HomeMy WebLinkAbout031Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Beth Stroh-Stern <bethstrohstern@gmail.com>
Wednesday, February 03, 2016 1-2:36 PM
Pla nComm@co jefferson.wa.us
PCommissionDesk@co jefferson.wa.us
Pleasant Harbor MPR comment
[\4ost of the comments regarding the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort to the
commission are about citizens' deep concerns over damage to the environment in the
south Jefferson county area from this proposed MPR. I am concerned with these issues
as well, but my comments are about the impact to the existing loca! economy. Like many
locals, following the proposals and mitigations, I hoped the economic development
promised by the Statesman Group and Garth [\4ann would help the underemployed
families of this area.
We choose to live in this isolated area for its peace and spectacular beauty. We treasure
this fjord and our small town on the canal. Most people who live here are retired, own
small businesses or work out of area . We accept this inconvenience as the trade off for
living in this small community with the richness and beauty of nature al! around.
It is also what brings the tourists!
Tourists come to this scenic area to see the mountains, valleys, flords, where they can
enjoy boating, fishing , camping, hiking, bird watching, and mushrooming. They
visit, spend their money and return to their homes without destroying what they have
come to experience. This kind of tourism promotes a clean economy with very little
environmental downside.
The Planning Commission has the duty to help protect this aspect of our
community.
Disneyland tourism that relies on condominiums golfing, movie night, zip lines and
kayak jousting does not bring people out in nature, but creates distractions and increased
traffic that reduces the enjoyment for those who visit the natural attractions here. These
developers come claiming to love the environment, then set about to drastically change
it. The smaller proposal with less traffic wi!! preserve the outdoor opportunities of this
remote area.
Why would you kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
!n the first meetings about the Pleasant Harbor MPR, there were many statements
about the wonderful economic benefit to local residents and businesses. Many
local people believed those promises and felt this development was the cost of economic
progress. Garth Mann claimed that his development would be a financial boon to the local
economy and that he would hire 200 workers.
1
to: Jefferson County Planning Commissioners
re: Pleasant Harbor MPR comments
Mann's consultant, Craig Peck is quoted by reporter Charlie Bermant - Peninsula Daily
News 12141 14 as saying , "many of these jobs would be seasonal and the resort
would fill them locally if possible."
"We aren't building a gas station, so it wil! bring people to Brinnon who will buy
gas".
Garth Mann said, "the resort wil! not compete with existing businesses."
Now that the developers have a toe in the door, these promises mean nothing!
ln the last year, two locally owned businesses have been displaced by this
MPR. The houseboat rental business, Houseboats for Two and the kayak rental
business, Kayak Brinnon, at Pleasant Harbor have been evicted by Garth Mann. Both
businesses brought tourist money to our community and contributed to the local
economy.
By court order, the houseboat business was allowed to continue at her location through
her busy reserved season, but with no place to move, the houseboats are now being sold
off individually.
The kayak business, which has operated in our area for 8 years was evicted from the
marina as well and has since relocated, at great cost to her and her hard working
family. Garth Mann has done exactly the opposite of what he promised. He set up
a kayak rental business in direct competition with a this once thriving business.
Bait and Switch Economic development was the sell point to get the Planning
Commission's approval on this project. Now that wording has been dropped . At the
latest Public hearing in Brinnon, the developer made no mention of these promises.
Environmental mitigations must have follow through and proof that the mitigating actions
have been taken and are effective. The same should apply to economic promises.
The 20% local hires that was promised must be a verifiable figures showing this benefit
to our community.
The hidden costs such as; higher taxes for schools, fire protection, police and roads
must be mitigated as well. There will be an increased costs for assistance to seasonal
laid off workers in housing, utilities and food from an already over taxed food bank. These
costs must be covered or it will be the taxpayers who foot the bill.
It is the Planning Commission's job to guide and allow appropriate growth and
developments in our county. An actual accounting of the development's contribution to
increase or decrease in jobs must be required, with a follow up report of the actua!
numbers of local workers employed by the IVIPR and for how long and terminated for what
reasons should be available. The commission must enforce the promises made by these
developers and verify that they are carried out and that the MPR actually benefits the
entire community, not just the investors. That can only happen if actual costs to the
environment, economy and taxpayers vs benefit are accounted for.
How are these results being assessed and enforced? Will the Commission require
the economic promises are shown in a verifiable report of the employment
numbers? Please respond to this question.
Thank you,
2
Beth Stroh-Stern
66 Rocky Point Road
Brinnon, WA 98320.
3