Dear Mr. Venrick:
In my earlier response to your e-mail, an important phrase was inadvertently omitted from the second paragraph. The sentence containing the omitted phrase is underlined below.
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 do we explain a regulation that expands rural wetlands buffers while preserving the current buffers in the urban area, where adverse environmental impacts from 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: Monday, July 05, 2004 12:43 AM
To: Jan WAStateRepShibro; Dan WAStateRepRoach; 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: KVI KVI; John Carlson KVI; Bill O'Reilly; email@example.com
Subject: NO Critical Areas Ordinance NO 65-10 FOXNews.com - Politics - Private Property May Become Preserved eDear Ron Sims, Steve Hammond, Council Members and my WA Representatives:The proposed ordinances commonly known as the CAO are extremely unfair to the property owners of rural King County. It is unconscionable to ask them alone to foot the bill for 150 years of environmental damage caused by the urbanization of King County. I agree with the testimony submitted by Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights and urge that you read it and act accordingly. There is no emergency that requires this legislation nor is it mandated by the Growth Management Act. King County already has the strongest restrictions on land use in the state. Rural property owners have already paid much more than their share through multiple down-zonings.
Just vote NO to CAO.----- Original Message -----From: John R. VenrickSent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 12:24 AMSubject: FOXNews.com - Politics - Private Property May Become PreservedKing County Council and Ron Sims is receiving the dubious distinction on national news - see article below.P/ease email this to other King County property owners you know.My suggestion is to email AND fax or mail your comments to at least your King County Council Representative if not all of them including Ron Sims and your State District Legislators ASAP. Also include your favorite radio and TV stations.Tim Trohimovich "1000 Friends of Washington" seems to be behind this proposal. He was interviewed on the radio and lives in a condo down town Seattle. This appears to be an anti sprawl environmental group trying to impose their views on those of us living in the country.Here is some comments about them from a Public Policy Institute. https://www.urbanfutures.org/031802.htmlKing County Council MembersKing County Council Executive Ron SimsKing County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue, Room 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 296-4040
Fax: (206) 296-0194
Office hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.WA State LegislatureKING COUNTY, Wash. - Residents of King County, Wash., will only be able to build on 10 percent of their land, according to a new law being considered by the county government, which, if enacted, will be the most restrictive land use law in the nation.
Known as the 65-10 Rule (search), it calls for landowners to set aside 65 percent of their property and keep it in its natural, vegetative state. According to the rule, nothing can be built on this land, and if a tree is cut down, for example, it must be replanted. Building anything is out of the question.
Most of the residents who will be directly affected by the regulations - those who own property in the rural areas of the country - are fuming. They see the new regulations as a land grab and a violation of their property rights.
"My take is it's stealing - out and out stealing," said county resident Marshall Brenden. "They're taking 65 percent of your land that you fought for years to pay for, paid mortgages on and now you can't use it."
But supporters and environmentalists say personal property rights do not trump the rights of a larger community to save the eco-system (search).
"We're trying to keep the rural area a place that isn't just McMansions and ball courts, but instead has those natural processes," said Tim Trohimovich of the group 1000 Friends of Washington (search), which aims to promote healthy communities and cities while protecting farmland and forests.
Here's what the Seattle Times has to say: