Why There Must Be A Reconveyance Challenge

People ask why a challenge to the Reconveyance is so important.  Interestingly, some of those people are the same persons who fight hard to preserve Ag land and the county’s agricultural heritage.

Pretending slides and other natural events will stop if we just have Reconveyance is disingenuous

Sometimes the question is asked because the person asking is unaware that the land the county has requested for reconveyance is zoned Commercial Forest (CF), a designation that, by law, confers the same protection on the land that designation as an AG zone does.  Under the Growth Management Act and by adoption of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and its accompanying development regulations, lands zoned CF are dedicated to the maintenance and enhancement of the County’s timber industry.  Parks are, by law, forbidden in the zone.  Many Hearings Board decisions and a couple of Supreme Court decisions have upheld that contention.

If the Executive and the County Council had done what they are required to do some years ago, there would be no challenge.  To change a zoning designation the County is supposed to docket (schedule) a transparent public discussion of the change, allow the Planning Commission to examine the facts about the rezone, take testimony then make a recommendation regarding the change to the County Council.  If the Council votes to rezone the land, actions like the reconveyance can be initiated.  Parks and Commercial Timber production are not compatible.  The land cannot be dedicated to both at once.

County Council member Pete Kremen has belittled the impact of removing 8,800 acres of land from the forest resource base.  It should be remembered that several other reconveyance actions have already reduced the timberlands of the county and more are planned.  In addition, consider the following quote from a DNR analysis about the future of the forest in Washington presented to the Washington Legislature in 2007 (pre-recession):

“Timber harvest has dramatically declined in the past 15 years on all ownership categories, from 5.9 billion board feet per year to 3.6 billion board feet per year, a 40 percent aggregate decline. The greatest declines have been on national forests as a result of federal policy. Unanticipated harvest declines have also occurred on state trust lands, on western Washington tribal lands, on industrial forest lands, and on western Washington non-industrial private lands, largely in response to changing regulations and market conditions and to land conversions.”

A Petition For Review or challenge to a County action is not a lawsuit.  It is just what it says it is, a petition for review.  If the Hearings Board finds the County erred then the Reconveyance Resolution will be sent back to the County for a proper process.

If we are going to deliberately destroy an industry shouldn’t we at least acknowledge we are doing just that?  The appropriateness of such an action is what a proper and transparent process to redesignate the land to a zoning designation allowing parks on the land would explore. 

All that is one reason a challenge is important.

We're More Than Just A Pretty Face Now

I received a form from the Prosecutor's Office Friday with the case number on it.  Apparently we are Hearings Board number 13-2-0016 based on that communication.  I have not yet been formally notified, probably because mail is a bit delayed from Olympia.

Meanwhile, I thought you might enjoy the photos below, taken in the 1890s.  The two forests pictured are not the Reconveyance lands but are of forests similar to Whatcom County's.

The takeaway is that the pre-settlement forests were not static. They burned, they died, they were blown over in windstorns and they grew again.

Don't forget to hit the "share" buttons at the bottom to share news of the reconveyance with your Facebook and other friends.

According to the survey of the nation's forests accomplished in the last years of the 1800s, much of the forest in Whatcom County had burned before it was harvested.  Note the forest in front of the McMansion in the bottom photo.

When You Read This Blog Be Sure To Push The Facebook Button

One of the reasons Whatcom County and its citizens find themselves in the Reconveyance quandry is lack of information. 

Almost no one in the County, on either side of the discussion, really knows what the issues are and, more especially, how the law informs the issues.

I hope to begin filling that information vacuum by means of this blog and through other channels.

To help spread the word, press the facebook button below.  That will share the blog with your facebook friends.

Challenging The System Before The Hearings Board

It's scary to challenge the system before the Hearings Board when you're not an attorney.  The Growth Management Act allows citizen challenges but, when someone like myself does "Petition for Review" of something the government's done that someone, in this case myself, Jack Petree, is held to the same legal standards of discussion and proof an attorney is held to.

Anyway, April 9th, 2013, I asked the Washington State Growth Management Hearings Board to review the Whatcom County's actions in requesting the Lake Whatcom Reconveyance be carried out.

The red areas were harvested in the late 1800s; the brown areas were burned in forest fires in the late 1800s

The review will be done over the next several months.  I felt it appropriate to inform the Council about the request for a review so, I provided the following:

MEMO:   4/9/13

To:  The Whatcom County Council and the Whatcom County Executive

From:  Jack Petree

Regarding:  Hearings Board challenge regarding Whatcom County Resolution 2013 – 009 (Reconveyance)

Council members and Executive,

Earlier today I submitted a Petition For Review to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board regarding the Reconveyance resolution you passed March 12^th of this year.

I think it is right and proper to inform you of my action and, to offer a few words about why I submitted the petition.

My primary objections to your action are threefold.

First, the three major economic initiatives I’ve seen Whatcom County and its cities take in recent years have resulted in the Whatcom County economy being one of the poorest performing  metropolitan economies in the State of Washington with exceedingly low median incomes the rule.

So what have we done about our wage issue?  We deliberately ran Georgia Pacific out of town, we deliberately assured the stagnation of our rural economy by the adoption of LAMIRDS in lieu of the already Superior and Appeals Court approved rural zoning we had in place previously and, now, we are violating state law regarding what both the Hearings Boards and the State Supreme Court have called a “…forest resource conservation imperative that imposes an affirmative duty on local governments to designate and conserve forest resource lands in order to assure the maintenance and enhancement of the forest resource industry.” (bolding is the Hearings Board’s).  In doing so, we are crippling our forest products industry, an industry paying well above the average wage for the county. 

Next, I believe the Department of Natural Resources cannot offer Reconveyance opportunities to Counties on land zoned to reflect the law’s requirement that lands of long term commercial significance be preserved and enhanced.  It is my belief that Reconveyance can only be allowed after resource land has been de-designated and rezoned to accommodate park uses.  This challenge, if accepted by the Board, will help clarify that issue.

Last, the Whatcom County Council put the cart before the horse in the reconveyance process.  Land cannot at once be lands dedicated to the commercial production of timber and the preservation of a healthy forest industry and, park lands.  As the Hearings Boards have said, there are three kinds of land under GMA; resource land, rural land and urban growth areas.  In saying that the Boards have pointed out that rural land and lands dedicated to urban growth can be routinely zoned and rezoned to accommodate the needs of society but, resource lands require a much higher standard and greater scrutiny by the Boards when it comes to de-designation and re-designation.   The Council chose to ignore the need to de-designate and then re-designate the lands it wanted reconveyed before proceeding with its action and in doing that, I believe, violated the GMA.

I am not happy doing this.  This will take a huge number of hours out of my life, hours better spent trying to make a living in this tough economy but, I don’t see an option here.  If I don’t do this the livings of our county’s forest industry workers will be threatened.  I’ve lived in Whatcom County too long to see our industries continue to be harassed and unsupported for decade after decade after decade without trying to do something.  We have brought our economy to the point where it is, with the exception of the big three at Cherry Point, excessively dependent on grants, transfer payments from the state and the sale of milk, cheese and gasoline to Canadians. 

Respectfully,

Jack Petree

In coming weeks I, or others, will try to keep you, the reader of this blog, informed about the progress of the challenge.