Letters question Tree City designation, funding for estuary and desire for Port warehouse

Tree City USA?

Recent headlines stated, “Trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of the business area, beautify our neighborhoods, and are identifying characteristics for the Pacific Northwest landscape.” The story was about the Olympia City Council proclaiming Olympia “Tree City,” which has a very nice marketing ring to it.

In 20+ years, I’ve seen acres of trees within the Olympia City limits totally cleared — and then a few trees planted to spruce up the devastated area.

A recent example: Grass Lake Nature Park. Approximately two acres were clear cut to provide an asphalt parking lot. I was informed that native plants would cover a portion of the cleared area — a bit confusing because the entire area WAS covered by native vegetation! In addition, a swath 14 feet wide and approximately half mile in length was bulldozed to lay a road of asphalt 10 feet wide!

In addition, any city council member ever notice the thousands of trees that are being suffocated by English Ivy? Now there’s a real endangerment to the public.

However, with the absurd tax incentives offered to developers over many years, Olympia is rapidly becoming unsightly. Do any members of the Olympia City Council ever notice any trees other than the nice maples planted in the city center?

Joe Digranes, Olympia

Paying for Capitol Lake-Deschutes Estuary project

The Deschutes Estuary Project is good for the state but bad for the taxpayers of unincorporated Thurston County, Tumwater, Olympia, LOTT, and the Port of Olympia.

DES is asking these local governments to sign an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) that financially binds the taxpayers for millions of dollars annually over 24 years.

The problem with the ILA is twofold:

1. The long-term funding mechanism for dredging after construction of the estuary will be paid by Washington state, Thurston County, the cities of Tumwater and Olympia, the Port of Olympia, and LOTT in the ILA at a cost of $66 million. Under the ILA each is assigned a percentage to pay: Olympia 23.1%, or $11.5 million, and the others 15.4%, or $7.7 million through 2050.

The average citizen knows little about how much of their tax dollars are going to be diverted to this effort. Each jurisdiction will extract funds from different sources within their organizations. Some taxpayers would be double or triple taxed (e.g., everyone pays Port of Olympia taxes, we all live in Thurston County or one of the cities and some are LOTT fee payers).

2. Particularly disturbing is your taxes will pay for dredging Budd Inlet, which provides access to private marinas, yacht clubs and the one public marina owned by the City of Olympia. Taxpayers should not be paying these added taxes to reduce costs so private marinas/yacht clubs can access their docking sites.

Our local leaders should not sign this ILA.

Barry Halvorsen, Yelm

New warehouse plan needs citizen voices

Do Thurston County residents need the new 50,000-square-foot terminal warehouse being explored by the Port of Olympia at the cost of $2.5 million for county residents?

This is the question I had after reading the article about this venture in The Olympian. The port does not yet have a firm commitment from a Brazil-based company called Suzano, which would be trans-shipping paper products and storing them in this facility. But, not to worry, Hendrickson of the port assures us, the design would be modular and portable and other companies might use this. And, even better, the planning for has been done — in 2013.

This was 11 years ago! Change is taking place rapidly — are these data still accurate? And we have become much more aware and supportive of a clean environment. Do county residents want to support more large shipping container vessels in a fragile Budd Inlet just as we are trying to encourage the enhancement of salmon runs and a more natural habitat? Also do we want more large trucks going through downtown?

The port should put the brakes on this plan, appoint a citizen committee and examine what the general population thinks should be the port’s priorities. After all, we pay their bills.

A.R. Kirschner, Tumwater