Each of us has a unique perspective. Each of us has experiences that, through constructive sharing, could positively contribute to our collective society. However, it’s human nature to get so caught up in wining or losing that we forget that all opinions have a critical stake in the future of our community.

Having recently completed many hours of public hearings about county land use, planning and development codes, and growth areas, wherein the Board of Commissioners listened intently to the views of our diverse community, I observed the dedication and conviction of Kitsap citizens to their families, their community, and to the legacy they will impart on generations of future Kitsapers.

There is no doubt that the reflections of each solitary voice brought us closer to practical solutions for our county, and I have great appreciation for those citizens who shared their thoughts with us.

Certainly, we all want the “good life” in Kitsap County, and, because we each have unique viewpoints, a good life means something at least a little different to every person. Some of us may agree that, in the least, the “Kitsap good life” means a clean and healthy environment, safe neighborhoods, good schools, and a solid economy that provides living wage jobs and a solid foundation on which to run a business.

Although some people may have thought the Growth Management Act (GMA) was the perfect solution, there were many others who reserved their judgment, or who were immediately concerned about its overall cumulative impact on community lifestyles and property rights.

Throughout the last three years, I have listened to the concerns of business and real property owners and have grown increasingly concerned that GMA doesn’t include needed mechanisms to engineer solutions in our also unique communities.

I share citizen appreciation for nature and the environment. Our surroundings make our community unparalleled in terms of lifestyle and scenic splendor. However over the last decade, we’ve found that the rigid and inflexible nature of the Act has contributed to unexpected slow downs in economic progress that has choked business growth, and even sending would-be employers packing.

The development community, working side-by-side with preservationists, have also made great discoveries and strides in low-impact development and best-available science that promise to balance the benefits of environmental protection with economic enhancements. These new methods should be noted and used to modify and add more flexibility to the Act.

Any complex solution should include a periodic and contemplative review of its successes or failures. Respecting all points of view, wouldn’t it be overconfident to continue the GMA course without evaluating and making mid-course adjustments?

After a decade of implementation, it is time to evaluate the achievements and disappointments of GMA. There is room, certainly a need, in our rules and laws for everyone to be heard and to demonstrate our collective commitment to both the environment and to strong economic growth.

I am leading an effort that includes the views of concerned officials from around the state who want to improve GMA and facilitate change that allow it to live up to its original intent, while correcting unanticipated outcomes and incorporating the most recent information on low-impact development.

Let us share our unique perspectives and experiences looking for those solutions that make us all winners and one which secures a strong community legacy for our grandchildren.