Dear Mr. Venrick:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the King County Executive's proposed new land use regulations commonly referred to as the CAO (Critical Areas Ordinance). I have received a large number of comments on this controversial subject and wish to share with you my position on it.
The proposed CAO is a poorly written, troubling piece of legislation which appears to have less to do with Best Available Science than with denying rural property owners the reasonable use of their land, thereby stopping most growth in the rural area. How else to explain a regulation that expands rural wetlands buffers while development are greatest? The proposed CAO potentially triples the buffers around wetlands and streams in the rural area while leaving the urban buffers unchanged.
Most troubling to me, however, is that no one
has satisfactorily answered my oft-repeated question: "Who, and by what
authority, says that
Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. Please keep speaking up to all of us in county government.
Councilmember, District Six
Metropolitan King County Council
From: John R. Venrick [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 11:55 AM
To: Ron Sims; Carolyn Edmonds; Bob Ferguson; Kathy Lambert; Larry Phillps; Dwight Pelz; Rob Mckenna; Pete von Reichbauer; Dow Constantine; Steve Hammond; Larry Gossett; Jane Hague; David Irons; Julia Patterson
Cc: Rodney McFarland PropRights; John Carlson KVI; KOMO4TV KOMO4TV; Arnold Koh; KIRO7TV KIRO7TV; KIRO710AM KIRO710AM
Subject: Fw: NO Critical Areas Ordinance NO 65-10From: John R. VenrickTo: Patterson, JuliaSent: Monday, July 26, 2004 11:06 PMSubject: NO Critical Areas Ordinance NO 65-10Dear Councilwomen Patterson:Thank you for your reply. I live on and own 10 acres on the Enumclaw Plateau for the last 26 years. I am retired from Boeing on a fixed income and am 61 years old.I have bolded and underlined a statement in your email reply below that I would like to specifically address.The perspective from those of us who live on acreage and farms and who steward our own land is this CAO proposal together with the so called "1000 Friends of Washington" is so extreme there can be no talk of balance.This proposal is so bazaar it is receiving national media attention as being the most extreme environmental control of any county in the nation.If you go to Property Rights Foundation of America, Inc. at http://www.prfamerica.org/PositionsIndex.html you will see how court decisions are being made by cases brought by private groups organizing across America to fight this environmental and government over reaching into private property rights.I also have to ask you why this extreme environmental over reaction is following down party lines? If it was even 50% Republican and 50% Democrat then I would suspect it was somewhat fair and balanced. But this is overtly a political issue. Why have the Democrats chosen to push their political agenda over our property rights. I thought the Democrats were the people's party?Also ask yourself why do most if not all of the people pushing this CAO live in the urban areas of King County. None of you live out here in the rural areas I suspect otherwise you wouldn't be voting for this proposal.My property is not your playground. Please go play in your own back yard and stay out of my yard. King County has too many other more important problems to deal with than trying to entertain environmental extreme groups.You cannot enforce this even if it passes. It is too unpopular! Plus it will be fought in the courts for years. It will waste private and public funds. You are wasting precious time and money!Sincerely,John R. Venrick41250 250th Ave SEEnumclaw, WA 98022----- Original Message -----From: Patterson, JuliaSent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:46 AMSubject: RE: NO Critical Areas Ordinance NO 65-10
Dear Mr. Venrick,
Thank you for your email regarding the Critical Areas Ordinances and the update to the King County Comprehensive Plan. While I do not serve on the Growth Management Committee (the committee currently analyzing the proposal before it comes to the full Council in September), I have been meeting with concerned property owners, environmental groups and I have toured a number of rural properties to gain a first hand perspective on the legislation's potential impacts on the environment and property owners.
The challenge before us is how to most appropriately balance environmental protections with the rights of property owners. This is no doubt a difficult task. The Growth Management Committee has spent hundreds of hours meeting with concerned citizens, holding public hearings and analyzing this complex legislation.
I very much appreciate hearing from my constituents on this issue as I continue to analyze the proposal.
Thank you again for contacting me and letting your views be known.
King County Councilmember