Letter | Process for Tall Chief property sale was flawed

“Back to the farm” (Nov. 18) reads like a press release. Please check out http://www.savetallchief.com for different views.

“Back to the farm” (Nov. 18) reads like a press release. Please check out http://www.savetallchief.com for different views.

The county has been the Tall Chief owner for over two years. A mossy roof, lack of heat and ventilation supporting mold growth, blackberry growth and other “neglect” of the property is a county responsibility, fix it.

King County values each “development unit” at $187,000. Why is King County selling two additional development units (home credits) for $160,000 and $105,000 each? This price is fixed for up to 10 years without regard to the current market value. If stopping development is the main objective, why allow subsidized “home credits” where each also allows an additional accessory dwelling unit? These additional dwellings are too much for too little.

Where were the Snoqualmie Valley voices on the committee? Not having a single Valley member feels like a decision that is being imposed by outside “experts.”

I disagree with Director True’s statement that “we don’t tell farmers what to grow or how to farm.” A subsidized agricultural easement valued at over $2.8 million is sufficient public investment to require the best farming practices.

The purchase and sale agreement only “strongly encourages Landowner to farm and use the Agricultural Area for agricultural uses.” Requiring agricultural use along with Salmon Safe and organic practices are reasonable requirements given the significant public investment.

Tilth would be a strong first choice if best farm practices and other public benefits were valued over a financial return to the county.

John Chaney

Fall City