You are on page 1of 3

From: Joe K

To: COM GMS.Base-Compatibility; Watson, Deanah (COM)

Cc: Smith, Norma; Hayes, Dave; Bailey, Barbara; Community Allies; Jill Johnson;
Subject: Thoughts on Your Washington State Military and Community Compatibility Strategy
Date: Saturday, July 29, 2017 12:33:59 PM

29 July 2017

Dear Washington State Commerce Department Official Deanah Watson and CCs;

I just filled out the webform on the Washington State Military and Community Compatibility
Strategy. Before I hit send, I copy-pasted the questions & my answers over to Notepad so
here goes...

Record any general input on the subject of civilian-military land use and/or the draft
implementation plan in this field.

I generally think this plan is on the right track. After the recent ongoing tragedy that is
the OLF Coupeville land use dispute, more must be done for compatible land use
around military installations. We have ongoing litigation against the real estate industry
due to lackluster noise disclosure, and a situation before the State Board of Health with
Citizens of the Ebey's Reserve or COER asking them to intervene on the jet noise issue.

I do want to caution you though that as much as it might be tempting to have citizen
groups at the table, I don't think it's a good idea to have groups such as Citizens of the
Ebey's Reserve or COER around the table with a clearly stated agenda to close all or
part of NAS Whidbey Island. Doubly so if you will be excluding grassroots supporters
of the armed forces and property rights groups.

What the mainstream media is at best complicit in is painting pictures of "citizens" vs.
"the military" - a narrative COER plays off of for fundraising to close part or all of NAS
Whidbey Island. It's really important to cloud that picture up, if you will. Furthermore,
giving free media & attention to anti-Navy groups like COER and Peaceful Skies is not
going to help further the discussion with military officials - but rather make them and
their civilian supporters more defensive.

The current Commanding Officer of NAS Whidbey Island even said in the Whidbey
News-Times, Why would it be in my interest to talk to someone who wants to get rid
of me? That someone is COER.

So I would encourage you to be conscious of those issues. BUT, BUT I would certainly
make sure there is ample public comment and outreach with the folks regarding proper
land use policy. There are going to be some very real, some very genuine hardships
asked of Central Whidbey for America's defense and NOT everybody there is
sympathetic or supportive of COER's anti-military, anti-America point-of-view. But
those folks, as are folks in North Whidbey, are taking one for the nation and have a right
to be upset. Certainly some genuine compensation needs to be put on the table... not
just studies and staffing.

I will leave you with that thought. Thank you.

Record any input for (pages 7-16) the Executive Summary (ES), Introduction (Section 1),
or Planning Context (Section 2) in this field.

"A thriving military presence is essential to our states economic vitality. Land use
decisions surrounding military bases and ranges can impact both civilian systems
and activities, and the militarys ability to conduct defense operations safely and
efficiently. Washington State supports our military bases and ranges through land use
because they are vital for our national defense, emergency response, and security
of trade routes, and contribute to our local and state economies. Military facilities
also must consider civilian safety and local economies."


Record any input for (pages 17-26) Implementation Goals, Objectives, & Tasks (Section
3) in this field.

"Objective II-A: Advisory Body for Governor / Legislature. Consider leveraging

the significant number of former senior military officials and Defense experienced
former Congressional members to create a Military Advisory Council to advise
the Governor and Legislature on military base related issues, including
compatible development. They could also administer such grant and other
programs to facilitate compatible planning with military installations as the State
Legislature may appropriate. Such a body could provide expert advice to
officials throughout the State on the key issues related to its military
installations, and because of high level access, can ensure State senior leaders stay
abreast of military base related issues."

Uh and what about those civilian advocates for the armed forces like Navy League
councils around the state? Or me?

"Objective III-D: Military Installation Inclusion in Regional Transportation

Planning. Facilitatenon-voting membership on Regional Transportation Planning
Organizations (RTPOs) for major military bases (more than 3,000 authorized
personnel), and designation of military bases as a category to be considered in
growth management planning with parity among similar populated regional
growth areas or major industrial areas. Also, modify executive board membership,
to include major military bases (in excess of 3,000 authorized personnel) as non-voting
members of their boards. If the non-legislative route is ineffective, this objective moves
into the pool of legislative options."

I think this really is a bad idea as somebody who's watched transit boards operate as also
a transit advocate. Two reasons why.

1) It is a BAD USE of limited staff resources to sit at board meetings that discuss topics
usually not germane to why that person is serving on the board when staff & consultants
can write a report and through public comment give an executive summary.

2) Furthermore, if major military bases get on these boards the clamoring will go up for
transit advocates, anti-military groups, major employers and more to join. See 1 for
what I think is a better approach.
Record any input for (pages 27-52) Stakeholder Roles (Section 4), Implementation
Support (Section 5), Implementation Communication (Section 6), or the Appendix in this

1) I think it's really important the State Board of Health and the State Department of
Health be engaged on this. Especially as the State Board of Health ruled last March
military jet noise is a health risk factor. Not just on water, but land and air.

2) I think relying on the State Legislature as a forum for general public comment is not a
good idea. Many Washingtonians can't make the trip to Olympia to testify except in
emergency. Perhaps open houses with ample security around the state would be best?

In executive summary, I really think it's important you make outreach to the State Board of
Health & the State Department of Health as the State Board of Health will once again weigh in
on jet noise August 9th. I also hope you recognize the conversation you want to have
translates into patriotic Americans owning land taking one for the country and rightfully being
upset about it. As somebody who is also a transit advocate, I see that same righteous
frustration I empathize with anytime my heroes in Sound Transit seek to exercise eminent
domain. Certainly some genuine financial compensation needs to be put on the table... not just
studies and staffing because after fighting COER since the fall of 2012, if folks could drown in
verbosity about incompatible land use around OLF folks would.

Yours for a better Washington;

Joe A. Kunzler