"What price growth...?" |
Neighbors want to protect area
The Olympian's March 7 editorial gives a "thumbs down" for my neighborhood's opposition to St. Michael's urban level plans for our rural community Our opposition is mischaracterized.
We have spent hundreds of hours working within the public process to preserve our quality of life including our drinking water as well as the drinking water the citizens of Olympia draw from their nearby wells (Allison Springs). We have worked to control stormwater runoff that is detrimental to fisheries and shellfish industries utilizing Eld Inlet.
We have supported agriculture and appropriate home-based business. We have endorsed recreational opportunities for horse and bicycle riding, walking, jogging and wildlife observing. Right or wrong, this church would be a catalyst for retrogression on these issues.
We are not opposed to appropriate growth, but the St. Michael satellite facility with its 200-car parking lot is far from an allowed option of two additional houses.
Many letters of support for this facility and its daily operations were written for review by a county hearings examiner of their same faith, but only a few of these people live anywhere near our neighborhood.
Inevitable expensive urban-level infrastructure will follow in the footsteps of this project if it is built.
Elected officials should welcome our unbelievable persistence in pointing these things out. Instead what we hear is typified by my recollection of Commissioner Dick Nichols words "... the roads in that area should be brought up to county standards ...", (not in any current schedule of road improvement) "... but certainly the church shouldn't have to pay for that"
Ross Matteson/President, Overhulse Neighborhood Association