HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-443f
Co nM
~-t'o
Michelle McConnell
'VII.; {
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
AI Scalf
Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:49 PM
Michelle McConnell
FW: JC Proposed SMP
From: robertc@harpub.com [mailto:robertc@harpub.com]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:31 PM
To: AI Scalf
Cc: John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; Michelle McConnell; Norman MacLeod; George Sickel; Bud Schindler; ASM
Inc; larry and karen; Kenn Brooks; Bob Lawhead; bill graham; Mountain Coalition; ron ewart; Karen Martin; jim hagen;
Judi Stewart; jim kennedy; Jim and Donna Buck; Larry Carter; Pat Rodgers; Jack Venrick; wayne king; Scott; Emily;
Teren; waves@olympus.net; hoodcanal@windermere.com; Val Schindler; Mike Martin; Brooks & Barbara; Kathleen
Bradford; Bonnie Story; Dennis Schultz; Floyd Fuller; Richard Hild; Jean; John W Mc Duff; Elmer Matson; Roger Short;
brinnon@johnston-realty.com; Katherine Baril; Joy & Joe Baisch; ken shock
Subject: RE: JC Proposed SMP
I have a question: Is the refusal to issue a building permit to reconstruct after a fire that destroyed more
than 75% of a structure, a prosecutable offense or is there some other legal mechanism to recover
damages from the individual or the County?
The reason I ask this question is that I know of two instances, in this State, where the non-issuance of a
building permit lead to initial proceedings to prosecute the government employee involved for the crimes
of reckless endangerment, in one case, and conspiracy to commit reckless endangerment, in the other
case. However, when the government employees understood that they would be facing criminal
prosecution, they immediately desisted from what they were doing. So, these cases never went to
court. In addition, in both cases, the context was similar, to what we have here, as their were trying
to force the property owner to move their homes in order to create a buffer strip.
The right to rebuild after a fire damages more than 75% of a structure that lies within a newly created
buffer strip, is essentially the same issue, except that it involves a lessor offense; specifically, wealth
destruction rather than a risk to human life. Nevertheless, the similarity is so close that I think one should
consider whether this, refusal to issue a permit, would be prohibited by the criminal code.
Sincerely
Robert Crittenden
Joy
Public lands do not hold any special privilege that would allow damage to a neighbor. The County has a claim
process (rock thrown from County dumptruck hits passing car), responsibility under public duty doctrine and can
be subject of civil suit.
DCD has met with Jack W on the tax base impact and we will schedule time before the PC on this issue.
Take care
AI
1
From:Joy & Joe Baisch [mailto:elk(Cildishmail.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11,20096:11 PM
To: AI Scalf; 'ken shock'
Thanks AI, for the comments. This brings up another concern. When the "public" lands under stewardship of local, state
and federal agencies/governments are not being maintained, protected, preserved, and therefore, cause uncontrolled
damage to adjacent properties, what is the liability/responsibility of the agency involved?
If it were a private land owner's actions, there would be legal recourse as we understand. Seems that "non-action" by a
public entity to deliberately jeopardize private property would go unhindered, thus creating a non-conforming situation.
This becomes a real possibility when "radical" elements work from a position of" the end justifies the means".....that
being the removal landowners homes.
The State of Washington is unique in it's private landownership. Since shorelines and tidal areas can be privately owned
there are a number of considerations being broad brushed. If you as a government entity feel compelled to disregard the
complexity of the issues being raised then the County and the State can expect vigorous push-back.
We hope the County is extrapolating it's impact of the tax base as well as the County & City budgets.......we assume the
City will be using similar rulings that you in the County feel compelled to impose.
Joy Baisch
2