August 2002
Clarification
Councilmember Brenner Explains Opposition to Land Acquisition
by Barbara Brenner
Barbara Brenner has represented the third district on the Whatcom County Council since 1992.
The July Whatcom Watch (page 9, vote 101) referenced a county council vote to purchase the Olsen Estate and Turner/Jaeger property in the Lake Whatcom Watershed for $819,000, with the county and the city splitting the cost. Proponents claimed that our purchase of the property would prevent dense development.
The description of the vote in the Whatcom Watch was that the purchase would reduce development in the watershed followed by the statement, Ward Nelson and Barbara Brenner opposed.
While I dont believe it was intentional, the Whatcom Watch summary was misleading and the implication that Ward or I oppose density reduction in the watershed is not true.
Here are some important facts about which you were not informed:
The 369-acre parcel is zoned forestry and the maximum build-out for the entire property is ten houses. That averages out to one house per 37 acres. The county executive claimed the purchase was one of the most important steps we could take to reduce development in the watershed. The proponents claimed the purchase will significantly reduce development and development potential in the watershed.
However, neither the county moratorium, endorsed by the executive, nor the recent downzone in the watershed reduces density to anywhere near one house per 37 acres. Therefore, the purchase was insignificant in reducing density in the watershed. But the $819,000 could have been better spent on monetary incentives to encourage property owners to reduce build-out, especially in higher density areas, such as Geneva.
The Conservation Futures Fund, used for the countys half of the purchase, contains a limited amount of money. The cost/benefit ratio on this property makes it one of the most extravagant purchases we have ever made. In a newspaper interview, one of the proponents did acknowledge, albeit after the purchase, that only 10 houses could have been built. But he said it was still a good buy because it would help create more parks and trails.
It would be interesting to calculate which would cause more impacts to the watershed, increased traffic getting to the parks and trails or pollution caused by only 10 houses built at our new stringent standards. Whatcom Countys revenues have declined significantly. We must prioritize purchases that will significantly protect the watershed over purchases of parks and trails that we might like to have but that will reduce the money available for watershed protection.
According to foresters who had made an offer on the property, the original appraisal of the property, done several years ago, was $500,000. The proponents of the purchase managed to obtain an appraisal of over $800,000. The county should have at least gotten another appraisal before paying the larger amount because of the enormous difference.
The property had already been logged before the county and city purchased it. It will have to be maintained for many years. There must be periodic thinning to ensure the aggressive species do not crowd out more important trees. Maintenance is expensive. This property will cost the taxpayers far into the future.
Furthermore, this purchase encourages other forestland owners in the watershed to clear-cut their property, make their profit, and then sell their property to the county and/or city at an inflated price instead of doing the many years of maintenance.
Forestry/logging is a beneficial use in watersheds when done correctly. The proponents of this big-ticket purchase claim that forestry practices will continue. But the fine print says there will be no harvesting until the trees are 150 years old. The claim was that 150 years are necessary for the trees to form a completely closed canopy. But properly planted trees can form a closed canopy within 70 years.
However, some people just dont want any logging in the watershed. Honest opposition is preferable to hiding behind inaccurate propaganda that pretends to support logging. At 150 years, a tree becomes a monument. There will be much opposition to cutting trees that old.
The logging community is maligned for mainly two reasons. Bad logging practices by a minority of logging companies have tainted the whole industry. Vocal opposition by those who only know the logging horror stories has pitted well-meaning people against each other. Logging isnt different than other types of farming. People who choose to live near forests must be willing to accept unavoidable nuisances that accompany logging.
Loggers must be willing to work with neighbors to reduce unnecessary impacts. I have been around loggers much of my life. Most would rival the staunchest environmentalists in their respect and care for the woods. It is up to the logging community to better police itself and not tolerate poor practices. It is up to the rest of us to better understand the logging community and the reverence most loggers have for their environment.
Logging has been a cultural, spiritual, and financial way of life for many years. We can protect the watershed without causing the extinction of an important, clean, and special industry.
