Island historians appeal Strawberry Park “nonsignificance”

Commentary by Gerald Elfendahl…

Dear Friends of Cannery Cove Park,

Thanks to your support and encouragement, we waded in! WE FILED AN APPEAL of the City’s Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) for THE City’s planned excavation of our waterfront and history! The call it Strawberry Plant Park. We like to call it “Cannery Cove.” A copy of our appeal letter is below except for attachments.

We thank all those who made time on short notice to write letters, help with collecting the history and what have you. Our Council’s Public Works committee has recommend the hiring of a project contractor already! This will go before the full Council for approval Wednesday night (May 13)!

House Bill 1653

Here’s an excellent letter sent by one of our shoreline neighbors regarding HB 1653 now pending in the legislature.

Rep. Christine Rolfes,

Thank you for the courtesy of a reply and for looking into this. I had not previously seen the information statement from DOE, I had only read the actual text of their proposal. While I find their propaganda on this interesting, for me it actually further underscores the need to educate from all perspectives. So to that end I would like to take a moment to explain the real concern here and why this is so important.

The real problem and issue here lies within the details governing actions under the GMA vs. the SMA. Under the GMA the term “Best Available Science (BAS)” is the standard to which property right affecting decisions are held, whereas the SMA requires substantiated real science.

Preserving shoreline history at Strawberry Plant Park.

Our Choices by Gerald Elfendahl

(Note: Bainbridge Shoreline Homeowners doesn’t take a position on this issue, but we feel it is important for everyone to know about the planning process so they can participate as they see fit.)

February 24, 2009, a joint special meeting of City Council, Mayor and Park Directors allowed only brief comment on Strawberry Plant Park’s plan before it was presented. Once it was seen, no public comment was allowed! Why?

The meeting purpose was not advertised. The agenda was full. Some went home frustrated unable to share their thoughts, especially after a vote gave a “go-ahead” to excavate the historic site and landscape without public discussion or a committee to assess needs and ways to meet them. One voted against the plan. Three were absent. Meeting minutes can be viewed here.

Everyone agrees: The site has historical significance both for community, Depression-era, strawberry industry and longtime maritime uses. Some question the site’s historic integrity. Greeks, Egyptians and some Fort Wardians know the value of ruins. Do the rest of us?

Will Council & Parks Board vote to destroy island history?

On Feb 24, 2009, the Bainbridge Island City Council will have a joint meeting with Bainbridge Island Metro Parks and Recreation District, 6 pm at Strawberry Hill Center. On the agenda (here) is an item called, “City Council and Park Board select the preferred option for Strawberry Park Update.” Island historian Gerald Elfendahl fears they will vote to destroy a critical part of our island’s history.

Update: The council and parks board voted to ignore citizen input, destroy island history, and “restore” the beach with only one dissenting vote. Details in the Review.

Much has been written about the planning process for Strawberry Plant Park. City staff included island residents in a design charrette, then completely ignored their input. To its credit, the Review covered the flawed process extensively. The bottom line is that citizens want a park where kids can play, kayaks can be launched, and islanders can enjoy a peaceful view of the water. It seems that our mayor and city staff do not.

You may not feel this issue affects you as a shoreline homeowner, but it’s part of a disturbing trend.

New law aims to wipe out balance in shoreline regulations.

House Bill 1653 (and its companion Senate Bill 5726) may seem like routine housekeeping to our legislators, but its effect may be to wipe out the balance between environmental protection and property rights inherent in the Shoreline Management Act (SMA).

With hundreds of bills totaling thousands of pages, it us unlikely that anyone but a few staffers will read more than the executive summary of these bills before they are passed out of committee and voted into law. If they do become law, it is likely that the right of shoreline homeowners to protect their property will erode faster than an unprotected bluff in a winter storm.

Local governments gear up for shoreline planning.

From an article by Christopher Dunagan, Kitsap Sun, Saturday, Feb 14…

Shorelines planning, one of the most contentious issues for local governments in the Puget Sound region, will likely embroil Kitsap County and its four cities later this year. Environmental groups, as well as property-rights advocates, are preparing to argue about the kind of protective regulations shoreline property owners should live under.

“We’re getting ready for this,” said Vivian Henderson of the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners. “I think the state and the county will go after more private land and larger buffers. We consider this an assault on private property owners.” more

Meanwhile, on Feb 5, Bainbridge Shoreline Homeowners asked mayor Kordonowy to set up a citizens advisory committee to help steer the city’s process. We have yet to receive a response from the mayor or any of the city council members to our request. In fairness, they have been working on pressing issues like figuring out how to keep the city solvent. Visit our Speak Out page if you would like to contact the mayor or council members in support of our request.

New law to integrate shoreline and critical area regulations.

In response to the Washington state supreme court decision in the Anacortes case last July, the departments of ecology (DOE) and community, trade and economic development (CTED) are requesting legislation to clarify how local governments are to regulate shoreline areas.

A joint release by the two agencies explains the situation from their perspective and describes a solution in the form of House Bill 1653 and its companion Senate Bill 5726. It says in part that the court’s decision “throws into question the validity of 170 local Critical Area Ordinances. Failure to clarify the original intent of the bill could result in a gap in shoreline habitat protection.”

What it doesn’t say is that the 170 local ordinances were written at the direction of DOE in violation of ESHB 1933. That bill was passed unanimously by the legislature in 2003 to hammer home a message to DOE and CTED that shorelines are to be regulated by the Shoreline Management Act not the GMA. The original intent was clear to everyone but DOE and CTED.