To the Editor –
I was at the Shoreline Master Program visioning meeting last night [Sept. 21], and I was deeply embarrassed and concerned about the tone of voice used by some of the attendees. You may not know me, but I am your neighbor, and as such I expect neighbors to respect each other — to listen with courtesy and speak with care. What I heard last night was discourteous, careless, and disrespectful.
We may not all share the same opinions, and in a democracy that is a good thing. Differing points of view should be welcomed and considered. Each of us has a right to our opinion, but with that right comes a serious obligation: opinions should be formed after open discussion, careful thought, and thorough evaluation of all the facts of an issue.
As far as I can tell, there is no conspiracy to rob the residents of Orcas Island of our rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. If there is, please let me know. But give me a good argument to back up your opinion. I will listen to you carefully, evaluate the facts you present, and form my opinion. I expect the same respect from you.
Barbara Bentley
Eastsound
**If it wouldn’t cause you financial distress to take out a modestly-priced, voluntary subscription (HERE), you’d be doing a real service. If it would, then no worries, we’re happy to share with you.**
I thought the crowd at the meeting was pretty smart and very attentive. I think that the writer was upset because several people challenged the slide that said that Orcas (or was it Eastsound) represents “intensive development” or the comment that bedrock isn’t impervious — at a certain point, it became easier to laugh than to continue to worry that the folks presenting the “information” have the future of our islands in their hands.
The term “intensive development” was not the best descriptor and “concentrated development” would have been more accurate for the point, which was that the San Juan County shores tend to be relatively undeveloped with development concentrated in specific areas such as Olga or Eastsound. The comparison was made to Kitsap County where, overall, shores are developed at similar density with few concentrated areas of development. Dr. Parsons also was not saying that bedrock is not impervious. He was saying that bedrock was not included in the impervious area statistic he provided. That included only human made impervious area. People who were listening rather than laughing likely understood this.
I also felt that many in the audience were disrespectful and disruptive. As a result we all spent three hours we could have spent with our families but provided very little insight to guide a future vision for our shorelines or any constructive feedback on how the existing regulations that are not working well for people or habitat could be made to better serve both. We heard loud and clear that shoreline landowners want to be able to rebuild a damaged home along the shoreline – good idea- let’s make sure it gets into the update. But it would have been nice to also spend some time on a broader vision for our local shorelines than the development rights of those fortunate enough to own shoreline property here- such as safe and abundant local seafood, thriving marine-based businesses, public access to shorelines, view preservation, sense of place and the protection of marine life.
As for the statistic that included only human made impervious area–NO, the people who were listening ASKED THE QUESTION. Specifically, IIRC, if he had ever been to the part of Orcas that he was describing because it was almost all bedrock, and the small percentage he was quoting didn’t make sense. As for “constructive feedback” on how the existing regulations that are not working well for people or habitat could be made to better serve both, what I heard was people asking, during and after the lengthy exercise, “In what way are our existing regulations not working?” The consulting firms (Ms. Azous) and the Friends of the San Juans (Ms. Whitman) have full-time paid staff to further their agendas. The homeowners and taxpayers are on their own.
Peg, please read my original letter again.
I was commenting on the rude behavior of “some of the attendees” not a “crowd” I was also commenting on rude behavior, not the intelligence of the participants. Many of the participants were (and are) smart and attentive, but some were behaving badly.
Finally, my response was not to an impervious surface argument, but rather to the rude man who stood up and demanded (shouted) “where are the data?? where are the peer reviewed papers??”
Since I had read the document, I knew (and still know) that the data and documents are in the report. If that man had taken the time to read the document BEFORE he shouted at the “crowd”, we would all be in a better place.
The County web page has all the reports and documents on line. Check out http://www.co.san-juan.wa.us/smp/smpdocs.aspx.
You can also find some really good information on the “Living Along the Shorelines” tab on the County home page (google “San Juan County WA”.
As I said in my letter, “Each of us has a right to our opinion, but with that right comes a serious obligation: opinions should be formed after open discussion, careful thought, and thorough evaluation of all the facts of an issue.”
I expect the same respect from you.
Well said, Barbara
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the Shoreline “visioning” meeting as planned. Accordingly I cannot respond to the behavior of the attendees. The behavior a a few, however, should not discredit the intent of the majority.
I do not know about big-brother conspiracy, but I do know about government – – federal, state and particularly local. I do know how “vision” comments are often solicited, then cherry-picked to support preconceived conclusions. I know that the holder of all the information is empowered over those who only have partial information. And, I know that processes are not always transparent and that staff are not always accountable.
I am not suggesting that this process is afflicted with those vices, but I do know that it takes a vigilant citizenry to insure they do not intrude into what must be an honest, open, transparent and accountable process. This holds true regarding local government, and for organizations, with their own agendas, as well.
I am the person who asked about the seeming low figure for impervious surface along our shorelines. I was satisfied with the answer that it only included man-made impervious surfaces. I completely agree that the level of discourse was uncivil at times. People need to read the actual CAO and SMP documents before they just react with fear. One point of agreement that I noted was most people want to retain the esthetic setbacks of 50 feet for homes with screening by trees and a 100 foot setback for homes without trees between the shoreline and the home.
Response to Nelson Rios;
There are hundreds and hundreds of Best Available Science documents. I suggest you read them and in doing so, look for what the majority of them say, especially about the Puget Sound area. Read the Sea Doc Site. Puget Sound is a place unlike any other, and is part of the rich chain of life we are fortunate enough to enjoy here in the San Juans, but one thing keeps being missed in these discussions on CAO areas. What we do upland flows downhill into the sea. It’s all interconnected and if we don’t steward the lands and waters which brought many of us here, everybody and everything loses.
Rudeness, shouting, intimidation tactics, scorn, sarcasm, bullying, veiled threats, interruptions when someone else is speaking, derisive laughter, and fear-mongering have no place in a public meeting — and this type of behavior must stop. Also, frightening and angering the citizenry with misinformation and twisted truths divides us all and makes intelligent discourse impossible.
I am one of those people who are probably being labeled as disrespectful by Ms. Bentley. She correctly indicates that we all have a right to our own opinion. Mine differs from hers but so be it.
Having had previous experience with the “we know what is best for you” attitude of the County and Department of Ecology (and their paid consultants) I have a good reason to fear what they are moving towards in the county. Even worse, the consultants admitted to me that they are using the Friends of the San Juans as a data resource. We know from the past that the County has had a cozy relationship with this special interest group. Whether that is because they support the Friends or fear another one of their lawsuits is unclear.
It was interesting that the consultant acting as moderator tried to shutdown discussion every time it became controversial. On one hand we are told the County wants to know how we feel but on the other hand, when we are not acting like docile cattle, being herded to our destiny, we get shutdown.
I applaud those who attended and spoke their concerns with passion and energy. I may like beef but I do not enjoy being herded like cattle.
Sadie:
I am in full agreement with what you wrote. In fact, because of what you wrote, transparency and accountability are evermore necessary. The results of this process must reflect the will of the residents.
I would be particularly interested in how “vision” statements differ from island to island. Because the vision of San Juan island residents is likely to differ from the vision of Shaw residents, it would be instructive to capture and report these differences before determining a “one size fits all” approach.
Agree with Nelson Rios that a “one size fits all” model doesn’t fit. I think many of us are in agreement about at least some things, but the danger lies when we make assumptions about each other without checking the facts or dialoguing with the “accused.”
One thing I am tired of and yes, frightened of, are words bandied about like Don Webster’s assumption of a “cozy relationship” between the County and the Friends of the San Juans. Language carries weight, power, and influence. Suggestive and assumptive words spread like a cancer, implicating and causing polarity and divisiveness, when there is no factual evidence for these accusations.
This is the type of thing we all need to be vigilant to watch for in our own conduct behaviors. They don’t promote listening or dialogue, when we (based on my own experience with my own passions and prejudices) when we run with our emotions, we stop listening to each other. That’s deadly for any kind of collective process.
Reply to Don Webster
Yes, the Friends of the San Juans are one – of many – sources of information about the shorelines of San Juan County. You should have known that from reading the SMP Characterization document — the information is openly available so you don’t need to get anyone to “admit” it.
Check out the Friends web page at https://www.sanjuans.org/NearshoreStudies.htm and you can read their data for yourself. I think you’ll be impressed.
For example, in their report on forage fish habitat, you will be able to see that more than 75 citizen volunteers contributed more than a 1080 hours to the project, and more than 100 shoreline landowners actively participated in the survey.
In addition, if you are concerned about the quality of the data, check out the protocols and resulting maps. You may have useful expertise to contribute to our understanding of the data.
I look forward to your thoughtful reply.
Unfortunately, I’ve read the CAO and SMP documents–including the existing rules, the consultant reports, the “BAS” and the proposed CAO rules, the staff reports and much more. I’m still looking for the peer-reviewed documents that support the notion that our existing rules do not protect the critical areas and the shoreline. Peer-reviewed science–not government agency directives, not interest groups’ “studies,” not “grey literature”–but peer-reviewed science. I too recommend that islanders read the documents, especially the consultant reports. Look in particular for simple declarative sentences.
Peg, unfortunately we don’t have peer reviewed local science because we have been dragging our feet on the CAO for twenty years, so the grants that could have helped fund our local BAS never came – we didn’t qualify because we’re not GMA compliant and we’re stuck with the GMA model, thanks to the commissioners who chose that route rather than the alternative presented.