|
Commissioner Titterness
Letter sent by John Fabian of the HCC
Commissioner Titterness
At a public meeting on June 14th, you
stated that you were frustrated because some
Jefferson County citizens feel that there is
"something going on" with county government
related to the MRL and the pit to pier project.
You said that the process has been very open.
Let's look at some incidents that may have
resulted in citizen doubts about their county
government.
Most recently, a Deputy PA wrote a set of rules
that prohibited the county commissioners from
hearing citizen comments about the environmental
study supporting the pending MRL decision. In
doing so, he said that this prohibition was
written into "state law." In fact, he later
admitted that no such law exists. What he did
was to invent a non-existent state law in an
attempt to silence any criticism of the pending
MRL decision based on any environmental
grounds. This was plain and simple a gag
order. It was supported by his supervisor until
HCC attorneys read them the law and cited
appropriate statutes. This set of rules was
read to the public at the aborted 5/25/04 public
hearing on the MRL decision. It was
intimidating! The public reaction was immediate
and highly negative. By the time I got home, my
e-mail register was full. Here is a case where
a public official, paid by the taxpayers of
Jefferson County, intentionally tried to silence
the public on the most important land use
decision in the history of the county. This guy
is an attorney who must know the law. He is
paid to support the citizens of Jefferson
County. To invent a non-existent law to shut
down debate is not good government. Agreed?
The newspaper announcement of the MRL public
hearing that appeared in the Leader had a
similar gag order attached. It said "by a rule"
citizens are not permitted to comment on the
environmental impact statement. Many of your
constituents interpreted this to mean that there
would be no public testimony at the public
hearing. The "by a rule" citation without any
legal background is almost as egregious as the
invented state law. (It came from DCD.)
We are told that these were both innocent
mistakes. We are told that they were totally
independent errors. We told that there was no
prior discussion or strategy to shut down the
debate by various members of the county
government. Can you blame us for wondering?
The staff report on the pending MRL decision was
passed through the hands of DCD and the PA's
office. In that process, the Deputy PA edited
out the phrase "study aspects of the pit to pier
project" which came directly from the WWGMHB
findings. His reason for doing so was "we don't
want to highlight it as that phrase standing on
its own can be misconstrued and has to be read
in a complicated context that we can't go into
in this staff report." Why did he not want to
highlight it? Can the absence, and intentional
deletion, of this phrase also be misconstrued?
What is the public to think when the words of
the WWGMHB are intentionally deleted from the
staff report?
We continue to hear "we had no choice; it was
mandated by the GMA." Yet, the WWGMHB stated
clearly that the previous MRL approval could not
be based solely on the argument that these
resources need to be protected. In fact, the
1997 Jefferson County EIS to the Comprehensive
Plan also clearly states that they are already
protected by the commercial forest land
designation. It is precisely that Comp Plan EIS
verbiage that is directly quoted by the WWGMHB
to dispose of the county's argument. Their
finding is, "the county's rationale for
protecting its mineral resource lands with a
commercial forest designation was settled in
1998." Why, then, do we continue to hear that
this MRL is about protecting the resources when
that argument has already been dismissed by the
Hearings Board? Our county government sounds
like an echo of FHM's erroneous and deflated
argument.
In the EIS for the first iteration of this MRL
decision, the county determined that the
environmental impacts of the "no action"
alternative were "Not Significant." Do you find
it interesting that the environmental impacts of
this alternative are now far worse than those of
the 690-acre mining district? Is it fair for
your fellow citizens to wonder why this change
of heart on the part of the county happened? Is
it fair for these citizens to wonder about the
total lack of depth of the analysis of the "no
action" alternative in the current EIS?
After the Hearings Board decision, I asked the
Director of DCD if it would be possible for
interested citizens to participate in the new
EIS process. His response was that it would not
be possible. This would be "done behind closed
doors." These are his words, not mine. Would
those words concern you?
Without doubt, the largest issue of credibility
relates to the county insistence that the MRL
and the pit to pier project are not linked.
Even though the WWGMHB has stated "there are
aspects of a future pit-to-pier project that are
appropriate for environmental review at this
time," DCD, PA and BOCC have refused to
acknowledge any connection. The latest EIS does
scant little to review any aspects of the pit to
pier project. While we fully expect that
Jefferson County will be taken to task by the
Hearings Board for failure to comply with their
Final Decision and Order, the citizens, voters,
and tax payers of Jefferson County will have the
last word on this topic.
I appreciate the opportunity to express my views
and to address your concerns.
John Fabian
|
|
