As someone concerned about protecting the islands from detrimental development, I am perplexed by a recent Council appointment. At the first opportunity to appoint someone to the Planning Commission, this new Council’s choice was a prominent spokesperson and attorney for the Common Sense Alliance (CSA), their Vice President, Tim Blanchard.
Yes, it is difficult to find people willing to serve on any advisory body, with its demands of time and energy. But the announcement of an open position only appeared on the county website and in December only.
Now, with Mr. Blanchard’s appointment, three of the 9 member commission are officers or board members of the CSA. That has me concerned. A single board member of a land-use advocacy group would not be remarkable. However, three CSA Board Members on a commission closely involved in land-use issues seems unusual at the very least, particularly when the CSA is in active litigation against the county.
Having one third of the PC composed of people who are suing the county does not seem sensible, transparent, or accountable. With the PC soon working on our Shoreline Master Program, to which these 3 members likely have strong objections, can we then trust the PC to make responsive, appropriate recommendations to the Council?
The Council needs to assure citizens and advocacy groups of their ability to be publicly heard and their concerns recognized. Advocacy is accommodated in public hearings; it should not be imbedded within this Commission formally charged with advising the County.
Disappointed and puzzled by the Council’s appointment, I fear that the PC’s advice to Council will not reflect the concerns of our citizenry, but rather the desires of one small, well-funded group. Let’s hope this appointment and the way it was orchestrated was only poor judgment and not a politically motivated decision.
BA Keller
Lopez Island
You think this is about detrimental development?
I think the horse is well flogged on the above argument and adequately debunked at this stage. He was nominated and voted fairly and consistent with prior nominations. Let’s move on…
If it was actually possible to find 9 islanders to serve on the Planning Commission who were a blank slate on the purpose and role of planning in San Juan County I doubt anyone would want them to to serve.
With Mr. Blanchard appointed to the Planning Commission the “balance” of points of view is unchanged. Four members generally believe islanders need closer supervision and more regulation by the County. Three seem to have solid common sense and are aware of the concerns of our citizens about rules and regulations. Two tend to error on the side of “center/left” on issues.
The idea that one could find 9 thoughtful islanders who are a blank slate and do not have an opinion on land use, government regulations, property rights or environmental protection is silly.
Mr. Evans misses the point. It’s about balance, not whether candidates are a “blank slate”. Three members who are suing the County is not balance no matter how he spins it.
It’s also about the opaque nature of Mr. Blanchard’s appointment. The Council didn’t even include the vote in its agenda for the day.
My memory may be faulty, but didn’t Mr. Evans help block the appointment to the PC many years ago of a donor to Friends?
It’s not illegal to sit on a council appointed board or committee with one or a carload of interest conflicts. It is illegal to use any one of them to influence actions by the board or committee on which you sit. Everybody has conflicts.
Concerns are expressed only when the makeup of the Planning Commission is not 100% of the usual suspects. Having three CSA members will not overpower or offset the work of the block of five Friends and friends of friends who have been seated on the PC forever. Change is hard. Not getting your own way is disappointing. This appointment however was perfectly noticed considered and approved.