First Lady wouldn’t get her garden if the White House were a critical area | Letters

Published 4:18 pm Saturday, February 25, 2012

Under Washington state law the Critical Areas Ordinance must be supported by the “best available science”.

As a county there is nothing we can do about that. Eventually, the legislating body must create a scientific record and parrot that the ordinance is supported by the “best available science”.

The reliance on the “best available science”, however, should be seen for what it is. It is nothing more than an “abracadabra” word to provide a rationalization for the ordinance.

The reality is the County Council must undertake a calculus which balances the benefits of the regulation with its costs. Why is this so? Simply, if we were really to choose a policy that eliminated any adverse impact on protected areas, it would have to be a policy of wholesale human extinction.

I doubt we are ready to do that.

The most flagrantly out of balance proposal is that only gardens of 1,000 square feet or less will be allowed to be established in buffer zones — and that gardens of larger size can only be established after permitting costing thousands of dollars.

During World War II, the British government, in order to reduce demand and free up supplies needed for the war effort, allocated 2,700 square feet to each and every family that wanted to garden. This is almost three times the amount the square footage allowed under the proposed CAO regulation.

I would also note that First Lady Michele Obama put in a kitchen garden on the White House grounds which exceeds 1,000 square feet. It is a strange, scary and neo-feudal world indeed when the wife of the president is allowed to put in a bigger garden than the common property owner.

Nicholas Power, San Juan Island