Fact Check of Whalen Petition and Response from Whalen

Dear Editor and Community,

We recently received in the mail Mr. Ron Whalen’s request to have us sign a petition to eliminate the Land Bank by December 2020. The request was loaded with falsehoods and outrageously attempted to dupe our community into thinking that a yes or no answer meant something other than to put the petition on the fall ballot. Please note that whether you mark yes or no on the petition, it qualifies as a vote to put the measure on the ballot.

First, the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) that funds San Juan County’s Conservation Land Bank is paid once by the purchaser of property in San Juan County. It is among the fairest of taxes since you pay once when you purchase, and the funds are used to protect the quality of life and values that attracted you to live here. By paying the 1% tax you bought into the community’s beauty, history and values as evidenced in the Land Bank’s Mandate, which is to “preserve in perpetuity areas in the county that have environmental, agricultural, aesthetic, cultural, scientific, historic, scenic or low-intensity recreational value and to protect existing and future sources of potable water.”

Mr. Whalen may not approve of this mandate, but it is what was passed by the citizens of San Juan County as their priorities. To fulfill this mandate the Land Bank has purchased lands that protect agricultural uses (such as King Sisters Preserve and Coffelt Farms) not remove them as Mr. Whalen purports. Acquired lands also protect watersheds (such as land protecting Friday Harbor’s water supply), areas with important cultural and scenic value to the community (such as Turtleback Mountain, Mount Grant, Lopez Hill and many more), and it has funded initiatives such as the Salish Seed Project that strive to preserve our unique native wildflower communities. All these acquisitions and endeavors are in complete alignment with the Land Bank Mandate approved by voters each time it has come up for renewal.

Mr. Whalen claims the Land Bank has removed $60 million worth of property off the tax rolls and therefore your property taxes are significantly higher. This is complete nonsense. Just a little bit of research (or maybe, dare I say, reading the annual report the Land Bank provides our community) would have revealed to Mr. Whalen that 75% of Land Bank purchases have been properties where little or no tax was currently paid because they are already in San Juan County and state tax reduction programs such as designated forest land or agricultural land. The total value of taxable real estate in the County is over $7.5 billion. Theoretically, selling off all Land Bank Preserves could save a taxpayer owning a $500,000 property about $15 per year in property taxes. I think one day spent on a Land Bank preserve would make that a paltry sum to spend each year for the joy and renewal received. Not everyone enjoys owning a lot of land they can hike and enjoy nature on, and not everyone can look or walk out their door and enjoy the views and wildlife of Zylstra Lake as Mr. Whalen can. The Land Bank’s efforts make the joys and healing of nature available to anyone no matter what their income status.

Regarding administrative costs. If Mr. Whalen had read the Land Bank ordinance, he would have seen that, by law, the Land Bank must keep administrative costs under 10% of its revenues. In fact, over the history of the program administrative costs have averaged around 6% of revenue. These expenditures include salaries of people doing administrative work, technology, office supplies, producing and mailing an annual report, and a variety of other tasks.

Mr. Whalen also accuses the Land Bank of not doing due diligence for property acquisitions and cites ongoing disputes with a minority of neighbors. Without question most neighbors of Land Bank Preserves are supportive and have enjoyed the higher value their property has being adjacent to a permanently protected landscape.

Unfortunately, there is ongoing litigation with two neighbors disputing the County’s right to use road easements to access Land Bank owned preserves. In both cases, the Land Bank purchased the subject property prior to the neighbor and the court has ruled in both cases that such access is allowed.

I don’t know how Mr. Whalen can characterize the Land Bank as the bully in these situations. Isn’t the real bully the persons, who over many years, have wasted public resources to litigate the Land Bank when they should have done their due diligence regarding being a neighbor to an existing public preserve?

I hope Mr. Whalen gets his facts straight and I hope he stops trying to dupe our community with falsehoods and deceptive initiatives. It isn’t respectful.

Sincerely,
Amanda Azous

 My letter of response: Ron Whalen

1. Amanda states I request signatures to a petition to eliminate the Land Bank.

Not true. The initiative states Reduce Duration of Conservation Area Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). The words ending and eliminate are no where to be found in either the petition or the initiative. Passage of the ballot measure would not end the Land Bank. That’s because the LB has multiple sources of funding. The initiative concerns just the funding from the REET.

2. Amanda states I have outrageously attempted to dupe our community into thinking that a yes or no answer on the petition meant something other than to put the petition on the fall ballot.

Not true. Amanda needs to heed her own advise and do some reading and research before making allegations. The yes or no section of the petition is required. It has nothing to do with some plan for deception. Anyone doubting this should confer with the county prosecuting attorney. I’ll say it as nicely as I can Amanda. You don’t know what you’re talking about! This accusation of trying to dupe the community is easily dispelled. The important takeaway from Amanda’s hyper allegation is what is says about her credibility. She’ll write anything she believes might shore up her perspectives. This is worth remembering as you read Amanda’s diatribe of what she says are facts.

3. Amanda wrote, Unfortunately, there is ongoing litigation with two neighbors disputing the County’s right to use road easements to access Land Bank owned preserves. In both cases, the Land Bank purchased the subject property prior to the neighbor and the court has ruled in both cases that such access is allowed.

Reply I can tell you the parties involved in litigation with the LB have quit different perspectives than Amanda. Once again Amanda has little knowledge of the subject she writes about. She simply a copies and pastes the argument put out by the Land Bank.

4. Amanda states to fulfill their mandate the Land Bank has purchased lands that protect agricultural uses.

Reply After years of effort the LB finally gave up on a grant on the Zylstra Lake acquisition. That grant included provisions that would have prohibit agriculture. How does that equate with protecting of agriculture? But it wasn’t protection of agriculture that finally lead the LB to give up on the grant. They gave up because the original grant for a million dollars got reduced to $150,000. The reason it got reduced is because LB administration hadn’t done due diligence of reviewing the provisions of the grant. All the grant was ever about was an avenue to get more money. Which illustrates the LB’s MO (modus operandi): A B C D;

A. Get the money (however, wherever you can...never mind the details)

B. Spend the money

C. Ask for more

D. Repeat A, B, & C

Prior to the LB acquisition the Zylstra Lake property was over 500 acres of farmland. The first thing the LB did after buying it is sub-dived it into 4 parcels. All under the banner of preservation of open space and helping to protect farmland.

5. Amanda states the LB Acquires lands to protect watersheds (such as land protecting Friday Harbor’s water supply).

Reply Friday Harbors water supply is Trout Lake. There’s public access restriction around Trout Lake to protect that water supply. One of the LB arguments made for the Zylstra Lake acquisition was to preserve and protect a possible important water supply. But then the LB acts to make public access to that important water supply. That effort continues. How does that jive with the argument for the protection of a water supply?

The LB’s initial big selling point for the Zylstra Lake acquisition was it’s potential use for swimming, until they discovered Blue Algae in the lake. Suddenly no more talk of swimming.

Then there was the grant to help restore salmon runs. How does blue algae, public swimming and recreation, protecting water resource, and restoring salmon runs all get thrown in the same pot and work? It doesn’t! It exemplifies how the LB goes about preserving and protecting of

of the San Juans Islands. Float grand ideas….. Promotion of tourism, Seed banks, trails, salmon runs, public swimming, boating, trails, farmers markets, protection of water resources, preservation of historical and cultural sites……..Whatever!! Promote all of it under the banner of conservation. Deal with any details or conflicts of interests later if they come up. Need examples? How about the years of effort for the recreation grant on Zylstra Lake that went

squat? How about the ongoing litigation over easements?

6. Amanda wrote..All these acquisitions and endeavors are in complete alignment with the Land Bank Mandate approved by voters each time it has come up for renewal.

Reply On the Land Bank web site under FAQ’s is posed the question How do support taking land off the tax rolls? It’s answered;

Public land is a huge benefit for the county in that it:

1. Preserves the island’s character, and gives us places to go.
2. Plays a key role in keeping us competitive in the real estate market.
3. Helps maintain our property values.
4. Is the underlying driver of our tourism/service businesses.
5. Does not create a need for additional taxes as does development (EMS/hospital/schools/roads/library/fire district).

Tax dollars are being used to promote tourism? Since when did the voters approve a mandate for the Land Bank to promote tourism?

7. Amanda wrote..the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) that funds San Juan County’s Conservation Land Bank is paid once by the purchaser.

Reply The perception is the buyer pays so it’s at no expense to the seller. Anyone that’s ever bought property knows in the negotiation of price and costs, everything is on the table. To just say the excise tax is designated the responsibility of the buyer sidesteps the reality that all costs are part of the negotiation process.

Amanda ended noting spreading falsehoods wasn’t very respectful. I agree. Spreading an allegation that I attempted to dupe the community with the

language of the petition was a falsehood.