HomeMy WebLinkAbout240.Tonkin, D. 4-13_Letter re Locally Approved Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program
Michelle McConnell
From:David I Tonkin [z9davton@q.com]
Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:58 AM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Cc:George Yount; Henry Werch; Matt Sircely; Ruth Gordon; William Miller;
dsullivan@co.jefferson.wa.us; pjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us; Austin, John (DOHi)
Subject:Letter re Locally Approved Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program
Attachments:Shoreline Master Plan Comments to WA DOE.doc
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Dear Mr. Stewart,
I have prepared a letter stating my views in support of Jefferson County's locally approved Shoreline
Master Program. I have attached it as a Microsoft Word document. In case you do not wish to open
attachments in emails from people you do not know, I have also embedded my statement below. For your
information, I am the elected Democratic Precinct Committee Officer for Precinct 305 (Irondale) and run
up-to-date anti-virus and spyware software frequently. At this time, I plan to attend the public meeting on
April 20 at Fort Warden.
Sincerely,
David Tonkin
32 S. Stromberg Ave.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-385-2468
I am a resident of Jefferson County, and I support the Shoreline Master Program adopted by the Jefferson Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC). I appreciate the opportunity to express my views one more time.
Citizen involvement and community outreach by the BOCC, Planning Commission, and Department of
Community Development over a four year period were outstanding, including the participation of shoreline
property owners on the Policy Advisory Committee. I appreciate the care taken by the BOCC to analyze every
piece of testimony and to incorporate their ideas, where appropriate, using peer-reviewed science to support
policies and decisions. The resulting SMP was reasonably balanced, with the objective of meeting the needs of
both property owners and Puget Sound's ecosystem.
I believe the SMP generally contains clear language that makes it easier for citizens to understand it, clear
regulations and policies that provide land use consistency and protection of our shorelines and waterways, and
allows for flexible buffer modification where appropriate (i.e., where there is no net loss to shoreline functions).
The SMP minimizes the need for shoreline armoring by encouraging non- structural remedies. It prohibits
commercial net pen aquaculture farming; scientific evidence shows this practice releases strains of bacteria and
viruses that are very resistant to treatment and increases the likelihood of a significantly adverse impact on wild
fish.
It seems to me a majority of county residents support strong environmental safeguards to protect the water
quality, values and functions of the county's shorelines. The most problematic component likely deals with
buffers and setbacks to protect our waterways. The 150-foot buffers specified in the SMP were supported by
significant testimony at all meetings and hearings, and the latest scientific opinion supports them as a valid
compromise of buffer widths necessary to protect shoreline functions.
1
Protecting our shorelines and waterways should — in the long run — protect the economic value of properties
in the ecosystem, including most of the land adjacent to the shoreline and waterways. However, many people
believe they have the right to do whatever they want on their own private property: to build what they want, to
clear and grade, and to spray whatever they choose wherever they want on their own land. These people claim
that too much restriction on where they can build on a parcel would probably decrease their land value and
constitute an illegal “taking” of their land without fair compensation. In some instances, this may be a
legitimate argument.
Too many people believe the US Constitution gives them an unrestricted right to do whatever they want on their
own land. They do not seem to realize there are no “unrestricted” rights, and this has been demonstrated by the
decisions of courts up to and including the US Supreme Court.
The First Amendment guaranty of free speech does not allow one person to slander another, to incite a riot, or to
yell “fire” in a crowded theater. The Second Amendment may protect the right of an individual to bear arms,
but it does not give one an unrestricted right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit or to own a fully
automatic firearm without a license, depending on state law. So, property rights are not unrestricted either,
especially if what one wants to do on their land adversely affects others in the community and beyond. You
cannot burn brush during a burn ban, make unreasonable amount of noise, or run a business on your
residentially zoned property without a proper permit. So, why should people think they have a right to foul the
water or cause erosion downstream from their property? We just need to ensure that due process is followed and
people are fairly compensated for any loss in value that results from applying tougher restrictions on the use of
their property.
We must always strive to serve the greater good, but not unfairly penalize individuals to do so. If we decide to
take some action that we believe serves the greater good, “we” must pay for it. The burden for protecting our
environment should be shared by all, not placed on the backs of a few property owners.
2
David Tonkin
?
32 S. Stromberg Ave. Port Townsend, WA 98368
?
(360) 385-2468 z9davton@q.com
April 13, 2010
Mr. Jeffree Stewart, Regional Planner
Washington State Department of Ecology
P O Box 47775
Olympia WA 98504
RE: The Locally Approved Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
I am a resident of Jefferson County, and I support the Shoreline Master Program adopted
by the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). I appreciate the opportunity
to express my views one more time.
Citizen involvement and community outreach by the BOCC, Planning Commission, and
Department of Community Development over a four year period were outstanding,
including the participation of shoreline property owners on the Policy Advisory
Committee. I appreciate the care taken by the BOCC to analyze every piece of testimony
and to incorporate their ideas, where appropriate, using peer-reviewed science to support
policies and decisions. The resulting SMP was reasonably balanced, with the objective of
meeting the needs of both property owners and Puget Sound's ecosystem.
I believe the SMP generally contains clear language that makes it easier for citizens to
understand it, clear regulations and policies that provide land use consistency and
protection of our shorelines and waterways, and allows for flexible buffer modification
where appropriate (i.e., where there is no net loss to shoreline functions). The SMP
minimizes the need for shoreline armoring by encouraging non- structural remedies. It
prohibits commercial net pen aquaculture farming; scientific evidence shows this practice
releases strains of bacteria and viruses that are very resistant to treatment and increases
the likelihood of a significantly adverse impact on wild fish.
It seems to me a majority of county residents support strong environmental safeguards to
protect the water quality, values and functions of the county's shorelines. The most
problematic component likely deals with buffers and setbacks to protect our waterways.
The 150-foot buffers specified in the SMP were supported by significant testimony at all
meetings and hearings, and the latest scientific opinion supports them as a valid
compromise of buffer widths necessary to protect shoreline functions.
Shoreline Master Plan
Comment by David Tonkin
April 13, 2010
Protecting our shorelines and waterways should — in the long run — protect the
economic value of properties in the ecosystem, including most of the land adjacent to the
shoreline and waterways. However, many people believe they have the right to do
whatever they want on their own private property: to build what they want, to clear and
grade, and to spray whatever they choose wherever they want on their own land. These
people claim that too much restriction on where they can build on a parcel would
probably decrease their land value and constitute an illegal “taking” of their land without
fair compensation. In some instances, this may be a legitimate argument.
Too many people believe the US Constitution gives them an unrestricted right to do
whatever they want on their own land. They do not seem to realize there are no
“unrestricted” rights, and this has been demonstrated by the decisions of courts up to and
including the US Supreme Court.
The First Amendment guaranty of free speech does not allow one person to slander
another, to incite a riot, or to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. The Second Amendment
may protect the right of an individual to bear arms, but it does not give one an
unrestricted right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit or to own a fully
automatic firearm without a license, depending on state law. So, property rights are not
unrestricted either, especially if what one wants to do on their land adversely affects
others in the community and beyond. You cannot burn brush during a burn ban, make
unreasonable amount of noise, or run a business on your residentially zoned property
without a proper permit. So, why should people think they have a right to foul the water
or cause erosion downstream from their property? We just need to ensure that due
process is followed and people are fairly compensated for any loss in value that results
from applying tougher restrictions on the use of their property.
We must always strive to serve the greater good, but not unfairly penalize individuals to
do so. If we decide to take some action that we believe serves the greater good, “we”
must pay for it. The burden for protecting our environment should be shared by all, not
placed on the backs of a few property owners.
Sincerely,
David Tonkin
2