[Capr-announce] Fw: Fighting the right battles to win the war.

Sat Jan 29 14:51:19 PST 2005


> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "John R. Venrick" <jacksranch at qwest.net>
> >> To: "Mailist CAO" <maillist at proprights.org>; "Karen Williams"
> >> <karenjoyw at hotmail.com>
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 1:56 PM
> >> Subject: Fighting the right battles to win the war.
> >>
> >>
> >> Karen  and ALL,
> >>
> >> I talked to the CAPR attorney Thursday night (1/13/05) after the
meeting
> > at
> >> IHOP about what he thought our chances were if our case goes to the WA
> >> Supreme Court.  His answer was in two parts.  We were standing out side
> >> at
> >> this point so it was cold and he was only in his suit and the
> >> conversation
> >> was brief.
> >>
> >> I support our cause and have and will contribute as much as I can
afford
> > on
> >> a retirement pension.  At the same time it is important we be very
frank
> >> with each other, I believe.
> >>
> >> 1.   The court may or may not accept our case as the court has ruled on
> >> similar case(s) previously.  Brisbane vs. Watcom County seems to be the
> >> leading precedence setting case in this area although there have been
> >> others.   Please see the attachments.  The court will be hesitant to
over
> >> rule on a previous  rulings he said.
> >>
> >> 2.  If they do take the case they may look for ways to go around the
> >> prior
> >> precedence rulings vs. throwing out the prior Brisbane ruling.  There
are
> > 9
> >> WA Supreme Court judges.  One is a Libertarian and two conservative and
> > the
> >> remaining six are some where from center to the left politically.  So
> > three
> >> of the judges seem to be more pro property rights and the others are
some
> >> where in between.  Our attorney mentioned, I believe, this will not be
a
> >> full court decision.  So the other variable is who will be chosen from
> >> the
> >> nine to decide our case.
> >>
> >> Another phenomena I have seen and experienced frequently is the
> >> following.
> >> You could label it the "law of demising returns by direct reaction" vs.
> >> "strategic patience".   Sometimes changing cultural thinking is more of
a
> >> strategy than a reaction.  Like Ron Ewart said I believe, we are
fighting
> >> environmental forces who have 10 billion dollar reserves to throw into
> > legal
> >> battles and that is only the top five.  Granted you can do both, fight
> >> and
> >> educate but fighting battles is costly and does not guarantee you will
> >> win
> >> the war.  Sometimes  "strategic patience" is more powerful than being
Don
> >> Quixote. .  We must pick our battles wisely.
> >>
> >> A case in point here.  The local Enumclaw group against the Muckleshoot
> >> Indian Tribe (MIT)  fought and stalled  the construction  of the
> >> amphitheater for 5 years and spent roughly $200K (?) .  It ended up in
> > King
> >> County Superior Court where our pleas were over turned by a
conservative
> >> judge on all three counts of noise, traffic and pollution.   The
> >> amphitheater went in.  It holds 20,000 people 5 miles due east of my 10
> >> acres.  Its on the Enumclaw plateau, directly off SR 164, a narrow
> >> congested, accident prone road and on private land that was purchased
by
> > the
> >> Tribe and then deeded back to the MIT trust via the obliging BIA.  Big
> >> entertainment promoters were backing this operation using MIT.  Billy
> > Graham
> >> Presents and Clear Channel could never have pushed this amphitheater
> > through
> >> alone.  Gary Locke and Ron Sims and the Democrat council all more than
> >> helped in return for over a million $ of campaign donations we heard.
> >>
> >> We are now hearing that sales are down, there are long delay times
> >> leaving
> >> the events and that word is out on these delays.  Plus the ticket costs
> > are
> >> excessive ($80 and up) and they have had to cut those prices.  Also big
> >> entertainers become reluctant to come because of all these problems.
As
> > the
> >> revenue drops you loss the ability to attract star quality names.  I
> >> could
> >> go on but you get the picture.
> >>
> >> My point here is often there are greater forces that come to play when
> >> you
> >> mess with the basic rights of people.   Sooner or later the bullies get
> >> their comeupance on many levels and in many ways in our society.
> >>
> >> Jack Venrick
> >> Enumclaw, WA
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Karen Williams" <karenjoyw at hotmail.com>
> >> To: <maillist at proprights.org>
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 7:06 PM
> >> Subject: RE: [CAPR] Re: Database of supporters - 17k on petition >>
> >> Re:Otheractions we can take...
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but I've read quite a bit of
the
> >> Growth Management Act (back when I got interested in how Redmond Ridge
> > came
> >> to be), and I am not surprised that the court ruled that a local (not
> >> even
> >> countywide) initiative can't overturn GMA-related decisions made by
> >> county
> >> government.  A summary judgment means they didn't even have to think
very
> >> hard about it.
> >>
> >> So I have to ask, what do the lawyers say about CAPR's chances of
success
> >> getting the State Supreme Court to rule that the Initiatives can go
> > forward
> >> (and go into effect if passed by the voters)?
> >>
> >> It may well be that CAPR's energies would be more effectively put to
use:
> >>
> >> (1)  helping that other organization (forgot their name) that's suing
to
> > get
> >> the ordinances ruled unconstitutional, or
> >>
> >> (2)  pursuing some sort of statewide initiative, perhaps teamed up with
> >> other groups from other counties.
> >>
> >> If CAPR pursues a statewide Initiative, I personally would like it to
be
> >> well-thought-out and not hamhanded.  If we end up turning Puget Sound
> >> into
> >> another Los Angeles (in my opinion we're already too far along that
path)
> > I
> >> will be very sad and will want to move somewhere else.  And I see also
> > that
> >> sometime in the future, if people keep developing and spoiling places
as
> > we
> >> have been doing so far, there will be nowhere nice left.
> >>
> >> I want to protect the environment.  I just want it to be done more
fairly
> >> and more effectively (when the population grows enough, and they get a
> >> lot
> >> of leeway to decide what "enough" is, the County Council can rezone
land
> > to
> >> urban wherever they want and poof - there go all the trees that
> >> previously
> >> couldn't be touched).
> >>
> >> Karen Williams
> >>
> >> P.S. - King County's rural population is something like 8% of the
total -
> >> and shrinking.  We have very little voting strength, so threatening to
> > vote
> >> county councilmembers out of office is probably counterproductive.
Free
> >> advice, worth what you all paid for it... our strongest political tool
is
> >> pulling on people's heartstrings.  Americans have a soft spot for the
> > small
> >> family farmer, though not as much of one for the pastimes of the
> > well-to-do
> >> (horseback riding).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >From: "John R. Venrick" <jacksranch at qwest.net>
> >> >To: "Cary THOMAS" <cary.cw.thomas at gmail.com>,
> >> >ayousoufian at comcast.net,maillist at proprights.org
> >> >CC: Greg Taylor <Greg at islanddisc.com>
> >> >Subject: [CAPR] Re: Database of supporters - 17k on petition >> Re:
> >> >Otheractions we can take...
> >> >Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:39:21 -0800
> >> >
> >> >I also suggested in a prior email that all of the signing names and
> >> >addresses be recorded for similiar reason.
> >> >
> >> >I don't like to think I sat out there at King Feed freezing for
nothing.
> >> >These people signing are the core of property owners against the CAO.
> >> >
> >> >And this is just 17,000 out of what ...90,000 plus King County rural
> >> >property owners?  Each of these people has several neighbors they know
> > that
> >> >could join the fight and they in turn have neighbors and friends.  It
> >> >doesn't take long to build a list of the whole rural King County.
> >> >
> >> >Seems like we should be able to get that list too from King County
under
> >> >the
> >> >Freedom of Information Act.....?
> >> >
> >> >Jack Venrick
> >> >Enumclaw, WA
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: "Cary THOMAS" <cary.cw.thomas at gmail.com>
> >> >To: <ayousoufian at comcast.net>; <maillist at proprights.org>
> >> >Cc: "John R. Venrick" <jacksranch at qwest.net>; "Greg Taylor"
> >> ><Greg at islanddisc.com>
> >> >Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 12:18 AM
> >> >Subject: Database of supporters - 17k on petition >> Re: Other actions
> >> >we
> >> >can take...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >The Seattle Times article indicates CAPR will pursue the court
> >> >decision to the State Supreme Court. Should that decide against the
> >> >referendum then other options Armen suggests can come into play.
> >> >
> >> >Armen suggests a population of 10,000 to support such alternatives.
> >> >CAPR clearly has a database of 17,000 + on paper - the referendum
> >> >petitions!
> >> >
> >> >If CAPR kept copies of the petition signatures (always a wise idea)
> >> >then several volunteers could key those records (names, addresses) to
> >> >use for mailings.
> >> >
> >> >I would be willing to offer to coordinate such a distributed keying
> >> >project - 10 keying volunteers would be a good beginning. There are a
> >> >couple FREE database software solutions to keep the data more uniform,
> >> >if the volunteers have Windows computer systems.
> >> >
> >> >Contact me if you want to procede with such a project. If CAPR didn't
> >> >keep any copies of the signatures, then there's no reason to proceed
> >> >with any keying - no source data.
> >> >
> >> >Cary Thomas, West Seattle
> >> >206-767-4827
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:18:54 +0000, ayousoufian at comcast.net
> >> ><ayousoufian at comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > > 2:17 PM, Wednesday, January 12, 2005
> >> > >
> >> > > RE: Where we go from here... following yesterday's court decision
on
> > the
> >> > > referenda - a few thoughts...
> >> > >
> >> > > CAPR colleagues,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >Maillist mailing list
> >> >Maillist at proprights.org
> >> >http://proprights.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_proprights.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Maillist mailing list
> >> Maillist at proprights.org
> >> http://proprights.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_proprights.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>