Is it possible that all the hoopla being presented by the Port of Shelton regarding the rezone of 160 acres south of the airport is to delay the process while management lobbies for legislation that will essentially scuttle the entire development?

In his most recent editorial Commissioner Hupp seems confused as to why his repeated assumptions are not being interpreted as fact. So let’s take another look at Mr. Hupp’s concerns.

Noise issues: Certified noise analysts hired by the city have proven ambient airport noise levels at the 160 acres in question fall well beneath annoyance levels. Future noise related lawsuits filed against the Port: Here, Mr. Hupp ignores the existence of available legal mechanisms designed specifically to protect airports from noise related lawsuits brought by residents of new developments in perpetuity.

Relocate the development: Suggesting the developer abandon his request to rezone the 160 acres in question and build on adjacent land is much like asking the airport to move the runway just a couple of degrees to the north. Mr. Hupp is well aware that the layout of commercial/industrial/residential areas is critical to the success of a project of this magnitude; traffic patterns, aesthetics, topography, and a host of other components are inherently interdependent.

Port is bound by “Contractural obligations” to the FAA: Mr. Hupp states that the port is “contractually obligated to the FAA” to protect the airport, which implies the existence of a legal document containing specific language relative to the issue at hand. But the contractual obligation to which Mr. Hupp refers is more general, as stated in FAA Airport Compliance Manual, 5190.6B. Exactly what constitutes a “threat” to the airport is far too subjective and open to interpretation to serve as
lynchpin of any opposition argument against the rezone.

In addition, legal action brought by the port has already resulted in the City of Shelton being declared out of compliance by the Growth Management Board, placing the city out of contention for a much needed 20 year loan to improve infrastructure; it has also cost the taxpayers of Mason County hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

If the port is successful in its lobbying efforts, not only will it have torpedoed economic growth in Mason County well into the future, but perhaps other counties, as well.
 

Tom Davis, Shelton

Please let me try once again to shed some light of truth into the fog of misinformation that continues to influence opinions over the proposed Hall Equities Development south of Sanderson Field. That truth is in the glaring fact that if Mr. Hall gets the rezone he has requested from the City, he intends to build over 300 houses right under the down wind leg of the airport traffic pattern. That will cause every aircraft operating in the traffic pattern to fly right over those houses. The noise from those operations will not be acceptable to the new homeowners and they will eventually exert political pressure to alter the way your local airport can be operated. Those operating restrictions will in turn reduce both the current and future economic value of that facility to Mason County.

Mr. Hall does not have to rezone anything in order to build houses. He already has substantial residential zoning within his 700 acre property.

The Port is contractually and legally obligated to do whatever it can to protect the airport from inappropriate residential encroachment and that is why we are opposing this portion of Mr. Hall’s project. Additionally, we feel strongly that the Airport Overlay, which was adopted by the County, City and Port several years ago, was intended to protect both the airport and the surrounding residents. The overlay was based on zoning that Mr. Hall now wants to change.

Sanderson Field is an Essential Public Facility under Washington State law and is to be protected from inappropriate residential encroachment. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board has twice agreed with the Port’s position but Mr. Hall and the City of Shelton are challenging those decisions in Thurston County Superior Court.

Thanks to KMAS for making this site available for discussions like these. It is a valuable community service.

Jay Hupp
 

In his recent statement, Port Commissioner Jay Hupp claims the Port is merely defending the airport. The reality is that the Shelton Hills project poses no threat to the airport whatsoever. The real consequence of the Port’s actions is to block economic renewal for Shelton and Mason County.

It has been said that the Port of Shelton is the economic engine that drives Mason County. Unfortunately those at the wheel are driving in the wrong direction. Port officials fail to recognize that in order to attract the executives and employees of new industry to Mason County, the region must provide expanded retail services and modern housing. The Port is in no position to accomplish this. In contrast, the Shelton Hills development will provide expanded and modern retail services and high quality housing, as well as a professionally designed and appointed business park that the region needs in order to attract business to the area.

Mr. Hupp has stated that residences in our project will be built right up to the airport fence and that there would be no buffer between the airport and housing. This is factually incorrect. Actually, we will have an industrial park together with an extensive wetlands buffer between our residentially zoned properties and the airport. This buffer from the airport ranges from 2000 to 3000 feet wide.

Mr. Hupp is acting like Chicken Little when he talks about noise complaints. The Port has offered no proof that there will be a noise issue. In fact, the Port’s own studies show that airport noise will not pose a problem for residential development. The Port need only examine the work of its own consultants to calm its baseless hysteria and fears.

Mr. Hupp claims that the re-zone of a small portion of our land inventory from industrial to residential will “stifle business development” by reducing the amount of industrial and commercial land inventory available. The lack of inventory of commercial and industrial land that Mr. Hupp refers to is illusory. The demand for industrial and commercial land in Mason County is nowhere near available inventory capacity and to assert otherwise is frankly ridiculous. The County has enough industrial land for the next 20 years at least, even with the Shelton Hills conversion from industrial to residential property. The Growth Board has affirmed this fact. Mr. Hupp fails to ask himself why there would be any demand for this remote piece of industrial property when the Port cannot find users for the thousands of acres of it’s own developed land that already has infrastructure serving it. Furthermore, Hupp knows full well that the Shelton Hills property in question is too steep for industrial uses. It is hard to imagine that there will ever be a market strong enough to pay for the cost of hillside industrial development behind the existing residential zoned property in our project, when so much perfectly flat and easily accessible land is already available.

As outlined in Mr. Hupps statement, we now hear, for the very first time, his latest argument that somehow the re-build of the Wallace-Kneeland interchange will inhibit mobility by making it “all but impossible for truck traffic” to move between the Wallace-Kneeland interchange and the Johns Prairie industrial park. Public officials must be held accountable for the truthfulness of their statements. The fact is that Mr. Hupps Port was directly involved in a 24 month long process that included the City, the County, the Transit Authority, the State Department of Transportation, and many very experienced and informed traffic engineers regarding the redesign of the Wallace-Kneeland interchange. With the Port’s direct involvement, the interchange was specifically configured to handle hog fuel trucks, pole trucks and logging trucks to allow free flowing movement and eliminate unnecessary stoplights. This was a primary design objective in order to improve mobility to Johns Prairie. Now the Chairman of the Port Board of Commissioners asserts it will be “all but impossible” to get through there. This is certainly a curious statement, to put it mildly.

Mr. Hupp states that the Port “has always been in support” of the Shelton Hills project. In fact the Port has initiated several lawsuits against the project. Until the lawsuits that we are defending have been settled, we cannot proceed forward. Mr Hupp knows this. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Mr. Hupp and the rest of the Port Commissioners and its Director, John Dobson, are preventing the citizens of the City of Shelton and Mason County from realizing the benefits of the project. They are single handedly attempting to destroy our project with unsupported and false allegations, some of which I outline here, and by employing a strategy based on outright abuse of the legal process. It is the elected officials of the City of Shelton who have jurisdiction over our land and who the people have selected to decide what is right for them, not the Port Commissioners.

We have a carefully thought out and financed plan to create infrastructure, retail services, industrial development, housing and jobs. We have deep experience at this and we are committed to the success and responsible stewardship of our plan. This plan will be implemented over many years, and we are here for the long haul. This plan will go a long way towards ending the economic despair in the community.

Mr. Hupp and fellow Port Commissioners I ask you point blank, what is your plan? If the Port does not have a sound, economically, environmentally and socially responsible plan for economic development, it should get out of the way of those who do.

Maybe it is time for the voters of Mason County to ask what exactly is the value in having a separate municipal government entity like the Port of Shelton? Do they pay their way, or are they really just an obstruction to progress and the efficient delivery of cost effective government services to the citizenry? Would it be better to collapse the Port and divvy up the oversight to the County and the City? Could the County and the City run the Port activities without the duplication in staff and save the taxpayers a few bucks? Could the Port owned land be sold off to private owners and the proceeds used to improve the roads and schools of the City and Mason County? I believe that a continuation of the questionable behavior of the recent leadership of the Port of Shelton should cause all citizens of Mason County to take notice and start asking these sorts of questions.
 

Mark Hall, Shelton Hills