HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-522
bLnp., .
(j:X1A n~ 1,vr
Jeanie Orr
2-c1 (p I
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jeanie Orr
Monday, June 15, 2009 7:33 AM
Michelle McConnell
AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Jeanie Orr
FW: Shoreline Master Plan
,
-----Original Message-----
From: David Tonkin [mailto:z9davton@ncplus.net]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:43 AM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Cc: Andrew Reding; William A. Miller; Carol Barnes; Burt Howells; Claire Roney; Chris
Nelsoni Adele Govert; Elaine Morgani Eugene Brandoni Linda Karpi Gary Felderi Gloria Brami
Phil Andrusi Lisa painteri Lori Macklini Jim Stehn; Larry Bonari Matt SircelYi Maynard
Kragthorpei Teri Nomura; Gary Estesi Chris Rehderi Rebekah McGuirei Bob Stevensoni Ruth
Gordoni Gary Engbrechti Raymond Hunteri Scott Rosekransi Kate Franko; Toby Clausoni Gabe
Ornelas
Subject: Shoreline Master Plan
First, I want to thank all the members of the planning commission for their dedication and
hard work on many critical and controversial issues.
The Shoreline Master Program has generated many contentious issues and concerns. Some
people have criticized the commission for creating 150 foot setbacks for waterfront
property that in effect took property away from owners and reduced the value of their
land. They use the private property and due process rights granted under the US
Constitution to make their points. What many of them fail to realize is that the rights
granted in the Constitution are not unlimited and unrestricted according to numerous
Supreme Court decisions.
Disallowing ownership of fully automatic guns is one accepted restriction on gun ownership
rights. Forbidding slander and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater legitimately restricts
free speech.
Likewise, preventing property owners from causing erosion and polluting streams, bays and
other waterways is a legitimate restriction on private property rights. Many people have
said they should have the right to do whatever they want on their own property, and well
they should -- provided what they do has no adverse impact on the rest of us. Erosion of
banks and polluting waterways affects us all in many, many ways and must be controlled.
People have also criticized the commission for reducing their property values by
restricting the use of their property.
They do make a good point here. I have always supported a reasonable, fair eminent domain
policy and best-science-based restrictions on property rights. However, when people have
owned land for longer than we have been aware of the problems caused by erosion and
pollution, they should not be made to suffer unfairly. Some equitable exceptions must be
made for these long term land owners, but not to the point of making the SMP waterway
protections ineffective. To some degree all citizens must share the burden and cost of
enforcing legitimate restrictions on property bordering waterways.
It is not easy to balance the collective rights of the many against the individual rights
of a few. You have a difficult job to do and I don't envy you. Protecting the environment
needed by all of us for a sustainable planet is more important than the rights of a few
property owners, but don't forget the proscriptions against a tyranny of the majority over
the minority.
Please keep these points in mind when considering and approving a final draft of the SMP,
and good luck.
Sincerely,
David Tonkin
32 S. Stromberg Ave., Port Townsend
Jefferson County Democrats Precinct Committee Officer for Precinct 305
1