There's a growing debate here in Sultan based on the premise that our conflicts are the result of basic property rights' violations. There is little debate that Governor Locke's Salmon initiative and other ESA-related issues have had a devastating effect on owners' land use. Curtailment of owner activities in streams and other ecological buffers have effectively "stolen" large portions of property from them, while still requiring them to pay taxes.

Concomitantly, the pro-growth versus the wise-growth groups (or as some are calling them, the "anti-law" and "pro -law" groups) in dispute here have added fuel to the property rights' arguments. But it is only half an argument.

In reality, how much can an owner actually do with his or her property? In order to answer that question, perhaps it makes sense to review a bit of history to gain some perspective on the issue. Has ANY owner ever been able to do anything he or she wants with their property? When one thinks back hundreds -- even thousands -- of years when land was plentifully available, was the issue of property rights in debate then as it is now?

Of course the answer is a resounding "YES." Property, and what its owner may or may not do with it, has ever been in debate among Mankind. Our property has almost as great a hold on us as we have on it. It has defined us, our world and our history. When we stake our claim to "owning" land, we become responsible for it. And in the act of possessing it, is then our duty to protect and defend it. Actually, it is even simpler than that. Human Beings, by their nature, are possessive.

Since Mankind has been on Earth, a special relationship has existed between the land and its "owner." Whether you're a student of the Bible or secular history, you cannot deny this truth. And whether you were a "landowner" during Prehistoric times whose neighbor lusted after your cave, a town leader in Europe as the Roman legions marched in to grab your land, or a Native American Indian when the United States government began pushing Westward, land ownership (or possession, if you will), has been at the forefront of our political and economic struggles as a species. If you take this thought process further, however, you can also make the connection that this territoriality extends into the animal kingdom as well. But let's not go there. At least only insofar as to point out that we have one attribute animals do not: Intelligent reasoning powers.

As intelligent beings in a civilized society, we must address and decide issues using a broader perspective. As we have progressed as a Race, have we not also progressed in our thinking to the point that the strong should try to protect, defend and assist the weak? There are some who would say that "the strong should survive." In a battle of life and death this might be so. But in the current sophisticated community of Man, can we -- should we -- take that position?

I believe we must analyze the triumvirate relationship between ourselves, the land and the law. There are no easy, "quick-and-dirty" answers.

The problems in Sultan have little to do with property rights. The problems we have here relate to the law. Throughout history, in areas where the law either does not exist or is weakly enforced, the rights of a property owner to do what they please -- not only with their land, but with others' as well -- is often decided by another basic human proclivity: The force of the strong over the weak.

Which brings us back to the subject of property owners "losing" property to the ESA issues and our government: We are weaker. They are stronger. Government prevails. Does that make it right? No. Should we do something about it? In my opinion, yes, we definitely should. At the very least, if our government plans on "removing" several hundred feet of ecologically-sensitive zones from our property, then we should be either reimbursed for that land, or be relieved of the "privilege" of paying taxes on it

But this is still a discussion of the law. At this point in United States' history, our lawmakers have determined that our ecology is fragile and weak, and therefore needs support and help from taxpaying citizens. Whether or not this is right should not be part of the Sultan debate; whether or not this is fair is also not part of the equation. What IS relevant to the issue of property rights is what is currently legal. As an example, I believe the stoplight and changes at Old Owens Road and the soon-to-be light at 5^th Street and US 2 to be, quite frankly, not only a pain in the neck but a bottleneck. They will become moreso as growth continues to expand and Route 2 does not. Before the installation of the traffic light at the Red Apple I could make an eastbound turn with little delay, even on the busiest of traffic days. I now must sit endlessly, waiting for it to turn a lovely and welcome shade of green. But so what? It is legal. If I were to disregard the red light and make an eastbound turn anyway, I would get a ticket because it's against the law. What can I do about it? Well, that brings me to my next, most cogent, point.

There are three ways that we, as citizens, can effect changes: (1) we can use the legal tools at our disposal; (2) we can use a form of objection which has been enlisted to good effect in this country, especially during the 60s, that of civil disobedience; or (3) a third choice which I will address in a moment. Choice #1 involves lobbying for revisions to an existing law or for a new law in Olympia, or revising laws through the Initiative process or through a lawsuit, all of which involve a great deal of time, effort and personal expense. Choice #2 has legal ramifications of a negative nature, that of possible arrest, imprisonment or worse. Civil Rights' activists in the United States during the 60s, Nelson Mandela in South Africa, the Israelis following WW II, Native American Indians and many other groups who believe strongly in their cause, have put their entire lives, and those of their families, on the line in order to effect changes in laws of which they did not approve.

Choice #3 is to skirt and pervert the law to obtain a desired result. And that is what has been happening here in Sultan. And that, pure and simply, is why we have such conflict among us. It is not more complex than that. Simple garden-variety greed and disrespect for the law.

Factions in town wishing to benefit financially have been ignoring, abusing or flouting our laws, stepping over the line into criminal activity. It is not complicated. It has been "child's play" for these handful of individuals who are highly motivated by self-interest and personal financial gain. The reason it has been so simple is clear: The City government, and those in authority giving the city direction, have for the most part been ignoring our codes and laws, and using "creative "enforcement."

Our conflicts here have little, if anything, to do with property rights. Our conflicts here have everything to do with the law.

What it boils down to is this: An owner, whether they like it or not, cannot do ANYTHING they wish with their property. And if you, as a property owner wishing to develop your land, disagrees with this sentiment, please keep in mind how valuable your property would be should your next door neighbor desire to develop his or her land into a landfill, composting facility, toxic waste dump, or a low-rent trailer park. And, if you're one of those rare individuals these days -- a person of honesty and honor -- you might even be moved to say, "Sure, they can do that." The point we're making in this editorial, however, is based upon one simple caveat: That the development must take place within the confines of the legal structure. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what has not been taking place here in Sultan.

I am personally grateful that this debate has been raised by the pro-growth, "anti-law" forces here. It has allowed me to "sound off" about an issue on which I have felt strongly for some time.