Last week an editorial in the Port Townsend Leader by a prominent south county Democrat was in support of the county moving as fast as possible to let the developer of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) allow the project to go forward. The author also chastised the county for slowing the process because of perceived incompetence. I asked Barbara Moore-Lewis, who has been leading a non-profit called The Brinnon Group who are people in opposition to the MPR to comment on the editorial. The Brinnon Group have been active since the early 2000s, when this MPR first surfaced. Here’s what she had to say:
All Jefferson County residents are expected to obey the state and county zoning rules. But some seem more equal than others. A good example of some that seem to be more equal than others may be to look at the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort.
The state’s Growth Management Act tries to keep large developments out of rural areas, to keep them rural. The one exception is a Master Planned Resort:
A master planned resort (MPR) is a self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development of urban density in a non-urban area, in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities. An MPR may include only those residential uses within its boundaries that are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of the resort. RCW 36.70A.360. A good functional example is the development at Port Ludlow.
The first development agreement for the Pleasant Harbor MPR was signed by the county and developer Statesman in 2018.
The Brinnon Group appealed the agreement to the Kitsap Superior Court. The court directed the county to rewrite the agreement to conform with RCW 36 requirements. The original agreement allowed the construction of residential units, which would be a revenue stream for the developer. The developer had 45 years to complete other recreational and infrastructure elements, which would be money out of pocket. The revised agreement required millions of dollars in recreational amenities and infrastructure to be built before the revenue-generating residential units. This included steps such as changes to highway 101, which might cost $3M.
The developer gave the county a development proposal in 2016 that included the company receiving about $36M from state taxes and $2M from the county. It included plans for a 9 hole golf course that did not appear to have been designed by a professional. In 2018 the MPR’s water rights expired. The water rights had been issued with the provision that the MPR would be completed in 2018. It was unclear whether the developer had the funding to proceed.
Between 2019 and today the developer has made intermittent attempts to make progress on the development. There has been extensive logging, possibly for income.
One recent proposal is for a facility to manufacture modular construction parts. The area is not zoned for manufacturing. It appears that these modular parts will be sold for non MPR construction, as a separate corporation has been set up for the manufacturing.
There is no proof that the MPR will make money for the county. Washington state published an analysis of MPRs that stated that only 1 out of 10 is profitable. An Oregon study concluded the infrastructure cost was higher than the income to government in similar resorts. Jefferson County residents have asked the county to institute bonds for the developer to protect county taxpayers. The county has ignored these requests. The county has never done an independent analysis of the costs and benefits of the MPR.
Costs of a failed MPR will not only be borne in Brinnon, but by all Jefferson County taxpayers. The current possibility of bankruptcy in Cle Elem shows the effects of a development agreement that goes sideways.
Will Jefferson County withstand pressure from the developer and follow the law? Will the county allow development that does not conform to the court order? Will the county allow manufacturing that is not allowed by the zoning? Will the county put taxpayers at risk for infrastructure costs? Or are some of us more equal than others?:
Find out more about the Brinnon Group at:
Filed under: Government, Jefferson County, Projects |
To anybody who represents the public, please hear us. We don’t want this. Please don’t allow it. 101 can’t handle the traffic that resort would add to the area. And it’s asinine to plow down forest for a golf course. Ridiculous. The forest is the attraction of the area. Way to ruin it.
To the people who are fighting the ruination of this region, thank you.
Thanks for the update. This is an old horse with no teeth trying to chew carrots. I applaud the Brinnon Group for their staying power in opposing such a calamity of a project. It was a bad idea 20+ years ago, and it is still a bad idea. It will not bring “high paying” jobs to any locals; it will not provide affordable housing to any locals; it will not improve our economy. It will, however, increase the taxes we all pay and create an environmental and traffic nightmare.
Like an old horse that needs to be put down, this project has reached that time.
Many thanks for this-I have not been following this project-it has been going on, back and forth, for a long time so reporting is sporadic. In a recent drive down 101 to visit friends, we drove down to that harbor for the first time. What a lovely area-I cannot begin to imagine an ill-conceived huge development there-or any development, that potentially would disturb such a charming spot.
Thanks for keeping this project in the limelight. Unfortunately counties have Community Development departments whose mission is to foster development—rather than maintain livable communities for current inhabitants…