In a letter to the editor on June 8 in the Snoqualmie Valley

Record, Michael and Jane Stoccardo of Duvall support the King County

Executive’s proposal to prohibit residential building in the Forest Production

District because there are resource jobs there and zoning favors forestry.

The majority of this district is held by the government and large

industrial owners, but there are many small private owners. Is it fair to deny

individual private property owners, many who have owned their land for

many years, the right to build on their land? Why does it make any difference

to other forest owners if there is a house on an adjacent property? Who

would compensate the affected owners for the drastic loss of value when

they could no longer build?

Mr. and Mrs. Stoccardo also support yet another downzone in the

Rural Forest District, saying King County policies call for this “level of

density” and “it is time the county’s plan

was brought into compliance with its own policies.” The fact of the matter is

that King County’s policies in effect now are RA-10 and RA-5 zoning in

the Rural Forest District, meaning one house per 5 or 10 acres. The

King County Executive’s proposal seeks RA-20 zoning in the

Comprehensive Plan 2000 update.

If approved by the council, this would severely limit

landowners’ rights and opportunities. And again, what about land values? After

saving for years for the down payment and then 10 or 15 years of payments for

a place in the sun, the county just comes along and takes. Building a house

on a large piece of rural land is not the same as “residential

development.” Building a house and clearing

some pasture in the middle of 10 or 20 acres has little environmental impact.

It’s not the same as building 70 houses on 20 acres in a suburban or urban area.

This is private land. Current zoning prevents suburban sprawl in the

rural area. Environmental impacts are minimal. No more downzones.

Preston Drew

Vice-chairman of King County Citizens for Property Rights

Carnation