SuperCollider
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2004
- Messages
- 9
The Peoples Republic of Redmond, WA is annexing our local range (unincorporated King County property) without the consent of the Rose Hill residents. The city has also proactively passed legislation that will effectively kill the range upon annexation.
The whole story is here (long.)
This is precedent setting and will ultimately affect all King County ranges; moreover it will affect other counties and our local forests. Your awareness and letter-writing assistance greatly appreciated.
What you can do to help today.
**************************************
Emergency NEWS as of 19 July 2004!
Dates; Decision meeting in Redmond; late August.
Here's a list of what you need to do, TODAY.
Annexation and resulting likely CLOSURE is imminent. We need your help NOW, to keep Interlake open. Don't wait; act today.
The City of Redmond has enacted an Ordinance (below) making the licensing and operation of ISA, or any private shooting facility, nearly impossible. This was done with knowledge and intent on the part of those who run Redmond, and in anticipation of annexing Rose Hill, and us. This ordinance does not apply to ISA at this time, as we are in un-incorporated King County. It will only apply to us when we are annexed into Redmond. Virtually the same Ordinance was adopted recently by Gig Harbor to kill the Gig Harbor Sportsman's Club range. They are succeeding in this effort.
King County has accepted Redmond's petition for annexation of Rose Hill (PHASE 1), and also petitioned for the annexation of all of Rose Hill, including ISA (PHASE 2) at the same time. The County has claimed jurisdiction. The repeal of the State Supreme Court decision last year, allowing the petition method of annexation, has made this action possible without any public vote at all. The residents of the affected area defeated the last annexation attempt by official public vote in September 2002, but this is of no interest to our politicians, administrators and public servants.
The only land-use zoning classification in King County which allows firing ranges is code 'F-R', or 'Forest-Recreational', to the best of our knowledge. This used to be common, but today only exists on isolated sections of timber company property, who don't benefit from logging or earth grading to establish a firing range. That means that Interlake, and most other King County ranges, have had their zoning changed and are now 'grandfathered, non-conforming land use'. This also means that loss of an operating permit for one moment leads to permanent closure of any range. All such land-uses have the same risk of permanent closure. The lack of land with acceptable zoning means that relocation of the range, within the existing population service area, is impossible without direct political support. All our politicians, and neighboring ones, were asked to help. Some listened, none have agreed to take positive action to help.
As of 14 July, King County reissued our operating permit on a 30-day basis, stating that they expected us to be annexed into Redmond by then. Redmond does not recognize our 'grandfathered' status and has officially stated that a firing range is not compatible with their land-use (ignoring their own police range, under the Public Safety building, of course). We were told that all other civilian ranges in the County would be similarly, individually, 're-examined' and re-licensed, in anticipation of more annexations of ranges into municipalities. The County person issuing the permit stated that the new County polity is to divest itself of range regulation, and to extend that task to cities. The County also recently adopted regulatory language identical to that in the Redmond Ordinance. Most other King County ranges were contacted by us; none were concerned enough about their future to respond. Your tax dollars at work.
On 15 July the BRB met for 3 hrs and accepted testimony. A Redmond department head testified, asking for partial annexation (Phase 1) immediately, and Phase 2 ASAP, thereafter, citing slight concern about lack of citizen support (less than 20% of landowners) and about litigation. A King County Executive Official testified, asking to annex all the land, Phase 1 and 2, immediately, and indicated that citizen opposition was not a concern to the County. BRB questions indicated that they favored complete annexation, rather than partial. All 9 citizen speakers were totally opposed to annexation; there was 1 'pro-annexation' citizen speaker, a female County Sheriff Deputy out of uniform, who asked for annexation as she said the deputies often didn't know the area or physically where they were, so annexation would 'improve police service delivery as the Deputy's wouldn't have to go there, anymore' (yes, it's really 2004 and she's a manager, not a street officer. Stunning...). No known observers or participants or statements or assistance was sent by the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA or any other organization, although all were solicited weeks in advance. Interlake testified verbally and in writing, arguing that annexation would violate 2 sections of RCW at least; 36.93.170 and .190, and submitted written pleas from federal, state and local law enforcement to save the range. A BRB member stated that the RCW did not specifically bind them and that they could follow their own personal guidance. He also stated that Interlake's plea re financial impact, community impact, public safety, national security and status as a protected and specially permitted organization were not relevant to the RCW (and outside the meeting he also commented about "gun addicts"...). Their lawyer kept silent and was not asked. The BRB then voted to reconvene in about 30 days (last week of August) to consider (vote on) annexation of Phase 1 and 2 (including Interlake), simultaneously. Without official intervention, therefore, we have 30 days of life remaining as of this date. Kangaroo courts, anyone?
YOUR RANGE IS NEXT.
The appointee-group responsible for reviewing and authorizing this annexation is;
Washington State Boundary Review Board
Rm 402 Yesler Building
400 Yesler Way
Seattle, WA 98104
The person in charge of Board operations is Ms. Blauman, so you may address correspondence to her. She has been helpful and polite to us. The Board members are identified in a brief way on their website. Be civil and polite. The telephone for the Board is 206-296-6800 and their FAX is 206-296-6803. Look for their names and more contact numbers on their website, below.
The only public hearing required in this process is scheduled for late August 2004, at 1900 hrs at;
Northwest Division District Court
8601 160th Ave. NE
Redmond, WA
Sign-in for speaking is at 1830 hrs. It is imperative that any and all who care about the continued operation of ISA attend this meeting, prepared to speak. Individuals are allowed to speak for up to 3 minutes. The only effective way to address this issue, however, is to send a letter to the Board, such that they receive it prior to mid August, by FAX, email, and hand delivery at the meeting. Their internal policy does not oblige them to consider or to read any document received after that time, for a late August meeting, but the members will likely 'hear' that additional pleas have been received. The Board has sole jurisdiction in this matter, and just as in court, may amend or alter the annexation proposal under consideration, or table it, at their sole discretion. The only remedy, or mechanism to change a Board action, is to take them to court. Therefore, a non-lethal decision by the Board in August is essential for our survival. There will only be a small number of meetings, and all are critical and must be attended.
They decided on 15 July to annex PHASE 1 and PHASE 2 and ISA, all at once, ASAP. We need something other than this, such as an ethical ordinance and intent within Redmond, or (preferably) to remain in the County. The Board is conveniently constrained by certain RCW limitations on their actions. Please focus your technical arguments on those elements allowed in the law. The relevant RCW sections are 36.93.170, .180 and part of .150 and are linked, below.
The only known story in the Seattle Times is here (requires quick registration on the website); http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=annex15e&date=20040615&query=city+of+redmond
Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County site
The RCW may be found on this page.
The Ordinance that Redmond has on the books that affects ISA may be downloaded here; http://www.ci.redmond.wa.us/insidecityhall/documentlibrary/cityord5.asp and select ordinance #2120.
The Gig Harbor municipal code may be found here; http://www.cityofgigharbor.net/html/municipal.html
The whole story is here (long.)
This is precedent setting and will ultimately affect all King County ranges; moreover it will affect other counties and our local forests. Your awareness and letter-writing assistance greatly appreciated.
What you can do to help today.
**************************************
Emergency NEWS as of 19 July 2004!
Dates; Decision meeting in Redmond; late August.
Here's a list of what you need to do, TODAY.
Annexation and resulting likely CLOSURE is imminent. We need your help NOW, to keep Interlake open. Don't wait; act today.
The City of Redmond has enacted an Ordinance (below) making the licensing and operation of ISA, or any private shooting facility, nearly impossible. This was done with knowledge and intent on the part of those who run Redmond, and in anticipation of annexing Rose Hill, and us. This ordinance does not apply to ISA at this time, as we are in un-incorporated King County. It will only apply to us when we are annexed into Redmond. Virtually the same Ordinance was adopted recently by Gig Harbor to kill the Gig Harbor Sportsman's Club range. They are succeeding in this effort.
King County has accepted Redmond's petition for annexation of Rose Hill (PHASE 1), and also petitioned for the annexation of all of Rose Hill, including ISA (PHASE 2) at the same time. The County has claimed jurisdiction. The repeal of the State Supreme Court decision last year, allowing the petition method of annexation, has made this action possible without any public vote at all. The residents of the affected area defeated the last annexation attempt by official public vote in September 2002, but this is of no interest to our politicians, administrators and public servants.
The only land-use zoning classification in King County which allows firing ranges is code 'F-R', or 'Forest-Recreational', to the best of our knowledge. This used to be common, but today only exists on isolated sections of timber company property, who don't benefit from logging or earth grading to establish a firing range. That means that Interlake, and most other King County ranges, have had their zoning changed and are now 'grandfathered, non-conforming land use'. This also means that loss of an operating permit for one moment leads to permanent closure of any range. All such land-uses have the same risk of permanent closure. The lack of land with acceptable zoning means that relocation of the range, within the existing population service area, is impossible without direct political support. All our politicians, and neighboring ones, were asked to help. Some listened, none have agreed to take positive action to help.
As of 14 July, King County reissued our operating permit on a 30-day basis, stating that they expected us to be annexed into Redmond by then. Redmond does not recognize our 'grandfathered' status and has officially stated that a firing range is not compatible with their land-use (ignoring their own police range, under the Public Safety building, of course). We were told that all other civilian ranges in the County would be similarly, individually, 're-examined' and re-licensed, in anticipation of more annexations of ranges into municipalities. The County person issuing the permit stated that the new County polity is to divest itself of range regulation, and to extend that task to cities. The County also recently adopted regulatory language identical to that in the Redmond Ordinance. Most other King County ranges were contacted by us; none were concerned enough about their future to respond. Your tax dollars at work.
On 15 July the BRB met for 3 hrs and accepted testimony. A Redmond department head testified, asking for partial annexation (Phase 1) immediately, and Phase 2 ASAP, thereafter, citing slight concern about lack of citizen support (less than 20% of landowners) and about litigation. A King County Executive Official testified, asking to annex all the land, Phase 1 and 2, immediately, and indicated that citizen opposition was not a concern to the County. BRB questions indicated that they favored complete annexation, rather than partial. All 9 citizen speakers were totally opposed to annexation; there was 1 'pro-annexation' citizen speaker, a female County Sheriff Deputy out of uniform, who asked for annexation as she said the deputies often didn't know the area or physically where they were, so annexation would 'improve police service delivery as the Deputy's wouldn't have to go there, anymore' (yes, it's really 2004 and she's a manager, not a street officer. Stunning...). No known observers or participants or statements or assistance was sent by the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA or any other organization, although all were solicited weeks in advance. Interlake testified verbally and in writing, arguing that annexation would violate 2 sections of RCW at least; 36.93.170 and .190, and submitted written pleas from federal, state and local law enforcement to save the range. A BRB member stated that the RCW did not specifically bind them and that they could follow their own personal guidance. He also stated that Interlake's plea re financial impact, community impact, public safety, national security and status as a protected and specially permitted organization were not relevant to the RCW (and outside the meeting he also commented about "gun addicts"...). Their lawyer kept silent and was not asked. The BRB then voted to reconvene in about 30 days (last week of August) to consider (vote on) annexation of Phase 1 and 2 (including Interlake), simultaneously. Without official intervention, therefore, we have 30 days of life remaining as of this date. Kangaroo courts, anyone?
YOUR RANGE IS NEXT.
The appointee-group responsible for reviewing and authorizing this annexation is;
Washington State Boundary Review Board
Rm 402 Yesler Building
400 Yesler Way
Seattle, WA 98104
The person in charge of Board operations is Ms. Blauman, so you may address correspondence to her. She has been helpful and polite to us. The Board members are identified in a brief way on their website. Be civil and polite. The telephone for the Board is 206-296-6800 and their FAX is 206-296-6803. Look for their names and more contact numbers on their website, below.
The only public hearing required in this process is scheduled for late August 2004, at 1900 hrs at;
Northwest Division District Court
8601 160th Ave. NE
Redmond, WA
Sign-in for speaking is at 1830 hrs. It is imperative that any and all who care about the continued operation of ISA attend this meeting, prepared to speak. Individuals are allowed to speak for up to 3 minutes. The only effective way to address this issue, however, is to send a letter to the Board, such that they receive it prior to mid August, by FAX, email, and hand delivery at the meeting. Their internal policy does not oblige them to consider or to read any document received after that time, for a late August meeting, but the members will likely 'hear' that additional pleas have been received. The Board has sole jurisdiction in this matter, and just as in court, may amend or alter the annexation proposal under consideration, or table it, at their sole discretion. The only remedy, or mechanism to change a Board action, is to take them to court. Therefore, a non-lethal decision by the Board in August is essential for our survival. There will only be a small number of meetings, and all are critical and must be attended.
They decided on 15 July to annex PHASE 1 and PHASE 2 and ISA, all at once, ASAP. We need something other than this, such as an ethical ordinance and intent within Redmond, or (preferably) to remain in the County. The Board is conveniently constrained by certain RCW limitations on their actions. Please focus your technical arguments on those elements allowed in the law. The relevant RCW sections are 36.93.170, .180 and part of .150 and are linked, below.
The only known story in the Seattle Times is here (requires quick registration on the website); http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=annex15e&date=20040615&query=city+of+redmond
Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County site
The RCW may be found on this page.
The Ordinance that Redmond has on the books that affects ISA may be downloaded here; http://www.ci.redmond.wa.us/insidecityhall/documentlibrary/cityord5.asp and select ordinance #2120.
The Gig Harbor municipal code may be found here; http://www.cityofgigharbor.net/html/municipal.html
