HomeMy WebLinkAbout53.Durgan, C. 5-10_Comment re Jefferson County proposed SMP
Michelle McConnell
From:Craig Durgan [durgan@olympus.net]
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2010 10:22 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Comment re Jefferson County proposed SMP
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Jeffrey Steward
Department of Ecology
State of Washington
Mr. Steward,
My comments are in regard to the Shoreline Management Program (SMP) for Jefferson County.
By all criteria and acknowledged by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and others the shoreline of
Jefferson County is in good condition and is near pristine in condition. This was accomplished under the existing SMP by
the existing land owner, not the government. Now being proposed is a draconian change in the SMP. I have great
concern the net effect of this change will be the degradation of the shoreline. Government in general has not done a good
job of managing resources. Just look at the salmon runs in Washington as an example.
The proposed SMP will create a huge number of legal non-conforming structures including my own home. There are
many negative ramifications to this. Insurance and mortgage loans will likely be adversely affected. Property values will
decline as well as salability. This is all in violation of the Washington State Constitution where not only are "takings" a
cause of action but so is "damaging" property. Naturally you are relying upon numerous court ruling saying that regulatory
takings are not really unconstitutional. But, the area of damaging property is an unsettled area. It will be a surety that
imposition of 150' buffers will create large numbers of legal non-conforming structures. Is this a damaging action? Only
future court action will determine this.
DOE and you have lauded the Inventory and Characterization Report as scientific proof that 150' buffers are needed. No
study of the impact on Jefferson County's shoreline was ever done. Therefore there is no scientific proof of the need for
changing the SMP and implementing 150' buffers.
No economic study of the cost of implementing the 150' proposed buffers was done in direct violation of the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA).
If residential use is a preferred use in the SMA how can 150' buffers be used. This is a conflict in the original law.
I am a member of the Citizens Alliance for Property RIghts (CAPR) and am also incorporating all the comments by CAPR
in my comments here by reference.
Regards,
Craig Durgan
801 Olele Point Road
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
1