LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

The Editor:
The .08 limit is a half truth.
Washington state has done a good job of publicizing that if you drive at .08 or higher, you will be prosecuted. The state patrol’s “drive hammered, get nailed” campaign is very effective in putting the dangers and consequences of drunk driving in the minds of Washington drivers.
So, knowing this, you have one glass of wine or maybe a hot-buttered rum at a holiday party or a neighbor’s house. You know you aren’t drunk.

You are a responsible person, not a law breaking criminal. In fact, you don’t even panic when the red and blues start flashing in your rearview mirror. Maybe you should panic.

What the average driver does not know is that Washington has in fact abandoned the concept of a “legal limit” in favor of prosecuting any drinking driver, even if the driver’s breath test is well under the legal limit. The .08 limit is a half truth. I know. My firm has represented numerous citizens in Whatcom County and elsewhere who were well under the “legal limit” of .08 but they were still prosecuted for DUI. In fact, one client’s breath test was .02 and she was still charged with DUI.
How can this be? It happens because there are two distinct sections in our DUI law. One part of the statute sets forth the .08 “legal limit,” but the other part says you can be charged with DUI if you are “under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor.” Surprisingly, a driver who knows he is under the .08 legal limit will still be charged with a DUI if the police officer who stopped him forms an opinion that he is “affected by” alcohol.

This opinion will be formulated not by the person who knows a driver the best, but rather officer’s observations of the driver and performance on field sobriety tests should the driver choose to perform them when offered by the officer.

If you are under the legal limit and yet charged with DUI you will face an experienced prosecutor and a harrowing journey through the legal system. If a plea bargain is offered, such as a reduction to reckless or negligent driving, you may be intimidated into taking the deal because the prospect of going to trial and possibly being convicted of DUI is so terrifying. This is how you can wind up with a criminal record without ever blowing over a .08.

The road signs you see announcing the .08 legal limit are a half-truth. The whole truth is that being under .08 is no “safe harbor” from being prosecuted for DUI. And refusing the breath test will only make things worse. Even if you are found innocent of DUI, refusing to take the test will result in a year’s revocation of your license by the Department of Licensing. If you are convicted of DUI after refusing the breath test, you’ll lose your license for two years even if you previously had a clean criminal record. Who says our DUI laws are not tough? Taken together with the real but unannounced policy of “no tolerance” towards any drinking driver, citizens are on notice: don’t rely on being under .08 to keep you out of jail.
Jonathan Rands
Bellingham

The Editor:
Bigfoot – more than fiction. I am a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Recently I have just completed an extensive research project on the creature known as Bigfoot.  Through this research I have found probable and very persuasive evidence regarding the existence of this rare but amazing creature.

Such evidence consists of thousands of sightings around not only the Pacific Northwest, but all over the world. These sightings aren’t just from attention craving crazy people. In fact most sightings come from respected figures throughout communities world wide including police officers and DNR officials. 

There have also been footprints and tracks that would be impossible to fake due to the dermal ridges found and in one case the print contained a deformity known as club foot. 

Professor John Napier from Idaho State University claimed that this club-footed print was 99.9 percent legitimate.

As people living in this species habitat I ask that you please consider this animal and take care of its habitat. Its habitat consists of dense forest regions usually around bodies of water.  If we can protect Bigfoot’s habitat than our chances of finding one in the near future improves greatly. Thank you.
Trevor R. Brandvold
Wisconsin

The Editor:
I’ve been following the Verizon cell tower debate in recent discussions and was somewhat concerned by the threat of lawsuits in order to support a particular position, especially in light that there is no indication of whether this position represents the majority view of Point Roberts residents. It may or may not represent the majority; however, the virulent nature of this approach is certainly a detriment to people who wish to serve the community by serving on parks boards and in public service positions.

In many public and volunteer organizations, dollars are being spent on insurance that needs to be purchased in order to protect the officers of the organization. It’s wasteful and the most extreme example of how tort law has escalated costs beyond reason is the medical profession. I wonder what will happen when people will no longer wish to serve in any capacity because they are bullied by legal threats.

I would offer that Verizon cell tower is an issue that affects park land, which is public land. The issue should be put to the public, in the form of a vote and be done with. Leave the lawyers out of it.
Paul Griffin
Point Roberts

The Editor:
I was visiting friends on Point Roberts yesterday and was invited to join them at the January 3 public meeting about the proposed cell tower. It was an interesting meeting to witness, and there are strong feelings on both sides. Unfortunately, I think the major point is being missed.

First, there is no question that a cell tower is a good idea. Second, there is no question that a cell tower next to a school and on park land is a really stupid idea. So what’s going on? Well, the parks board apparently needs money and the $1,000 per month they’d receive from Verizon for this tower would boost their budget by one third! That’s a sizable increase. Unfortunately parks board representatives seem to be blinded by these funds.

These people are supposed to look after park land. They are supposed to be focused on creating and enhancing green space, the environment, and natural settings. Yet here they are talking about ‘selling out’ the green space for $1000 a month. Why not tax everyone in Point Roberts $1 per month instead? I think that would add up to about $1,000. Who knows, some people might even throw in two dollars.

Unfortunately, the board isn’t coming right out and saying ‘we’re fundraising and this was our idea.’ Put in that context, this whole thing is patently ridiculous. What’s next? Chopping down park trees and selling the firewood to raise money?

Hey, Point Roberts. Tell your parks board to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better fundraising idea. Meanwhile, have your local authorities erect a cell tower away from the school and the parks. You have a wonderful community and it was unfortunate to witness the rancor last night. All the best.
Rick Hoogendoorn
Victoria, BC 

The Editor:
Somehow the message regarding the proposed cell tower was missed, ignored or mangled by the parks board and many supporters.
Let me be very, very clear.

We support improved cell and emergency communications for Point Roberts.

We do not support it anywhere in the park’s 65 acres nor near the school.

This has been my personal message (as well as many others), which was clearly documented in the All Point Bulletin.

The meetings have shown over and over that the message actually is “We support a cell communications system in the proper zoning area which is the commercial/industrial zone of Point Roberts.”

The January 3 parks board meeting clearly showed the majority support this message: “We want better cell communications but it does not have to be in the park lands nor near the school.”

Few said we must have the cell communications in our parks lands. Few said we want no new cell communications at all. No one said we want it near the school.

However, over and over and over the people who somehow listen to only one voice hear our message as “No cell communications at all.” This is bogus, please stop, listen, and then decide what to do.

As Irene Waters stated in the January 4 parks board meeting, we must communicate to the people what the facts really are. So I have added to them today. Thank you.
Steven B. Wolff
Point Roberts

The Editor:
Tsawwassen Power Line Bird Mortality Insignificant – BCTC.
In its application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate (EAC) B.C. Transmission Corporation’s (BCTC) wildlife consultant conservatively estimates upward of 200 bird collisions/mortalities annually from the proposed high voltage power lines through Tsawwassen.
BCTC concedes that the overhead Tsawwassen segment may be subject to higher rates of collisions due to local populations of large waterbirds and raptors. Nevertheless, BCTC concludes that its chosen tall, vertical power line design will have an insignificant effect on bird collision and mortality. It states that the potential annual bird power line collision/mortality in Tsawwassen is “an acceptable level which will be replaced in one year by natural reproduction and recruitment from adjacent areas.”
BCTC states that arranging transmission lines in a horizontal rather than vertical configuration will minimize the risk of bird collision/mortality. BCTC’s original EAC application also pointed out that transmission lines that are positioned below treetop level and with horizontal conductor configuration have been shown to result in less bird mortality. These are both grossly misleading statements as this is not the design proposed by BCTC for the project. Their proposed design is single steel, 100-120’ tall poles, with three vertically configured lines on each side, the poles and lines projecting above adjacent tree canopies, a worst case scenario for bird collision risk.
BCTC also makes a false and misleading statement in its EAC application that there are no bird colonies within two km of the ROW. However, its own wildlife consultants reported the presence of large blue heron and other bird colonies in Tsawwassen within two km of the ROW. More importantly, BCTC’s consultant also identified the existence of about 350 pairs of blue heron in rookeries in Point Roberts within two km of the proposed power line. Although these birds feed in B.C. and daily cross the Canada/U.S border and the Tsawwassen segment of the power line right-of-way to feed in the Robert Banks area, BCTC states that no consideration needs to be given to these birds in its EAC application because the “application is limited to resources in Canada.” BCTC states that “protection of environmental resources in the United States is to be considered by the U.S. agencies through the U.S. approval processes.” Regardless which agency is responsible for considering and mitigating the impact on the Point Roberts blue herons, the potential power line collision/mortality could have a devastating effect on these colonies.
Birds colliding with power lines are often not immediately killed. Many are maimed in various ways, broken wings, legs, etc. These injured birds are either left to die, or if found, taken in by various bird rehabilitation centers such as OWL in Delta. The additional demand for services these centers provide will require increased funding. How much will BCTC contribute financially to these facilities to provide care for the additional wildlife injuries it will be directly responsible for by constructing the new Tsawwassen power line?
There are economically and environmentally viable alternatives which would reduce these hazards and many other negative aspects of this power line proposal. The B.C. Environmental Assessment Office and the government of British Columbia should give due consideration to these concerns before the required certificate is issued to BCTC.
Karsten Holmsen,
Delta, B.C.

The Editor:
Parks board. Thank you for finally having your public meeting about the cell phone tower, even though you had already voted in favor of it and have a proposed contract with Verizon.
There are also more people in attendance at your meeting that were against it! You mentioned the tower could have a “protective shield” and it would be “faced away” from the school. Doesn’t that tell you something? Or I suppose we could just read the warning sign that will be probably be posted around the fence at the base of the tower like the one in Blaine.
(Notice: Radio frequency fields beyond this point may exceed the FCC general public exposure limit. Obey all posted signs and site guidelines for working in radio frequency environments. In accordance with federal communication commission rules on radio frequency emissions 47 CFR 1 1307 (b).) We’re not all here because we’re not all there!
A. Colins
Point Roberts

The Editor:
I attended the cell tower public meeting on January 3. I listened to the calm and excited, the polite and the rude voices that spoke up. I found that both sides had viable arguments and I am not writing to add my voice to either side. I am writing, however, about the manner in which this issue is being handled.

Approximately 67 percent of the population in the U.S. use cell phones. If that same percentage held true for Point Roberts, the cell tower would benefit approximately 1,000 residents. A cell tower would, however, impact everyone who lives full or part-time on the Point as well as visitors. Additionally, the proposed site is on park land.

Park lands belong to the public and it is wrong for a handful of people to make a decision that impacts our community environmentally, emotionally, and physically. It is therefore imperative that this issue be put to a legal vote. A ballot will show how many people want or don’t want a cell tower, making it easier for the losing side to accept a decision. It will also relieve the parks board of undue responsibility for making a decision that either way will be very unpopular with some people.
Patricia McCairen
Point Roberts

The Editor:
Representative government. It is a sad day when a public meeting must be held based solely on the threat of litigation. It speaks volumes for the self-confidence of its directors.

After attending the parks board meeting regarding the cell tower, I quickly saw why the board would be running scared. It seemed painfully clear early in the meeting the disdain shown by the board for the citizens opposing their decision. When one of the opponents, Mr. Hammell spoke, two of the board members, Linda Hughes and Fred DeHaan, actually snickered at him.

While Verizon Wireless and their cronies were noticeably absent, they might as well have been in attendance as Irene Waters waved a favorable engineering report much as The Marlboro Man waved reports showing that smoking was good for your health.

One Whatcom County Planning commission member in attendance, John Lesow, made an excellent point. The PR parks board has done nothing but given our parks land away. Now they intend to prostitute our parks to big business.

This is not a matter of whether we plant pansies or petunias. This is a matter of whether a few people get cheap cell phone coverage while others have their most precious children irradiated and our collective health disturbed.

This is not a case where a slight majority should shove their decision down the minority/victims’ throats. A major decision such as this should encompass compromise, concession and consensus.

The parks board is a clear mockery of representative government – led by a queen and administered by jesters. It is for this reason that I have pledged sizable funding to Mr. Hammell’s organization supporting litigation against the parks board members personally.

As a member of several boards in my lifetime, I am fully aware that board members carry directors’ insurance. But just as I was briefed by my legal council, directors’ insurance is only as good as the director. This means that when we find flaws in the director’s fiduciary responsibilities, we can pierce their protective veil and have their insurance revoked. In this case it will be an easy battle.

It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to sue a government agency. Instead, it can cost a fraction of that to bypass government lawyers and go straight for the soft targets, or the individuals hiding behind their government shields. Once that onslaught begins, government assistance will vaporize before their very eyes.

The parks board has waged war against the children and citizens of Point Roberts. Get ready for battle! I recently received a link to a web site with some great information on the dangers of cell phones. Check it out at www.wakeuppointroberts.com.
Mike Farkas
Point Roberts

The Editor:
It’s been great bird watching on the Point lately. The snow fall has caused birds and local wild life to struggle to find food.

A Red-bellied Sapsucker hit our window last week, but seems to have survived. I was lucky to get this picture.

The sad but hopeful news is, we found a young female eagle on our road with wings spread out yesterday. We were able to take it to Huff Animal Hospital who found no broken bones.

They transfered it to Owl, a birds of prey rehabilitation center. They were wonderful and massaged its throat and gave it warm water to get rid of bird bones caught in its throat. There seems to be an electrical wound from some possible nearby electrical wires. The eagle is standing which is good. We are not sure how much damage the electricity has done. We are hopeful and will write on her progress.
I write this to encourage awareness of our beautiful nature in Point Roberts in hope that others might write and share their stories with our local wildlife. I am so grateful to have so much nature near our home. Meanwhile I must get better at recycling.
Heidi Baxter
Point Roberts

The Editor:
I fail to see how either the county planning commission, or the county council will be impressed with how the Point Roberts parks board conducts business here in Point Roberts given the whole tone the board fostered throughout the town meeting held on January 3 at the community center.

The board flagrantly violated the state of Washington Public Disclosure Act: RCW 42.17 by adamantly refusing to allow me to videotape the meeting. (Linda Hughes actually threatened to leave the room unless I turned my camcorder off – so much for transparency, eh?) Moreover, the board hypocritically took this position while simultaneously making their own audiotape of the meeting.

Due to the heavily polarized climate which the board went out of their way to foster, Pat Grubb, publisher of the All Point Bulletin was physically accosted by someone standing behind him when he started taking photographs. This person actually attempted to grab Pat’s camera out of his hands. As a member of the press, I take the first amendment very seriously and stand in total solidarity with Pat by deploring this unfortunate incident.

The day after this town meeting the parks board held their regular monthly meeting at the community center. Regarding the board’s misguided plans to locate a Verizon tower on land zoned recreational open space, we were less than impressed when Fred DeHaan angrily stated to Steve Wolff “Who cares what John Lesow thinks” (with an arrogant, dismissive wave).

The board is being resolutely steered by an elderly bulldozer on autopilot whose brain is switched off. DeHaan and also Bev Griffith should immediately recuse themselves and cease all involvement with this issue as both are caught in serious conflicts of interest which make it utterly impossible for either to be objective on this issue.

How likely is it that DeHaan would ever take a position that goes against fire chief Bill Skinner given that he has sent the board a letter supporting the tower?

How likely is it that Griffith would ever take a position that would go against the business interests of Jim Julius who benefits any time a house in Point Roberts is put on the market?

Do the people of Point Roberts really want the primary school to be closed by the school district due to parents who oppose this tower pulling their kids out of the school?

One-hundred and sixty-four people signed our petition opposing the Verizon tower, while the parks board only has 18 letters endorsing it. While threatening to impose a property value damaging eyesore on our park, the board ignores engineer Steve Wolff’s more carefully considered win/win alternative. We deserve better.
John Hammell
Point Roberts, WA

(Publisher’s Note: Washington state does not have a Public Disclosure Act. It does have an Open Public Meetings Act which falls under RCW 42. RCW 42.17, cited by Mr. Hammell, refers to campaign financing and lobbying. Contrary to Mr. Hammell’s assertion, no one from the All Point Bulletin was accosted, physically or otherwise, at the meeting.)


The Editor:
Recently we have been made aware that there are numerous rumors and incorrect assumptions on the Point concerning the water moratorium, the intentions of Stanton Northwest and the allocation of available water connections. We would like to clarify a few key points in hopes of bringing more community focus on an expedient solution.

We do not want to see the moratorium extended.

At this time the District is under a moratorium not so much because of a lack of water, but rather because of a lack of a current plan of how it will manage its water. As many may know, the District can receive approximately 840,600 gallons of water everyday from Greater Vancouver. The Washington State Department of Health has determined that, based on the old 2001 Comprehensive Water Plan adopted by the District, this water supply allows for only 2212 connections. The District now has approximately 2050 connections to its system, leaving 162 existing connections available under this plan. Because there have been no updates to the plan to show how the District expected to provide for future demands on its water supply, the District was forced to place a “temporary” moratorium on all certificates of water availability and water service connections in July 2005. The results of most moratoriums are lower land values and decreased revenue for owners of local businesses dependant on home building or construction. All of which is detrimental to the Point as a whole. (This temporary moratorium was extended for another 6 months, a fourth time, on Friday the 19th of January.)

In May of last year the District held a Public Meeting to discuss this moratorium and receive input on a possible allocation process for the existing available connections. The greatest concern to Stanton was and is that if the allocation process is the only method by which water availability for future projects can be granted, then developers will be forced to participate in it and possibly obtain all of the existing connections currently available.

We do not wish to participate in the allocation for the current available connections.

The process to receive approval on a project is difficult enough without adding to it the frustration of a community if such a scenario unfolds. We believe that the most beneficial and prudent thing for the Board to do is come up with a way to get developers to voluntarily remove themselves from participation in the upcoming allotment process. This will mean that most of the demand for the existing 162 available connections would be channeled to those that need them now; namely the owners of property desiring to build a home this year or next.

Since the May 2006 meeting the District’s engineer has identified that there are several ways to increase the available future connections. These include: calculating the available system capacity based on historical usage as allowed by State law; adding to the system’s peak capacity by providing 3 million gallons of new storage capacity; and adding additional water sources by putting old wells back in service with new treatment capabilities. When approved by the State and implemented by the District, any of these solutions would allow the District to increase its available connections. And if all combined will nearly double its future available water connections.

We are interested in the future connections that will be created.

Prior to the Board’s January 19th decision to simply extend the current moratorium, Stanton Northwest proposed a resolution for adoption by the Board to allow the District to offer Certificates of Availability on these future connections. These certificates could be applied for by any landowner that wanted them, thus removing that person’s demand on the upcoming allotment. Since the availability of these future connections is subject to the necessary storage or source improvements being operational, the person accepting these certificates on a future connection may need to wait a few years until they can construct anything on their property. However, this type of availability is perfect for developers and the District since the land use and platting processes with the county can easily take 12 to 18 months, and no existing connections are required to be reserved in the meantime.

The benefits of adopting the proposed resolution would have been threefold:
The resolution would have given the District the ability to accept water availability applications to get an accurate picture of the pending demand on its system. (Which today nobody really knows what that is.)
The granting of certificates conditioned on the improvements being in place would have guaranteed that developers pay their fair share of the costs to improve the current system. (In fact incentives were made to make the developers build them as well.)
The demand on existing connections and the upcoming allotment would have been substantially reduced.

We are sincerely disappointed that the Board chose not to take positive action to reduce the developer participation in the allotment process. It is our hope that additional community input to the Board will encourage them to take the necessary steps to implement a change to the temporary moratorium before it is too late to get agreements from developers not to participate in the allocation. If you are supportive of the steps to remove developers and land speculators from the allotment process, we ask that you write the District and attend the upcoming Board meeting on February 8th to voice your opinion.
Sincerely
Randy Forsyth
Vice president of Development and Construction

Letters Policy
The All Point Bulletin welcomes letters to the editor; however, the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the editor. Letters must include name, address and daytime telephone number for verification. Letters must not exceed 450 words and may be edited or rejected for reasons of legality and good taste.
A fresh viewpoint on matters of general interest to local readers will increase the likelihood of publication. Writers should avoid personal invective. Unsigned letters will not be accepted for publication. Requests for withholding names will be considered on an individual basis.
Thank You letters should be limited to ten names.
Only one letter per month from an individual correspondent will be published.

Please send your letter to: P.O. Box 1451, Point Roberts, WA 98281
or fax (360) 945-1613.
E-mail:editor@allpointbulletin.com

BACK TO TOP