HomeMy WebLinkAbout252.Wood, K&M 5-10_COMMENT ON SMP
Michelle McConnell
From:Ken and Marianne [k.m.wood@verizon.net]
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2010 10:20 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Cc:Ken and Marianne
Subject:COMMENT ON SMP
Attachments:COMMENT ON SMP.docx
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Jeffree,
In short, I reject the SMP as it applies to individuals rights to use their own properties. We as the extended family have
used our beach property with respect since 1939. We are part of the ecosystem as well as the fish.
Please help bring reason to this.
Thank you
Ken and Marianne Wood
1
Jeffree Stewart
I will try to keep this short but it is the only time I get to comment on the proposed SMP.
?
I would have liked to have understand the SMP before I disagreed but it is too mind boggling to
understand what the ramifications will be so I as read it I must disagree.
?
The SMP is written so vaguely and subject to the judgment of so few that when the people that
it will be levied against read the SMP we feel totally helpless and angry with the “system” that
wrote it and will be doweling it out to us.
?
Do we as county property owners get to vote on this proposal? No. We get to comment, surely
not enough.
?
It is all too obvious that the existing farms, housing developments, cities and town, quarries etc.
that are already polluting the sound not being targeted by the SMP. This “no net loss” is on the
shoulders of therelatively few people that have scraps of property on or near the waterfront,
often private, most single dwelling, often not developed.
?
The 150 foot setback is definitely not appropriate when surrounding developed properties have
50 ft setbacks but the undeveloped conforming property will be held to 160 feet. The ”line
between” methodology should be used.
?
Unless mitigation of some past sins is levied against the big offenders the effort is wasted
causing grief for the small offenders. The county needs to HELP the small offenders remedy the
issues.
?
What happened to the Indians and the farms, doesn’t their pollution count? Port Gamble that
evidently has poor control of runoff causing extremely high toxin count a few years ago in
comparison to other areas nearby that have pristine water?
?
We all know it is necessary to keep misguided people from doing stupid things that effect the
sound, but are we partners with the county or are we adversaries? For example, last year a
group of conscientious home owners get together to request a single, proper, staircase down a
“feeder bluff” but they were turned down flat, but with helpful design input from the county
this should have been possible. We are all the people that pay the taxes that pay the bills for
the county and the state, even pay the salaries.
?
We shouldn’t have to protect ourselves from our government, this should be a partnership that
helps us do our business and live our lives.
?
There should only be one set of rules with a given set of exceptions. All of us that have been
involved with the county and park department see the differential between what state agencies
can make happen are not possible for the private citizen.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ken and Marianne Wood 206 930-8404