| A basic premise of all Americans, dealing with each other, is that people are inherently honest and good. Without that basis, our ability to conduct our daily lives in an orderly manner is shattered.
In those persons we select to act for us in elected or appointed positions we expect personal integrity to be above question or reproach. In every act and deed that they engage in, they must strive for absolute clarity to, and understanding by, the people they serve. Opinion must be clearly separated from fact, mandatory actions separated from desires, and personal agendas balanced equally and fairly by presentation of other viable options. Anything less breeds distrust, conflict, and rejection by the people.
The current series of “Speak Outs” was advertised as a way to find “solutions” to various “problems.” Lack of public trust surfaced early in the process and little has been done to dispel that concern. During the initial series, there was no overriding, clear demonstration by attendees that concern over environmental issues was so strong as to warrant immediate county action.
To the contrary, the main thrust of public comments urged severe limits on regulation and a better appreciation of property ownership and the cost in proposed county actions. The second round of “Speak outs” is complete. The “lessons learned” from the first round did not flow down and lack of trust grows more apparent.
“Speak Out II” opened with a county hand-out with statements of “fact” including “citizens of Kitsap County consistently indicated that natural resource protection is an important issue” and “protection of natural resources needs to be balanced between education, incentive programs, and regulation.” Based on those “facts,” groups of participants were asked to “identify incentives — make it easier for property owners to respect community interest in natural systems” and to identify ways to educate the public about “natural resources.” Finally the participants were asked to identify actions the county should take when incentives and education do not achieve the desired results.
What happened to the concerns identified in the first series? Where did the “facts” come from? Why must the “facts” stretch the truth beyond resilience?
The “county speak” employed in the “Speak Out” series is disingenuous.
“Natural resources” means every bit of real estate, every drop of water, and every living thing (except people) in the county. When the county talks of natural resources they mean your back yard. “Incentives” means using a carrot that is tied to a huge stick. If you don’t eat the carrot, down comes the stick. “Public education” means convincing people that “community interest” has priority over individual rights and that those who oppose the “common good” are greedy and need to be forced into compliance.
When are we going to start dealing with the conservation and growth issues honestly so that we can all participate and build solutions that unite rather than divide?
Jack Hamilton
Silverdale. | 
