Sunday, July 13, 2008 - Page updated at
to the Editor
Writer wrong about
Mark Johnson has
missed the point of the appellate court's ruling when he says that "every
property owner who wants to remove a significant amount of forest vegetation
from their property be required to demonstrate that their action does not"
negatively affect the environment ["A
critical ordinance: Ruling a wrong move; burden falls on owners,"
Northwest Voices, July 10].
The court clearly
stated that the burden of proof lies with King County. If complex studies and
administrative fees are applied, this will simply be a restructuring of the
unfair taxation the court just tossed.
Of course this is the
approach King County will take. Their pattern is to ignore court rulings.
What's the worst that will happen? They will end up in court again ... and they
can ignore that ruling ... and on and on.
— Sam Teasley,
I would agree
wholeheartedly with The Times' editorial "The
land clash: can we preserve the green?" [July 11] were it based on
good data. From 1995 to 2005, the percent of forested lands in King County held
steady. "Excessive" forest destruction was not a problem and what was
lost was balanced out by those of us who were letting forests grow.
The Times is
perpetuating the myth that rural landowners are not good stewards of the land
and should justifiably lose their rights to it. The facts do not support such
drastic measures or opinions.
— Arie van der
Shades of Foley
King County Executive
Ron "Tax to the Max" Sims, in his infinite wisdom, has decided that
the King County critical-areas ordinance that steals land from property and
homeowners warrants expenditures of millions to litigate the case up through
the Washington State Supreme Court and probably the federal courts to overturn
what a lower Washington court has deemed as unconstitutional ["County
to appeal rural-area land-clearing ruling," Local News, July 11].
When Tom Foley,
former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, sued the people in
defiance of their will about congressional term limitations, the voters threw
him out of office. One can only hope for a similar result. So go Sims! It would
be the best expenditure of county funds you ever initiated.
— Gary Kennedy,