In yesterday's open election thread.
6. Mark Griswold appears to have an incorrect notion about the scope and impacts from King County Amendment No 4 that he endorsed.
He limits the scope to the number of council members that must approve sales of high priority lands owned by the County. The Resolution goes further by establishing how priority lands are designated without a great deal of formality, while limiting sales only after citizen review and approval and a super majority of council members of 80%. This plays into the hands of those wanting to limit public land sales in the county.
The Charter Amendment exacerbates the problem that arises from the County already owning too much land for which it cannot afford to pay for the burdens and costs of ownership.
This amendment should be defeated.
Posted by Paddy at October 20, 2009 11:30 AM
(By the way, Mark Griswold agreed with the critique, in a follow-up comment.)
Posted by Jim Miller at October 21, 2009 10:00 AM | Email ThisIf you want more information about this amendment and how it was developed, you can see http://www.kingcounty.gov/exec/charter/issues and http://www.openspaceamendment.org/about.htm/openspace.aspx