THE SENTRY, KAPO NEWSLETTER

MAY 2010

Mission Statement

To free private property from unreasonable government regulation
To work for responsible wildlife habitat protection and for conservation of natural resources
To support those who defend the rights guaranteed to owners of private property by the United States and Washington State Constitutions

------------------------------
Articles You Just Can't Miss:
From the Presidents Desk "2040"
Executive Comments "Help Us See The Light"
From the Vice President's Desk, "Speaking at The Commissioner's Meeting"
"Vision 2040" Comment
An Inconvenient Truth "Vision 2040"
Science on Buffers Near Zero
Kafkaesque?
------------------------------

From the President's Desk
"Vision 2040"
by Tim Matthes timcm@wavecable.com

There is a lot of conversation concerning Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and how their policy "Vision 2040" effects the growth of Kitsap County, where we should live and how we get around. Should we stay in or "get out"? All Kitsap County Commissioners believe "stay in". Many of our community leaders say "get out". Local news papers are divided. Kapo is very much against this type of social engineering and would like Kitsap County to withdraw and plan our own growth and transportation. Read the following articles on "Vision 2040", opinions we agree with, or go to the next Commissioner meeting and ask them.

-------------------------------------

Help Us See the Light
by Vivian Henderson, Executive Director

Citizens of Kitsap County have the opportunity - the rare opportunity - to become the proud owners of a real treasure. The Point No Point Lighthouse - built in 1879 and the oldest light station on Puget Sound.

Kitsap County citizens and government leaders have been dreaming of owning the lighthouse for 40 years. Over the years the county has accumulated 73 acres of land surrounding the lighthouse and now the prize is within sight ~ the remaining 8.81 acres. About half of that is tidelands but the remaining 3.4 acres, like the jewel that it is, showcases the two story lighthouse (27 feet high), a "light keepers" duplex and appurtenant buildings.

In Oct. 2009 the feds declared the lighthouse and 8.81 acres surplus opening up the opportunity for the county to acquire it free. This month the county commissioners submitted an application to the National Service of the Department of Interior for acquisition of Point No Point Light Station.

The county has leased the lighthouse from the Coast Guard since 1998 and cared for the building while the Coast Guard has maintained and operated the actual light. In recent years the county has partnered with the U.S. Lighthouse Society to manage and maintain the buildings.

In fact, the Society's headquarters which were located in California moved to Point No Point in recent years. The Society is eligible for grants not available to government that will help with some much needed restoration of the light station. But we need help from our citizens to obtain a grant.

I guess you could call it a "popularity contest". There are twenty five historic preservation projects across Puget Sound vying for some/or all of a $1 million grant through a "Partners in Preservation" program. As I understand it the light station will get part of the grant but how much will be determined through online voting through May 12th. So Vote - early and often! No kidding. You can cast one vote a day. [Click here to vote.]

I don't believe the county's acquisition of the light station and the award of the preservation grant are connected ~ just a happy coincidence. But you can be part of this very worthwhile effort.

If you've never been to the lighthouse put this on your "must see" list this spring. Just head north to the far reaches of the county (Hansville) turn right on Point No Point Road to the end. Parking is limited but the short walk is easy. No stairs to climb - no cliffs to scale. Take a picnic. Enjoy the beach, the wonderful view of Puget Sound, the constant parade of fishing and pleasure boats and the huge ships coming and going.

Vivian Henderson
360-710-8560
Email: viviankapo@wavecable.com

-------------------------------------

Speaking at The Commissioners' Meeting
by Vice President, Charles Shank

You may have seen my testimony to the County Commissioners (Cms) on the evening of April 12th. I spoke along with other members of Kitsap Alliance of Property Owner's (KAPO) about the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) transportation plan.

We were limited to the customary 3 minutes time to speak, so I cut about 3 minutes out of my original text, which I'm including below. Prior to our 'public comments' allowance, we all sat through the customary 'awards for good works' presentations, and the atmosphere was full of pleasant feelings, until the awards winners left the room to celebrate.

We all know that to get your point across, you must act nice, speak nicely, and show a grateful demeanor at all times no matter how you feel about the subject matter.

Actually the Cms are just people too, or they were before they were elected to office. People it's time to stop bowing and scraping and state how you feel. Let them know how upsetting their actions are and how what they are doing affects your lives, as I'll divulge below.

As I was speaking, trying to control my temper, I noticed the constant smirk on Cm Josh Brown's face, the quizzical glances of Cm Steve Bauer, and their banter as I was trying to explain the Puget Sound Regional Council's motivation of Transportation 2040. The more humorously my 3 minutes were received the angrier I got. Really, I'm 'up to here' with respect for people who are destroying our way of life.

I know full well that everyone is turned off by anger. We're supposed to 'be nice' - but I'm not nice to people who depend upon nice in order to continue slowly and secretly to ruin our Constitutional Rights.

Here's what's been going on since about the 1840's. The Socialist movement was born in England. It was exposed as antichrist, so it changed its name to the 'Progressive' movement. Since our Constitution upholds our God given rights to Life, Liberty, and Private Property Ownership, the socialist movement had to dismantle all those things, and it does so by indoctrinating succeeding generations into their 'World View'. Their World View is the opposite of the Christian perspective, and it is based upon liberation from that perspective.

The movement started with belief in God, and the problem of Biblical perceptions. Then it went to the easiest item on the list, Private Property Ownership, and using the state's 'right' to regulate. Today you see organizations like KAPO fighting back. Next was Liberty, and the state's 'right' to control transportation access. Last on the list is Life, and the state's right to ensure your useful productivity. In my opinion all these 'rights' of the state are masks over the face of tyranny, smirking at your little public tirades of disagreement.

So at the end of the Commissioners meeting, Cm Josh Brown felt compelled to expound on how truly wonderful the PSRC was and how fortunate we are to be under their control. Sure, it's what he's paid to say, and it may get him a better government job down the road, but his synopsis completely misled the public as to what I was saying, notwithstanding the rest of the KAPO speakers.

My point was this - Kitsap does not need electronic tollgates on all State and County freeways and arterials charging $7 every 20 miles. Cm Josh Brown talked about all the great roads the PSRC had funded, and all the great transit projects the PSRC had funded, and their agreement to fix the afternoon backup on SR 3 at Loxie Egans for only $800 million some day.

Here's what I said: (Testimony at Kitsap County Commissioners' Hearing (KC Cms) - 3 minutes allowed)

- - - - - - -

My name is Chuck Shank and I am speaking to you as a private citizen.

Although I am a member of KAPO, I do not represent all the members of KAPO, and am speaking for myself.

The PSRC Transportation Vision 2040 plan requires that every freeway and every arterial will have electronic tollgates to totally replace the gas tax.

Replacing the gas tax is based on the fabrication that manmade CO2 production from fossil fuel use is causing global warming.

Hence all vehicles must be converted to electric power to replace current gasoline power. Since there will be no more gas tax revenuewhen there is no more gasoline allowed, highway use must be paid for with tolls.

CO2 levels today are at 0.04%, or 387 parts per million.

The International Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC - says that CO2 will double in the next 50 years, putting it at 0.08% which EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admits will not have any meaningful climate impacts. (Put another way, 99.96% of the atmosphere is not CO2).

The PSRC, responding to the scandal of Global Warming data fabrication by the IPCC, said the Vision 2040 plan was still good because State law now required CO2 reduction. No matter that the State law was again based on the same IPCC deception.

Only the wealthy will be paying the tolls if over 90% of all new residents and jobs will be confined to the urban areas as the plan requires. Since all the people and services jobs are concentrated in big cities, they won't need cars anyway.

At today's prices, the e-toll charged will be equivalent to $7 per gallon gas, or about 20 miles of travel.

In Kitsap we already pay heavy tolls for the ferries and Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

You are saying as stakeholders in this PSRC plan that we must also pay tolls whenever we get off the ferries or bridge onto every State highway, at the rate equal to $7 per gallon of gas, or about 20 miles of travel, and all because of the Global Warming hoax.

I would say this is a mad farce if it was not orchestrated on purpose and entrenched. Since it is purposeful I can only conclude it is malevolent with the intent to do irreversible harm to our culture.

I am very disappointed in you for your support of PSRC's Transportation Vision 2040 plan. I do not support or consent to its requirements, and although you do and have no regard for my consent anyway, I must conclude that you are either willingly misguided or purposefully misguiding.

To add a little clarification, the etoll will be set at $4 above the current cost of a gallon of gas, and a gallon of gas will get you on average about 20 miles down the road. Thirty years from now inflation will make the $7 year 2010 etoll rate appear to be a wonderful bargain of the good old days, but that generation indoctrinated into state service will probably not be allowed to read history.

Here's the 3 minutes I had to cut out: (Testimony at the KC Cms Hearing - 3 minutes allowed)

Although I am a member of KAPO, I do not represent all the members of KAPO, and am speaking for myself, because KAPO is made up of many diverse persons that can speak for themselves as I am now.

The (PSRC Transportation 2040) plan requires that, of the anticipated 1.4 million new residents, only 40,000 will be allowed to live outside of Urban areas in Rural areas. The only way you can accomplish this is to continue to take over private property through over regulation, as you are doing today. Private real estate sales outside of urban boundaries must necessarily cease in order to force the 1 million 360 thousand newbies into urbanality.

The plan requires that of the 1.2 million new jobs expected, only 20,000 will be in Manufacturing and Industry. The other 1 million, 180 thousand will be service jobs located in the Urban areas primarily. Service jobs provide service for the wealthy, so I assume the Urban areas will be under plutocratic control like New York and Chicago are today, and the plutarchs are the 40,000 getting to live in the Rural areas.

Thomas Jefferson said, "When we get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." Indeed I believe you must pile us upon each other in order to maintain high crime, drug abuse, infidelities, hopelessness, and servility. Columbia profs Cloward and Piven's strategy actually requires this in order to 'collapse the system', whereby entitlement dependent big city populations will erupt in chaos when the government cuts off their freebies.

By way of explanation, Cloward and Piven (Google names for explanation) are 'progressives' and were advisors to the U.S. President before George W. Bush.

So what was Cm Josh Brown referring to with the "$800 million" fix to the daily traffic backup at Loxie Egans on SR 3? I suspected it was the same old WSDOT plan from the late 1980's to build HOV lanes through the Gorst loop de doo - that route is SR3/SR16 proceeding from the backup west to Gorst, going around the big u-turn through Gorst, and then proceeding east to the Port Orchard intersection at SR 16 and Tremont.

This project purports to solve the backup by building 2 new HOV lanes in each direction along the loop de doo, for an estimated cost of $948 M. This will make the current 4 lane section into an 8 lane section - imagine that. And by the way Cm Josh Brown------------- $498M+$450M=$948M, even though both numbers start with a "4".

The 8 lanes through Gorst proper will be 'limited access', meaning all the businesses will have to be moved to other areas at WSDOT (read taxpayer) expense. The Gorst businesses will go out of business if they're left in Gorst because customers will not be able to get to them anymore. The $948 M figure does not include the business relocation costs - it is only the design and construction cost. And it's quite probably half of the real cost, but nevermind.

It's so expensive because a new 4 lane section must be built on the bluff 30 feet above the current roadway for westbound traffic from Bremerton to Gorst, and the RR trestle will have to be replaced accordingly.

Nevermind that the current traffic already operates as an HOV lane system, with much of the peak period traffic composed of two + persons per vehicle. So why build the HOV lanes at all?

Because overlord ex-Cm John Horsley said 'there will never be another bridge built in Kitsap County' in reference to the Sinclair Inlet Bridge project. Nevermind that the Sinclair Inlet Bridge crossing from the SR3/SR304 intersection in Bremerton straight across to Ross Point and the SR16/Tremont intersection in Port Orchard, would cost $150 Million. That's 6 times less cost than the HOV lanes plan of the PSRC.

Why would the PSRC not want a Bridge across Sinclair Inlet? Because there would be no need for HOV lanes through Gorst, and that would mess up their plan to force us all into urbanality.

Nevermind that the Bridge would preserve all the businesses in Gorst and actually make access easier since the traffic volume would drop down to about 20,000 vehicles a day, as the other 80,000 vehicles would be using the bridge. You see, 80% of the traffic forced to do the Gorst loop de doo is really just trying to go due North or South, not cruise around the Bay.

Also think nothing of the fact that using the Bridge instead of the Gorst loop de doo would cut 2.5 miles off each trip. When you do the math, you get 200,000 miles per day of fuel savings. So much for the PSRC's concern for excessive CO2 production.

But all that is irrelevant anyway with the PSRC plan, the $7 etoll charges, and all Service jobs stuffed into the urban areas.

In closing I want you to know this is not 'made up'. All this is planned right now, and supported by your elected Commissioners in office. Know this, that in order for the PSRC to force population into Big Cities, they must implement it with forced HOV lane projects and etolls.

Did you know that Cm Josh Brown's reference to all the 'new roads' was in regard to the gas tax diversion into HOV lanes projects? You see that the gas tax you're currently paying is building HOV lanes that you can't use unless you are being obedient. Looked at another way, the HOV lanes/mass transit PSRC plan is ensuring that the 'working class' is controlled properly, while the beneficent overlords fly freely through the congestion free etoll lanes only they can afford to pay. By way of illustration, ask the County Cms if they get to and from their meetings by bus.

The Two Pillars of Private Property and Liberty are being phased out in order to prevent environmental catastrophe. And if you believe that, please buy a Bible and read it

Constitution??!! - we don't need no stinking Constitution! Next month, God willing, I'll tell you about Kitsap Transit Director, Dick Hayes plan for the 40-bus trains from Poulsbo to the Winslow Ferry. Again - all true. Or maybe you'd like to know about forming our own Transportation Planning Organization like Thurston County has, instead of belonging to the PSRC.

-------------------------------------

Vision 2040 Comments
www.PortOrchardIndependent.com

Puget Sound Regional Council's Transportation plan just more social engineering
by Jeff Rhodes
Apr 19 2010, 10:31 AM · UPDATED

The Puget Sound Regional Council last week unveiled its transportation vision for the next 30 years, and if the deep thinkers at the organization get their way, residents of Port Orchard may not be able to leave town without paying for the privilege.

Among the centerpieces of Transportation 2040, PSRC's roadmap for the region's commuting future, are $800 million worth of improvements to the Gorst chokepoint, the widening of State Routes 16 and 3, creation of a complex network of "rapid bus transit" routes and facilities, as well as that old favorite, fast-ferry service from pretty much every existing ferry terminal in Kitsap County.

The agency, which is composed of governmental leaders from cities and counties throughout the Puget Sound region, envisions the bulk of the financing for all of this coming from the federal government - meaning it comes out of your back pocket instead of your front, if that's any comfort to you.

The remainder of the funding, PSRC is fuzzy on. But the preferred options seem to be tolling SR-3 and SR-16, or charging all drivers a tax based on the number of miles they drive.

Port Orchard Mayor Lary Coppola voted against the plan on the sensible theory that a transportation solution that built no new road surfaces and would require city residents to pay a toll every time they left town on existing roads that had already been paid for was a pretty crummy way to treat his constituents.

But even if you could clear the financing hurdles, Transportation 2040 would still be a bad idea because of its reliance on mass transit - despite conclusive evidence that almost no one gives up their car willingly.

As ever, PSRC's utopian vision of people shoehorned into apartment buildings downtown and happily eschewing the freedom of driving their own cars in favor of the joy of bus travel bears little or no resemblance to reality.

Then again, social engineering masquerading as public policy seldom does.

-------------------------------------

An Inconvenient Truth "Vision 2040"
by Bob Benze
SILVERDALE - A recent Kitsap Sun editorial, while acknowledging some misgivings, supported the goals of Transportation 2040, the new regional transportation plan developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council - scheduled to be approved in May.

But, would it be unreasonable to ask whether the citizens of Kitsap County really understand the implications of the transportation future their government is signing them up for?

For example, do they know that the overall approach of the Transportation 2040 plan is driven by an increasingly discredited notion that manmade CO2 must be drastically reduced, and that a way to do this is via a transportation plan specifically designed to force people out of their cars and onto public transportation.

Do they recognize:

-- That Transportation 2040 is "designed to support Vision 2040," the regional growth plan "focusing approximately 97 percent of growth within designated Urban Growth Areas." In Kitsap County this requires that the population growth be directed almost entirely to Silverdale and Bremerton, with new housing starts strictly limited in the rest of the county.

-- That Transportation 2040 envisions people traveling less by automobile and more by bicycles, walking, and taking the bus. That the final plan submitted for approval directs more money to transit service, and pays for more miles of biking and walking facilities and regional trail links, than all of the other alternatives that were considered in the planning process but that it doesn't fund the affordable lane miles necessary to reduce regional traffic congestion.

-- That Transportation 2040, with its extensive public transportation projects and $191 billion price tag, cannot rely on the gas tax, but plans on massive new funding obtained from electronic "congestion pricing" tolling - not just for infrastructure like new bridges, but on existing heavily traveled routes such as SR 16 and SR 3. This tolling will be tailor-designed to inhibit automobile travel at peak travel times. So much for freeways!

Does anyone think that people really want to be billed monthly for a boatload of expensive alternative transportation projects that most of them never intend to use?

In short, do the citizens of Kitsap County know they will be subject to a radical and hugely expensive plan that assumes that people can be forced to abandon the convenience of their automobiles, be forced to live in dense urban areas, and be made to ride public transportation?

The region's history shows that despite 25 years of shifting funding away from road building to public transportation projects, the ironic result is that public ridership in the region has actually gone down from about 6 percent of trips to less than 3 percent today. People say they want road improvements to reduce congestion, but the PSRC wants fewer cars. This is a rather amazing disconnect between the PSRC and the region's citizens.

There is every reason to suggest that when the public realizes that the plan's vision is intellectually flawed, and burdened with a costly public transportation bias that overshadows the highly-advertised road improvements, they simply won't buy it.

People might want to Google the PSRC website and become aware of where their elected officials are taking them. If they don't like the direction, then perhaps they should take a harder look at their ballots this fall.

And people should not be bashful about telling their elected officials to get Kitsap County out of the Puget Sound Regional Council and let our locally elected government decide our future - not a high-priced group of social engineers sitting in a suite of offices somewhere in downtown Seattle.

Bob Benze

-------------------------------------

LaryCoppola writes:
response to Kelricalain (on...
The political affiliation of the author is irrelevant. The facts of the Vision 2040 plan speak for themselves. You either want this or you don't.

response to Usedbookman...
The inconvenient truth is that the majority of those non-conforming one and two and half acre lots were NOT non-conforming when they were originally created and approved. Let me remind Kelricalain that the commission majority has only had a Republican majority for a four year period anytime in the past 30 years or so - and most of those lots were created well before then.

Many of the ideas being advanced in the Vision 2040 plan - and I've read it cover to cover - may be acceptable, and actually pragmatic, for parts of King County and its highly-populated environs, but I strongly question the validity of what amounts to little more than a "King County Solution" being forced upon the rest of us.

Usedbookman is absolutely right about the geography, topography and existing population distribution of Kitsap not being financially feasible for mass transit - especially light rail. What works for Seattle, & King County clearly doesn't even begin to work here.

The plan basically concludes that tolls on all of our major roads - including City Streets - are the "solution" to solving the transportation problem. This includes I-5, I-90, and I-405. That toll revenue will not be used to build new roads, but to fund mass transit.

On Page 53, the report states, "...decision makers have been deliberately examining an approach to fund transportation through fees and tolls that apply to users of transportation systems and services." I'm not at all convinced this is a good idea, and believe it will actually be a severe detriment to long-term economic development.

States experiencing the greatest amount of economic development before the recession - places like Texas, Nevada, Idaho, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi and more - are all states with excellent and ample roads - and no tolls. The states with the greatest amount of toll roads - New Jersey, Florida, and Ohio for example, are all states in spiraling economic decline with deteriorating infrastructure.

In the end, I cast the vote for the City of Port Orchard against this at PSRC because in our view, it simply doesn't work here.

Both articles were authorized by the authors. Please use the link on the bottom of the page for many more responses in the Kitsapsun
Read more: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/apr/28/my-turn-inconvenient-truths-about-transportation/#ixzz0mixxfCNC

-------------------------------------

Near-Zero Buffers: They Can Work
by Dr. Don Flora Ph.D

Want to corral the nutrient discharges from 1200 people confined in a single acre? Probably not: not even Woodstock achieved that level of togetherness. But if you did, what would it take?

A buffer about 70 feet wide. Even in hard rain.

How do we know? It's been done[1]; not next to a love-in but rather at a Minnesota feedlot for cattle, each of whose residents exuded nitrogen and phosphorus equal to about 13 people.[2] That 70-foot grassed buffer caught about 98 percent of vagrant nutrients.

Is this capture rate typical? Well, read on.

Much narrower buffers can suppress Stormwater-carried nutrients. A 15-foot buffer did just fine in a Virginia Study[3]. Nutrients equal to the output of about 5-1/2 people per acre (far more common than 1200) were applied to cropland. Of the departing rain-driven nitrogen, for instances, over 80 percent was halted in that 15-foot grass buffer.

In Kentucky livestock waste equal to that of 20 people per acre had a negligible impact on nutrient content of runoff from a research pasture[4]. No buffer required.

In western Oregon nitrates were applied to a grass-seed farm field at about the same rate as if sewage from 6-1/2 people per acre missed the drainfield and spread upon the land. As Stormwater left the field the nitrates it carried completely disappeared within 20 feet of passage through a weedy buffer[5].

All of these studies were done on slopes like those of most Kitsap home places. In short, all across the country, short buffers can work.

On the other hand, water quality buffers fat and lean are unlikely to work in some situations familiar to all of us. In these circumstances buffers have probably never worked, aren't working now, and won't in the future.

Next month.
- - - - - - -
[1] 136 steers per acre. Young, R.A., et al. 1980. Effectiveness of vegetated buffer strips in controlling pollution from feedlot runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 9(3):403-487. Cited in Brooks, Kenneth M. 2007. Supplemental best available science supporting recommendations for buffer widths in Jefferson County, Washington. On file at Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Port Townsend, WA.

[2] American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 2003. Manure production and characteristics, ASAE Standard D384.1. St. Joseph, MI.

Adamus, Paul R. 2007. Best available science for wetlands of Island County, Washington: Review of Published Literature, Corvalllis, OR: Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc. Corvalllis, OR.

[3] Dillaha, T. A., et al. 1989. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural nonpoint source pollution control. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 32 (2):513-519.

[4] Edwards, D. R. et al. 2007. Runoff nutrient and fecal coliform content from cattle manure application to fescue plots. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(4):711-721.

[5] Davis, Jennifer J., et al. 2007. Mitigation of shallow groundwater nitrate in a poorly drained riparian area and adjacent cropland. Journal of Environmental quality 36:628-637.

-------------------------------------

Kafkaesque?
by Director Dan Defenbaugh

I learned a new word today while reading the Kitsap Sun article by Christopher Dunagan about the State Supreme Court sending the KAPO vs Kitsap County Critical Areas Ordinance case back to the Appellate Court. The article quoted Brian Hodges of the Pacific Legal Foundation saying, "But the idea that lawmakers can go back and overturn past court decisions that were based on the laws as it then existed is nothing short of surreal - even Kafkaesque." I don't want to write about that case but it is a great segue into my chosen topic.

During the past year I have attended numerous meetings of our county commissioners and two meetings of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Growth Management (GM) Policy Board held in Seattle. The second meaning of Kafkaesque listed below seems to apply to both types of meetings when it comes to finances.

I have been stuck by two concepts after attending each of the PSRC GM Policy board meetings - the policies they are promoting are not family friendly and attempting to follow the money trail that supports PSRC is beyond my capabilities. The money trail issue also applies to Kitsap County Commissioner meetings. Both of these groups only apply the term "good news" when they hear of additional funds becoming available from some "agency" that they seem to believe is free money. The concept that the money most likely is coming from taxes already paid by someone just does not seem to enter into the discussion. I did recently hear Josh Brown relay some news that was not considered good - an update on the county's monthly sales tax revenue was some $36,000 less than expected. While I do believe our commissioners are doing what they can to reduce spending within their mindset I would prefer our elected officials, and the non-elected folks at PSRC, have a more open mind about cutting spending to live within their means in much the same manner you and I run our businesses or balance our checkbooks. (the first person to call Jackie at (360) 871-4739 will recieve one free dinner at the next KAPO Dinner Meeting, May 27, 2010 at 5:30, directors are excluded)

Kafkaesque (kahf-kuh-esk) Show IPA adjective

1. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or resembling the literary work of Franz Kafka: the Kafkaesque terror of the endless interrogations.

2. marked by a senseless, disorienting, often menacing complexity: Kafkaesque bureaucracies.

-------------------------------------

How to Join KAPO
Membership Information

**Membership in Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners is available at three levels

Voting Membership is open to applicants and includes voting rights. Membership dues are $100 per year.

Associate Membership is also available. Associate Members do not enjoy voting rights. Associate Membership dues are $25 per year.

Life Membership, voting membership for the life of the member, is available for a single payment of $1000.

**Dues are pro-rated quarterly. Contact Vivian for correct amount based on the date of your application.

The list of KAPO members is not released to the public. Individual member information is not used for any other purpose than the specific business of KAPO.

For more information or to receive a membership application visit the KAPO web site,

www.kapo.orgor contact Executive Director Vivian Henderson, viviankapo@wavecable.comor Phone: 360-710-8560

kapo.org | PO Box 1861 | Poulsbo | WA | 98370

FAIR USE NOTICE
Information provided here contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such information/material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use any copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.