Following Up On Rezone Story

In Sunday’s main edition we had a story on Republican state Rep. Jan Angel’s pre-filed bill that would require local governments to send something in the mail to a property owner when a property is being considered for a rezone.

The county people I spoke with for the story were not initially opposed to the idea. In fact, Larry Keeton, Department of Community Development director, commented on the story, calling Angel’s proposal “supportable.”

One person I attempted to contact but was unsuccessful in reaching before the story ran was County Commissioner Josh Brown. I attended a commissioner meeting this morning and Brown offered comment then, comments suggesting the bill will get some opposition.

Brown said he suspects the Washington State Association of Counties will oppose the bill, because it does represent an unfunded mandate on local jurisdictions. Brown and Charlotte Garrido, said counties are likely to ask the state for an extension on 2010 reporting requirements mandated by the state’s Growth Management Act, in order to push costs off for another year.

On the bill generally he said increased mailings will likely increase the kind of loud, NIMBYish opposition that occurs any time a development is proposed. I don’t think this bill really addresses that particular kind of outcry, but it is true that as the county does broad comprehensive plan reviews it’s the kind of thing that could necessitate massive mailings, and subsequently loud and often angry response.

3 thoughts on “Following Up On Rezone Story

  1. O”…n the bill generally he said increased mailings will likely increase the kind of loud, NIMBYish opposition that occurs any time a development is proposed. I don’t think this bill really addresses that particular kind of outcry, but it is true that as the county does broad comprehensive plan reviews it’s the kind of thing that could necessitate massive mailings, and subsequently loud and often angry response.”

    People and businesses move to areas they want to be located in, accepting the neighbors and neighborhood as they are when they bought their property.

    Why isn’t it reasonable that such taxpayers be notified when zone changes are proposed that may well change and adversely affect their property?

    Such notice should be paid for by the person or company that proposes the change. After all, their reason for asking for a zone change will benefit them in some manner while possibly devaluing the other property owners. Those property owners deserve notice of those proposed zone changes.
    Sharon O’Hara

  2. Another unfunded mandate? I don’t think so. If Jan Angel doesn’t have doesn’t have a way to pay for it then she shouldn’t be writing the legislation.

  3. Do you think that maybe if you get a “loud, NIMBYish opposition” that maybe it might be for a reason? Why would you think every rezone request is for the best? Why would you think having opposition is wrong? By your logic we would have never had a Boston Tea Party, or hazardous waste sites because obviously the issue was just a bunch of disgruntled NIMBY’s that were complaining.

    If you want a rezone, it is up to you to prove to other citizens it is a worthwhile and valuable effort. Just because it may put a few bucks in your pocket while causing the neighborhood to suffer added noise, pollution, traffic, etc. does not mean you should get a free pass. This goes whether it is State, County, private, or business requesting the rezone. The party requesting the rezone should be charged the cost to notify every property owner that may be involved directly or may be affected by the rezone.

    It is a sort of checks and balance to ensure one person or one business does not run rough shod over the voters, taxpayers, and property owners of the county.
    Roger Gay
    South Kitsap

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

Enter the word yellow here: