What is the COST to the county for Commissioners expanding the buffers?
Commentary by Randy Dutton
Posted June 20, 2012
I know that by the stroke of their pens the Commissioners virtually eliminated the possibility of me selling the ten acres of bluff ridge above Geissler Road. Why? Because the county has a roadside man-made ditch they claim occasionally has sculpin in it. Thus it is classified as ‘fish bearing’ and establishes a 140-foot buffer, which then tracks along that lot’s entire bluff edge. So, the county loses the potential revenue from building two homes, and because the property has great views, there may be a loss of bringing professionals and their jobs into the county. Good going Commissioners! You just screwed the County out of more jobs and tax revenue!
Similarly, an adjoining neighbor has a building site the new buffer now makes impossible. The chances of them of following their plan to move from California, building a house, and retiring here now are greatly diminished. That means more lost jobs! Great legacy you’re creating.
For every action the County Commissioners take, there is a cost that should be stated in the article. Did the Commissioners discuss how many millions of dollars of lost development, tax revenue, and lost jobs at the meeting? If not, WHY? Every decision should be quantified.
This CAO is a result of the I-5 Corridor trying to depopulate rural areas. Will the media remain silent as the elitists take control over the Peninsula?
Futurewise follows the Agenda 21 goal of concentrating population into urban centers and reducing rural development. From Futurewise’s own website http://futurewise.org/about/ourvalues/document_view
“Tackling traffic problems
“Vehicle miles traveled has grown four times faster than population in the Puget Sound region. Sprawling development that separates housing from stores and offices force people to drive. Futurewise’s work helps create communities where mass transit, bicycling and walking are real options for people.
“Promoting economic fairness
“Channeling growth into urban areas encourages job creation in the places where most low income people and people of color live. It reduces the burden on lower-income taxpayers to subsidize the extension of public services like sewers and roads to new, higher income developments in rural areas, and it helps maintain the tax base that cities need to tackle poverty and fund public education.
“Protecting farmlands and food production
“Urban sprawl consumes thousands of acres of Washington’s prime farmland every year, making our food system less sustainable.
“In Walla Walla County we protected more than 770,000 acres of rural land from sprawl development.”
Note that they don’t promote property rights, and entrepreneurial job creation. They are part of the Agenda 21 movement.
How many Grays Harbor County acres did Futurewise get Willis and Wilson to prevent from development? And subsequently how does this reduce higher property tax receipts, and job creation? That economic analysis should have been discussed BEFORE a decision was made.
Randy Dutton resides in Montesano, WA
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]