HomeMy WebLinkAbout50.Dotson, G. 4-24_SMP Comments (81)
Michelle McConnell
From:Gary Dotson [nwts@olympus.net]
Sent:Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:26 AM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:SMP Comments
Attachments:Shoreline Master Plan Comments.doc
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Mr. Stewart,
Attached please find my comments regarding the SMP.
The attachment is in the form of an MS Word document.
Thanks for your interest and attention to these comments.
Gary Dotson
1
To:
Mr. Jeffree Stewart, Shoreline Specialist
From:
Gary Dotson, Shoreline Property Homeowner.
Dear Mr. Stewart,
I am writing in relation to the new Shoreline Master Plan being processed for final approval.
I must say that I am greatly disturbed by the information I receive relating to the Plan.
Firstly, I wonder why so much power over the private citizen is being vested in a government entity.
This seems to be a very stark example of creeping Socialism and Government takeover of individual
freedoms.
Your Department of Ecology should be aware that the vast majority of shoreline property owners are,
like me, not wealthy speculators out to destroy the shoreline environment. We are instead, mostly
middle class families who had the good fortune to find desirable property when and where we could
afford it. Our intent was to provide something as a gift for future generations to enjoy.
Everyone in this State has the same opportunity. Like all other opportunities in life, some people are
at the right place at the right time and others are not.
Taking the rights of these property owners and giving those rights to the State, seems akin to taking
the profits from someone’s fortunate investment and dictating the way those profits can or cannot be
utilized for the benefit of their families and/or heirs.
It should be obvious that it is in our own best interest to maintain and improve the property and not to
destroy or degrade it. I am sure that if your department would inspect all the privately owned
shoreline properties in our state you would find very little of the property, or the environment, that has
suffered significantly or at all from private citizens actions. On the contrary, the majority of properties
have been enhanced and become significantly more desirable as is indicated by the relative gain in
values of shoreline properties.
I’m sure you recognize that reading and understanding the proposed shoreline master plan is
impossible for the average citizen. We don’t have the legal expertise to interpret the language of the
plan even if we could piece together some readable version.
Obviously, a team of non-property owners and environmentalists has spent years developing a plan
that even they don’t fully understand the implications of. All they seem to know is that the existing
plans don’t limit private rights sufficiently.
Until someone can provide a rational explanation and multiple examples of why and where the
current shoreline plan has gone wrong, I can’t believe that a revision to the plan such as the one
being developed is the right way to proceed.
In regard to environmental issues of preserving our natural resources, ie; Salmon habitat, etc. It is
obvious to most of us that the real benefit to those resources is to limit over harvesting. Why that is
so difficult for the government to see is beyond me. I suspect that it is politically easier to over power
the individual private citizen with regulation than to attempt any control over the big industrial
harvesters. Even with all the new regulations, no significant environmental gains will be achieved
without facing the reality of over harvesting.
Respectfully,
Gary Dotson
8235 Flagler Rd.
Nordland, Wa 98358