|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 12/13/2007
Posts: 108
Location: Bellingham
|
At the moment, I have no strong opinion one way or the other regarding this issue, mostly because I just haven't read enough about it, but knowing there are strong advocacy groups for and against it, I'm very interested in what others are thinking. Please, feel free to lay your views out here.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 139
Location: Zeta Reticuli
|
This may create an extra layer of government that could be run by unelected administrators and create a taxation district that bites into both Skagit and Whatcom County. Skagit County residents are in a geographical minority and although it appears that most are opposed to the Idea, they won't have enough votes to stop what residents in SW Whatcom are trying to push through. That's what I understand so far.
You better laugh at yourself, Everyone else is. www.parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/10/2008
Posts: 5
|
The Chuckanut Mountains Park District proposal would definitely be another layer of government, and that is a fact. If you really want to educate yourselves, get online and look up RCW 35.61. This site will give you ALL of the rules, regulations, laws, and powers given to an elected 5-member board and these people will be salaried.
The 5 commissioners have the power to hire people who will be considered government employees with the same benefits. They have the power to tax the people within the park district through ADDITIONAL permanent property taxes of $.25 to $.75 per $1,000 property assessment, along with invoking bonds for additional income, all paid for by the park taxpayers. They obviously won't start at $.25 because of the 1%/year rule.
Again, these monies will be coming ONLY from the property owners within the park district, while the area would be open to all at no CHARGE.
They have the power to build facilities for administrative offices, and any other facility that will support tourists, including trails through ones property.
They have the power of eminent domain, which is the real threat. The proponents say it will never be used, but the law is there in any case, and how do they know it will never be used. The proponents have no control over the elected commissioners, at least not officially.
If one took the time to read the Growth Management Act and looked at the zoning, and looked at what many people have already done in the way of preserving this area, particularly in Skagit County, then one would be educated and see that this proposal is an insult and goes against the GMA. Many of the folks who own acreage within this proposal have been stewards of the land for decades, but none of the proponents is willing to acknowledge that.
I have followed the activities of many of the proponents for the past year, and I am appaled at the gross misrepresentation done by a few of them. The harder they get challenged and pushed by the opposition, the more underhanded and subversive they get. A few of these people are self-centered and arrogant, and they have not been running an honest game. Look at all the various so-called conservation groups and you will see the same names associated with these various groups. They are persistant. They have been trying for decades to accomplish their goal of using this land for their desires, yet they have not succeeded - why?
The CMPD group has lost many battles, but yet they persist, wasting everyones time, money and energy. There has been so much opposition to this proposal, yet they still haven't gotten the message. Their proposal was denied and shut down at the Skagit Boundary Review Board, their requested injunction to tie the hands of the Whatcom Boundary Review Board from doing their job was denied in Whatcom Superior Court, they were told that they had to pay for the environmental study for which they have yet to acknowledge, and many, many, many letters of opposition have been sent to the Whatcom BRB in opposition; yet they still persist.
IF, they had done things right, i.e. submitting an application that included the environmental study and had played by game rules, this issue probably would have made the ballot last November, but they didn't. They want YOU to pay for the environmental study, thousands of dollars worth of an incredibly complicated study, for which the government of Whatcom denied the funds.
On a side note, the Whatcom BRB put out a request for contractors to bid on doing this environmental study, and no one has accepted this challenge because it is "too big". All of this can be corroborated by calling the Whatcom Boundary Review Board.
Folks, we are talking about a 66.5 square mile project that encompasses two counties with boundaries that have not been clarified. You can't get any more insane than that.
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 276
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
lesbraun, Welcome to Eye on Whatcom, and thank you for your informed and informative post. Like Flat Tire who started this thread back in January, I just have not studied this issue deeply enough to have posted intelligently about it, so it is good to have your input. One thing you noted that I did not know, is that the five member board would be a salaried board of government employees. This sounds almost like they are creating a new county within Whatcom and Skagit counties. Once again, thank you for registering, logging in, and reviving this thread. It is timely and relevant. 
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 36
Location: Bellingham
|
Isn't it just the Chuckanut Ridge anti-development people trying to take our money to purchase the Edelstein/Horizon property?  Or is that a separate issue?  I thought I heard that somewhere.
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 276
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
That's part of the issue, but this as a much larger issue. This would create a whole new bureaucracy, with taxing authority and a whole passel of other powers (eminent domain) that are a little disconcerting. There was a decent editorial in the Herald recently on this issue. Check it here.
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/10/2008
Posts: 5
|
DJGray: I thank you for your comments. The issues are many, but what I stated are the important ones. In answer to your question, in June of 2005, four people (Robert Tull, Frank James, Dana Lyons and Larry Horowitz) met with then Mayor Asmundson regarding the Chuckanut Ridge property (now known as Fairhaven Highlands). They wanted the City of Bellingham to buy the property and turn it into a park. The Mayor said that the city could not justify the cost, but he had another suggestion. There was legislation that would allow the formation of a Metropolitan Park District, RCW 35.61. They looked it up, gathered some people, found they could form a park district by citizen petition (2002 amendment) and here we are today. The Fairhaven Highlands is 84 acres and I heard that Edelstein said he would sell it for $24 million, or somewhere in that neighborhood. Though the original intent of this CMPD was geared toward the purchase of this property, there is no way in God's country the CMPD could raise that kind of money AND run this District at the same time. It would take years to accummulate that kind of money, if it is even possible. As this thing developed, other interests came into play. They started pushing "tourism" as a means to bring in money (for the CMPD or for the businesses in the community??), along with conservation. Tourism does not go hand in hand with conservation. As one person put it, if it is really conservation you are after, then close the area to everyone! One of the promoters makes his living developing trails. Makes you kind of suspicious, doesn't it. Then it was to "stop the logging". It just mushroomed out of proportion. Yes, this would be an independent governing body, accountable to no one. By law, the 5 commissioners would be paid $$70 for each day devoted to the business of the district, not to exceed $6,725 per year. The employees they hire would be Civil Service employees, entitled to civil service benefits (government). And guess who pays for their salaries - the people who live within the park district. The original legislation was intended for citizens of cities to develop a neighborhood park for the enjoyment of the neighborhood. The land would be within the city limits. This law was never intended to span two counties, encompass multiple jurisdictions and services, and combine densely populated areas with rural and agricultural land. The two major issues again are taxes and eminent domain, two of the scariest issues for people today. If you own property, you know what I am talking about. I live at the base of Blanchard Mountain, and I have friends who live up on Chuckanut Mountain. We are all in line to have property taken for trail systems or used for other purposes. And, we are so heavily taxed now on our properties, one more penny out of our pockets would literally put some of my neighbors in the "bread line". I kid you not. Some of these folks have been here for years, they have a huge investment in their property, but are living on fixed incomes. So I fight on. I am hoping that this will all come to a head next Thursday at the Whatcom BRB. The meeting is at 7:00 p.m. at the Whatcom Council Chambers. Come and listen and get informed. For really good, concise and correct information, please visit www.northsoundconservancy.org and read the information on this site. It will truly enlighten you.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 36
Location: Bellingham
|
Quote:to develop a neighborhood park for the enjoyment of the neighborhood. The land would be within the city limits Sounds like Chuckanut Ridge proponents to me.
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 276
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Andy Stimkin wrote:Quote:to develop a neighborhood park for the enjoyment of the neighborhood. The land would be within the city limits Sounds like Chuckanut Ridge proponents to me. Well, like I said above, that is part of it. But this extends well beyond just that 88 acres. We're talking about almost 70 square miles here, Andy, and it extends well beyond the ridge.
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/11/2008
Posts: 11
Location: Rural WA
|
The CMPD proponents don't really want to save the environment or they would keep this "Gem of an Area" hidden and traffic off of the environment, not add more people to it. What they really want is apparent if you look at what they actually plan to do. Read their "plans" and it is crystal clear that they are budding tourism & recreation promoters with personal stakes in the game, all very thinly veiled as pseudo-conservation and pseudo-science. I have read every word of these "plans" and they are not science, they are primarily marketing pieces to promote the area for tourism. The reasons why this may be also comes to light when folks look a little closer at the authors & coauthors of these plans. Their concept is inherently eco-socialism by definition and design; they are NOT the "voice of the people", no matter how many times they say so. Several of the key players pushing for this CMPD thing are in the trail building business, in the tour & guide book business, and in the management & wildlife plan writing business.
In fact, their plans are designed to do the opposite of what is good for the land, whether it is around Chuckanut, around Blanchard, or around any other part of the other thousands of acres caught up in this CMPD proposal.
These guys are primarily recreationists, not conservationists, that want free access to a 66.5 square mile personal playground. They want to expand their access to that vast area for their personal recreational activities and have the local residents foot the bill for all of their playtime. The taxes they talk about to do that are not modest, especially for many folks already trying to make ends meet. These taxes would not be temporary like the Greenways levies; they would be permanent taxes.
My family is on a fixed income, and our taxes are already tough to meet. The added threat of eminent domain and easements for tourists to traipse across our properties and the fragile environment in the area made many of our friends and neighbors rise up and speak out against this eco-socialistic idea for the CMPD players to have free access to our properties. The DNR and the Parks & Recs Departments are already doing a good job in caring for the public lands. There currently are 19 parks and recreation areas in the proposed CMPD boundaries now, so you can see why it is ludicrous for untrained, poorly prepared people to come in and take control over 66 square miles. No wonder so many people, especially the rural ones around Blanchard Forest & Chuckanut Mountain are outraged too and are saying, "NO” to this lunacy. No wonder the Skagit Boundary Review Board denied their proposal two months ago. No wonder all of the fire districts and Skagit County Sheriff said "NO". No wonder so many more service districts, agencies, neighborhood associations, and even local businesses said, NO".
No wonder the parks departments, the DNR, and the Upper Skagit Tribe said, "No". In fact almost 40 organizations, service districts, and businesses have weighed in so far and said "NO". Guys, this is just a bad deal for our area all the way around. Please spread the word and help citizens become better informed about this sorry CMPD plan and stop it. Take a look at the following list of Powers and Functions of a Metropolitan Park District to see what could happen to our area if these people are permitted to take control: Metropolitan Park Districthttp://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Parks/SPD-MPD.aspxFunction and Powers of Metropolitan Park District - List of District's Powers• May purchase, acquire and condemn lands within or without the boundaries of park district. • May issue and sell warrants, short- term obligations, or general obligation bonds. • May issue revenue bonds. • Can petition for the creation of local improvement districts. • May employ counsel, provide for park police officers, secretary of the board, and all necessary employees. • May establish civil service for employees. • Has power to regulate, manage and control, improve, acquire, extend and maintain, open and lay out, parks, parkways, boulevards, avenues, aviation landings and playgrounds, within or without the park district. • Has power to authorize: o conduct and manage the letting of boats, or other amusement apparatus, o the operation of bath houses, o the purchase and sale of foodstuffs or other merchandise, o the giving of vocal or instrumental concerts or other entertainments, o the management and conduct of such forms of recreation or business as it shall judge desirable or beneficial for the public, or for the production of revenue for expenditure for park purposes. • May sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of surplus property. • Can annex territory.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 12/13/2007
Posts: 108
Location: Bellingham
|
Forest wrote:
• May purchase, acquire and condemn lands within or without the boundaries of park district.
Whoa now! "within OR without" the boundaries? Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but that sounds like control of the district board extends beyond the borders of their taxing district. So, these folks could condemn land that isn't even inside the 66 square miles that is supposedly under their control? If I'm reading that correctly, then this bad idea just got a whole lot worse!
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/11/2008
Posts: 11
Location: Rural WA
|
You are reading correctly. You can see why so many folks think this is a VERY bad deal. If this goes in place, it can sprout arms like an octopus and capture more. The worst part is, the guys trying to gain control have had dreams of controlling the area for a very long time. This is NOT just a friendly little "lets save the Chuckanuts" venture like they try to have people believe.
I think you will find this next bit of information quite interesting too.
This following transcript from a speech that was given April 1, 2008 at a meeting in Bellingham about the CMPD from a state legislature representative that had worked on the amendments in 2002 that allowed the CMPD guys to attempt this proposal in this form. You can see that clearly, the legislature did not foresee someone misusing the intent of the Metropolitan Park District legislature this way. Read below.
Steve Van Luven 1April 2008 Lairmont Manor Metropolitan Park District Speech:
My name is Steve Van Luven. I live on Samish Island.
Between 1983 and 2003 I served almost 18 years in the Washington State House of Representatives. My district was Bellevue, Redmond & Kirkland. I served 7 years as Chairman of The House Trade & Economic Development Committee.
My family’s history goes back 120 years in Whatcom County and almost 80 years on Samish Island. I was born in Bellingham and came to Samish Island just a week after my birth.
Everyday I awake, I look across Samish Bay at the Chuckanut Mountains. This possibly is the only place in the 48 states where the mountains rise right out of the sea. These mountains have been a part of my life since birth.
When I first heard of the Chuckanut Mountain Park District proposal, I was shocked. That is because this proposal, I believe, goes beyond the original legislative intent of what a Metropolitan Park District is and what it can do.
I was one of the most knowledgeable legislators about Metropolitan Park districts at the time since I had previously worked on the issue for several years when changes in the law were needed.
In the last few weeks, I had learned much more about this legislation than any legislator was aware of before because of the Chuckanut Mountains Park District proposal. If legislators really understood the powers of a park district and its potential for abuse and disruption of peoples lives that the legislators would be shocked and up in arms and would demand changes in the current law.
This law has never been abused previously and never has created problems in communities before. The current group of supporters is splitting neighbors, friends and communities. Parks should bring people together not divide them.
The proponents behind this proposal have seen a very creative opportunity to utilize current laws and are taking advantage of a distortion of original legislative intent for what a Metropolitan Park District actually is.
I cannot speak authoritatively as to the original legislative intent in 1905, when they created the first Metropolitan Park District in Tacoma. I can tell you that in all the years that I was involved in Olympia and my years of supporting the Tacoma Metropolitan Park District, that neither I nor other legislators considered the creation of a Metropolitan Park District on the top of two mountains far from population.
Over the years laws change and often original legislative intent is forgotten. Remember, just because the legislature passes or changes a law does not mean it is right or even good. It just means it got 50% of the vote.
Do you think many years ago that the original legislators envisioned a Metropolitan park district on two mountains half way between Bellingham and Mount Vernon?
What is a Metropolitan Park District?
MPD’s can be created for the management, control, improvement, maintenance & acquisition of:
Original law = parks, parkways & boulevards
New law = the parks, parkways, & boulevards AND recreational facilities - it also may include territory in portions or all of one or more cities & counties.
The vote went as follows for the 2002 MPD amendments:
Substitute House Bill (SHB) 2557, 12February 2002
Originally voted out of the House Yes - 76, No - 21.
I voted No.
The Senate voted on the bill and it was Yes - 26, No - 20
The Senate amended the bill and it went back to the House and it passed Yes - 84, No - 10,
I voted Yes. I have no recollection of this bill.
There was no testimony against the bill.
There was unanimous support from Local Parks & Recreation Maintenance & Operations Task Force.
The Legislative Task force on Local Parks & Recreation Maintenance & Operations recommended in its report to the Legislature that the law governing metropolitan park districts be amended to make it easier for these districts to be formed, including allowing combinations of cities, counties or cities and counties to form them. The task force also recommended that the governing structure of these districts be amended to provide more flexibility.
Comments were that many communities were awaiting this legislation.
Testifying in Favor: Cities of Aberdeen, Longview, Kelso, Assoc. of Realtors, Wash. Parks & Recreation Assoc., Earl Dierking of Skagit Parks & Recreation.
There was no drafting of legislation re: this issue in the 2007 or 2008 sessions.
MPD is the only method that a park may be formed by citizen petition
MPD have the power of Eminent Domain.
RCW 35.61.130 Eminent domain — Park commissioners' authority, generally — Prospective staff screening.
(1) A metropolitan park district has the right of eminent domain, and may purchase, acquire and condemn lands lying within or without the boundaries of said park district, for public parks, parkways, boulevards, aviation landings and playgrounds, and may condemn such lands to widen, alter and extend streets, avenues, boulevards, parkways, aviation landings and playgrounds, to enlarge and extend existing parks, and to acquire lands for the establishment of new parks, boulevards, parkways, aviation landings and playgrounds. The right of eminent domain shall be exercised and instituted pursuant to resolution of the board of park commissioners and conducted in the same manner and under the same procedure as is or may be provided by law for the exercise of the power of eminent domain by incorporated cities and towns of the state of Washington in the acquisition of property rights: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, Funds to pay for condemnation allowed by this section shall be raised only as specified in this chapter.
This proposed park district would have taxing authority.
Local government groups such as schools, hospitals, fire districts, diking districts and ports will all get less in tax revenues if this proposal passes. This is due to the fact that there are limits as to how much local government bodies can increase taxes. As you add one more taxing entity all of the others will get a decrease in the amounts they can actually receive.
RCW 35.61.100 Indebtedness limit — Without popular vote.
Every metropolitan park district through its board of commissioners may contract indebtedness and evidence such indebtedness by the issuance and sale of warrants, short-term obligations as provided by chapter 39.50 RCW, or general obligation bonds, for park, boulevard, aviation landings, playgrounds, and parkway purposes, and the extension and maintenance thereof, not exceeding, together with all other outstanding nonvoter approved general indebtedness, one-quarter of one percent of the value of the taxable property in such metropolitan park district, as the term "value of the taxable property" is defined in RCW 39.36.015. General obligation bonds shall not be issued with a maximum term in excess of twenty years. Such general obligation bonds shall be issued and sold in accordance with chapter 39.46 RCW.
RCW 35.61.110 Indebtedness limit — With popular vote.
Every metropolitan park district may contract indebtedness not exceeding in amount, together with existing voter-approved indebtedness and nonvoter-approved indebtedness, equal to two and one-half percent of the value of the taxable property in said district, as the term "value of the taxable property" is defined in RCW 39.36.015, whenever three-fifths of the voters voting at an election held in the metropolitan park district assent thereto; the election may be either a special or a general election, and the park commissioners of the metropolitan park district may cause the question of incurring such indebtedness, and issuing negotiable bonds of such metropolitan park district, to be submitted to the qualified voters of the district at any time.
Parks are About Families
Parks are about families, having fun, enjoying nature and exercising and relaxing.
Parks should not be contentious.
Parks should never cause neighbors and friends to fight.
This attempt at a park district has scared people to death. People are afraid of losing their property, either from eminent domain and the taking of their property by the government or by losing their property because of high property taxes.
Yes, some of these people can afford the tax but that doesn’t mean they want to or should have to pay a new tax so outsiders can come and play in their back yard. Many people cannot afford more taxes. Some of the people in this room are barely hanging on now and some are afraid of losing their homes or farms.
At this time Skagit is out of the equation, but with the attitude of the proponents that I have thus far seen they will be back and they will try to get us again.
One thing I often reminded other legislators about is to remember that the other side is not the enemy, they are the opposition on this issue. Tomorrow is another day and we may all be working together on a new issue.
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 276
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
I believe Steve will be speaking at the Boundary Review Board Thursday evening. It should be an interesting presentation.
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/10/2008
Posts: 5
|
I hope you have all heard by now that the Whatcom Boundary Review Board struck down the CMPD proposal based on lack of information and the unwillingness of the CMPD Advisory Group to comply with various requests for information. The group also failed to comply with the request to submit a letter to the BRB for guarantee of payment for having the SEPA study done. It's truly a puzzle to me as to why they dropped the ball, although I am not crying tears over this. I might note also that the three key players in all of this - Ken Wilcox, Gerry Wilbur, and Frank Eventoff - did not attend the BRB meeting. Why? On May 22, the BRB will be meeting once again for a 15-minute session to sign the papers formally rejecting this proposal. From that point, the CMPD people have 30 days to file an appeal. Will they? No one knows. At this point, it would be fruitless. We will be vigilant about keeping an eye on this.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/11/2008
Posts: 11
Location: Rural WA
|
Subject: Skagit County Superior Court signs agreed order finding petition to form Chuckanut Mountains Park District is insufficient as a matter of law PRESS RELEASE For Immediate Release: July 30, 2008Skagit County Superior Court signs agreed order finding petition to form Chuckanut Mountains Park District is insufficient as a matter of law SKAGIT COUNTY - On Friday, July 25, 2008, the Skagit County Superior Court signed an agreed order finding that the petition to form the Chuckanut Mountains Park District in Whatcom and Skagit Counties is insufficient as a matter of law. The ruling comes as the result of similar, separate lawsuits filed by the North Sound Conservancy and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe. The order holds that the petition, which was prepared by the Chuckanut Mountains Park Advisory Committee, provided three conflicting descriptions of the proposed park district and included federal trust land belonging to the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe in the proposed park district. Such land is not eligible for inclusion in a metropolitan park district under Washington law. The discrepancies are such that a court could not conclude what boundary the signee of the petition had intended, nor could a legal initiative be drafted for the election ballot therefore the petition is insufficient as a matter of law. The court remanded the matter back to the Skagit County and Whatcom County Auditors for further action consistent with the order. Given the decision that the Advisory Committee failed to include an accurate legal description in the petition, the Skagit County and Whatcom County Auditors have withdrawn their determination of sufficiency. The order follows on the heels of the unanimous decisions by the boundary review boards in Skagit and Whatcom Counties to deny the Chuckanut Mountains Park District proposal. After the Auditors had certified the petitions based on valid registered voters signatures, the North Sound Conservancy brought to the Auditors’ attention complaints about the sufficiency of the petitions which raised issues of significant public interest. Skagit County Auditor Jeanne Youngquist says, “I am in complete agreement with the court order.” Roger Mitchell, President of The North Sound Conservancy says, “The North Sound Conservancy is pleased with the Court’s decision and that voters have been protected from a legally incorrect petition reaching a ballot.” ###
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/11/2008
Posts: 11
Location: Rural WA
|
Skagit Valley Herald Article:
Another Nail in CMPD Coffin 31Jul08; Section: Front Page & Page: A8
Another nail in Chuckanut park district coffin
Counties, park district opponents settle lawsuit, agree district boundaries were drawn incorrectly
By RALPH SCHWARTZ
Staff Writer
A proposal to create a metropolitan park district from Bow Hill Road to Bellingham may have been dealt a final, fatal blow.
After two lawsuits challenging the proposed Chuckanut Mountains Park District were settled last week, it is even less likely that the proposal will go before voters in Skagit and Whatcom counties.
The park district proposal has been on life support ever since the boundary review boards in both counties rejected it earlier this year. The park district’s advisory committee appealed the boundary review boards’ decisions in Superior Court.
Members of the North Sound Conservancy, one of the groups that filed a lawsuit challenging the proposal, believe the settlement puts an end to those appeals. In the settlement, the county auditors agreed that the ballot petition filed by park district proponents last year was invalid.
As a result, the boundary review boards no longer have authority to consider the proposal, North Sound Conservancy Vice President Bob Rauch said.
“It’s our position of course that now that those cases are moot, the (courts) will take the appropriate steps regarding those cases,” Rauch said.
“It would be our hope that this would end it.”
Park District Advisory Committee President Bob Gibb said Wednesday he was not aware of the settlement and could not comment.
The North Sound Conservancy claimed in its lawsuit that the auditors should not have approved the park district advisory committee’s ballot petitions. The park district boundaries were described differently on different parts of the petition, rendering the petitions invalid, according to the settlement.
The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe also filed suit because the park district included Indian trust land within its boundaries. The settlement acknowledged that this would have violated state law.
After Skagit County Superior Court Judge Susan Cook signed the settlement on Friday, the auditors in both counties withdrew the decisions they made in April 2007 to qualify the park district’s petition for the ballot.
The 65-square-mile park district would have had the authority to collect a property tax to fund conservation and recreation projects. Park district proponents had originally hoped to put their proposal before voters within the district last November.
The vote had to be put off after the Skagit County commissioners and Fire District 5 expressed concerns about the proposal and requested a hearing before the Skagit County Boundary Review Board.
County commissioners believed the county would not have been fairly represented in the park district. The county had 40 percent of the land in the park district but only 8 percent of the voters.
The proposal also faced strong opposition from landowners on both sides of the county line. They feared the park district’s authority to condemn property and didn’t see the need for a new tax for services already provided by the Department of Natural Resources and other agencies.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 36
Location: Bellingham
|
A rare win for common sense. Yeaa!!
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/11/2008
Posts: 11
Location: Rural WA
|
You bet! Who knew that so many people would have to work so hard for common sense to prevail? I will say though, it has been worth it and many, many people in two counties are thrilled about the decision.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/11/2008
Posts: 11
Location: Rural WA
|
Here is a comment that was posted by someone in response to the Herald's July 31, 2008 article titled "Court Strikes Blow to Chuckanut Park District". This commentary posted below states opposition to the CMPD issues well:I’ve been following this whole CMPD thing for a long time, trying to see it from both sides and these are my opinions. While there may be some sincere people associated with the CMPD I think they are in a slender minority. Most of Mr Gibbs collaborators seem to be self-serving types who make their living from building trails, selling hiking books, doing ecology reports and would personally benefit greatly from 66 square miles of new income source. I don’t think they are sincere environmentalists, conservationists, or whatever the latest term is. They come across as sanctimonious, self-righteous people who firmly believe that they know better than anyone else and we are all to stupid to understand their superior knowledge. They don’t really care what anyone else thinks or what the effects of their actions are on anyone but themselves. They aren’t trying to work with people, they are foisting their plans on people who just aren’t buying what they are selling. The Blanchard mountain compromise is a rare example in this day and age of people with different interests working out a way to work and live together and to tackle complex issues in ways that are mutually beneficial. The CMPD proposal is the opposite as it is selfserving for a few with economic interests but detrimental to the majority. The CMPD group opposed the Blanchard mountain compromise which just shows you they don’t have the best interests of everyone in mind. Some of the CMPD group are part of the groups that have sued the DNR about the Blanchard mountain compromise. They don’t try to, or want to, work together with others. In their minds they are the enlightened ones and everyone else is just stupid. If the CMPD group really were interested in protecting Chuckanut mountain they would want to restrict tourism, not encourage it. Lots more people trampling all over the area would wreak no end of environmental and ecological damage. Larabee already has signs warning that it is a high theft area. Would not lots more transient visitors (tourists) dramatically increase that problem? Statistics show that most forest fires are started because of something humans do. Wouldn’t more people visiting Chuckanut mountain increase that risk? How will wildlife respond to lots more people trampling around? Won’t their habitats be unfavorably affected? So the CMPD environmentalist group thinks encouraging tourism is going to protect Chuckanut mountain? Does not compute. At first when they applied to the boundary board the CMPD group didn’t really have any plans. Their application was insincere with superficial answers for a park that was going to cover 66 square miles. Because the North Shore group kept challenging them the CMPD dredged up some old plans that no one has wanted to implement and said they were their plans for this park. If you read some of these old plans (neoCMPD), and I have, you quickly realize there is no science there, just environmental and ecological buzz words. No substance, just mumbojumbo designed to head fake those not able or not willing to really study what is said. Have you ever noticed that there is absolutely no explanation for the supposed importance of the CMPD mantra, “Where the Cascades meet the sea”? That’s because there is none. Chuckanut Mountain is a special place, as everyone agrees, but it is not unique in the environmental or ecological or geological sense. The boundary boards read through the superficial CMPD application and found it did not meet the standards set by the state laws. The boundary boards in both counties unanimously rejected the CMPD application. These boundary board people are just regular unpaid citizens representing their county. They saw through the superficial CMPD application just as so many other people have. Now a court has said the petition is invalid and must be decertified. Since the petition started all this, since it is invalid it means the whole thing is thrown out. The CMPD group tried to pass off a superficial project with no substance and a lot that could hurt rather than protect Chuckanut mountain. Boundary boards and a court have now ruled against and rejected the CMPD project. That should be enough. Mr Gibb says the people who signed the petition are not getting to vote. From what the court ruling says that’s good because the petition was wrong. People signed something that was in error. From what everyone knows now many people would not have signed the petition. There never was a guarentee of a public vote. The boundary board and the auditor had to say the petition was OK first before people get to vote on it – that’s their job. Looks like they did their job quite well and we should thank them for it. We can hope that the CMPD group will finally drop this terrible idea they had. It has been rejected by the boundary boards and the court. That tells the rest of us a lot. I would hate to see how many of our taxpayer dollars have been spent on processing and reviewing this CMPD project and all the county lawyers costs while the CMPD group has had to pay essentially nothing. Beyond that, the real cost is in poisoning people in both counties against legitimate projects that might truly have environmental or ecological value. There will be little trust of such honest projects following the scam the CMPD group foisted on the area. It looks like the CMPD project is toast now. Their backers won’t be very happy. After all, only they know what’s best for the rest of us and the stupid boundary boards and court must be wrong. Since the CMPD group seems to be tied into the same Seattle groups that are fighting the Blanchard compromise and since the CMPD botched this 66 square mile land grab we can probably expect more attempts for Seattle to try to control our area. We must all watch out. I will be. Eagle Eye | 08.01.08 - 5:31 pm | # http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bellinghamherald/483137/?src=hsn
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/11/2008
Posts: 11
Location: Rural WA
|
Skagit Valley Herald August 10, 2008 CMPD Cartoon On August 10, 2008, the Skagit Valley Herald printed the following cartoon depicting the Chuckanut Mountains Park District as the Frankenstein Monster. I think they caught the spirit of the “Frankenstein-like” nature of the CMPD proposal and the fact that it was so poorly thought out and crafted. Some people not familiar with the issues may not get one of the cartoon’s ironies though, that the “Frank” the judge is addressing is actually dually referring to one of the CMPD Advisory Committee members as being one of the slip-shod monster creators as well as the CMPD monster depicted in the cartoon. Funny for those who know the situation and issues well enough to see the subtleties of the double chuckle involved.  The cartoon is timely because it was printed the same week that the letter below was, written by Ken Wilcox, CMPD-Advisory Committee and main “CMPD monster constructor”, where Wilcox denies any culpability or responsibility for his CMPD Monster’s failure. In fact, he blames everyone else he can think of besides the CMPD for its failure. In my opinion, his letter is “strange” and “odd” because they claim naiveté and are still trying to resurrect his Frankenstein CMPD proposal with the public sentiment when, in fact, the monster is dead. This is truly laughable and pitiful, even for him. Ken Wilcox in Cascadia Weekly wrote: Wilcox Letter Cascadia Weekly 13Aug08 http://www.cascadiaweekly.com/pdfs/issues/200833.pdf REPORTS OF CMPD DEATH GREATLY EXAGGERATED Despite some poor coverage of late by both The Bellingham Herald and the Weekly of the Chuckanut Mountains Park District, the proposal is not so doomed as it might appear, although there certainly are those who are hellbent on denying voters the right to decide the issue for themselves. The latest bonk on our heads was an odd decision handed down from a Skagit County judge in late July that upheld a challenge to our petition by the North Sound Conservancy (NSC). Led mostly by a few residents of an exclusive gated community in the south Chuckanuts, the NSC is a cleverly named entity that was specifically organized to fight the park district. The group argued that the county auditors erred in approving our petition, first because more signatures should have been disqualified, then because there was a one-character typo in the legal description. They complained about a general reference to Bow Hill Road, meant to give readers a rough sense of where the south boundary was (in case people preferred not to wade through the long-winded legalese written up by a professional surveyor). In any event, the language was certified by the two county auditors, yet the NSC challenged and the judge agreed. The problem is that the park district advisory committee was never formally notified of the NSC’s complaint. When we first heard of it many months ago, it was all about the signatures and appeared to be a frivolous lawsuit meant simply as a delay tactic. To be safe, we contacted the prosecutor’s office and they said, yes, they were defending the auditors in the lawsuit. After all, that’s their job. And the auditors believed they had correctly certified the petitions. Only after the judge’s decision was issued a couple of weeks ago did we learn that the counties had quietly decided not to defend their auditors. Strange. Then we learned that the NSC complaint had been amended to focus more on the Bow Hill Road language. The judge, presented with a distorted, and in our view, erroneous interpretation of the facts, went along. Fortunately, we believe we have a very strong case for reversal and have formally asked the judge to reconsider her decision. In the meantime, we fully expect the NSC to continue chucking nuts at us while distorting the purpose of the park district in order to foment fear, etc. (Karl Rove would be proud). Nevertheless, we are determined to keep on chugging until the voters ultimately have their say. As many have commented to us, if the park district is so doomed, why are the detractors working so hard to keep it off the ballot? The saga continues. —Ken Wilcox, Bellingham The only “strange” or “odd” part now, is that this Wilcox guy still expects the public to believe him; just don’t look behind the curtain to see who is really the puppeteer for “Franken-CMPD”.
|
|
|
Guest |
