Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor | A response to Commissioner Sehmel on DeMolay
I read, with great interest, Commissioner Sehmel’s Letter to the Editor responding to my Letter about the DeMolay Sandspit project. I consider Mr. Sehmel to be an outstanding Commissioner who understands his role and responsibilities to PenMet, to the park district, and to the park district residents. I also consider Mr. Sehmel to be a friend. He and I disagree frequently, but our discussions never get heated and remain productive.
Mr. Sehmel assumes that my Letter referred to “…an unexpected cost overrun…” Not true. My letter refers solely to an increase in the cost of the DeMolay Sandpit project. I admit my wording could be interpreted as Mr. Sehmel has interpreted them and that’s on me.
I admit I could have been more explicit in my previous letter, but the issue of an unexpected cost overrun (as Commissioner Sehmel and probably others read it) versus additional costs for additional work (which I failed to adequately explain) was not the point of my letter. My point was to demonstrate how PenMet loves living on taxpayer funds (both directly from us through our property taxes and from various state agencies through grants). Given that the state is facing a budget deficit in the tens of billions of dollars, I would think that both PenMet and the State would be far more cautious in how it spends our money. Choosing to spend millions to destroy a nature preserve does not seem to me to be a wise choice by the State or by PenMet. That said, taxpayer supported entities tend to band together to protect and to assist each other at our expense. This is just another example.
I assumed, but did not explicitly say (again, on me), that some of the cost increase comes from the additional documentation the County has requested as part of its permit review process. I also assumed some of the cost increase comes from additional work. I should have stated both of those assumptions.
Mr. Sehmel refers to PenMet’s long term Master Plan (the “Plan”) for the Sandspit. That’s a helpful reference. Here’s the very first statement in paragraph 1.0 of that plan:
1.0 Introduction The Tacoma DeMolay Sandspit property was acquired in 2010 by PenMet Parks and is actively managed to preserve natural features and allow low-impact public access with special care given to protecting vegetation and wildlife.
As I’ve said many times before, the state imposed numerous restrictions on what PenMet could do with the Sandspit. Among those restrictions was the requirement that the Sandspit be maintained in its natural state in perpetuity. PenMet, itself, acknowledged those restrictions by designating the Sandspit as a “nature preserve.” PenMet’s use of the phrase “…to preserve natural features and allow low impact public access with special care given to protecting vegetation and wildlife” confirms that PenMet understood that obligation.
The state, in substantially funding the current Sandspit project, waived the rights it reserved (for our benefit) when it funded the original purchase for reasons best known to it (maybe they just love spending our money?). Now, PenMet is waiving its own obligation to “…to preserve natural features and allow low-impact public access with special care given to protecting vegetation and wildlife.”
Commissioner Sehmel also states that this recent budget amendment will save the taxpayers money. That may be true, but not doing the project will save them far more.
I want to thank Mr. Sehmel for providing his insightful response to my letter. He’s given me the opportunity to clarify my earlier statements. As many know, Mr. Sehmel’s family has a long and storied history and relationship with PenMet which I respect, and I highly value my relationship with Mr. Sehmel.
Craig McLaughlin
Fox Island