Letter from Ron Whalen

Posted June 17, 2020 at 7:33 am by

In the SJ Update Mail­bag this morn­ing we have this let­ter from Ron Whalen…

I request post­ing of the following;

June 7th Aman­da Azous post­ed a let­ter titled Fact Check of Whalen Peti­tion. There­in Aman­da alleges I request sign­ing a peti­tion to elim­i­nate the Land Bank (LB). She alleges I have spread false­hoods and attempt­ed to dupe the com­mu­ni­ty with the lan­guage of the peti­tion. She says with a lit­tle bit of research and read­ing I’d under­stand the facts like she does. Aman­da ends her let­ter with the hope I can get my facts straight, I stop try­ing to dupe the com­mu­ni­ty with false­hoods and decep­tive initiatives.

Soooo….Lets go over Amanda’s alle­ga­tions. Lets see who is spread­ing false­hoods. Lets see who needs to do a lit­tle read­ing and research.

  1. Aman­da states I request sig­na­tures to a peti­tion to elim­i­nate the Land Bank.Not true. The ini­tia­tive states Reduce Dura­tion of Con­ser­va­tion Area Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). The words end­ing and elim­i­nate are no where tobe found in either the peti­tion or the ini­tia­tive. Pas­sage of the bal­lot mea­sure would not end the Land Bank. That’s because the LB has mul­ti­ple source­sof fund­ing. The ini­tia­tive con­cerns just the fund­ing from the REET.
  1. Aman­da states I have out­ra­geous­ly attempt­ed to dupe our com­mu­ni­ty into think­ing that a yes or no answer on the peti­tion meant some­thing oth­er than top­ut the peti­tion on the fall bal­lot.Not true. Aman­da needs to heed her own advise and do some read­ing and research before mak­ing alle­ga­tions. The yes or no sec­tion of thep­e­ti­tion is required. It has noth­ing to do with some plan for decep­tion. Any­one doubt­ing this should con­fer with the coun­ty pros­e­cut­ing attor­ney. I’ll say­it as nice­ly as I can Aman­da. You don’t know what you’re talk­ing about! This accu­sa­tion of try­ing to dupe the com­mu­ni­ty is eas­i­ly dis­pelled. Theim­por­tant take­away from Amanda’s hyper alle­ga­tion is what is says about her cred­i­bil­i­ty. She’ll write any­thing she believes might shore up her per­spec­tives. This is worth remem­ber­ing as you read Amanda’s dia­tribe of what she says are facts.
  1. Aman­da wrote, Unfor­tu­nate­ly, there is ongo­ing lit­i­ga­tion with two neigh­bors dis­put­ing the County’s right to use road ease­ments to access Land Bankowned pre­serves. In both cas­es, the Land Bank pur­chased the sub­ject prop­er­ty pri­or to the neigh­bor and the court has ruled in both cas­es that such acces­sis allowed.Reply I can tell you the par­ties involved in lit­i­ga­tion with the LB have quit dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives than Aman­da. Once again Aman­da­has lit­tle knowl­edge of the sub­ject she writes about. She sim­ply a copies and pastes the argu­ment put out by the Land Bank.
  1. Aman­da states to ful­fill their man­date the Land Bank has pur­chased lands that pro­tect agri­cul­tur­al uses.Reply After 5 years of effort the LB final­ly gave up on a grant on the Zyl­stra Lake acqui­si­tion. That grant includ­ed pro­vi­sions that would have pro­hib­it agri­cul­ture. How does that equate with pro­tect­ing of agri­cul­ture? But it wasn’t pro­tec­tion of agri­cul­ture that final­ly lead the LB to give up on the grant.They gave up because the orig­i­nal grant for a mil­lion dol­lars got reduced to $150,000. The rea­son it got reduced is because LB admin­is­tra­tion hadn’t done due dili­gence of review­ing the pro­vi­sions of the grant. All the grant was ever about was an avenue to get more mon­ey. Which illus­trates the LB’s MO (modus operan­di): A B C D;1. Get the mon­ey (how­ev­er, wher­ev­er you can…never mind the details)
    2. Spend the money
    3. Ask for more
    4. Repeat A, B, & C

    Pri­or to the LB acqui­si­tion the Zyl­stra Lake prop­er­ty was over 500 acres of farm­land. The first thing the LB did after buy­ing it is sub-dived it into 4parcels. All under the ban­ner of preser­va­tion of open space and help­ing to pro­tect farmland.

  1. Aman­da states the LB Acquires lands to pro­tect water­sheds (such as land pro­tect­ing Fri­day Harbor’s water sup­ply).Reply Fri­day Har­bors water sup­ply is Trout Lake. There’s pub­lic access restric­tion around Trout Lake to pro­tect that water sup­ply. One of the LB argu­ments made for the Zyl­stra Lake acqui­si­tion was to pre­serve and pro­tect a pos­si­ble impor­tant water sup­ply. But then the LB acts to make pub­lic access to that impor­tant water sup­ply. That effort con­tin­ues. How does that jive with the argu­ment for the pro­tec­tion of a water sup­ply? The LB’s ini­tial big sell­ing point for the Zyl­stra Lake acqui­si­tion was it’s poten­tial use for swim­ming, until they dis­cov­ered Blue Algae in the lake. Sud­den­ly no more talk of swim­ming. Then there was the grant to help restore salmon runs. How does blue algae, pub­lic swim­ming and recre­ation, pro­tect­ing water resource, and restor­ing salmon runs all get thrown in the same pot and work? It doesn’t! It exem­pli­fies how the LB goes about pre­serv­ing and pro­tect­ing the San Juan’s.  Float grand ideas….. Pro­mo­tion of tourism, Seed banks, trails, salmon runs, pub­lic swim­ming, boat­ing, trails, farm­ers mar­kets, pro­tec­tion of water resources, preser­va­tion of his­tor­i­cal and cul­tur­al sites….What­ev­er!!  Pro­mote all of it under the ban­ner of con­ser­va­tion. Deal with any details or con­flicts of inter­ests lat­er if they come up. Need exam­ples? How about the 5 year effort for the recre­ation grant on Zyl­stra Lake that went squat. How about the ongo­ing lit­i­ga­tion over easements.
  1. Aman­da wrote..All these acqui­si­tions and endeav­ors are in com­plete align­ment with the Land Bank Man­date approved by vot­ers each time it has come up for renew­al.Reply On the Land Bank web site under FAQ’s is posed the ques­tion How do sup­port tak­ing land off the tax rolls? It’s answered;

    Pub­lic land is a huge ben­e­fit for the coun­ty in that it:

    1. Pre­serves the island’s char­ac­ter, and gives us places to go.
    2. Plays a key role in keep­ing us com­pet­i­tive in the real estate market.
    3. Helps main­tain our prop­er­ty values.
    4. Is the under­ly­ing dri­ver of our tourism/service businesses.
    5. Does not cre­ate a need for addi­tion­al tax­es as does devel­op­ment (EMS/hospital/schools/roads/library/fire district).

    Tax dol­lars are being used to pro­mote tourism? Since when did the vot­ers approve a man­date for the Land Bank to pro­mote tourism?

  2. Aman­da wrote..the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) that funds San Juan County’s Con­ser­va­tion Land Bank is paid once by the pur­chas­er.

    Reply The per­cep­tion is the buy­er pays so it’s at no expense to the sell­er. Any­one that’s ever bought prop­er­ty knows in the nego­ti­a­tion of price and costs, every­thing is on the table. To just say the excise tax is des­ig­nat­ed the respon­si­bil­i­ty of the buy­er side­steps the real­i­ty that all costs are part of the nego­ti­a­tion process.

Aman­da end­ed not­ing spread­ing false­hoods wasn’t very respect­ful. I agree. Spread­ing an alle­ga­tion that I attempt­ed to dupe the com­mu­ni­ty with the lan­guage of the peti­tion was a falsehood.

Ron Whalen

You can support the San Juan Update by doing business with our loyal advertisers, and by making a one-time contribution or a recurring donation.

Categories: Letters, Opinion, People

No comments yet. Be the first!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By submitting a comment you grant the San Juan Update a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate, irrelevant and contentious comments may not be published at an admin's discretion. Your email is used for verification purposes only, it will never be shared.

Receive new post updates: Entries (RSS)
Receive followup comments updates: RSS 2.0