PP,

"Such as not having to pay 65% of their property taxes.... " or more!

I agree.

Remember I agree with the intent of CAO not nessecarily the implementation.

Well, at this point we have to deal with the intent as well as the implementation. So unless they pull back and try something a little smarter - you are either for it or against it.

Or are you voting for the CAO, before you vote against it
:p

I do not think it will stand up in the courts.

Salmo and Dave....I am totally for protecting our streams and runoff etc to protect the environment but why a blanket taking of 65% of all the rural King County lands...Are all of those acres endangering the environment? I doubt it. Have you ever been to the Snoqualmie Ridge development off of I-90? Thousands of acres of pristine timber land turned into thousands of small lots and homes 5 ft apart...I was there when the project started as I was involved in some of the commercial projects. When I first drove in off of Hiway 18 where it intersects I-90 it was a temporary dirt road leading to the soon to be clearcut mega acreage. As far as the eye could see were huge fir trees...A deer jumped out in front of my vehicle. Later on as the development took shape there were very few trees left. As far as the same eyes could see nothing but clearcut land. Now that was something planned by King County that allowed a big company (Quadrant / Weyerhauser) to do what they would not let the average property owner do.

I say the properties should be examined for the effects to the environment. Not perceived or expected problems but real ones. Set development back from streams etc....but taking all the land under the guise of protecting the environment is baloney and is against the constitution of the state.

I have talked about balance before and in this case a balance is fair. Saying you need to stop all use of land by humans to save the environment is just asking for push back when it comes to logical plans.

We are still talking about private property aren't we. The extreme environmental folks who pushed for this blanket plan feel that the land belongs to all of us...only the individual has to pay for it and then cede it to everyone else....That doesn't wash in my book.

I'm trying to look at the bright side. The vote was clearly down party lines and pissed off many democrats as well. Granted, none of the council members are up for election right now but this clearly shows where the democrats stand. Maybe this will help Rossi and Nethercut get elected.

GP: Now you are talking about something I know a bit about. I was on the citizens growth committee that "approved" the huge Quadrant developments on Novelty Hill. A group of 20 residential property owners worked long and hard to develop a plan that was fair and balanced. After many months of work we came up with five possible growth scenarios. To our surprise a sixth proposal popped up at the last moment. That was the Quadrant proposal. Our group voted 19 to 1 against the Quadrant proposal. We then had a citizen’s vote on which plan the people liked best. The Quadrant proposal came in dead last. Guess what happened. The county council completely disregarded our plan ands went with Quadrant. Did someone get paid? You be the judge. All I know is that was my last day on the committee. And we all lost. There was no BALANCE then.

Where I live in rural king County many of my neighbors move in and begin clearing land for their *&*&*^%%^ horses. The "Horse Acre" lots are NOT big enough for a horses, so the land turns to mud which then flows into our nearby creek. Is the CAO the best we could do? I doubt it. Do we need something? Damn right!

How many here fish the Snoqualmie? I do a lot.

How many of you have noticed the huge covert dumping into what WAS one of the rivers largest King Salmon spawning holes? Who do you think signed off on the permit to put this drainage in? Who had no idea who signed off when confronted with this? How did King County loose the application for permit when we asked for a copy?

This covert pumps major crap into the river like paint cement and other building products. Do you think this covert will be moved? HELL NO. We (our Lawyer) were laughed at by the County when we contacted them and said this has to change. (this is the condensed outcome of our 2 year battle)

To take control of peoples land is Major BULL when they Permit and help pay for drainage running right into the flippin river.

I agree there needs to be a buffer along all rivers, but this is insane when The County is the one of the largest offenders.

Dave.....you must be able to see that picture in your mind's eye of Snoqualmie Ridge before the clearcutting began. Now I know we need plans for growth but that big? What you describe only illustrates that he who has the gold makes the rules. Quadrant has enough money itself but also had a financial partner out of Germany (Roche) who silently helped raised millions for many deveopments like the huge ones along the ship canal in Fremont...

Ask yourself a question. Could I build a home right next to the ship canal? No....Now we have over reaction plans mandated by the pinheads in KingCounty that create an adverse reaction big time....I say if something is planned that will harm the environment and the harm can clearly be shown with science then regulations should step in to prevent the damage. What is not OK is saying you want to preserve most of rural King County and at the same time allow things like Snoqualmie Ridge.

"The "Horse Acre" lots are NOT big enough for a horse"

Most 5 acre lots are not big enough.

GP: We are not so far apart on this. I agree that he who has the gold makes the rules. Salmon have no gold and until recently not many strong advocates. Those with the Gold have clear-cut, paved, damed, polluted and netted our salmon to, or near, extinction in many areas.

The CAO might not have been contemplated if we didn't have so many runs that are endangered. There was no BALANCE for the past 120 years. Now many with good intentions are trying to rebalance scales that are very badly out of balance. The CAO is not likely, in my opinion to pass court challenges, but its existence is merely proof that we have done an awful job our managing our salmon and continue to do so whenever the pot of gold is big enough.

Welcome to *my* world folks. I deal with the compliance of municipal regulation in the development of land 9-hours a day, year in year out. Here's my take. The measures are largely just political posturing on behalf of the those in charge. The stormwater regulations pertaining to allowable post-development run-off rates (even in rural areas) that were already in place in King County ensure those rates are equal to or less than the pre-developed rates, meaning detention and metering of stormwater must be done when land is developed. It's been that way since the Dept. of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin became the mother document for municipal regulation years ago. Treatment of post-development run-off prior to discharge has also been required.

The endangered salmon that migrate through the Puget Sound and spawn in local rivers don't know how many houses there are or what the percent impervious is on the land. If they want to protect salmon, they need to go where there are piles of dead salmon. They need to get the nets out. Until the *real* issue is addressed, they could prohibit any future development and salmon runs will still contine to decline. However, since they are unwilling to tackle that political "hot potato," they will keep putting band-aids on broken legs until salmon are extinct.

How do I cope? One sip at a time. It's only through a crippling addiction to alcohol that I am able to get up and go to work every day.

Sol: Sounds like you know what you are talking about when it comes to regulations. Do you mind telling us what you do that keeps this stuff on your radar nine hours a day?

I agree with your sentiments, but do think that one problem we have always faced is focus on one problem as reason for not tackling another. Sure nets are an awful thing, that would disappear tomorrow if I were in charge, but even if they are gone the salmon still need a healthy environment in every part of their life cycle or they will go extinct nets or no nets.

I once talked to a man who had logged his property right down to the river bank, who told me "fish don't need no environment" It's the damn nets that are the problem.

In an enlightened society we would have our scientists tell us what is the number one problem and then we would tackle it. But we would also be looking at all the other issue and tackling them as rapidly as we could.

I see little sign we are doing that. Instead we seem to be spending millions on feel good projects like totally revamping a seasonal; stream that flows into the Sammamish Slough, right next to a huge sod farm that is sucking the slough nearly dry every summer.

I'm a civil engineer that designs the sub-divisons, Home Depots and other developments you see devour our land every day. Thats right folks, I'm a whore to the process. I learned long ago that development was going to happen reguardless of what I did for a living, so instead of living in relative squalor I became an engineer.

Originally posted by Dave Vedder:
You hit the nail on the head, Dave. Also, I do agree that we tend to fixate on the nets as the only problem, but I think thats because it is the largest component of the problem and nothing is being done about it. Of course we need to maintain habitat. I support stream buffers and restricted logging in river coridors. The measures that triggered this thread go far beyond that, however.

It is disheartening for me to comply with the increase in regulation here in the Puget Sound along streams that are already nearly devoid of anadromous fish, only to go out on the penninsula on the weekend and see a new swath of trees cut down right up to the river. We do live in an enlightened society, but politics and special interests seem to get in the way of what our best available science tells us. I do not see this changing in the forseeable future either.

"...but its existence is merely proof that we have done an awful job our managing our salmon..."


Did you REALLY need the CAO to see that??


The only thing the CAO 'proves' is that the extreme liberal democrats on the KCC will trample the rights of property owners just to appease their special intrest enviro group friends.

This is a really good thread.

Grandpa,

Where is balance? I thought a balanced approach was a good idea, but then learned that balance has subjective, rather than objective dimensions. I personally don't care for a "one size fits all" land use regulation, but then how do you deal with the injustice of prescribing a 25' buffer on citizen A's property and then a 150' buffer on citizen B's? Those kinds of differences are a real possibility with landscapes I'm familiar with for stream habitat protection.

What I'd like to see in a thread like this is where the price of criticism is that those criticizing the KCC's decision offer a constructive alternative. Given that the County has access to many experts in environmental fields, it would be interesting to read the alternative suggestions by the PP BB experts.

In the spirit of fair play, here's my suggestion. I think the universal, broad based regulations should be pretty stiff. Then a landowner has the option of following those, or presenting an alternative development plan for approval. The performance standard is that the County officials have to issue a determination that the alternative plan equals the general regulations in terms of environmental protection and impact.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

So many broad brush approaches to "protecting the environment" are smoke and mirrors. I have seen many construction projects that were forced to add "habitat" as if there were salmon spawning where no water flows. One such example is near the Alderwood Mall shopping center...behind Best Buy there are stumps and logs that were placed in a mock river bed as a requirement . Absolutely no fish were there in the first place and won't appear when it rains.

At the other end of the parking lot sits Barnes and Noble...beneath that parking lot is a monstrous water runoff collecttion vault which controls the surface water in the lot and also serves as a filter for the silt....good for the water that finds itself in the closest local creek. About a mile to the South in Brier there are some small housing developments going in. The "developers" are required to install huge collection vaults on the same scale as the one in the Barnes and Noble lot. Why? Certainly the amount of potential runoff is many times greater at the mall with its huge asphalt lot as opposed to the housing development with 4 homes and grass and trees.

Now the questions is, what scientific findings were used to determine these measures? Should we subscribe to the theory that big blanket takings of land are ok because they certainly will prevent any problems. Should the same measures required of a shopping mall be applied to a single home owner? Reminds me of the theories that spawn huge marine sanctuaries to protect one small portion of the area or one or two species within the area but by eliminating all uses they penalize many who have nothing to do with what they are trying to protect. Excluding all use just in case.

So the balance is to protect when science supports measures needed to protect and leave the land alone when no specific protection is warranted. And if the people want to condemn or take land for the perceived common good they need to step up and pay for it. To do anything less is dangerous to our democracy.