p
Letters
Re: “Not Easy Being Green,” and “Puget Soundkeeper Alliance Versus the Boatyards”
The Sweatshirt!
$30.00
The ultimate in versatility! This 1/4 zip is super comfortable. Available in Navy Blue or Red. Limited stock sizes: M to XXL. Add $6.00
The Hat!
$12.00
Perfect for Sailing! Featuring the 48° North logo on Navy Blue, Khaki, Black and Forest Green cotton hats. One size fits all. Add $4.50
S&H.
The Mug!
$7.50
The New 15 oz Colbalt Blue Mug with our logo printed in Gold. Add $5.50
S&H.
Subscription
for First Class U.S. or Canadian
$25.00 $35.00
Call (206) 789-7350 or
www.48north.com
48° NORTH, MAY 2010 PAGE 14
for One Year in the U.S.
for S&H.
Your editorial in the April 2010 edition of 48° North and the article by Jeffrey D. Briggs are more than interesting since they describe a betrayed relationship among the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance (PSA), the Northwest Marine Trade Association (NMTA) and CSR Marine who were jointly participating “in a pilot project testing three different water treatment systems”, according to the Briggs article. Without any apparent environmental justification, from what I can tell, PSA decided to jump ahead of the Department of Ecology, the local regulatory agency responsible for implementing the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and took it upon themselves to issue a letter of “intent to sue” under the provisions of the act. What is troubling with this action, essentially asking for a monetary fee in exchange for not filing a complaint under the CWA, is that it has all the appearances of a shakedown – a demand for a pay-off to not move ahead with an unfavorable deed. This is reminiscent of a prior time, 1988, when various land use development actions, falling under the scrutiny of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), were threatened with challenges. At that time the Hestia Alliance (Goddess of the Hearth) took upon itself the role of guarding the environment by intimidating many developers undergoing a SEPA review for either a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) or Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) with significant permit delays by threatening to appeal any municipality issued DNS or MDNS. Of course, if a fee were provided to the Hestia Alliance then no SEPA appeal would result. Developers were faced with the cost of substantial project delays, along with the interest cost on construction loans for example, on one hand, or buying relief (no appeals) on the other. I am aware of one developer paying a fee of $30,000 to avoid an appeal to his MDNS. The late Joel Haggard, Esq., a prominent land use attorney at the time, had suggested that this kind of fee exaction might well run counter to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Subsequently, the Hestia Alliance ceased its activities. It vanished as fast as it appeared. The similarity between the actions of the Hestia Alliance and PSA are assuredly remarkable. Consequently, the question remains, will the various boatyards file a RICO complaint with the US Attorney for the Western District of Washington and with the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Washington? Likewise, since the procedures of the PSA have all the appearances of a shakedown, to put it bluntly, is the non-profit corporate status of the PSA, issued by the Washington State Secretary of State, open to a challenge if not its outright revocation? After all, the PSA
O H
y
p a
pay the TAX!
we
p
e
n
i
g n
D
ya
!
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98