RESPONSE TO STORIES

Related pages

Letter from Steve Enoch

Letter from Boyd Pratt and Michael Soltman

Letters from Frank Penwell

Letter from Rynnie Wilson

Stories about sports fields

Guest column by Don Galt

Guest column by Frank Penwell

Letters about fields

Letters about proposed ball fields

Dear Editor,

posted 07/25/05
According to Peggy Sue, because I support using public roads to access a public facility, I'm a rich, dishonest socialist who's trying to screw the poor. (See letter posted below).

I'm sorry she got that impression, and I invite her to come down to my end of Chinook Way any time to see how us rich commies live.

Let me be more specific about a few of my comments. When I said that 'reasonably intelligent adults do not rely on verbal promises, back-room conversations or innuendo to protect their interests', I was referring to the fact that several people (Lee Sturdivant, Rynnie Wilson) claim that they had promises from Steve Enoch about access. Mr. Enoch denies this.

Regardless of who is telling the truth here, Lee, Rynnie and others should have known better than to believe (and rely) on back-room deals with a school superintendent about road access. Enoch didn't have the authority to grant this promise, nor would it have been ethical for him to make it.

Any deal Enoch would have made with anyone involving these fields would only have been legitimate if done publically, and with the full support of the school board at the time. If Enoch made promises to his buddies from the 1997 bond campaign, he shouldn't have.

If they accepted these deals, they shouldn't have. I made no attempt to generalize from this whether or not people should be trusted. I myself can be trusted, but I wasn't a player in this deal (I didn't live here then).

Now Lee is mad because her under-the-table deal she thought she had with Enoch got trumped by 'developers' (who happen to be relatives of Rynnie Wilson) who 'protected' the other neighborhoods (Village Grove) that were the only available access points if Carter and Larson were off-limits. Enoch claims to have no knowledge of plat documents that restricted access through Village Grove, but admits that "....that the district attempted to be good neighbors by granting these homeowners a buffer of 50 feet (or was it 75 feet?) of land between their homes and the school property.."

In fact, the plat that the district used to grant this buffer (which was done as a condition of the sale before the district ever bought the property) permanently closed off the Chinook end of Village Grove from access and restricted the Coho end to a 40 foot town Cul-de-Sac, which legally restricts it from being used for anything other than emergency access to the property. Enoch claims no knowledge of this.

Perhaps Mr. Enoch didn't pay attention to the legal documents involved in the purchase of the property in 1997, but I suspect that somebody representing the district did. None of this happened by accident or in secret. If Steve didn't know about it, some of his people weren't doing their job.

As for 'extracting sacrifices', I have no desire for sacrifices to be extracted from anyone. Public roads, and public fields are owned by all of us. The public driving their cars on a public road does not 'extract' anything from anyone. Carter and Larson are public assets, owned by all of us. They are designed for cars to traverse, not for kids to play on. If the kids are playing in the streets now, then the ballfields are precisely what we need to fix this. If these public assets are insufficient for the traffic that will come with these fields, then we ought to modify them. This is a town function, and I assume the town will deal with it when the CUP is filed.

I recall from the public meeting that those who oppose access through Carter and Larson were quite eager to see the access come through the trailer park. Is this the 'rich' neighborhood you'd like the access to go through?

I lived my entire childhood across the street from a ballfield, and it was excellent for everyone. There was no rich and poor on the ballfield. Just friends having fun. We will all be richer when these fields are a reality. We should do it right, but we should still do it. The voters told the district to do this, and the district is obligated to comply. Nobody's quality of life need be violated, but at the same time it is not reasonable to assert that your life quality is tied to traffic flow rates, and then try to restrict the public's access to a public road. We are on a small island here, we should not overstate the traffic issues. There simply are not that many people here, the traffic can't get bad.

Selling this property would be a bad idea. As Michael Soltman suggests "..capital assets cannot be used to support operational budgets." In addition, I would argue that this would be a violation of the voter's mandate. The voters approved this bond issue for the purchase of ballfields and a spot for a new school. If the School has other needs, they should ask the voters directly to support those.

And finally, Peggy Sue, let's not take ourselves too seriously here. While the quote: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." may have a slightly Marxist sound to it, it's actually from Mr. Spock in 'Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan'. This was my feeble attempt at humor. Anyway, the movie is awesome. If you haven't seen it, you should rent it. Or come by, I'll let you borrow my copy.

Mike Loucks

Dear Editor,

posted 07/19/05
In response to the 07/14/05 letter from Mike Loucks: Mr. Loucks damages his credibility when he states, "reasonable intelligent adults do not rely on verbal promises." Is he not a man of his word? Let us hope that it is not unreasonable, fool-hearty or immature to believe what people say.

As for the adage that "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," Come now Mr. Loucks, please do not be so absurd with your socialist platitudes when it is low income and working class neighborhoods that you expect to extract sacrifices from. If the needs of the many truly outweighed the needs of the few we would have neither poverty here nor an elite bourgeois. Clearly we have both. This playing field is not level and you sir, are out of bounds.

Peggy Sue McRae

Dear Editor,

posted 07/15/05

Perhaps if the ballfields were built, then these kids would have a place to play, other than in the streets. When I was young, I was taught that the street was for cars, not for kids to use as a playground. Mr. Galt, you have my support.

Doug Hill

Dear Editor,

posted 07/14/05
I attended the meeting on June 23, 2005 and I have a few comments for Lee Sturdivant and others who objected to any ballfield related traffic impacting their neighborhoods.

I heard a number of complaints from residents on Carter and Larson about how traffic on these streets, or the completion of Larson, would negatively impact their "quality of life." I find these arguments to be weak. Both Larson and Carter are town roads. Larson is a town arterial, and though it's not finished, the town can legally finish it at any time. The fact that this land is currently not used does not entitle the neighbors of adjacent property to claim this condition as their right.

When one buys property next to unfinished land, one should expect that some day this land might be finished. Those who purchase property next to undeveloped land have no one to blame but themselves if they are misinformed about its legal use. Plat and use documents are publically available to all of us. If you don't do your homework before you buy property, you should expect to live with the consequences of that failure.

The folks in these neighborhoods also do not have any rights that guarantee that the current level of traffic on their streets will remain constant. While they may argue to the town that increased levels of traffic warrant street updates, I would ask them to look at Tucker, which only recently got shoulders put on it and Guard street, which still does not have shoulders. Certainly Tucker has much more traffic now than either Larson or Carter will ever have with new ballfields and it still has no sidewalks.

I regularly drive in and out of Village Grove onto Roche Harbor road, negotiate the turn at Carter onto Guard, and have no problem turning east onto Larson from Carter without going into a ditch. I drive down Larson all the time, and sometimes cars are even coming the other direction! I manage. These streets are no worse than the ones I drive on that serve the elementary school and the associated ballfields right now. People by the elementary school seem to manage to live without great loss of life quality. There are no sidewalks on the road next to the baseball field currently on Catholic church property either. That road isn't any better than Carter, and I drive on it all the time, even when baseball games are being held, with no problem. I do all of this with a 15-passenger van, just about the right size for transporting baseball and football teams to and from a field. No problem.

People live next to streets with traffic on them all over the world. I grew up on a major arterial in a big town, right across from a ball field. Our quality of life was excellent, even though cars (god forbid) drove on the road. There aren't that many people on this island, the traffic just can't get very bad. If people drive too fast, there are several low-technology solutions such as stop signs and speed bumps that have been implemented succesfully world-wide to combat these issues.

All the talk about access off Roche Harbor road through the trailer park is silly. The School district doesn't own that land, and will only do so if the current owner is somehow convinced he should sell. If I were him, I'd hold out for a long time, since the only thing that can really make him sell is the threat of legal action by the school district. Given the school district's current financial affairs, I'd bank on that being pretty unlikely.

Lee is concerned that a "temporary" entrance to the ball fields at the corner of Larson and Carter might become permanent. I'm sorry Lee, but this is a permanent entrance right now. The owners of that lot can legally drive right through this entrance onto their property at any time, and have been legally able to do so for decades. They don't need permission. While any development of their property requires town permission, driving on a legal road to their property does not.

Carter and Larson are the only legal access paths to that property that exist. They were the only legal access paths when the property was purchased on behalf of the voters in 1997. One can reasonably assume that the voters knew this when they voted for the property to be purchased. While those who live in those neighborhoods may not like this, they were simply outvoted. This is how democracy works. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Sometimes individuals have to sacrifice for the greater good. That's why we vote folks.

There is no need to revisit this now, the voters spoke eight years ago.

Regardless of what people claim was promised to them by Steve Enoch, reasonably intelligent adults do not rely on verbal promises, back-room conversations or innuendo to protect their interests. They rely on documents that exist within a legal framework we, as a society, have setup to prevent exactly this sort of squabble.

As Lee says, other neighborhoods (i.e. Village Grove) are "protected", and this protection was provided via the plat agreement (a legal document) that was in place BEFORE the property was purchased by the school district. This was done in a fully public way that was available to the voting public that approved the purchase of this land for this use. One can properly assume that the voters had full knowledge of this when they made their decision on election day (in 1997).

Be careful what you wish for Lee. If the school district sells that land and the developers put 30 houses there, they won't ask your permission to drive down the road. You'll get traffic 365 days a year, 24/7 rather than some seasonal daytime traffic.

Mike Loucks

Response to columns by Don Galt and Frank Penwell

Dear Editor,

posted 07/12/05
Both Mr. Penwell and Mr. Galt are leaving out the key issue that brought our "emotional" presentation to the school board:

We firmly believe that if Mr. Galt is allowed to put in a "temporary" entrance to the ball fields at the corner of Larson and Carter, (and run in one or two hundred loads of material this summer through our narrow child-filled streets) that that entrance will become permanent. All other possible (and more appropriate) entrances have been written out of any solution. Those other neighborhoods have been "protected" by the developers who sold the land to the schools.

Of course we want to get together with anyone proposing a reasonable solution. This is the 2nd time that needed ball fields have been planned on this island without prior negotiations with the neighborhoods that would be heavily impacted. Surely we should all learn from this.

Regards,
Lee Sturdivant

Dear Editor,

posted 07/12/05
Nearly all those who have spoken at public meetings about the proposed ball fields on the school lands have supported the ball fields themselves (though interestingly they're not for school kids but for adults in the community). But some don't mind running roughshod over the neighborhood in the process and others hope to both build ball fields and preserve the neighborhood.

Is it beyond hope that the community can manage to do both?

Louise Dustrude

Response to Fields wanted, traffic not

Dear Editor,

posted 06/24/05
As a Friday Harbor Elementary School employee for the past fifteen years, working hard with and for our island children, I am amazed at Sam Buck Sr.'s comments that he can easily raise 1.5 million dollars for the maintenance of sports fields as "people have to give money away for tax purposes." I am dismayed to say the least.

It is my understanding that the school district is in a very serious budget crunch and is scheduled to cut many important progams and staff for the coming school year 2005-06 and is already cuting back on present projects. Where is this community's common sense and where are our priorities ??

Melissa Vynne

P.S. We are a very sports orientated family with parents coaching and kids playing. Fletcher, this year, was a member of the University of British Columbia Thunderbirds baseball team playing catcher, 1st base and DH. They were first in their region. He also had a 3.85 GPA.

Response to editorial about
School District Must Seek Access to Ballfields

Dear Editor,

posted 06/18/05
Here is the pared down version of what I am hearing the community wants:

1. Put in the infrastructure first (drainage that works, sidewalks if necessary), etc.
   
   
2. Put in place a solid maintenance funds plan before construction begins.
   
   
3. No lighting or PA systems for this set of fields. When the sun goes down, it's quite time.
   
   
4. Find a way to build an access road from Tucker/Roche Harbor Rd. This is the shortest distance to the parking areas as shown in the current plans and potentially impacts the least number of people.

Thank You for Your Time,

Ladd Holroyd
Sala Neighborhood
Friday Harbor

Dear Editor,

posted 06/18/05
Don't compromise the Larson Street neighborhood for a through-fair to the ball fields. These people have not only supported our school levies but have been involved in passing them. Our previous superintendent, Steve Enoch, promised these families that Larson Street would not be used to facilitate the school property. Why would anyone want to run our large buses down that narrow neighbor street?

It's just as bad as consuming our little town with ferry trafic. In my opinion, we have ruined out quaint little village by our own choices. Doesn't anyone have any common sense?

My family was involved in the restoration of the ball field along Park Street. The school said that if we did the work so that other school would come to the island to play, they would maintain the field. It didn't happen because the school doesn't have any money to maintain these fields. Let's be careful that we don't start something that maybe seems like our last chance to save money on donated material when the school itself won't financially be responsible to take care of it.

Rynnie Wilson

Dear Editor,

posted 06/18/05
As is nearly always the case, there are two sides of every story.

The residents of the area surrounding the proposed fields have obvious interests that center around safety and hidden costs (maintenance). There is no mention, of course, that many of them just want their quiet neighborhood to remain quiet. That argument, although perhaps real, is not legitimate in this forum simply because it is difficult to defend.

I am sensitive to these concerns.

However, I have actually spent some time evaluating the plans for the proposed fields in intimate detail (my qualifications to do so subject to review). Mr. Galt has a plan that is well thought out and, by my estimation, provides an opportunity for ALL residents of San Juan Island to enjoy at a minimal cost. It is, after all, a cost-benefit issue. The benefit may be negative for some, but for the majority, it is very positive. Positive to the majority and not intrusive to our collective wallets; for the majority, is this not a win-win?

I cannot attend the meeting this evening because I am out-of-town, otherwise I would be there to calmly and rationally share my view. I would hope the silent majority would get there if they can. I would suggest to all of my neighbors that we not get into an analysis paralysis loop, but evaluate the proposal on its merits as it relates to ALL of the residents that may utilize these fields.

Thank you.

Joe Ridge

Dear Editor,

posted 06/16/05
My, how times have changed. It sure seemed the attraction to this little peice of "God's Country" used to be things like this never happened. How on earth can anyone make a decision like this without first polling the area most impacted, the neighborhood. I too, like those writing before me, have always supported any proactive decision where the San Juan Island School Distrct is concerned, and this will be no exception if it truly makes sense, for all involved, not just those who wish to make a decision for the sake of making one!

Let's show some compassion folks, and really think how to build a solid sporting enviroment in the middle of a true family neighborhood. I am curious about something though, with the latest news coming from the SJISD about the pending budget cuts, layoffs, cuts in sports programs, is this really a move in the right direction period? No matter how much has already been budgeted or covered by bonds or levy's, there will always be the "over runs" to pay for.

One might wonder when all is said and done if there will be any teams left to use the fields at all? Where is Rick King, Dick Wade and Marshall Sanborn when you need'em?

Rick Root

Dear Editor,

posted 06/15/05
You call us ludicrous; I say you are being unfair.

Why on earth would you promote a ballpark entrance through narrow neighborhood streets where seniors walk and children play daily without the benefit of sidewalks?

Especially as there are two perfect entrances to those fields through two major island arterials: Beaverton Valley Road and Tucker Avenue (Roche Harbor Road) –- which are where such entrances should be.

Friday Harbor is a very small town (only 1 square mile) and much is required of it by all other island residents. This playing fields issue must take more time because of that problem. Your editorial reflects an attitude many town residents often notice: if you’re dumb enough –- or poor enough -– to live in town, you need to shut up and let others tell you what’s needed in your neighborhood.

There are 2,000 people living as residents in this tiny town, and 10 percent of them live along the four-block area in question. The access to such a large sports field development would, of course, have a big impact –- as it would in any town neighborhood. Why not have the access from existing busy arterials. Even if it takes a bit more time to arrange? What is so ludicrous about that, dear editor?

No one in this neighborhood has ever been against the fields -– or against a school being there. In fact, we petitioned for playing space and a park area there many years ago. But, from the beginning, (while you were still on the school board) we were promised by the then superintendent that the entrances would never come through these narrow streets. We all worked hard for the levy then –- as we will for this next one -– but this question is not for and against schools or playing fields; it is a question of fairness to a tiny town neighborhood that is trying to protect some semblance of a residential life.

Additionally, there have always been serious flooding problems in this neighborhood; problems we are trying to have the town deal with before this development takes place.

And who will maintain these fields? Shouldn’t that also be settled ahead of time? The schools now say they cannot take this project on and do not need the fields. Just because the issue has been before the school in the past seems no reason to pretend we’re being the bad guys. And no reason to try and rush everyone into something that needs more time.

Meanwhile, I urge all islanders to think about these issues, to come look at the corner of Larson and Carter, imagine yourself living in this neighborhood, and then come to the Thursday meeting and speak out about what seems fair.

Regards,

Lee Sturdivant,
Larson Street
Friday Harbor

Dear Editor,

posted 06/15/05
While these ballfields would be built next to my property, I have to agree with this editorial and fully support Don Galt and the school district in this plan.

The time to object to the use of this land was in 1997. The time for petitions was prior to the bond measure then, not now.

The voters have already spoken on this issue. The school district has the legal right, and a voter mandate, to build fields and eventually a school on this property.

The school district also has the legal right to access their property through public roads, especially through Carter, which historically has been the access path for this property.

The school district should move forward with this project. The voting tax-payers have already spoken on this issue.

Mike Loucks

Dear Editor,

posted 06/15/05
I was just wondering if you have talk to anyone in the Carter-Larson streets neigborhood to see what there concerns really are. No one in the neighborhood is agaisnt the ballfields, we would just like to see a safe entrance.

I don't know if you have ever driven down Carter street but there are places in the road that are not even two lanes wide. There is not enough lighting or sidewalks. Larson Street is the same. The buses can not make the corners how the road is now.

It would be nice if you are going to report about our neighborhood if you talk to some of us and really found out what are concerns are. I would love nothing more for my daughter to be able to walk across the street to play ball, but how the roads are now I would not let her walk on them.

Molly Finch
Larson Steet

Dear Editor,

posted 06/15/05
Hurray for Sharon Kivisto!!! I couldn't have said it better myself. I, for one, will be at the Thursday meeting -- a meeting which should never have been scheduled.

Marshall Sanborn

Dear Editor,

posted 06/15/05

I'm so sorry that, as a reporter, you didn't try to present both sides of this issue. To unnecessarily publicly polarize people can only cause hard feelings. I know of no one in the neighborhood who is opposed to the playing fields. In fact we have always supported these fields. We have had neighborhood meetings with the school administration trying to come to a safe compromise for the narrow streets involved. Trying to demonize us is not helpful and quite frankly uninformed about this issue.

There are good alternatives available but a rushed decision with long-lasting consequences is not the answer. I consider myself a "good ball player" and I do wish to be counted as someone who has supported the athletic programs in this community for decades. This is not an all-or-nothing proposition. The neighborhood only asks that a true appreciation be given to the safety and quality of life in our affordable homes neighborhood.

Janet Wilson

SAN JUAN ISLANDER © 2008

news @sanjuanislander.com

ABOUT US | ADVERTISING INFO | CONTACT INFORMATION |