Climate change is real
Dear Editor:
Don Aspenwall made a readable argument for ignoring humanity’s contribution to climate change, starting with the aphorism that, if you see a corgi it automatically disproves the proposition that “all dogs are dachshunds.” His main argument is that we are merely experiencing the expected interglacial warming after an ice age. Unfortunately his point is completely wrong.
Any ambitious middle schooler can prove that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas. I know, I’ve seen it done. CO2 has increased in our atmosphere from 280 ppm to 420 ppm since the industrial revolution, a 50% increase. The only possible cause is human activity, burning fossil fuels with a side course of deforestation. Modeling changes in the climate is a complex process, subject to a margin of error. Nonetheless, climate scientists have a pretty commendable track record of modeling the warming of the earth we’ve experienced over the last three decades as we fail to address the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere.
Addressing Mr. Aspenwall’s primary argument: we should be getting cooler, not warmer. The average period of climate stability before returning to an ice age is 10,000 to 15,000 years. The US Geologic Survey reports we are about 17,000 years into this interglacial period. That hardly supports a contention that the warming is merely to be expected as we recover from the last ice age.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it’s probably a duck, not a corgi. Climate change is real, human caused, and needs to be urgently addressed.
Peter Bauer
Winthrop
Connecting our community
Dear Editor:
On July 4, Don Nelson marked his 12th year owning the Methow Valley News. Every year he graciously thanks all of us for supporting the paper. I think this year it’s time to thank him. Don, your courage, grit, perseverance, high journalistic standards and good humor in keeping the paper alive during some pretty tough years means a lot to our community. From applauding our student athletes to marking life milestones, highlighting the arts, sharing news on local business and agriculture, your terrific local columnists who report directly from their communities, and your reporters’ constant tenacity in digging deep into government policies accountability and impact on our daily lives so that we can engage with our elected officials as informed citizens — the Methow Valley News provides a truly unique connective fiber that strengthens every aspect of our community.
It reminds me of what the Greeks call “Philotimo — love, respect and kindness for family and community and country, and a sense that we are all in this together.” Over the past few years as the country has grown more divided, here in the Methow we continually come together to support each other and build a healthy community, such as the recent extraordinary campaign the Methow Conservancy completed to preserve the Sunny M Ranch for our key local values of agriculture, wildlife, affordable housing and recreation. We can’t come together without information and you always show up (running into you three or four times a day at different events with your camera and notepad happens a lot!), dig in and learn as much as possible to share with us.
A free-standing local paper is essential to our democracy for just that reason and progress will always come from “We the People.” Thank you for making us better people.
Sonya Campion
Mazama
Support applications
Dear Editor:
We are writing to comment on two Twisp land-use applications (Orchard Hills development and Milltown development). We are 34-year part time residents/community supporters on Northcott Road, Winthrop. We are very familiar with Methow Valley and real estate planning and development: Robert with R.W. Thorpe & Associates (retired), lead firm for four years on updating Okanagan County plans/regulations/SMA Environmental Reviews for the proposed early Winters Project (as a neutral party) now 45 years practice; teaching real estate economics/planning at the University of Washington and other schools; permitting for a wide range of projects including Master Planned Communities. Anne has 40 of years of experience as a title officer and permit processing for a major retail entity.
We have endeavored to transform our West Chewuch River properties into native vegetation/wildlife friendly fire-safe environments (Note: We have no connections to either proponent or their consultants).
Robert is familiar with both properties, including very preliminary feasibility studies on Orchard Hills. We are acutely aware of need for affordable housing, exploring options on two sites near our home to add small rentals.
Our professional/resident observations:
• There is a drastic need for housing for all income levels especially entry level and seniors.
• These two sites are what GMA SEPA support in terms of infill/a range of housing/building outside environmentally sensitive areas.
• Both are contact rezones with site plan approval — prescribed open space, active recreation, requirements to upgrade city/county infrastructure and services and provide significant tax benefits to many entities.
• The applicants have diverse design/legal teams to prepare documents to insure development follows approval plans and conditions.
• The Town Council has very good planning/legal advisers.
• They will greatly enhance/diversify the economic base of Twisp and the Methow Valley.
We therefore strongly support detailed review/well-crafted approval requirements, bonding for improvements, etc., and final approval.
Robert W. Thorpe and Anne Roberts Thorpe
Winthrop
Money outflow
Dear Editor:
While there are a number of issues that proponents of the Methow Aquatic Center haven’t addressed, among them is the fact that this will be an outpouring of local property tax revenue flowing to companies based outside the Methow Valley.
From the architects, the planning consultants, the developers, contractors, workers and suppliers of materials, most will be transferring the bulk of your tax dollars out of the valley rather than recirculating within the valley to support the local economy and local jobs. This is a regular occurrence for larger capital projects built in the valley.
The arguments I’ve heard for past projects is that there are no available local contractors large enough to afford the bonds required for construction of this scale of project nor are local suppliers able to provide the specialized elements required for much of the construction. This rings true this time around for the proposed Aquatic Center. While concrete and some other basic construction materials may be supplied by local companies, the bulk of the materials, contractors and workers will be from out of the valley. The new Twisp Civic Building is the most recent example of this outflow of local money that could be and should be invested in the community through local companies and workers.
A replacement seasonal pool similar to the Wagner Pool rather than an Aquatic Center would be more likely to depend on local suppliers and builders and keep most of the construction expenditures recirculating within the local economy. Let’s keep the money in the local economy and vote no on the new taxing district.
Howard Cherrington
Twisp
Pool questions
Dear Editor:
I am concerned about the new Methow Aquatic Center as planned. Making changes to our way of life is somewhat predictable, but I love our valley and don’t want it to lose its heritage. (Been to Jackson Hole lately?) I agree our current pool is “done for” and recognize that something must be done. I am not against the project, but I am anxious about the logistics of how it is accomplished and run for the future. I am hoping someone involved will read this letter and respond with explanations. I am interested in actuals facts, not opinions. I have done some computer research but have not found specific answers.
You probably remember a few years ago a group wanted to start a Recreation District here and it was soundly rejected. It was not voted down because of the idea, but how it would impact our valley. This is a part of what I wrote back then:
“While considering myself a generous person, I also want to spend money wisely. In short, RCW 35.61 is in no way a prudent use of taxpayer money. My surprise is more taxpayer input wasn’t solicited before putting it on the ballot. RCW 35.61 includes virtually no oversight or required planning but does allow additional taxation of properties without a vote of the populace, eminent domain to take property without the owner’s consent, the hiring of staff who are “IN” until each decides not (no elections to retain, remove or change personnel). The result: property owners’ increased property values/tax.”
We all need to know how this proposed project differs from RCW 35.61! As we all know our property taxes are already scheduled to go up 30% this year. I fear many owners are going to be taxed out of living here and/or wanting to move here.
I would love to know your specific thoughts and the thoughts of others who love living here.
Chris Holm
Winthrop
