how to minimize impacts and best achieve and sustain our community
in these uncertain times.
Greg Hertel, President
Friday Harbor Port Commission
Nielsen responds to criticism
Dear Editor,
posted 11/25/02
Used to being vilified by one special interest group or another, I was not surprised to read Mary Ann Anderson's malicious and grossly inaccurate portrayal of my involvement in several important island projects. Here's the truth:
- I, along with Commissioner Miller, have long been a proponent of alternative environmentally sound and sustainable technology like the solar-aquatics proposal and will continue to be so.
- I was happy to support our island farmers' efforts to process locally grown meat and other products in a state-of-the-art environmentally sound facility on industrial land near the airport.
- I couldn't be more pleased to be working with the Land Bank, San Juan Island School District, the Port of Friday Harbor, Island Rec, and with the support of many, many islanders to bring the Lafarge gravel pit and existing barge landing site into public ownership.
- Lastly, I did not oppose weddings at the winery near my house. Expressing noise concerns shared by many islanders, I objected to amplified music during outdoor weddings.
I am proud of my positions on all these issues and would be happy to discuss them any time with anyone.
Darcie L. Nielsen
Commissioner, District 1
San Juan Island
Stop wasting tax dollars
Dear Editor,
posted 11/23/02
I wish to commend Mary Ann Anderson for her continuing defense of Griffin Bay. For the last decade this residentially zoned area has been the object of desire by several public agencies for inappropriate industrialization. Mary Ann’s article mentions the septage and meat processing facilities. This neighborhood has also been targeted for a waste transfer station, fuel storage tanks, vehicle impound lot, a new ferry terminal, road materials stockpiling, heavy equipment maintenance and storage facility, and an asphalt plant.
Now the County Commissioners have decided to endorse a new barge landing facility on Jackson Beach despite the fact that both the Prosecuting Attorney’s office and the Planning Department have told them it is in violation of current law. The Commissioners responded by hiring special counsel from the barging industry and spending tens of thousands of dollars conspiring to build it anyway. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Now they are going to hire yet another independent counsel to try to dodge the GMA. When will it end?
Take the time to write and tell the Commissioners to work within the law and to stop wasting our taxes trying to break it.
Chris Clarke, President
Hillside Homeowners Association
Poor Griffin Bay
Dear Editor,
posted 11/23/02
Over the years Griffin Bay has been targeted by our Board of County Commissioners for a host of illegal usages. First, some years ago, they agreed to allow a foreign company develop mega-salmon pens...football fields of them. This process was shot down by vigilant islanders. They, last year, tried to approve installation of a meat processing plant on the bay fringe. Islanders again circled the wagons and the plant was re-located. Today they are conspiring to build an illegal barging facility on Jackson Beach.
Never mind that it would be in non-compliance with County, State and Federal Codes. This bureaucratic maneuver by the Commissioners will cost in excess of $l,000.000 of our tax dollars. Just watch your property taxes soar to cover this their latest whim. Never mind that our beautiful, curving Jackson Beach is the finest on San Juan Island, is well used and loved by the islanders for a myriad of activities during all seasons of the year. Each one of us must demand that our Commissioners halt the building of this illegal barge facility on Jackson Beach.
Sidney Thorson
Friday Harbor
Commissioner Nielsen and those NIMBYS!
Dear Editor,
posted 11/23/02
Commissioner Darcie Nielsen’s "Guest Column" in The Journal last week contains the typical hyperbole we hear from politicians who have already made up their minds on a project, and will proceed at all costs. Commissioner Nielsen frets over our ever-deepening budget crisis and suggests cuts in a number of core areas while, at the same time, she is proceeding to push an illegal -and environmentally unsound- barging facility on the Jackson Beach shoreline.
The barge landing facility seems typical of projects supported by Commissioner Nielsen; they cost a great deal of money, they are environmentally degrading, they are controversial and they circumvent proper regulatory agencies that govern shoreline, environmental and growth planning requirements. The obvious irony is her constant reminding the public and the BOCC that she is a "professional planner", and prior to being a Commissioner, was second in charge of helping to develop the regulations and land use designations in place to protect our environment, the very regulations she now finds stand in the way of an industrial use on the water front.
But then, this is nothing new. First, there was the debacle over the experimental solar aquatic septage plant. Darcie supported building a 2400 sq. foot septage facility in a Critical Aquifer Recharge area ½ mile from Griffin Bay, an area that in the event of a catastrophe failure, would most certainly result in negative impacts on the environment and residential areas. Ignoring health concerns such as potential E.coli contamination in groundwater wells and in the bays and lagoon, and a petition with over 300 signatures, Darcie simply called expressed concerns a NIMBY (Not In My Neighborhood) problem, and continued to support the project.
Mercifully, Griffin Bay and the integrity of the neighborhood were saved, not by the BOCC, nor by Darcie, but by a 6-foot sinkhole at the site that nearly swallowed 50,000 pounds of well-drilling machinery. Port Commissioner Hertel told the BOCC that unstable ground beneath the 7.4 acre site made the site unsuitable for the septage treatment facility, adding "We’re calling it divine intervention by an environmentally-friendly God."
But, by this time, the BOCC had already spent $100,000 of our tax money on the project.
Last year, the Griffin Bay neighborhood was targeted for a meat processing plant to be located at the southeast corner of the airport. This land use was obviously incompatible with the site, but Darcie publicly stated that everyone favors this project except a few NIMBY neighbors. The project was re-located to Lopez.
This year, Darcie wants a third barging facility at Jackson Beach, despite non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and adverse consequences to the environment and the surrounding neighborhoods and bays. (those damn NIMBYs!) The final (one can only hope) irony: Darcie’s intervention a few years ago into the Planning Commission’s consideration of an application to allow weddings next to Roche Harbor road, a distance of a mile from her home. Prior to receiving the Planning Commissions recommendations to the BOCC, Darcie wrote them a letter in opposition. Those damn NIMBYs!
Mary Ann Anderson
Setting the record straight
Dear Editor,
posted 06/26/02
Recently, Steve Enoch and Kelly Owens presumed to know the concerns of the gravel pit neighbors. Here is the truth directly from a representative of many of those neighbors.
Since 1999 we have requested two things from the sponsors of this project. First, that we be allowed to be active participants in the planning sessions related to the development of this property. Second, that the use and development of this shoreline property be subject to the same zoning and permit process as anyone else’s would be.
To date both requests have been denied.
I have yet to meet a neighbor who is opposed to the preservation of this land for community enjoyment.
Christopher D. Clarke
President, Hillside Homeowners’ Association
Survey important first step in developing park
Dear Editor,
posted 06/18/02
All community members recently received a survey in the mail from Island Rec asking for feedback and ideas for the new community park. Please take a few minutes and return it to Island Rec no later than July 1. (They made it easy to respond as all you have to do is fill it out, fold it, put a stamp on it and mail it.) This is your opportunity to help shape this wonderful addition to the community.
The Lafarge Corporation has offered to give the community 55+ acres for the development of a community park. This survey is the first important step in helping shape what the park will look like and what recreational opportunities it will provide.
I am confident that the community will not let this gift be wasted. I am aware that some neighbors have raised questions about the park as I would expect them to do. I believe that concerns raised and thoughtfully discussed can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. This is the last opportunity for such a park to be created near Friday Harbor. Converting a gravel mining operation into a park that provides passive activities such as hiking on interpretive trails, picnicking, as well as more active recreation associated with greatly needed sports fields for youth and adults will be something we can all take pride in accomplishing. Add in the extension of Jackson Beach for sailing, fishing, kayaking, and picnics and it becomes apparent to me that this is an opportunity that cannot be lost.
Please complete the survey and let your voice be heard in the development process of our new park. Thank you,
Steven Enoch
SJISD Superintendent of Schools
Cory asks about other uses for gravel pit property
posted 05/30/02
Kelly Owen's letter in the weekly newspaper about the proposed county purchase of the gravel pit, and the partial use of the beach as a commercial barge landing and gravel storage site, was not as balanced as one would expect from a former attorney in the Prosecutor's office, or as a former reporter.
Ms. Owen, and her husband Alan Marriner (also an attorney in the P.A.'s office and chairman of the Island Rec. board) have taken to task the various citizens who have been, as she stated: "fair to raise issues about how often barges would unload and when, and how increased traffic and noise will be handled".
But the issues raised by those same citizens who have "fair" questions on the proposal of the county to take ownership of the gravel pit, go beyond questions of how many barge landings there will be. There are more basic questions that have been raised before the County Commissioners. We are not asking if the conversion of the gravel pit from its current non-conforming use as a commercial site to a public park is a good idea or not. I believe we all agree that a park is a wonderful idea. All of those, as Kelly labels them: "strident opponents" are, in truth, staunch supporters of public use of the land for a park, as well as some other recreational uses by the public. So once the name calling is stepped over (which is better than stepping in it), what is the argument all about? It has to do with a vision of what will the gravel pit look like, and how it will be used in the future.
Last Friday I was asked to attend a board meeting of the GBPC (Griffin Bay Preservation Committee), a non-profit conservation group formed in 1985 to "preserve the environmental and aesthetic qualities that characterize the waters, shoreline, and uplands of San Juan County". The group has been monitoring and responding to the various proposals put forth over the years that may affect the environments of the San Juan islands.
The group is now looking at the proposals by the different county agencies and boards that want to develop the gravel pit. The Committee has expressed concern on a number of issues that they feel the County Commissioners need to fully explore before the land is acquired.
The basic questions are two; 1.) If the county does not acquire the land, under current law what can happen to it?
Any answer will have to recognize there are really two sections of the property: that portion that is water front (200' from high tide) and the rest of the uplands. For over a decade the county has been shown well developed plans by Lafarge to leave the pit with a sloped grade to accommodate residential building sites; which under current regulations means one house would have five or more acres. However on the water front, there are clear indications of erosion and bank instability of the fill material (the beach) which may result in a need for bulkheading now, or in the future.
Based on past legal cases, it is highly unlikely that state and county law will allow bulkheading to protect the fill. In addition, the gravel pit has been over excavated, so it is now doubtful that the uplands can be residentially developed as originally planned, due to a lack of material to create the promised sloped view acreage (i.e. fill in the hole).
So that leaves us with question number 2.) what other use is possible? It does have a grandfathered use of sand & gravel mining and export, but the material is gone. So now what?
If the beach cannot be developed, and may over time simply wash away, and if it is unprofitable to sell home sites that are down in a 50 foot hole, then what are Lafarge's options? Donate the hole for a park and try to sell the "beach" for $1.5 million.
Here is the first, and major, concern of the Griffin Bay Preservation Committee: The county has taken the view that the best use for a portion of the beach is a barge landing and the stockpiling of sand & gravel on the beach for county and private use, and connecting the rest of it to Jackson Beach.
But the problem with the use of the beach for an industrial use is that the grandfather use is for mining and removal, it is not for the barging in, storage, and sale of gravel; and it is not for any other commercial use whatsoever. It most certainly is not for use as competition against the state ferry system. And a related concern has to do with the county paying $1.5 million for a beach that evidence shows may only be there because it was created by the upland sand that has now been removed, and is no longer available to be pushed out into the bay as fill.
In other words, are the Land Bank and the county buying an eroding asset at best, and a liability at worse? To answer the question, it will be necessary to determine not only the practicality of the proposal, but also the legality of it.
As Kelly should have said, these too are fair questions to ask. The GBPC is not alone in asking them, concerns are also being expressed by the State Dept. Ecology and other state agencies, and the county is also now looking for answers to these and other legitimate questions.
As for the uplands, as I have said, the upland development into a park has no opposition that I am aware of, and certainly not from the GBPC. But there may be some disagreement as to what extent the development of the gravel pit site into a park should be. Speaking for myself, I would not want to see the initial projection of multiple full fledged ball fields constructed and maintained at a cost of some millions of dollars, as is now proposed by Parks & Rec.
In particular I would not want to see development of a "park" that results in statewide tournaments and contests with night games and public address loud speakers and all that goes with it; a use that has nothing to do with providing a get-a-way park for those citizens of the county who cannot afford the large acreage or waterfront access enjoyed by some. A limited number of playing fields for the kids and locals? Fine, lets just not over do it.
Jack Cory
Estimates park will cost $5 million
posted 04/15/02
Some of you may remember the letter I wrote here back in December shortly after the annoncement of the LaFarge land sale and gift to San Juan County and the county's announcement of its intent of making the area into a park.
I questioned the cost and where the money was coming from to build this park.
Well, four months later the answer to one of my questions has appeared. A couple of days ago I received via fax a copy of a multi-paged document entitled "Probable Project Construction Costs" based on Alterantive 2 Master Plan for the Friday Harbor Sand & Gravel Site prepard by AKI Landscape Architects for San Juan Island Recreation District, dated October 2000.
The estimated cost, in the year 2000, to build this park is $3,154,919.64.
Makes my ballpark guestimate of several million dollars not to far fetched.
Considering that most government projects go into major cost overuns, lets add 50% to the above and not take bets that that will be enough, that brings us pretty close to $5 million.
Ok, now we have an idea of how much.
The next question is. Where's the money coming from?
Anybody have a handle on that one yet??
Seeing as I don't seem to be garnering any interest from others with my concern over county spending, I will assume the majority of you are not concerned with your local government spending habits and increasing property taxes.
I truly hope I'm wrong.
Roger Howard
Park would meet island needs
Dear Editor,
Having purchased land on the west side of San Juan in Aug of '98, I am very interested and supportive of the attempt to turn the gravel pit into a major recreational asset of the Island. My impression of the preliminary plans as shown in the newspaper is that such a project would meet important needs of the Island and would be welcomed by the majority of people living and visiting San Juan.
I have read articles indicating the young people are seeking more recreational outlets and a park, trails and ball fields would certainly help in that regard.
As a homeowner I have sought more trails beyond Mt. Young and American Camp to exercise. An added place to picnic and bring visitors would be welcome. More public access to beaches and the water is consistent with the Land Bank's mission.
As a taxpayer, I urge you to favor adjusting the Land Bank's budget to include $200,000 for this very beneficial project.
John and Priscilla Privat
Textbook example of cooperating for the common good
Dear Editor,
The acquisition of the gravel pit property for community use is happy
news for those of us who live here now as well as for future generations.
With Lafarge donating the 55 upland acres, the public will pay only for
the waterfront nine acres, and what we'll get is parkland, ballfields,
walking trails, more beachfront park, all within walking distance of
downtown Friday Harbor. Plus an unloading facility for sand and gravel,
much needed since the close of the gravel pit.
This acquisition is also a textbook example of how groups with varying
needs can cooperate for the common good -- the Land Bank, the Port,
Public Works, the School District, Island Rec, and the county itself.
Great job, folks. Thank you.
John and Louise Dustrude
Friday Harbor
Proposed light industrial use concerns neighbors
January 15, 2002
To: Board Of County Commissioners
San Juan County Land Bank Commission
Public Works
Port of Friday Harbor
San Juan Island Parks and Recreation
The recent public press release regarding the gravel pit development, dated
12/19/01, states "the County plans to maintain the current barge landing
facility for light industrial use so that sand and gravel can be barged to
San Juan Island; it is anticipated that the landing will be used 20 to 40
days a year."
The Griffin Bay Neighborhood Association is concerned that the "light
industrial" use of the barge landing site will turn our tranquil Pear Point
neighborhood into a tormented one contending with dust, noise and glare, not
to mention safety concerns due to increased traffic or the drop in real
estate values due to the diminished quality of our neighborhood: offloading
just one barge of sand and gravel will require 276 round trips on a
residential road that is already heavily used by boaters, joggers, bicyclers
and walkers. This is a 2000 to 4000 percent increase in barge traffic over
the historical usage.
We are also concerned that barging will stir up arsenic-laden sediment and
destroy more eel grass colonies which are so valuable to our shoreline life.
Has an environmental checklist been done at the barging site in compliance
with SEPA? If so, we would like to request a copy of your checklist. "Light
industrial use" of the barge landing is vague; would you also be so kind as
to send us the specific wording regarding how many times the barge landing
site can be used yearly, where Public Works intends to store off-loaded
material, what the hours of operation will be and how many days per month
will be permitted. Of course, we would assume that there will be no barging
on week-ends, before sunrise or after dusk.
Please remember that we are a residential neighborhood that is enjoyed by
all islanders and that it appears as though the primary purpose of acquiring
the barge landing site is to move the industrial functions that currently
take place in our existing port out to Jackson's beach.
Clearly, the proposed "light industrial" use of the barge landing will
dramatically affect our neighborhood; we request that a walking path be
installed on the beach side of Pear Point Road. We would like the speed
limit reduced to 20 mph and yellow "caution" signs at strategic places on
Pear Point Road.
Thank you,
Mary Ann Anderson
Griffin Bay Neighborhood Association
PO Box 2022
Friday Harbor, WA 98250.
What will gravel pit project cost?
Dear Editor,
posted 12/22/01
The La Farge deal makes one wonder how much property tax revenue do the rest of us get pony up to replace the property taxes deleted by taking another large land parcel off the tax roles.
Seeing as there is a glaring omission in your article as to the total costs of developing this little project. It seeks the the following question.
Have any of the good promoters of this development projected how much this is going to cost the rest of the San Juan County taxpayers and where the funds will come from other than a bond issue and "maybe" private donations. When I see the mention of "Bonds" to develop anything public it brings forth the image of another large increase in property taxes.
Didn't I just read about the county not having enough money to continue operations, with a couple of members of our BOCC demanding that all county departments cut their budgets by something like 20%.
Come on people, we're being told the county doesn't have the funds to continue its daily and committed obligations, yet they are jumping into a multi million dollar project based on a bunch of maybe's.
Where's the money coming from?????
Roger Howard
|
