Will we need a large fig leaf for the islands?
Lets look at the CAO from a metaphorical point of view. Most of us think of our islands as living art and wish to preserve and protect it. Imagine a new Washington legislative body by the name of Citizens Art Organization or CAO. The CAO mandates how all
artwork in the state is to be preserved. One of their requirements is that all art must be kept clean and that the procedures for cleaning must be updated in writing every five years.
Now lets assume that our islands are Michelangeloʼs marble sculpture “David”. Our recent County Council took very seriously the cleaning of the sculpture and under the cloak of meeting the CAO requirements, they also decided to have its genitals removed.
When asked why this was necessary, we were told that their presence might offend somebody. When asked for evidence that somebody had been offended, we were told that they had to use the “precautionary principle”– just in case someone in the future might find the genitals offensive, they have to be removed.
The decision of the Council was quite controversial. When critically questioned about their course of action, they proceeded to talk about how simple the procedure would be and that they had hired the best “restorationist” in the world to perform the removal. They always directed the conversation away from the act that was about to take place and the consequences to the island body that it would bring with it.
In a very real sense, the recently passed CAOʼs will have a similar effect on the “charm” of the islands. Many of the buildings, landmarks, harbors, and businesses that draw people here would not be allowed under the new CAOʼs. Examples are Doe Bay
restaurant and resort, Orcas Pottery, Orcas ferry landing, the old cannery at Jackson beach, Snug Harbor, Roche harbor, San Juan County park, Shipyard Cove, Rosario Resort, Duck Soup restaurant, many small home businesses, art studios—you can all add to the list. An alternative to the fast approaching amputation is a community with Trust as its foundation. I urge all for my island neighbors to vote for a County Council that actually Trusts you. For more information: WWW.TrustIslanders.org.
Royce Meyerott/San Juan Island
**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.**
Royce: I’m not sure I get the drift of your final paragraph. You obviously want us to be afraid of the “fast approaching amputation” of “Doe Bay restaurant and resort, Orcas Pottery, Orcas ferry landing, the old cannery at Jackson beach, Snug Harbor, Roche harbor, San Juan County park, Shipyard Cove, Rosario Resort, Duck Soup restaurant, many small home businesses, art studios”. Who has proposed their “amputation”? Is it required by the CAO? Not! Please don’t propagate more of your ficticious fears.
Mr. Meyerott’s analogy and point are well-made. The point is, had the new CAO been in effect when the referenced structures were originally proposed they would have been allowed. It is the amputation of any possibility that those places or any like them can be developed and created under the new CAO.
“Who has proposed their “amputation”? Is it required by the CAO? Not! Please don’t propagate more of your ficticious fears.” I am sure no one including Mr. Meyerott, has proposed the amputation of the existing structures. With implementation of the new CAO there is no reason to believe bulldozers will be brought in to amputate the structures in question. However, it is reasonable that because of the new CAO many wonderful new structures like them will not be allowed and should fire or natural disaster render one of them unusable, under the provisions of the new CAO it would not be possible to rebuild them. That Sir, with the new CAO, will be a definite reality and is a real fear, not a fictitious one.
I may be wrong, but I believe that even if the CAO hadn’t been revised recently, the previously existing CAO, other land use and zoning laws, etc. would have prohibited such structures from being built today. I don’t think the changes to the CAO has anything to do with it. Moreover, who would really want more of the largest of these types of developments on our islands? I like all of them, but does the public really want their duplication today? I for one don’t.
Analogies require eternal vigilance — and the analogy to compare protecting our shoreline to emasculating “David” completely misses the point.
A better analogy would be the efforts to PRESERVE the “David”. And the Italians are having the same issues with preserving David as we are in preserving our natural resources. For example, the marble Michelangelo used to sculpt the David is full of microscopic holes that cause it to deteriorate faster than other marbles. Michelangelo did not know this at the time, but now that conservators know of its greater vulnerability, the statue needs to be insulated from even the vibrations of tourists footsteps.
The analogy, then, is that we did not know how vulnerable our shorelines were, but now with more recent information, we can and should take measures to PRESERVE our critical areas.
The Senior Planner made clear to Council last week that even she –the principal author of the new CAO–did not understand some of it, and in particular the “nonconforming” status changes (i.e., the extent to which new rules will apply to existing structures). Most of the candidates have acknowledged the inevitable reworking that will be needed in light of the confusion and complexity of the new CAO; one used the term “comprehensive revisions.”