The polarization of opinion here has reached a fever pitch which is threatening the future of the San Juan Islands. There are environment concerns which are bitterly opposed by property right advocates. This division exists nationally.
On the national scene this division in reflected by short term interests of corporations looking at immediate concerns with next quarter’s profits as opposed to long term sustainable growth. Thanks to the Citizen’s United Supreme Court 5-4 ruling money is speech and a few corporate interests such as the Koch brothers Freedom Foundation can drown out the voices of most Americans.
What is worse they can use the threat of lawsuits to intimidate such as the Common Sense Alliance lawsuits against Council members who for voted for charter reform. The majority of voters wanted charter reform but by filing lawsuits and running up legal costs, the minority anti- environmental forces here are seeking to overcome the votes of the pro-environmental majority by threats.
We have to let them know we will not be intimidated and will defend the fragile and beautiful environment of the San Juan Islands. What is next, lawsuits against individuals who express their views in the local newspaper?
Rick Steinhardt
I am writing to correct several misstatements in the letter from Rick Steinhardt (2-14-13) and to challenge his fundamental premise. Mr. Steinhardt appears to believe that islanders must fit into one of two fixed camps: 1) esteemed protectors of our environment fighting to bring the islands back to their pre-european conditions (his camp, which I assume do not build houses, drive cars, or keep boats) or 2) and the greedy, selfish “development” forces, raping and pillaging the land (the rest of us, apparently people who took their savings, bought land and paid taxes, thinking that they would build a home for family or retirement; of course, the only “developers” we have had are groups like OPAL.)
Instead, I see the overwhelming majority of islanders respecting and caring for the land, with perhaps a few eco-hysterics on one end of the spectrum and a few die-hard property rights supporters on the other. For the most part, the balance seem to rest in the middle, with those of us trying to live our lives and while maintaining the balance between protecting our islands while protecting our neighbors’ plans and expectations.
Mr. Steinhardt is quite wrong about the lawsuits he describes, however. The Friends of the San Juans and the Common Sense Alliance have each taken an appeal from the critical areas ordinance, challenging its compliance with the law. These administrative appeals have nothing to do with the Charter.
The lawsuit filed about the Charter issues are quite separate, brought by three citizens, not groups, and challenging the constitutionality of the disproportionate role of Lopez voters in County elections under the revised Charter. The Council members were not sued, but the Prosecuting Attorney demanded that they be added as necessary parties. It is also important to point out that the Charter changes were voted down on Orcas and on San Juan Island.
Finally, the lawsuit that does name three Council people (including current candidate Lovel Pratt) complains of violations of the Open Meetings Act and the Growth Management Act in secret meetings conducted about aspects of the CAO. That lawsuit is being pursued by CAPR.
There are no “threats” or “intimidation.” These appeals and law suits are the legal process that the law provides for the resolution of important community issues.
Correction to Ms. Manning’s comment, “Charter changes were voted down on Orcas and on San Juan Island.”
In fact, all three Charter changes were approved by voters on San Juan Island.
Orcas Island voters approved Propositions 2 and 3, while rejecting only proposition 1.
Review election results by precinct to do the math.
Sorry, Ms. Ponder is correct that San Juan approved the Charter changes, albeit by a small margin, whereas Lopez approved it by a large margin. Orcas rejected Prop. 1, which is the key provision concerning voting. Due to the way that the propositions were presented, all three must be reviewed together.
Well said, Peg! One more small correction. The Charter changes do not have to be reviewed together. In fact, Prop. 3 (open subcommittee meetings) is not being challenged in the litigation.
Oops. Yes it is. I thought Prop. 3 (which passed everywhere, by the way) had been knocked out of the suit. My bad.
I don’t think you will be able to bridge your “great divide” with smoke, at least, to any good use. I would like to assert that I can be with you and the righteous environmentally, while being, apparently, completely with the wrong about the charter makeover. Let’s see … I agree with your excellent point that, constitutionally, money should NOT be speech.
Moana, I’m sure we mostly agree here, but, shouldn’t the principle behind prop. III be paramount, and so fundamental that it goes without saying? It seemed a little bush-league to me to reaffirm locally what is clearly the law of the land anyway through the Open Public Meetings act: as though we could lawfully conduct ourselves otherwise. I think the press was the right spot for this, not cluttering the ballot box.
“There is enough in the World for Everyone’s Need, but not for Everyone’s Greed.”
-Ghandi
Or put another way:
In a finite world, when One takes more than their share, everyone else has less.
That is why over 1/4 of Humanity lives on less than $2 per day.
This is the most fundamental moral issue that all of us must face:
Are We Altruistic or Individualistic?
Do you make decisions for the whole or for ourselves?
If humanity wants to uplift itself from its’ destructive path, we need to start thinking about the Whole.
This does not mean the environmentalists get to take over all the property. Rights to property and privacy are key to our social structure. It simply means that each individual needs to look within and take to heart that we are all in this together, and if we don’t do some huge direction changes, and fast, the world we know and love will be gone, this is happening already. SO, lets unite and move forward towards Peace, Prosperity, and Health and Happiness for All! including Future Generations, without cutting all the trees down and poisoning all the water..
Ian – We probably do agree on most things. Unfortunately the Charter Review Commission felt that Prop. 3 was necessary because the 6-person Council had held subcommittee meetings that were not publicly noticed, and which are now the subject of a lawsuit. The Prosecuting Attorney initially advised the Council that subcommittee meetings did not need to be public, but later did more research and changed his advice. The CRC felt, as you do, that this was very important and should be spelled out quite clearly in the Charter.
There is a reason they have horse races, its call “a difference of opinion.”
And here we go. Sometimes there is obvious compromise and sometimes not. When there is not, you get to go to court. Then you hope that your attorney has a clue and/or knows a lot more than the other attorney. The attorney that knows the most and gets the best results probably charges the most. If someone is willing to pay him for that knowledge and those results, then the payer will probably win the day, but not always.
As to Mr. Verbano’s position, well sir, there is a reason why “individualism” has always been the successful path and forced “altruism” on the global scale or for that matter even on a local scale always failed. Personally I think Darwin had the big picture wrong, but when it comes to survival instincts and survival of the fittest he and his like have it right. The incentive to survive creates the incentive to produce. If there is no incentive to produce, then far too many will not. If far too many do not, then those that do will tire quickly of their produce going to them that do not. “Altruism” on the grand scale does not work. Only, “altruism” by the individual will work and that only through the free will of the individual. It is absolutely not possible to force “altruism” on the individual or the masses.
Can I click LIKE on Mr. Don Pencil’s comment? Ok, thanks!
LIKE
Individualism and Community will be presentation at Unitarian fellowship this Sunday, Feb 24th, 11:00 am at Westsound Com. Hall.