For those unfamiliar with our discussion/opinion forum, a poster who signs himself/herself as "A Concerned Citizen," -- or sometimes shortened to "ACC" -- has freely (literally), frequently and consistently used our forum to post opinions and observations, many of them interesting, almost all of them debatable, but few supportable as facts. But opinions and observations are always welcome. That's what the forum was set up to do: to allow folks to "vent" what they are thinking, in a safe environment.

ACC has criticized G.R.I.T., anyone who may be a G.R.I.T. member, and/or anyone who may become a G.R.I.T. member in the future, or anyone who may sometimes agree with anyone who may be or become a G.R.I.T. member in the future, or anyone who may In short, hold an opinion contrary to those held by ACC.

I have a question for Mr./Ms./Miss/Mrs. ACC: You call yourself a "concerned citizen," but just WHAT are you concerned about? You criticize myself, my husband, Ray Kistenmacher (spelled with a "t" as has been pointed out to you several times), G.R.I.T., our website, the discussion forum you use, and folks who post views different from yours. But I have never heard you state what your specific concerns are.

In one of your latest postings, related to our "promotion" of a Feb. 5th Planning Commission hearing, you stated: It is quite obvious that Loretta and Ray's supporters are definitely on the decline as I have stated in earlier postings. I commend the citizens for this. Some time ago, if Loretta had pushed a meeting like his as hard as she did recently, people would have shown up in droves." That statement is inaccurate. The truth is this: Because of the city's illegal actions in scheduling this hearing and obfuscating information on the ordinances (much less communicated anything about the possible ramifications of those revisions), it took significant time and effort for us to determine which ordinances were being considered for revision and when the hearings would take place. Mr./Ms./Miss/Mrs. (let's shorten this to "MMMM", shall we?) ACC, how can one "advertise" or "push" for a "meeting" (actually, a hearing) when one does not have and cannot obtain the specifics on what one is supposed to comment? And as I said in my comments in front of the Planning Commission on February 5th, how can one comment intelligently on something about which they have no knowledge?

Since your facts are wrong on this issue, perhaps I can set you straight. (Thanks, by the way, for your posting; it moved me to do something I wanted to do anyway, but thought I would just let it pass this time.) Here is what happened on the hearing which was scheduled to review several important ordinances:

• This hearing was scheduled by city staff, NOT the city council, per our code.
• It was scheduled for January 15th at 7:30 p.m. in the Planning Commission, which conflicted with the Monroe Open House on the County's Draft EIS for their Comprehensive Mineral Plan.
• During the January 7th council meeting (continued from the 1/2/02 meeting), this hearing was canceled by the council and requested that its scheduling be placed on the next council meeting as an agenda action item, in order that it could be rescheduled by the council -- not staff -- as required by code.
• The next day the mayor had Rick Cisar check to see if this council action was "legal." Council members were not given the courtesy of advisement, neither the communication to the "city" attorney, nor when the council action was illegally overturned.
• Then on 1/14/02, Donna Murphy sent out the following e-mail to P.C. members, myself, and others: "PC Agenda: To receive an update from City staff on the Unified Development Code Revisions and other projects currently under review."
• I immediately sent an e-mail request to Donna Murphy, as follows: "Donna: I thought this [The planning commission meeting] was canceled, along with the hearing. I was planning on attending the open house for the comp/mineral plan in Monroe tonight, but now it appears I should focus on the P.C. instead. Because of the abbreviated material coming from the planning department on these revisions, it would probably be a good idea to sit in on this one. Do you know why this was rescheduled?"
• In response, Donna sent the following: "The intent of tonight's meeting is a work session to go over the proposed revisions with the Planning Commission. There will still be a public hearing on Feb. 5th to make a formal recommendation to Council."
• So, presto-chango, not only were residents once again put into the position of having to decide whether to attend the County's Mineral Plan Open House or the Planning Commission briefing (for badly-needed information on these ordinances which were not forthcoming from the city, even upon request), but all of a sudden the P. C. hearing -- for February 5th -- was back on again, despite cancellation by the council.
• Finally - and even more illegal -- the Action Items Agenda for the February 5th hearing indicated the following: "Public hearing - Unified Deveopment Code Amendments - Continued from the January 15, 2001 Meeting." I may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but how can a public hearing -- which was not legal in the first place and had no legal notice -- be "continued"?

Because I had been slammed with activities recently (I also own and operate a full-time business), it took me time to get a copy of which ordinances were being changed, sit down with the code book, and then try to communicate it in some intelligible form to residents. As it was, I only managed to post the text of the ordinances and only the briefest statement of their possible ramifications, the day before the hearing. I did not put out any update. I did not put out an "alarm," and I did not have time to do so. I would hardly call this a "fever pitch" of proclaiming how terrible these ordinances were in order to beat the bushes for attendance. In this particular instance, I had to trust to a sort of "do-it-yourself" effort on the part of residents, and hope that they would read and understand them. (By the way, MMMM ACC, I would point out that we are non-paid volunteers working to improve Sultan's future, who are trying to keep up with the efforts of 30-or-so city-paid employees, as well as "Friends of the City" benefiting monetarily from their development efforts. Not an easy job, that.) And when G.R.I.T. puts out a "fever pitch" advertising effort on a meeting or hearing, you will KNOW it by the number of attendees at the function.

If I know nothing else about these ordinances, I know one thing: They are ALL supposed to be consistent with our comp plan. Our CURRENT comp plan. Why, on the very eve of a major comp plan revision, is the city trying so strenuously to PUSH through several major ordinances? Doesn't that sound alarm bells to anyone but me and my husband? And, yes, I would certainly call a revision of the maximum allowable lot coverage from 30% to 65%, major. Testimony given at this hearing indicated that, gee, Lynnwood (and other major cities that were mentioned) have 75% or more maximum lot coverage as their ordinance. I rest my case....

Our Background and "Dissatisfaction with Sultan" and anyplace else we may live:
You -- and others -- have mentioned several times relative to our activism that, "They participated in these kind of actions where they previously came from and they will do so again when they finally move on from here."

In order to dispel rumors of my background, I will tell anyone who asks me what it is. I have told my story to several people who have been curious about our history. There are no crouching skeletons in the closets, no dead bodies buried anywhere, and the funny thing is that each time I tell someone about my background, the "story" is the same every time. Nothing changes. And the very best part is, I don't have to "remember" what the "story" is, or to whom I've told what. Because it's my life. Because it's my background. Because it's all true. Because I have nothing to hide.

And yes, I have participated in civic activism before now. I am quite proud of that fact. Probably the most significant example were far-reaching efforts to try and improve a horrible stench emanating from a composting facility about 1/4 mile (as the odor wafts) from my home in Maryland, a smell so bad that thousands of homeowners and residents could not open their windows in the spring and summer. I'm pleased to say that, because of my efforts, the state was forced to install odor-controlling equipment on that facility. I believe if you speak with anyone who lived within "smell's reach" of that plant, you hear will praise and thanks for my efforts, not criticism. Folks can now spend time outdoors, rather than huddled inside their houses with the windows closed tight.

You want to know what my background is? Just ask me. But have the courtesy to ask me directly. Give me that much respect, at least.

As to yourself, MMMM ACC, you seem to be quite full of yourself, your abilities, your "facts" and your intelligence, yet you cannot even seem to spell my husband's name right -- I believe purposefully -- despite requests to do so. That says infinitely more about you than it does about us.

To GRIT Home Page

Other Editorials

Read Proposed Ordinances mentioned in this editorial

Discuss on our opinion forum