This week, the Port Townsend Leader published an article based on both a letter that I wrote and that was signed off by the board of People For Puget Sound (I am on the Board), and additionally with a phone call interview by Allison Arthur of the Leader. The article, in an attempt to be fair and balanced, interviewed both myself and Garth Mann, who heads up the Statesman project. Now, I understand that corporations and business entities rely on PR firms to spin their responses to letters like this, and without any intention of being cruel, want to clarify some of the ‘spin’ that Mr. Mann and the Leader put on our letter, intentionally or not.
First off, the letter clearly states that we understand the political realities of this project. It has cleared numerous hurdles and has the backing of the county council. We assume that, barring some legal hurdle or denial by some agency or another, the project will move forward when it has funding. We are thrilled that Statesman has decided to use rigorous and Low Impact Development (LID) standards. That’s all good and well if the project actually is completed.
I have seen, environmentally “friendly” projects that say that they are ‘tree neutral’ clear cut large swaths of trees and then replant. It is a clever way to get around the notion of clearcutting to achieve the goals of clearcutting without saying you are doing clearcutting. Ultimately the developer can say that they are not going to be clearing trees, as at some point in the future the same amount of trees is still on the land. But that is not the same as not cutting them at all. So I am skeptical of whether there is going to be clearcutting or not. Mr. Mann, in his response, alludes to just that kind of arrangement, in that he says that they “will plant a tree farm to preserve trees and replant them after construction”. Why do we care? Because it has been scientifically shown over and over again that clear cutting leads to degradation of streams and waterways near the area affected. I quoted just one such study in my letter.
Mr. Mann also accuses opponents “of running around like Chicken Little”. We hardly are doing that. While we state our opposition to the project as a whole, we give some very solid advice to the county on how to proceed with the project and protect the county resources should the project fail at some interim stage. This is not a fantasy thought, the NY Times this year highlighted numerous projects just like this one, that have failed all over the country.
Failure of this project is unlikely to come from the environmental movement, or the county regulators. The failure is likely to come from the economic environment that Statesman finds themselves in. It is their unfortunate situation to be trying to do a major project in the midst of the largest economic downturn in 80 years. But they will try, and are trying, to paint this as environmentalists causing their downfall. Why, because it’s easy to do. But it’s a lie. If they stopped this kind of posturing and actually worked to understand our positions, they might find that we are not just out to stop them. We are out to protect Puget Sound and Hood Canal. That’s our goal. It’s very clear.
Statesman, by their own PR is having a hard time finding anyone to put up the money to build this project. If they clear the site, with the intention of following LID standards, it still leaves the county to pick up the pieces for the environmental destruction left behind. By properly protecting the county taxpayers by creating steps that have to be funded in advance and by protecting the most sensitive shoreline areas from this problem, seems a small thing to ask.
We understand that the project is months away from getting permits issued, that is exactly why we have put this document into the hands of the county DCD.
I have also agreed to allow Mr. Mann to show me the property and explain in more depth their LID proposals.
More to follow, after that conversation.