HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-301
co tvtAkJ
~ L
C1J vY\~1fiiv
Jeanie Orr
Page 1 of 1
From: djohnson [djohnson@tfon.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29,20099:06 PM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Subject: Shoreline Master Plan Draft-Public Comment
2-qt;(
~
Dear Planning Commission members:
I live and have my business in Jefferson County. Although my property does not include shoreline features, I love
our beautiful and pristine environment every bit as much as those who do have that benefit. My family has a long
history of fishing, hunting, and crab, clam, shrimp, and oyster harvesting in local waters.
I do object to the buffer sizes you have proposed, as I have during the CAO process. They are based on a sub-
set of purported science, but are easily refuted by other sub-sets of science. I am opposed to changing the
buffers from their current size for the following reasons:
1. Zoning and the number of developable lots available restrict the number of new family homes
that could ever be built in our area to a density not appreciably greater than that which exists
now.
2. Even the most ardent "environmentalists" (I use quotes because they are not the only people
who consider themselves environmentalists) use as their main argument that "the Jefferson
County waterways are pristine now and must be kept that way." If they have not been despoiled
up until now, it is unlikely they will become so IN JEFFERSON COUNTY due to any future
JEFFERSON COUNTY CONDITION or USE.
3. It is far more likely that Jefferson County beaches will be degraded from pollution imported
across the sound from the 1-5 corridor communities or VictoriaNancouver than from ANYTHING
that is likely to happen here. Rules governing buffers here will have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT
on those sources, so why be so punitive to your own citizens?
4. It is hard enough to make a living and afford to live here for most people now. Believe it or not,
there really isn't any good alternative. Adding restrictions unnecessarily is terribly costly to the
individual, is punitive and repressive, and is not good government.
There are many things we can do to protect our beautiful area together without causing such hardship to our
people. Please reconsider your proposal in light of what's good for your people, while still protecting the
environment.
Diane Johnson, Ph.D.
DISCOVERY CENTER for Behavioral Health
360-379-8821
2/2/2009