||| FROM JOHN PIERRE AND ANNETTE VAN DONGEN |||
Having escaped the greedy over-development of “anywhere USA” to this paradise of Orcas Island, we feel protective of the unique charm and character that is our island home. Current conversations about expanding the airport, street-lights, speed-bump-like raised fancy brick crosswalks, chopping trees down in exchange for pavement and the 8000 sq ft “multi-use” Main Street development make us wonder whether the fox is already in the hen house.
We are concerned about where our current leadership is taking us, for what purpose, who benefits, and at whose expense.
We understand the inevitability of change and development and agree that every property owner has the right to maximize his investment. We also understand that the character of the outcome is dependent on our civic leaders. We support Cindy Wolf to represent us in protecting the character of the village of Eastsound and Orcas Island. Cindy is a critical thinker, understands boundaries, and listens. She owns no businesses nor vacation rentals, therefore Cindy would not need to recuse herself from voting on land use, density, and development codes that could benefit her personal business enterprises. Cindy Wolf on our council will be an asset to the entire county.
The foxes will have to behave when the Wolf is protecting the hen house.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
There will always be an element of conflict between “the inevitability of change and development,” property owners’ rights, and the sense of place we all feel so strongly about. But protecting an area’s character without considering all of those elements can never truly represent the needs and wishes of our entire community. Quite apart from understanding the interrelationships between development and preservation, Rich Hughes’s experience and his record on the council and in Olympia have demonstrated his commitment to work for all of us, on Orcas and throughout San Juan County, Protecting the henhouse–whatever that means–is not enough, unless we want to close our eyes to the one constant in all of our lives, wherever we live, and that is change. Rick has demonstrated his objectivity and dedication to a balanced, island-appropriate way to deal with change, listening to and respecting of all of us. By his commitment to the San Juans and his experience, Rick Hughes has earned my support, and I hope you will join me and reelect him to continue serve the entire county.
Bob, you oversimplify the reality of the moment when in your reply you say that, “the inevitability of change and development,” is one of the criteria leading to conflict regarding our current and future sense of place. It is anything but that. There’s a stark difference between what is considered to be “inevitable” change and development, and the type of change and development that we’ve been seeing promoted by the current county administration. The San Juans under promotion by the current administration has solidified it’s standing as a worldwide tourist mecca, and there is no going back.
Quality of life for many is more than just making a buck off of tourism or the housing market… it’s the quality of our environment, and the sheer beauty of our surroundings. It’s what brought us here in the first place, and we realize that once its gone it’s gone forever.
But, we do have the opportunity during this election to elect a more progressive element to the SJC County Council, to elect one who has the will to host serious unbiased discussions regarding the pain felt by locals due to the negative impacts of the over-proliferation of vacation rentals, and of over-tourism. It’s time for a change– I’m voting for Cindy Wolf.
Stating that any decision being made is being done in the interest of some profit motivation is, simply put, placing an unnecessary red herring into important conversations. If you choose to believe that this is an issue, then you are essentially arguing that any person who owns property is excluded from holding office. You are also making the preposterous assumption that an individual seeking to better their community through elected service must be doing so for personal gain. Its time to put this ridiculous argument to bed. Support the candidate you feel best suited for the job, but enough with the conspiratorial BS.
I can’t speak for the authors, but I can say that unlike some who have joined the thread, that if we are to use recent history as our guide one should not have any trouble understanding where SJC’s current growth trends are leading us. Aye, there are examples to look at everywhere. Indeed, if one does not purposefully turn their heads the other way it’s not difficult to understand the long-term negative impacts that are happening here, and happening in other communities pursuing similar growth trends… this is a road well-trod. When we study the potential end-results of the types of changes being promoted by the current administration, we gain a better understanding of the known long-term, negative implications of such policies, and in doing so we see that their track record to date clearly shows that their decision-making represents their financial interests, and the business interests of a few… more than it does the rest of us. That is, their policy making does not represent everybody as you infer when you say “serves the entire county”. Indeed, a quick glance at the decision-making of the current council to date clearly divulges that the type of growth trend that SJC has decided to pursue, with all of it’s known negative impacts, and in spite of the massive opposition shown by the local populace is clearly NOT in the best long-term interests of our communities. What we’re seeing is a failure of a long-term growth policy that reeks of a self-serving agenda.
Really? Hello… this is 2020. I might suggest to you that if there’s a red-herring in the debate that it’s in the continued false framing when one side states that there is no problem, or that the problem is only in one’s head, or that the opposition’s concerns are ridiculous, or that they’re just a bunch of environmentalists, or socialists, or we havn’t lived here as long as you have, or we don’t own as many businesses, or we’re not as big a land-owner, or tax-payer as you are, or that we don’t love the islands as much as you do… (whatever is your red-herring comment of the day). Or, as was framed above, that the basis of your opponent’s argument is one tantamount to a conspiracy theory (yawn). If you really thought that you wouldn’t have bothered to respond to the author’s original post. I find it borderline self-righteous when people hide behind their property rights as a shield (forgetting that the same laws pertaining to you pertain to the rest of us), and use the guise of property rights to lobby issues that are relative to our common good for their own personal gain. I find it borderline self-righteous that there are those in the county who expect people like me to just fall in line without our voices being heard… and they do so while at the same time claiming that their version of reality is good for everyone else. The reality is that when speaking in terms of growth & tourism in SJC today that half the equation has been, and continues to this day, to be marginalized by a small, vocal group of organized business interests in Eastsound and Friday Harbor.
The people deserve better– having serious discussions on issues of governance would include that serious thought be given to those that are in opposition to the current growth paradigm. My vote is for Cindy Wolf.