REALLY SETTING THE RECORD
STRAIGHT!  By Karl Duff

Last month I charged that State
Department of Ecology (DOE) senior staffer Erik Stockdale knowingly
prevaricated when, in answering a San Juan County Councilman’s question,
he claimed they were the only county expressing concerns over non-conforming
property created under DOE’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) guidance  -- which renders many formerly legal
land uses no longer legal (The Independent, 5/21/10).

A week later
(5/28/10) DOE’s Curt Hart wrote a PR ‘damage control’ letter
claiming to “set the record straight” regarding Stockdale.   But he did nothing of the sort.

Hart merely spouted statistical
drivel about county SMPs and other “boiler plate” history showing
what a great job civic-minded DOE is doing – even promoting “free
speech” and public participation!
He then falsely claimed Stockdale’s problem involved only a
“Bainbridge Island code enforcement case” that “Ecology had
nothing to do with”. By claiming innocence over an irrelevant item never
brought up in the first place, Hart perpetuates DOE’ distraction
tactics.  Hart and Stockdale carry
the same virus.

My
article was not “random accusation”.  I’ve seen Stockdale’s video
statement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8UV7CUON18.)  One cannot misunderstand what Stockdale
wanted San Juan County to hear.  He
appropriately stammered as though surprised, inserting plausible deniability
phrases like “as far as I know” and “Gee, whiz!”
phrases wondering how such misunderstandings could possibly arise.  He disavowed conspiracies to ‘evict’ people!  (Literal ‘evictees’ no
longer pay property taxes.  Government
much prefers taxing without the owner being able to improve his property!)  Stockdale never addressed SMP
regulations creating property non-conformance.  But, he is not naïve;
Snohomish, King, Kitsap, Jefferson, and Whatcom have expressed concerns for
years (Kitsap since 2004-5, when the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) was issued
and appealed.)  Jefferson’s
SMP is now being reviewed by DOE with a majority of its private property
shorelines suddenly being rendered ‘unbuildable’  Stockdale knows this!

Hart
says DOE isn’t forcing shoreline owners out (Gee, whiz, “they have
homes, too!”).  But, other DOE
presentations contradict this.  For
example, a presentation by DOE’s Betty Rencor
indicates the long-term goal is to eliminate non-conforming structures.  By   simply ‘discouraging’
improvement they can eventually be ‘phased out’.

Hart and Stockdale totally ignored objections to
increases in insurance rates, permitting difficulties, Hearing Examiner
reviews, attorneys, appeals and other resulting non-conforming property
impacts.  These now become major new
ownership burdens.

DOE’s publicly recorded purpose
to phase out non-conforming properties by making it impossible to improve
existing waterfront is not imaginary.  Stockdale is acting out his position as
naïve (yes, as having just “fallen off the turnip
truck”.)  DOE treats property
rights as irrelevant collateral damage to the supreme goal of restoring eco-systems
to 1850 levels, through taking more property without compensation.

I witnessed (radical environmental group Futurewise) Tim Trohimovich’s
statement that DOE requested Futurewise to help Kitsap “do the right
thing” (Tim’s
exact words, March 23, 2009), seeking even larger buffers and setbacks than
in the CAO!

Yet, Stockdale and Hart claim
there’s no conspiracy involved!

The public should expect clear and explicit answers
from DOE on their shoreline policy, not evasiveness and misdirection intended
to keep the public sound asleep until new regulatory plans become law!