 News
Citizen Comments:
Citizen Letter 10/19/08
I have tolerated misinformation and downright lies about the Weatherwax from a small group of people who, by the way, cannot even get enough residents in to have a meeting, and I am sick of it! The letter published by Larry Phoenix is again, a prime example of his plan to cut up and sell the Weatherwax. I really ask why?? I don't believe for a minute that it's for the good of the city or residents.
#1 - his "information" on logging is wrong - studies by experts have shown the WW has never been logged. #2 His information about it not being a rain forest is WRONG - there are different categories of rain forests, and this one is a temperate rain forest, and also a coastal rain forest which is even more unusual. #3 His misinformation on the future use of the Weatherwax is wrong. There were groups formed to study it, and the idea of golf holes was WAY down the list of ideas. To further explain that, this city does not have the $1.3 + million to move 5 holes to "pretty " up a golf course from which we get next to nothing in return revenue. Recently the idea of selling the existing golf course as it stands to a destination hotel or time share has been brought up. This is the most logical and money saving idea to come along in this whole controversy. I certainly vote for that. The golfers would still have a course to use, plus that amount gained could be $18 million plus revenue each year. Wow - what a thought!
Now - his figures on the amount still owing on the Weatherwax are very misleading. When the city bailed the golf course manager out by loaning the money to build the driving range, those bonds were lumped in with the Weatherwax bonds as well as other small bonds. This was done by your last city manager and council when they re-financed the bonds. So - it's strange, but the amount the golf course manager owes keeps going down, but the Weatherwax never seems to. This issue is so muddled by poor government, that we may never figure it out again!
According to Phoenix, there are "some" wetlands on the Weatherwax. Why doesn't he put on his boots and go try to walk it?? Not only are there wetlands, there are category 1 - wetlands with OLD GROWTH trees. (Sorry Larry - one more thing wrong in your letter).
Yes, this city is in debt! A lot brought on by the last regime of council plus city manager. But, selling the WW will NOT solve it. Any money realized from a sale of surplus land has to go to capital projects - not eliminating LIDs or basic service costs. Statistics show that keeping the WW intact will cost less in taxes and services than developing it. Plus maintaining it has always been done by volunteers who have already promised to continue doing that. It is one parcel and needed to remain intact to support the eco-system so important to our health and happiness - and yes - we need the oxygen supplied by all those trees that Phoenix wants to cut down.
He says we don't have to sell it all - I maintain we don't have to sell any of the WW. And remember this is an advisory vote, so the hands of our council and Mayor are not tied, as he keeps insisting. I'm asking that the voters let our government know that we value this important and beautiful part of Ocean Shores and do not want it destroyed for unnesesary golf holes or more empty structures in our town. Don't be fooled - vote your heart on this issue. All it will do is "keep" the Weatherwax until some other developer or whatever they are, come along and try again to destroy an amazing part of our city. Vote to RETAIN the Weatherwax.
Wilma Spike, resident and
registered voter
Ocean Shores
Letter to the Editor - Daily World 10/18/08
Please vote to save the beautiful Weatherwax property in Ocean Shores. This gorgeous property in the middle of Ocean Shores has been an oasis of peace and quiet for many people of this area. The huge trees and ferns give joy to us.
Many families visit Ocean Shores from our state, especially from Olympia and nearby areas. Many of them love to visit the Weatherwax property, to see the birds and wildlife, to walk along the trails. Tourists enjoy the Weatherwax property also.
Some people want to sell the Weatherwax for income for the city.
The city of Ocean Shores has been getting into debt more and more over the past decade. The city will never balance its budget. It will always be in debt.
We must keep the beautiful Weatherwax property pristine, so that we can all enjoy it forever.
Lee Rimmer
Ocean Shores
Save the Weatherwax
Letter to the Editor - Daily World 10/17/08
Please vote to save the beautiful Weatherwax property in Ocean Shores. This gorgeous property in the middle of Ocean Shores has been an oasis of peace and quiet for many people of this area. The huge trees and ferns give joy to us.
Many families visit Ocean Shores from our state, especially from Olympia and nearby areas. Many of them love to visit the Weatherwax property, to see the birds and wildlife, to walk along the trails. Tourists enjoy the Weatherwax property also.
Some people want to sell the Weatherwax for income for the city.
The city of Ocean Shores has been getting into debt more and more over the past decade. The city will never balance its budget. It will always be in debt.
We must keep the beautiful Weatherwax property pristine, so that we can all enjoy it forever.
Lee Rimmer
Ocean Shores
Save Weatherwax
Letter to the Editor - Daily World 10/16/08
Let’s face it — downtown Ocean Shores really needs a beautifully designed beach-town face lift in order to compete with plans for surrounding coastal towns.
So, let’s recycle what we have!
Making better use of the awesome and best located space that we already have would be the key. In phases, the commercial property owners need to tear down or remodel those old, ugly, existing buildings that would lose big time if businesses in a new downtown core were to be built. While they are at it, make the town more pedestrian friendly by reconfiguring the layout and perhaps go two stories.
Let’s give the businesses an incentive to do this by giving them a tax break. Perhaps keeping their property taxes at the same level that their ugly buildings would have been accessed for — for let’s say 10 years will do the trick. The taxes would be made up by more people getting excited about the beautiful improvements and wanting to make Ocean Shores their year round home.
It’s a win-win for everyone. We would save tons of money, make Ocean Shores beautiful and keep our Weatherwax property forever (the animals of the area need our vote in this too).
Ocean Shores will continue to grow and push out its wildlife. Once Weatherwax is gone, we can never get it back.
Lori Wardian
Ocean Shores/Seattle
The Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Weatherwax.
Weatherwax today is one large 120 acre unplatted parcel of land. It is registered with the county as # 617121121000. This one piece of land contains wetlands, mature forest habitat and the lake's aquatic life. It contains 77 species of birds, 137 native plant species and 57 varieties of mushrooms. All these have been documented.
It is one eco-system representing the natural history of Ocean Shores before it was platted with 13,000 lots. The Point at one time was an island in the rainy season old-timers say. The tall trees that exist on the Point show their relationship to the East and West Weatherwax trees. We see today what Indians would have seen inside a dunal rain forest. There is no evidence Weatherwax has ever been commercially logged.
Open natural space is going to be invaluable. Quality of life and even economic health will be at stake. The Fall 2001 study by Professor John L. Crompton "Parks and Open Space: The Highest and Best Use of Public Land" shows the actual cost to tax payers can be as much as 28% higher than the tax revenues generated from development. Open natural space does not contain citizens that require more tax supported city services
Be an informed Citizen and attend the upcoming CAO City Council Hearing
Areas like the Weatherwax are what tourists leave densely packed cities to enjoy and what retirees seek
Andy
10/8/08
Hello,
The Weatherwax Rainforest is astonishing!!! My husband and I walked it one rainy day in July 2008 with my brother, his wife, and their 5-year-old daughter. The forest was dry (mostly), fragrant, beautiful, and peaceful. I have been visiting Ocean Shores for over a decade and this was my first time in Weatherwax. I know I'll visit it each time I go back and will be telling friends not to miss it when they visit Ocean Shores. It is unique and worth preserving for all to enjoy.
Sincerely,
Marcia Taylor
This is real estate they aren’t making anymore
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 10:39 AM PDT - Daily World - click here for pdf version
In her letter to the editor of Oct. 1, Sara Upton advocates selling off Ocean Shores’ natural treasure, the Weatherwax forest tract. Her argument is that the money is needed to repair public buildings or to build more of them. Every city faces the problem of generating revenues for public purposes and most do so while preserving important assets such as the Weatherwax. This 120-acre tract of old growth forest provides habitat for wildlife and a wooded wonderland for those who walk its many captivating trails. It is an oasis of nature in the midst of a rapidly developing community. It would be the height of civic irresponsibly to sell off pieces of the Weatherwax to pay for routine city improvements.
John and Catherine Clark
Ocean Shores
Keep Weatherwax, sell the golf course
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 10:39 AM PDT - Daily World - click here for pdf version
This letter is in response to Sara Upton’s recommendation to sell the Weatherwax.
I think she makes some really good points. The only place where I disagree is what property we should be selling. Anyone, who is involved and telling the truth knows that we are not going to get $10 million for any part of the Weatherwax. That is just “pie in the sky” propaganda by people who want to have the Weatherwax developed. What we should be looking at is selling the Golf Course to a destination type resort such as Salishan. I’ve been told the assessed value of the golf course is between $18 million and $20 million for the course on its present footprint. That does not count the fees the city would collect for building permits associated with a new hotel or the yearly property tax on a golf course and hotel. A destination type hotel would do its own marketing, bringing in its own group of tourists, adding to what the city and others are doing now. If the course needs upgrading it would be their responsibility and not fall on the taxpayers of Ocean Shores. Remember, at present the city receives almost no income from the golf course. The figure I was given was well under $2,000 a year, plus a small portion of the sales tax. Here is one idea of what we could do with that money. I would suggest giving$1 million to the Friends of the Library for a building fund. The permit center could be fixed up. Some money could be used for a medical clinic. And the money left would make a sizable dent in the city’s debt. Golfers would still have a golf course to play, perhaps even a better course. And what better time to market the golf course than right after it’s been named one of the top 100 courses in the United States by Golfers Digest? I will vote to retain the Weatherwax because of its ability to draw a new breed of tourist. If you agree about the golf course, e-mail the mayor (dmbunkers@gmail.com) letting him know you want to sell the golf course and get Ocean Shores on the road to financial recovery.
Richard Cherry
Ocean Shores
Ocean Shores shouldn’t sacrifice its “Central Park”
Monday, October 6, 2008 11:31 AM PDT - Dailiy World - click here for pdf download
Sara Upton’s Oct. 1 letter to the editor proposed that the Weatherwax Property be sold to provide us with funds for a new library and permit center. Yes, the library building needs expansion and the permit center needs replacement or repair. Presently, the Ocean Shores Friends of the Library is providing $15,000 toward the cost of recent library upgrade of structure, siding and paint. New carpet and a painting upgrade was accomplished in the Permit Center. Can we afford to destroy the last large open natural land in Ocean Shores? When Ocean Shores’ 13,000 lots are entirely built out there will be a dearth of natural vegetation. An analogy is the open space of New York City’s Central Park. City equipment has always been left outside. It has always been easier to buy new than to plan for storage or maintenance. With the new city administration it is hoped that with the balancing of the city budget comes a realization that the city shouldn’t buy more than you need or can care for. The question on the November ballot is an advisory vote asking if we want to sell some or all of the Weatherwax Property or keep it. It will not authorize the sale of some of this property. Any proceeds from the sale of this land will have to first be set aside to pay the bonded indebtedness on the Weatherwax Property so building unneeded buildings is a moot issue. In the future, open space will rise in value, not fall. I urge my fellow citizens to vote to retain and enjoy all of the Weatherwax for themselves, their posterity, visitors and the wildlife.
Gene F. Swygard
Ocean Shores
Unspoiled land can never be replaced
Monday, October 6, 2008 11:31 AM PDT - Daily World - click here for pdf version
Concerning Ms. Upton’s Oct. 1 letter to the editor, “Can we afford to keep the Weatherwax?” I commend her for wanting to help out with city problems. It is nice to know that at least some of our citizens care. However I find a basic fallacy in some of her solutions. The library although short of space and having siding problems is hardly falling down. This is a relatively new building and its problems are being taken care of. The permit center granted is a bit run down, but according to the building inspector is usable. In today’s economy we might perhaps get some return from selling off parts of the Weatherwax, but it is highly unlikely we would be able to build two new buildings and ease the city’s financial woes with the proceeds. Finally, libraries and permit centers come and go, but an unspoiled tract of land can never be replaced.
Nicky Anderson
Ocean Shores
August 24, 2008
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The CAO is the city ordinance to protect critical areas within the
city. The Weatherwax Property is a critical area. Therefore it should
be listed in the ordinance. Please strongly consider the following
points before removing the Weatherwax property from the CAO rev 1.6.
During the 8-12-08 Planning Commission Meeting the listing of the
Weatherwax Property in section 10, page 12 was discussed. The core
reasons voiced for not listing the property in the CAO appear to not
stem from the fact that it is not critical wildlife habitat but from
other reasons or pressures such as the November ballot, potential
impact on commercial development and the Weatherwax Property having
some areas that don't meet a concept of proper criteria.
Kathleen Sayce is a formally educated professional scientist. She is
privately employed to assist businesses and communities to be
profitable and sustainable using proper economic, social and
environmental practices. Her expenses were paid and she came to
Weatherwax from Ilwaco, WA to evaluate Weatherwax. She investigated
for eight hours all sections of the Weatherwax Property taking notes
in the brush and wetlands away from the normally used trails. Her
report (attached) shows several high quality plant communities that
are on the WA DNR NHP list for Grays Harbor County.
POINT ONE:
During the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan, citizens
testified that the Weatherwax should be included as a critical
wildlife habitat area just as other natural areas were included for
other reasons. The current golf course, as an example, was included to
"exist in perpetuity". It was stated to the citizens that none of this
mattered because council could change wording on land use at any time
and the Comprehensive Plan itself would be reviewed for change every
five years. The Weatherwax property was mentioned only as an area of
local importance but that importance was left undefined and ambiguous.
Also, it was stated the CAO still has to be drafted and Weatherwax
could be listed in it. But, now it is being implied that because it is
not in the Comp plan it shouldn't be in the CAO!!
Citizens are of the opinion Weatherwax should not be removed from the
CAO under the category of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas. This correlates with the State of Washington Document of August
2008 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/phs_list_2008) under Priority Area
Description attribute 1b and 2.
POINT TWO:
In November, the citizens will provide an advisory vote to council
indicating the voter's position either to retain or sell Weatherwax.
This advisory vote is for council's information only. The commission
brought up the issue in the meeting that it may be better to wait
following the vote to decide if Weatherwax is included in the CAO or
even wait to approve the CAO until after the vote.
The Vote is totally unrelated as to whether the property is a Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Area habitat or not. Best science already
indicates Weatherwax is habitat. To try and make the property more
salable by influencing the CAO could appear as bias. It might be more
appropriate to leave such considerations to elected representatives.
The CAO deals with Critical Areas not budgets or salability. If the
City Council does not want the Weatherwax Property in the CAO they can
remove it. The buck does not belong with the Planning Commission.
POINT THREE:
A point was made in the meeting that not all of Weatherwax property
meets critical Area designation and Weatherwax could be split up into
sections. The CAO should address Weatherwax as it is today. Weatherwax
is one large 120 acre platted parcel. It is registered with the county
as # 617121121000. It was originally one continuous piece and was
modified when dredging created the lake. This is how the CAO should
address the property as a continuous piece containing wetlands, mature
forest habitat and now with the addition of aquatic life, the lake.
Also, from a habitat standpoint it is one eco-system representing the
natural history of Ocean Shores before it was developed. At one time
you could walk across Duck Lake from West to East in the summer,
before the lake was dredged and the water level was raised. Witnesses
testify the Weatherwax Point was originally an island and the large
trees that exist there today show their relationship to the East and
West Weatherwax trees.
As a side note, Jack Smith head of Western Washington's Fish and
wildlife Department came to Ocean Shores and walked the Weatherwax. He
commented it has all the characteristics of the environment for the
endangered Marbled Murrelet a small seabird from the Pacific. Michelle
Tihri an Urban Biologist from the same department testified before the
Planning Commission that not only does wildlife need space to live in
they maybe even more importantly need space to move around in. State
professionals can only address the city if the city acquiesces. They
can't do this if requested by citizens. Citizens can only petition
elected representatives.
Open space is going to be invaluable in the future of our densely
platted community. Quality of life and even economic health will be at
stake. Empirical studies show the tax burden of developed space on
every taxpayer can be as much as 28% higher than the tax revenues
generated from that development. Open space does not contain citizens
that require tax supported city services. Open natural space is what
tourists leave densely packed cities to enjoy and retirees want to
live around.
CONCLUSION:
Even though Weatherwax has all the protection of laws and regulatory
agencies it still needs the concurrence of the city through proper
recognition in the CAO.
Sincerely,
Andy Gruse
Ocean Shores Citizen
abgmcdee@gmail.com
Parks and Open Space: The Highest and Best Use of Public Land?
Dear City Planner Alicia Bridges,
Professor John L. Crompton from Texas A & M University is a renown researcher in Parks and Public Land use. He has written and published an academic paper in the Journal of Parks and Recreation Aministration. Wes Crago the City Administrator who spoke to council and the city attorney on the change in city government recommended this paper to Ocean Shores Citizens. Many are discussing it. Copies have been sent to council and the new mayor. I thought it appropriate that you should have access to it also.
Here are some outlined points below. The scanned Journal paper with all the figures, tables and references is attached in pdf format. A txt format with text but no figures or charts is also attached for convenience.
Sincerely,
Andy
Here is an outline of some of the major points. They seem amazingly similar to our problems.
Points from "Parks and Open Space: The Highest and Best Use of Public Land?" by John L. Crompton:
Invariably developers argue that their projects will expand the tax base and, thus, reduce existing residents' property taxes.
The results from over 70 empirical studies that suggest that instead of leading to a reduction in property taxes, the consequence of residential development is usually a net increase in the property taxes paid by existing residents.
The public costs associated with residential development exceed the public revenues that accrue from it. The median net cost of residential development in the over 70 case studies reviewed was 15%. Thus, if the annual tax yield to a community was $1 million from a residential development, the median cost of servicing the development was $1.15 million.
If the operation and maintenance costs associated with using the land as a park or open space were less than $150,000, then it would be a more cost effective use of the land for the community than residential development.
Cost of Community Services (COCS) analysis have resulted in decisions to purchase land for open space rather than incur the likely losses from residential development.
Communities with larger and rapidly growing populations appeared to experience greater net deficits on their residential land than did communities with smaller, more stable populations.
It has been shown that the more sprawling the growth, the higher the cost.
These findings provide park advocates with a credible entre into the economic development discussion and enable them to position parks as being a key component in a community's economic viability.
Advocates refute the notion that parklands are a drain on local resources. The goal is not to prevent growth, but to encourage a balance between development and open space.
Pro for developing property and not preserving open space.
Already our property taxes are unbearable. Acquisition of public land will result in a tax increase, since the property would be removed from the tax rolls.
This community, in all good conscience, cannot afford to allow potential taxable property from not being constructed.
Con
In our rapidly growing community, the few remaining open spaces should be preserved, not only for scenic and environmental reasons, which are important, but also because it's good business.
It's not true that more development is the answer to our rising tax rate; in fact, it is often the cause of it. If open space were to be developed, it would cost the community more to provide services to the development than the community would receive in tax revenues. This deficit would have to be made up by increasing the tax rate.
Open space, however, doesn't demand municipal services. It costs the community little beyond acquisition expenses but provides many economic benefits. In fact, the projected deficit created by the cost of servicing the development exceeding the taxes received from it, would be adequate in seven years to pay for acquisition as open space. Open space keeps our taxes low and we urge the council to act in the bet interests of the community by preserving the property as an open space nature area.
The conventional wisdom that prevails among many decision-makers and taxpayers is that development is the "highest and best use" of vacant land for increasing municipal revenues. This conventional wisdom is reinforced by developers who claim their projects "pay for themselves and then some."
This myth resides deep in the American psyche and frequently has thwarted the conservation efforts of park and open space advocates.
This has led to investment in fiscal impact analyses and cost of community services (COCS) analyses.
Fiscal impact analyses are concerned with the future fiscal impacts on a community of a specific proposed development, while cost of community services analyses relate to the current fiscal situation in an entire community. They assess current conditions based on existing budgets and real dollars.
Two types of analyses have challenged the historical view that more development generates more net revenue for municipalities.
COCS analyses consistently report that over a wide range of residential densities, and especially in rapidly growing communities, the public costs associated with residential development exceed the public revenues that accrue from it. The traditional belief that development pays its way is being discarded. The emerging prevailing view is that few developments generate sufficient tax payments to pay their way.
The way in which land is used in a community affects the level of taxes paid by residents and their quality of life: It affects the size of the local government, the types of services it offers, the type of equipment it must purchase, and the taxes and tax rates it must levy.
The purpose of this paper is to expose the development myth by reviewing the substantial number of empirical findings that have been reported on this issue. The general thesis examined here is that park and open space land is less costly for public agencies to maintain and operate than residential property. This is a long-term benefit of preserving open space that is not usually reflected in market valuations of land, since valuations generally reflect only the short-term benefit of land.
The results reported here provide evidence of the need to include parks and open space in the fiscal and economic discourse.
Tthe consistency of the results, and the magnitude of differences between residential and open space use, is so striking that debate over nuances in the methodology is rendered redundant. The evidence clearly indicates that preserving open space can be a less expensive alternative to development. The conclusion is that a strategy of conserving parks and open space is not contrary to a community's economic health, but rather is an integral part of it.
By showing their relative fiscal strength compared to residential development, advocates can refute the notion that parklands are a drain on local resources. The results challenge the assumption that development of land is its "highest and best use," which often thwarts park and open space advocates.
The intent is to point out that using land for parks and open space is relevant to discussions concerned with enhancing a community's fiscal health. The goal is not to prevent growth, but to encourage a balance between development and open space, which tends to get lost without these types of analyses. These types of studies moderate the dialog by giving parks and open space a higher profile in the economic development debate.
To Public Hearing Planning Commission:
There is no city ordinance to protect city wetlands on private property or city property in Ocean Shores other than the dunes area. This is why it is such a nice beach and developers haven't built as close as possible to the waterline. The wetlands of the dunes are protected. There are many wetlands here and decision makers are jumping to the conclusion that is enough protection. There is no need to protect any more wetlands. This is false logic. Wetlands are not equivalent. They are of different quality because they support a different quality and quantity of fauna and flora. For example the Weatherwax wetlands support the Wetlands Native Violet, Pacific Water Parsley and Pacific Willow and the Dunes wetlands do not.
There are state and federal standards on how these wetlands should be protected and state and federal laws state they must be protected or mitigated. Mitigated means that if a land owner must fill in a wetland then a new or improved wetland must be created or protected with equivalent quantity and quality somewhere else.
Since there are no city laws or standards for developers or lot owners to deal with wetlands, these issues get negotiated with Public Works. The Villages is trying to keep development costs as low as possible so they offered the city 25 foot setbacks from wetlands involved with their development. The city accepted and the city and the Villages used this as an example they were protecting wetlands without the need for laws or standards. This precludes any state or federal problems. The wetlands involved here are Class 3 and normally require a 25 to 50 foot setback.
There are wetlands on the downtown five golf holes but these have been almost destroyed by the building of the airport here and then the golf course on top of it. This was before there were any state or federal standards on these issues. There are still wetlands here as you can hear frogs in the brush area in the evening. These are Class 3 wetlands that would normally require a 25 to 50 foot set back.
The Weatherwax wetlands are many. Some very large and some small. These are of the highest quality Class 1 forested wetlands needed by our local fauna and flora. They should have at least a 100 foot setback and this should satisfy state and federal standards. Some of these wetlands have already been destroyed by the city fencing and telephone tower in the southeast corner of the public works yard. The land south of the yard is a materials dumping area that cannot be seen by the public from Canal Drive.
Because there have been problems with local municipalities protecting wetlands the State of Washington Legislature passed a law that all cities must have a Critical Areas Ordinance in Place by 12-31-08. The city does not want standards they want negotiation. Developers find negotiating to their advantage also. Standards are beneficial to citizens and are not a function of civil servants negotiating skill that churn through the civil service system every few years.
An issue for the CAO hearing is that the consultant has been directed to provide language that preserves the city's past negotiating practices in dealing with wetlands. The language allows city staff to deal with each issue as it comes up, negotiating and then setting requirements in the permitting process.
The problem the state has with this is that this provides no standard like a setback table requiring a standard setback for a standard category of wetland. In essence, the city wants the state to back a CAO that has no protection for the things it is supposed to protect. To get protection citizens will have to resort to the legal system which is an impediment to protection due to the time and money involved. Weatherwax wetlands will not be protected with any setbacks. They will be negotiable for moving golf holes or development.
Andy
Ocean Shores has so much to offer. My husband, three children and I recently visited my aunt and uncle there during the Sand &Sawdust Festival.
The beach, the attractions and the residents themselves are amazing.
One of the highlights of our most recent visit, however, was discovering the Weatherwax forest. How lucky the citizens of Oceans Shores are to have easy access to such a gorgeous old-growth forest.
We were disappointed to learn that it may soon be replaced with a mall or golf course. It would be tragic to lose an irreplaceable forest like the Weatherwax property. I certainly hope the citizens of Ocean Shores find their forest worth saving.
Heather Snyder
Longview, WA
To Ocean Shores Citizens for Balanced Growth:
My husband and I visited Ocean Shores this Spring for a week, intending to become acquainted with local venues, services, community activities rather than more "traditional tourist" places. We were so pleased with our discoveries.
The unexpected treasure was learning about and visiting The Weatherwax property the city leaders were so wise to purchase. It is such a magnificent coastal marine forest that allows people to experience a pristine area viewing animals and trees, breathing in clean air and listening to silence and nature that occurs in such places.
We commend the leadership on this acquisition and urge that leadership to make this area a permanent Ocean Shores Historic Place [like our National Parks] not subject to be destroyed or misused in the future.
Eleanor M. Smith
Seattle, WA
Weatherwax Visit by South Australians
Priscilla Fargher
Dear Sir/Madam
This is just to let you know that whilst spending a week visiting
Ocean Shores we had the wonderful opportunity of walking through this
amazingly beautiful, peaceful and pristine area tucked away within
Ocean Shores sparceness, modern and commercial city.
We congratulate you on keeping such a historical and ecologically
unique "nature at it's best" area, and certainly hope that there is
absolutely no way this be carved up for development (the ugliness of
modern life - marking the greed of the modern world), thereby all
future locals and visitors, such as us from Australia, to your city
being privileged to have such a memorable experience for centuries to
come.
Yours sincerely
Priscilla & John Fargher
Priscilla Fargher
LYNTON SA 5062
Australia
(Below is Janet Strong's report on the Weatherwax ecosystem. She is a
professional botanist/ecologist who surveyed the Weatherwax in May.)
The portion of land with the oldest forest, between the power line road and Duck Lake, possesses the characteristics of an old-growth forest. This alone exhibits the natural history of the Ocean Shores peninsula, as well as providing habitat for animals needing large trees, and the upper canopy. That area, as well as the portions to the west of the power line road and to the east of Duck Lake, contain forest stands of great plant diversity. When you have a large variety of native plants, you attract a large variety of wildlife, from birds (a recent bird survey of the Weatherwax acreage found 77 different species of birds), to large and small mammals, to amphibians like salamanders, to butterflies and other insects. The "snags" or dead and dying trees and downed logs are present in all three zones. These critical features of a healthy forest provide homes and food to a surprisingly large number of wild creatures, including woodpeckers, squirrels, bats, raccoons, many small birds, ducks and other species. (50 different birds and mammals in western Washington depend on snags for their necessary habitat.)
The pocket wetlands and the larger wetland along the western edge would be very important for the area's amphibians (salamanders, frogs and toads), especially in the spring during their concentrated reproductive period. Their greening up early in the spring provides a much-needed food supply to browsers such as deer. Another point to consider is the fact that all the small wetlands and the long, large one are most likely connneted to each other hydrologically, with the water table being a short distance below the ground. The ground is hummocky and the low spots with wetland vegetation are "lenses" where the high water table is exposed on the surface. Disturbances like ditching or channeling in one section could have deleterious effects on the larger natural system.
The vertical structure, from the ground-hugging forbes, to shrubs, to younger trees and finally overstory shade trees, logs and snags, provide a multitude of nesting, resting, feeding and hiding places for the area's wildlife. Although the "point" jutting out into Duck Lake is much younger and contains some non-native plant species, its plant composition, especially the food plants beneath the trees, add even more diverse places for wildlife to the mix.
Tying the whole system together is Duck Lake, sitting right in the middle of all these various forest types. Open water is an important component for animals resideing in the adjacent forest and nearby forests are critical for some water-dependent wildlife. The open water and its wetland edges compliment and complete the natural system.
The whole combination of lake, wetlands and multiple forest ages amounts to a biologically rich system and a great natural asset as it exists to the city of Ocean Shores and its citizens.
Ocean Shores is an "ecological nirvana"
As a relative newcomer to Ocean Shores, I have already developed a profound interest in preserving its uniqueness.
Our town is located on a fragile peninsula with more than 70 species of birds — some rare — hundreds of species of fish — some endangered — and a rich playground for our local wildlife.
Throw in our pristine beaches and native vegetation and we have a mix for ecological nirvana.
But our town and peninsula are so small that the least change to our environment leaves a footprint visible to us all.
I hope that the newly-elected mayor and city council members will be very sensitive to the fragility, beauty and uniqueness of our ecosystem when making future decisions about proposed commercial, industrial, recreational and resort-type development projects.
Michael
Ocean Shores
Published in The Daily World June 6th, 2008
“The Weatherwax” needs to be preserved
Tuesday, June 3, 2008 11:06 AM PDT
I have been coming to Ocean Shores for weekend getaways since I was a boy and I’m still finding new surprises.
Last weekend my college freshman son and I were bicycling around the area’s back roads and we bumped into the entrance of “The Weatherwax” property.
We had never heard of it before, but being adventurous types we ducked in to see what it was all about. What a happy discovery! Entering this little patch of forest is like being transported into another world — a primeval forest of cedars, mosses and muted sunlight. The quiet and sense of solitude in “The Weatherwax” is truly spiritual. What a gem to have such a pristine spot in the middle of Ocean Shores. There will undoubtedly be pressure from developers to carve it up into little lots for short-term monetary gain but I hope your community has the backbone to stand against it.
Don
Fall City
Published in The Daily World June 3rd, 2008
Take a walk in the Weatherwax, the Coastal Rain Forest located in Ocean Shores
I took a walk in the woods the other day at the Weatherwax property located in Ocean Shores. What a surprise! I had heard how beautiful this coastal rain forest was and I am still in awe of the fantastic things I saw there. I was expecting an adventure with difficult trails but I was able to navigate the area quite easily. The ferns, moss, lichen, mushrooms and berries were so pristine up close. Woodpeckers had drilled holes in a trunk very near the trail and I could see the detail without binoculars. I am writing this to encourage all of you to go to the Weatherwax property for a walk in the woods. I'm sixty five years old and don't consider myself an outdoor person so it's nice to have an easy, safe walk that can be as little as ten minutes or as long as one cares to make it when a bit of free time is available. It's an easy adventure with benches to rest on and sights you will never forget. Listen to the birds sing and check out all the new spring growth.
There is one area where some thoughtless person started to chop down a large tree and left it scarred beyond belief. Shame on you! I like to think you stopped chopping because you finally realized the damage you were causing and won't do it again. Maybe the large unique tree might still be saved.
I hope we can keep the Weatherwax property as a valuable resource in the community available for all to see. Try to go and experience it soon. You will be inspired from your visit to return again and again.
Catherine Rizzuti-Eggleston
(Published as a letter to the editor in the Daily World)
A CITY OUT OF CONTROL
At the Ocean Shores City Council meeting on September 10 there was one
lonely vote for justice, that of Councilman Dave Creighton. The others
joined to condemn our unique, city owned, Weatherwax Nature Area by
voting to sell off a piece to real estate developers. This despite the
pleas of a dozen speakers asking to save the Weatherwax tract to a
cheering crowd of more than 80 supportive citizens. In their arrogance
the Council also ignored a petition earlier signed by 803 citizens
asking to preserve all of the tract.
Consent of the governed? It doesn't happen here. The Ocean Shores City
Council is out of control and completely detached from their
responsibility to the majority of citizens who want the Weatherwax
preserved for all time for the future benefit of residents, visitors,
and especially wildlife. And this is only one example of the Council's
history of irresponsibility. Councilman Nick Johnson said it clearly:
"…I will not take the hard issues to the people…". The only hope is to
replace this Council by voting it out of office as soon as the
opportunity affords.
John Clark
President, Ocean Shores Citizens for Balanced Growth
289-4295
September 12, 2007
City wantonly disregards the democratic process
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:02 AM PDT
I am appalled that City of Ocean Shores employees and council members
believe they have the right to sell the Weatherwax Point without
consulting the members of this community.
The city's wanton disregard for a democratic process that would enable
the true owners of this property, the citizens of Ocean Shores, to
determine the fate of the Weatherwax property is appalling and
undemocratic.
I previously called the city's Administrative Office and Planning
Department and requested that the city notify our local newspaper
whenever a developer approaches the city with a large-scale project,
all to no avail.
My request was quickly dismissed by every city employee I spoke with.
It's apparent that the city does not want community input on its
rampant development plans.
It's apparent that the city is intent upon developing every square
foot of land in Ocean Shores, regardless of our desires.
Unfortunately, city employees are so out of touch with the desires of
the people of this community that they are even willing to sell
portions of the Weatherwax property to the highest bidder.
Who will benefit from this sale?
The answer is simple: Developers, Realtors, and out-of-town real
estate investors.
Who will be harmed by the sale of the Weatherwax property? Wildlife,
community members who live here because they want to live in a quiet
town, and low and fixed-income residents.
The majority of citizens in this community do not want to live in an
over-developed, congested town devoid of wildlife. If we did, we would
not have moved here.
The citizens of this community own the Weatherwax property and as
such, they have the right to vote on the destiny of this property.
City employees and council members do not have the right to usurp the
democratic process.
Marie Wallace
Ocean Shores
|
