In the time I've served on the Kitsap County Planning Commission, it's been my policy not to comment on issues before us, or ones we're likely to see. The county's controversial Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) has been no exception.

However, now that the Planning Commission has passed the CAO on to the commissioners for a decision, I believe it's appropriate to express my concerns not only about Draft 2 of the CAO, but about the process itself, as well as the coverage of this issue by our local media.

I believe passionately in environmental protection. I also believe it can be accomplished by reasonable people understanding the balanced co-existence necessary between man and nature. So in my view, this entire CAO process has been a complete fraud — an unforgivable and irresponsible squandering of the taxpayer's money. It's fatally flawed in the respect county staff has produced an unacceptable document completely ignoring citizen input provided at public forums held last year. It rejects the views of the majority of local residents testifying at two lengthy public hearings, and doesn't include any of the input or suggestions made by the Planning Commission for most of the past year — not a single one!

What Draft 2 does reflect, is the pre-determined, ideologically-driven outcome obviously decided upon in advance of the process being undertaken. What's taken place for the past year, is a bogus “process” consisting of nothing more than going through the motions necessary to comply with the law to achieve that pre-determined outcome.

Draft 2 was shoved down the throats of the Planning Commission and the citizens of Kitsap County in such an arrogant, unrepentant, and offensive manner, that all the work the planning commissioners have put in to this process, all of the reading we've done (the documents alone create a stack not quite 18-inches tall), all of the meetings we've attended, and all the public testimony we've listened to, have amounted to nothing more than a highly inconsiderate waste of our time.

Staff's attitude has been, “We know best. Don't bother us with your silly questions.”

For example, they've arrogantly and adamantly refused to answer my question concerning the value of private property that will become unusable under Draft 2, saying it will take two years to calculate. They know that's a bald-faced lie. In my opinion, they're afraid making such a number public will alert citizens to just how onerous this document really is.

Meanwhile, a private citizen made an admittedly low calculation — $935 million — and did it in less than a day from information publicly available from the county. It's low, only because it's calculated upon assessed value — not market value. Such a number would have been an acceptable answer had staff not stonewalled on calculating it.

And there are still numerous other unanswered questions. Who defines such ambiguous terms as “reasonable,” or “enhanced,” or even “Critical?” Nowhere in the Critical Areas Ordinance, is “Critical” defined!

"Best Available Science" — the underpinnings of the CAO — hasn't been addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission's majority. Staff absolutely refuses to engage on this question — even when shown the science they're relying on isn't necessarily applicable to this area — or even within 100 miles of it. They've disdainfully stonewalled on reviewing material based on local conditions a couple of planning commissioners attempted to introduce —material that meets all of the state's established "Best Available Science" requirements, but doesn't support the pre-determined outcome.

I may not be a scientist, but I do know BS when I hear it.

The Planning Commission — nine volunteers — came in for some harsh and highly unfair and undeserved criticism from the Kitsap Sun for even questioning staff over Draft 2. According to a Sun editorial, we should have just rolled over and rubber-stamped it.

This is a monumental thinking error based upon either plain old knee-jerk liberalism supporting social engineering, not having actually read the entire document, not understanding it and grasping what will occur if it's implemented, or some combination thereof.

The Sun's reporting of the Planning Commission's deliberations has been highly prejudicial — playing fast and loose with actual facts — not to mention being transparently biased. For example, in at least two stories it was reported the Planning Commission voted to recommend reducing buffers from 200 feet to 100 feet. The way the stories are written, readers are led to believe current buffers are 200 feet and the Planning Commission voted to reduce existing protections. That's a blatant distortion of the facts.

In reality, existing buffers are 100 feet. Draft 2 proposes increasing them to 200 feet. The Planning Commission recommended leaving the existing buffers in place — not downgrading current protections as those stories deliberately suggest.

It's a newspaper's job to report the facts correctly without bias, and let readers make up their own mind — not attempt to influence their thinking. Allowing a reporter's obvious personal bias to masquerade as “news” is simply unconscionable.

Since we're a monthly and can't respond immediately, I expect The Sun to try and either justify or discredit this statement. Re-read those stories armed with this new, factual information, and decide for yourself.

The bottom line is, we all have a responsibility to protect our critical areas. But it's also possible to do that in a win-win manner that isn't the unprecedented, constitutionally questionable, gun-to-your-head, private property theft Draft 2 represents.

We sure as hell didn't elect DCD staff to make these decisions, and dictate our future — or our children’s, while ignoring what we, the citizens, have clearly told them we want. But if Draft 2 goes unchallenged, just as the proposed buffers are forever, emboldened by their success, the bureaucratic regulatory war on property owners by unelected ideologues will continue to escalate, “in perpetuity.”

The tail is wagging the dog here. Those unelected bureaucrats work for us — NOT the other way around. It's time for all our citizens to stand up, draw the line in the sand and say “Enough!” Right here. Right now.