Washblog

Openness and transparency are a genuinely critical part of our US-style Constitutional Democratic System and the liberties and rights it guarantees, and I commend everyone involved for seeking citizen input. I know that there is a great deal of conflicting information and opinions from a variety of sources and that not everyone will be happy no matter which way the chips fall. Such is not the point of democracy, however.

In many cases the best that can be done is a reasonable weighing of competing issues and rights and making the most rational decisions based upon those factors. This is often interpreted to mean the greatest good for the greatest number, which sometimes it does mean. But a good decision can also mean one, which best protects the minority against tyranny. And sometimes, in cases like this one regarding development rights, it is about protecting the vast majority against economic tyranny perpetrated by a developer oligarchy bent on claiming public resources (mainly water and its control) for themselves.

I would like to request that the viewpoint that I am about to present be given serious consideration when evaluating the directions of and levels at which physical growth is permitted to occur in our region. It is evident to me that we cannot keep on growing the way we do in our arid eastern Washington climate and expect the water to hold out. Based upon ample anecdotal evidence as well as many direct quotes reprinted in local media sources, this is a point upon which the Commissioners on both sides of the Columbia River will likely disagree with me. They appear to support virtually all growth and are very uncritical of the mindset of malignancy that is overusing and depleting our natural resources. It is for that reason that I need to engage in this discussion to help shift it to a more logical level, as opposed to primarily emotional.

The right of private property owners to develop or not develop is what we need to come to terms with before we can expect to make progress on this matter, in today's workshop and at many points in the future. This is, by its very nature, a highly charged topic and is likely to draw fiery reactions from many sources. Emotions usually run very high on this subject for many reasons. But I will do my best to discuss this in a non-confrontational way.

It is my belief that we need to agree on new and updated definitions, levels, and degrees of rights to develop. Such definitions depend upon who is doing the requesting, where they wish to do it, what type of development they are seeking permission for, and how much of it they want to do. There are numerous permutations of and factors affecting this confusing mix of intentions and plans, and it would be impossible to cover every last one of them. But we must try to hammer out some new standards, ones a bit tighter than "it's private property, and they can do whatever they want on it as long as it's legal".

We need new designations for what is legally permissible versus morally acceptable when it comes to high-impact physical growth of our urban dross, and our human domination of everything else from the climate to the oceans to the decisions that are driving tens of thousands of species to extinction. This is the type of revision that we need to occasionally perform in a democratic society. As far as I am concerned there are many, many things that humanity needs to do far better than it does. We are nowhere near the pinnacle of our potential in terms of successful social functioning or being in balance with the ecosystems that sustain our lifestyles and out very lives. Change is inevitable. Hopefully for the better....

One very prominent example of this type of democratic revision is that of race, civil rights, and slavery. Those were extremely upsetting issues for many people of the time (and they still are today, as civil rights are an ongoing matter) and tremendous emotion was poured forth by all parties concerned. Blood was shed many a time. Yet most alive today would not say that it was (and is) not a cause worth fighting for. We evolved as a society and are demonstrably better for it in spite of the pain incurred by the changes. Remaining enslaved was even less tolerable.

Similarly, the rights of women to vote and to be considered equal were not without upheaval and discord, yet few today would argue that it shouldn't have been done. Well I submit that it is time to ask some difficult questions about the appropriateness of and need for endless consumption, which results in sprawl and pollution yet leaves most of its participants feeling strangely unsatisfied. Even as we hurtle towards impending disaster via climate change and a litany of other woes, we ignore the many warning signs.

This destruction potential is part of what will force us to have this debate. Conditions will become so intolerable that we will simply HAVE to talk about this. I believe that history will bear me out on this matter, so let's start here at home in Douglas and Chelan County and talk about whether it is even appropriate to grow this much, this fast, this soon, and in this way. Or can we possibly do better?

After all, why would we think that the two Counties will be a better place to live if we urbanize them to resemble the same infernal rat races which so many recently escaped from? I think that this is a very sensible way to approach the matter. Would the county commissioners, planners, realtors and developers agree with at least the logic of my line of thinking? How will becoming like the places many left benefit us other than on a shallow and short-lived financial level that still leaves us feeling empty once we reinvest it in another, ever less affordable home?

I feel that we need to develop and set some basic guidelines for how to handle development requests in the public arena. This is triply true for massive proposals from certain local developers or else we will surely suffer some sort of tyranny, be it economic, environmental, political, or another type.

This protocol for handling and granting development requests needs to be a democratically devised system of checks and balances. It needs to operate on a localized case-by-case basis, with small-scale autonomy and civic involvement being a vital component. Local citizens who understand their particular community situations are the best able to determine what the solutions ought to be. In the US, New England is the prime stronghold of this type of governance by town hall meetings at the village and county levels.

Barring this local involvement by civic-minded citizenry, it would come down to the same thing that it has historically come down to time and time again: The strongest players with the best access to resources are able to dominate the playing field and tilt it in their favor against the Common Good and individuals. Our US form of Constitutional Democracy was set up specifically to avoid such overbearing supremacy by any means (government, corporate, monarchical, and/or religious) wherever possible.

Government is the only tool by which this can be achieved. This is because it is the only one of those four potentially oppressive factions that is readily accountable to the majority of people regardless of wealth, creed, or other divisions. Additionally, it is structured in such a way as to be responsive to elections and the political process, not to mention checks and balances that allow redress of grievances and the service of justice. When government functions well, it is a wonderful thing that truly enables people to reach their full potentials. Of course benevolent monarchs, well-to-do landowners and prosperous merchants in peaceful times, and humane spiritual leaders have achieved similar results in conjunction with governments; but they have a bad tendency to end with the passage of the charismatic individuals or fortuitous economic conditions responsible for those good times, and revert to authoritarianism or worse.

But sometimes, despite our best intentions or abilities, despotic things get railroaded into our Constitutional Democracy anyway and become law. This can be done by either "legal" means or not. Therefore, our governmental system was set up in such a way that smaller and less powerful voices could take it upon themselves to use the power of government (of, by, and for the people, and not by any other standard) to correct such imbalances for the greater good. The US Founding Fathers pretty much invented this very sane and humane type of government that is accountable to the people. Despite being 230 years of age, this is still a highly unusual form of government in our world, especially when you compare it to the many tyrants, dictators, and one-party states with total authoritarian control seen almost anywhere else you look.

I need to place the concept of "the right to develop" in this context because it is extremely important to protecting our future from excessive development that will ruin the environment and harm everyone who lives here today. County commissioners have been extremely vocal in their support of private property rights and the right of owners to develop property in virtually whatever way they see fit.

This right to develop privately-held property extends to developers for certain, and we can hopefully presume that county commissioners and other elected officials intends for it to apply to individuals as well. In a perfect world, those two parties (individuals and developers) would be approximately equal. But in the real world, they are simply not. One is far and away more powerful than the other. And since our government and our Constitution is totally at its core geared to protect the individual in both its intents and actual language, we have a conflict in the making.

This, then, brings me to the heart of my argument in this letter: There is an enormous real-world difference between the rights and power of corporate developers and those same rights and powers when applied to individuals. And when those realities collide, we must err on the side of individuals or the collective good, not corporations. These two entities are so vastly different that it is like comparing apples and oranges. In fact, it might be more like comparing watermelons and soccer balls. At least an apple and an orange are both fruits and are in the same broad category even as they differ significantly. When we compare huge wealthy corporations and individuals, we are comparing two things that are not even remotely alike aside from superficial appearances. Both soccer balls and watermelons are round, for example. The similarities end after that.

Corporations and LLC's are far and away more able to manipulate everything from resources to public perceptions to the availability of money in ways favorable to themselves than most people are. Their influence extends far beyond the boardroom and into the daily lives of anyone they directly deal with and many they never directly encounter. They can lobby governments in a sustained, aggressive manner and bring major lawsuits and drag them on for years and years if necessary to get their way. What lone person can do this, and have this amount of sway over policymakers that set rules that we all are forced to play by?

Corporations are aggregates of people, with abilities beyond that contained within the brain or personality of any one individual. They are basically organisms that function like specialized machines that perform exceptionally well at their primary task: Making money. They pool the talents of their many employees, and merge their bank capital resources in ways that no lone individual could ever hope to. Their impacts are astoundingly far-reaching when compared to even the most energetic and charismatic sole proprietor.

Corporations are not live persons, yet they have been falsely allowed to have all of the rights of real natural persons without having any of the frailties. This has set the stage for breathtaking abuses, which we are seeing in cases everywhere these days. Enron, Halliburton, and local mega developers wanting to claim the limited water resources of this entire county for their own profit.

To steer the conversation back to rights to develop.... I maintain, quite logically I think, that the difference between developing thousands of acres in a high-density fashion and those same thousands of acres in the low-density 10 and 20-acre parcels that they were mostly otherwise were zoned at is so different that it hardly needs mentioning. Except that the constant justification of his "right to develop" in whatever way he chooses is utilized by the commissioners because they perhaps don't want to face the possibility that disgruntled developers might bring a nasty lawsuit against the county or other entities for them denying his "right" to develop at such densities.

Once again, is one company's "right" to intensively develop property greater than the rights of approximately 70,000 current Wenatchee Valley residents to have sustainable water, clean air, lower taxes, less crowded roadways, and so on? How about smaller developers and their right to develop their lands in a fashion not so impactful upon everyone else? If you're a lightweight on a playing field with an 800-lb gorilla like some of the developers in our area, who will get creamed?

Is it fair to hand over nearly ALL of our remaining aquifer water to one or two persons, thereby keeping the field clear of competition? Even if individuals and smaller developers are allowed to construct their modest projects, some individuals can afford to drill the deepest and longest-lasting wells, which will be the ones that enable his homes to have the most water for the longest time. The small, local landowners who lived here first, in many cases for decades, will suffer depleted wells and need to evacuate. This in spite of the fact that they were here long before the big money developer camel sucked all the water out of the collective trough. Are they allowed any recourse for this domineering activity? The Constitution says yes. But they ought to not have to go that route, because, and I'll repeat this until we all can say it unison, the Constitution says that government is supposed to protect against this type of powerful abuse of the Common Man by corporations.

I appreciate that the county commissioners have no conscious intention to allow current residents to suffer damage due to newer high-impact developments. But I worry that this might happen anyway because of ignorance, fear of lawsuits, or simple rigidity in the form of clinging to the mantra of "It's private property and they can do whatever they want with it." The resistance that anti-cancerous-growth people such as me are offering is about a lot more than NIMBY. Big money development impact is absolutely, unquestionably, countywide and affects every last one of us here today. This is way beyond NIMBY. I am opposed to this type of rapacious development on many grounds, most of which I think are very well reasoned and eminently sensible. To dismiss this and toss my and other people's legitimate concerns, comments, and well-considered arguments into this simplistic box is both incorrect and unethical.

Incidentally, lawsuits brought by corporations that defend their "rights" as if they were natural persons wouldn't hold up if our courts really did their own jobs and upheld the Constitution in the way that they are obligated to. The legal fiction is that corporations today are termed "artificial persons". This is clearly unconstitutional and should be overturned as rapidly as possible.

In fact, the 1886 case upon which this so-called "ruling" is based and upon which immense precedent has been set said no such thing. In other words, no official Supreme Court ruling ever said that corporations are "artificial persons" with the rights thereof (but without the responsibilities.) That was a biased clerical interpretation with no legal foundation by justices. Under that case, in a series of stunning examples of judicial negligence spanning 120 years, corporations have since been given the "right" by various judges to:

• Own property, and abuse it in ways that hurt real human neighbors and the environment immensely.
• Free speech, including misleading, omitting critical evidence, and outright lying, all of which have been successfully argued by corporate lawyers.
• Not be tried more than once on the same charges. This allows for one lawsuit only, which they often win thanks to their immense staying power and legal resources and propensity to appeal even totally justified verdicts. In many cases this has allowed corporations to get away with slap-on-the-wrist fines (they cannot be jailed since they aren't people) and continue abominable practices that a live person would be incarcerated for.
• And the right to petition, meaning lobby endlessly and curry favor in supremely questionable ways until they get the preferential terms they seek. Many times they even get the legal right to do things that no live human would ever be granted.

As this fact becomes more widely known, lawsuits alleging that corporations have human rights such as the aforementioned will become seen for what they are: Mind-blowing delusions that a more sane, educated, and connected society would be outraged over and immediately disallow.

We have the power to disband the charters of corporations that abuse the public trust in any way. But under today's system of public civic ignorance and increasingly nerve-wracking corporate power mongering this is almost never done. This must change, and soon! Corporations and LLC's are like government: They are accountable to the people, and if they abuse the public trust in any way, they can be reprimanded or disbanded. Like criminals who lose their individual rights when they misbehave, corporate criminality needs to be answered with punishment ranging from probation and fines to categorical denial of the right to conduct business in the US any longer. That, my friends, is the only real way to get a corporate shareholder's attention, because moneymaking is their sole raison d'etre.

By amending the Growth Management Act or worse yet approving Initiative 933 Douglas and Chelan County will allow for developers to develop in the way they want to no matter what the future consequences. When developers are allowed to progress in this unmanaged and "self-regulated" manner with their grandiose building plans in spite of inadequate water supplies, there is an excellent chance that the county will face legal action from other quarters. The best chance of future litigation comes via future homeowners. The debate on water adequacy, which is going on today, will not be forgotten. Future residents who unwittingly buy these homes without being made aware of the limited water supplies will bring it up many a time, and they will be looking for someone to blame.

These aggrieved homeowners will primarily come after the first tier-buyers buy in and cash out. That initial wave of buyers will know about the lack of water availability because under state law the developer is required to inform them of it. But the selfishness of most consumers will kick in, and they will think, "That's not my problem. I'll be gone by the time that happens. Who cares?" What sick thinking this is. I mean, really.... They will bail out without informing the secondary and tertiary buyers of this equity-destroying bit of news, and leave others to hold the bag in a real estate Ponzi scheme of sorts.

Should the State of Washington or Douglas and Chelan County allow tens of thousands of homes (and thousands of associated businesses) with such dicey water supplies to be built? I am appalled that I even have to ask this question! And I would be even more appalled at the wrong answer! Even if it is "legal" in Washington to start developments without an assured, infinite supply of water, it is not something a civilized society should permit. This is because it amounts to fraud and false advertising unless you inform every buyer from now into perpetuity to be aware of this fact. If there is EVER a buyer who is not made aware of this fact before they buy, then the State and the County are accomplices to something pretty criminal, because at some point in the chain they KNOW that someone will lose their shirt and take a dust bath.

I reiterate here that water needs to be available in perpetuity and development needs to occur at a sustainable rate. That simply means that it cannot occur at levels beyond natural recharge rates. 100 years of water availability is a silly standard if it runs out after that. Imagine if New York or Boston or Philadelphia were on unrenewable water supplies as limited as ours are. Those cities are all well over 200 to even 300-plus years old. If they were in the Southwest, (and quite possibly the east side of Washington) they would be ghost towns in the same way that so many others are. They would be ghost towns two centuries old, in fact - ruins as haunted as the old missions of Mexico abandoned by the Spaniards. They make interesting historic monuments, but someone lost a livelihood along the way. If the State and the County are accomplices in this then don't be surprised when the class-action lawsuits start piling up. Expect bankruptcy by about 2030.

By the way, most developers would suffer considerably less opposition if their proposals were more in line with the interests of the majority, and if they were aiming for a much lower density. They would still make a great deal of money because most developers are very marketing-savvy and I am very sure that they would find a way to come out ahead, because most developers have the ability to manipulate things so amazingly well. I'm still opposed to the development of much of this region with excessive humanity, but I wouldn't argue with it nearly so hard if it were less about big well-funded developers and their megalomania, and more ecologically harmonious in ways the honored the spirit of sustainability in perpetuity.

When the activities of one entity, be it a person or a company, unduly impact the well-being and individual interests of many or most others, it must not be allowed. We need bold leadership to turn these high-density proposals down before they get started. It may be messy, but it will be far less so than the mess that will happen in 20 years or so when much more serious problems arise.

Dixie Dringman
North Central Citizens for a Responsible Government
Rock Island, WA
(Reprinted and revised WITH PERMISSION from a letter written by Jan Emming Yucca AZ to Mohave County)