by Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal (4/13/2008)

Between 1989 and 2006, the median inflation-adjusted price of a Seattle house rose from $221,000 to $447,800. Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations — twice the financial impact that regulation has had on other major U.S. cities.

The Supreme Court ruled that buffers are not required if local governments come up with other methods to avoid habitat degradation. ... The court also ruled that property owners cannot be forced to improve conditions on their land in the absence of actions by the owner. Local governments must consider "best available science," the court said, but other goals — such as saving farmland — can be considered in local rules. ... [Karl] Duff said the court decision supports KAPO's contention that "environmental issues are not paramount; they need to be balanced with about a dozen other issues."

GREAT NEWS about this Supreme Court ruling today.
The bottom line(s) are:
• THE GMA requires protection, not restoration of the environment.
• Riparian buffers are not required by the GMA
• “include best available science” means that it is considered by the local government and documented in the public record, but…
• A local government can “justifiably depart” from the BAS if it is documented in the record that there is a reason, because…
• Local governments can balance the competing goals of the GMA that are not listed in priority order and can tailor their plans for the local area.
Now that IS GOOD NEWS!
While the ruling was in response to an agricultural issue raised in Skagit County , the ruling has statewide application and these principles apply to more than just agriculture.
Please make sure that all local officials know that they now have the freedom to make balanced decisions and should no longer feel intimidated by the threats of lawsuits from organizations that appeal and then settle for money and forced decisions.
Best wishes,
Dan Wood, Director of Local Affairs, dwood@wsfb.com
Washington Farm Bureau
www.wsfb.com

Kitsap Shoreline Landowner Resource Guide can be found here: http://kitsap.wsu.edu/shore_stewards/kitsap_resources.htm
The PDF guide is here: http://kitsap.wsu.edu/shore_stewards/pdf/KitsapShorelineResources.pdf

What's this? Wild salmon, not hatchery salmon, are all that matter when it comes to determining whether a species should be listed as "threatened" or "endangered," a judge has ruled. The ruling swings the pendulum back from a previous ruling by a different judge, who concluded that hatchery salmon must be considered alongside wild salmon when listing a species under the Endangered Species Act.

by Christopher Dunagan, Kitsap Sun reporter (2/27/2007)

Calling it a stopgap measure, Kitsap County commissioners voted 2-1 Monday to approve an ordinance enlarging the county's shoreline buffers. Shorelines designated rural and semirural will be protected from development with 100-foot natural shoreline buffers. Those buffers could be reduced to 50 feet with approval of the county Department of Community Development. Shorelines designated urban will get the protection of 50-foot buffers, which could be reduced further by going through a public hearing.

by Vivian Henderson, Executive Director, KAPO (2/26/2007)

New marine and lake shoreline buffers 100 feet plus 15-foot setbacks.  Measured from the high water mark. County says there will be no effect on existing developed lots.  Not true!

by Vivian Henderson, Executive Director, KAPO (2/10/2007)

Yes, it will be right there in the ranks with the Dept. of Ecology, Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Dept. of Natural Resources, etc, etc. etc. It will be called the Puget Sound Partnership. This new agency will serve as the "regional recovery organization for purposes of…..salmon recovery".

by Vivian Henderson, Executive Director, KAPO (2/9/2007)

Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners appreciates the opportunity to enter testimony against House Bill 1374 “Creating the Puget Sound Partnership” a new state agency. We would like to iterate our objections to this bill as follows...

by Vivian Henderson, Executive Director, KAPO (2/9/2007)

Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners appreciates the opportunity to enter testimony against Senate Bill 5372 "Creating the Puget Sound Partnership," a new state agency. We would like to iterate our objections to this bill as follows...

by Henry Lamb (1/27/2007)

Gov. Christine Gregoire has requested, in both the state House and Senate, that a bill be introduced to create a new state agency: The Puget Sound Partnership (SB5372). This new agency will be responsible for creating an "Action Agenda" (by 2008) that will embrace 12 counties, to "reach a healthy Puget Sound by 2020." This legislation has been given "emergency" status, which means that it will go into effect on July 1, 2007, if enacted. This is precisely how the idea of sustainable development is replacing the fundamental principle of representative government in America. Sustainable development is nothing more than restraints on freedom, prescribed and imposed by appointed individuals who think that they know best how everyone else should live.

VISION 2040 recommits the region to: Focus growth in urban areas, concentrated in centers and compact communities; strengthen linkages between land use and transportation planning; preserve and protect rural and resource lands; address the needs of a diverse population.
New features of the draft VISION 2040: Moves from a conceptual plan to a clear and specific strategy based on distributing growth into regional geographies; a revised structure for multicounty planning policies that includes goals, policies, actions, and measures; an environmental framework for decision making and integrationof growth management, transportation, and economic development planning; an expanded environmental section that addresses habitat, water and air quality, and climate change; a strengthened economic section focused on businesses, people, and places based on the Regional Economic Strategy; a new strategic emphasis on housing.
New policies that address the relationship between the built environment and health; attention to regional design.

by Vivian Henderson, Executive Director, KAPO (5/15/2008)

Thanks to Central Kitsap Commissioner Josh Brown and representatives from our cities — Carol Arends of Bremerton, Carolyn Powers of Port Orchard; Darlene Kordonowy of Bainbridge Island, Dale Rudolph of Poulsbo and Bill Mahan of the Port of Bremerton — King County is now one step closer to governing Kitsap County...

South Kitsap Commissioner Jan Angel cast the lone no vote among Kitsap representatives for a plan drafted by the Puget Sound Regional Council that spells out how the region will accommodate the 1.7 million people expected to move in over the next 30 years. "The problem is, it's another layer of government regulation that could be more restrictive than the GMA (the state's Growth Management Act)," Angel told the Kitsap Sun on Friday. "This plan takes away local control."

Trent England's blog for the Puget Sound Regional Council.

by Lary Coppola (1/10/2008)

Kitsap County has documented that it will need well over $20 million in the next 20 years to meet just our most pressing and immediate transportation needs. We have 3.08 percent of the total population of the four PSRC counties and a little over six percent of its board’s voting power. King County has 52 percent. King County’s transportation problems are well-documented — the Viaduct, massive cost overruns at Sound Transit, coupled with its grandiose, PSRC-backed expansion plans, the 520 Bridge, etc. How much impact can any thinking person believe Kitsap County actually has on PSRC’s transportation funding decisions? Membership means we’re forced to give up local land use decision-making power and live by what PSRC and King County decide for us.

by Vivian Henderson (10/20/2007)

Who are these people? A whole new layer of regional government — an association of cities, towns, counties, tribes, ports and state agencies that develop regional growth and transportation policies for Snohomish, King, Pierce and Kitsap Counties. They are comprised of three policy boards: Transportation, Economic Development and Growth Management. Membership includes 71 cities, four ports, two state agencies and two tribes. PSRC staff tells us that they are not a regulatory agency and it is not mandatory for local jurisdictions to adopt their policies. They may not tell you they have a big hammer. PSRC controls millions of dollars in grant money. Jurisdictions that don't adopt PSRC's “policies” as regulations, will risk losing grants...

by Karl Duff (10/7/2007)

Conscientious elected representatives of Kitsap's public tax districts need to check in with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and see what PSRC has in mind. They will be surprised to discover an unelected group of regional “vision makers” establishing public policies in their place. School districts, libraries, port districts, sewer and water districts, etc. will no longer be responding to their tax-paying electorate, but to a group outside Kitsap County now establishing regional policy through its pending policy document “VISION 2040.”

by Bob Benze (10/1/2007)

Do you know who The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is and what they are planning for your future?

by Karl Duff (9/19/2006)

On Tuesday, September 5th about 30 persons attended the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) update on its long-term regional plans (entitled “Vision 2020 plus 20”) for the four county area of Snohomish, King, Pierce and Kitsap Counties. Subsequent questions and comments indicated that most who attended oppose the idea that Kitsap County should have its future transportation and land-use policies developed by this Seattle based group, having a staff of about 80 persons and publicly financed to the tune of $20M this year by the four counties.