Washington Votes Forum

It is great that you have our fiscal problems solved that you could now fritter away your time on this kind of stuff.  Will the analysis tell us which special interests want to do something in that stretch of highway that is prohibited on a scenic highway?  Will the PDC tell us how much you got in campaign contributions from those interests?

This is one of those "asleep at the switch" votes, with one dissension.  An ineffective McCune couldn't get anything else through.  I agree, look at the PDC's and see billboard companies, "big box" stores and other contributors who own property along this stretch and see if the palms are getting greased.  I suspect Roger Bush is in on this too, since it falls in the plan to extend the butt-ugly mixed use farther south (as well as getting a few hefty donations).

Bingo!  $1600 from BOMA of Washington - "Enhancing the assets of the commercial real estate industry!" (from their website).  Looks like scenic designation may hinder Pierce County's sale of the old Elk Plain shop - you know, the beautiful stand of firs around 224th that's been put up for sale by PC.  Between that and pushing the UGA (with it's hideous "mixed use" designation) farther south, there's a lot of potential (as well as campaign contributions).

I never thought he was the brightest bulb on the string, but at least it appears he knows what side his bread is buttered.

 Just so you know, I have spent the last 7 years fighting tooth and nail to change the current law about Scenic highways.  Let's get your facts straight. You can build ANYTHING you like on a scenic highway.  PC can do anything they want with the property on 224 since it borders the highway.  PC  has already  passed legislation to favor real estate signs being posted on the roadways.  The only thing you can't have is an off premise sign that is not real estate.  The small business that can't afford highway frontage property can't post a sign to let anybody know they exist.   This House Bill was spearheaded by me, a small business owner who would like to advertise my business with an appropriate sign.   BIG business who can afford building on the scenic highway have taken away from the "scenic" aspect of the highway.  The small businesses  off the highway who have tried to succeed  without a sign have failed.   JIM'S U-FISH

Good morning:

I agree with your plight, but disagree with the premise of resolving it.  What happens along the highway is a function of PC zoning, and the blight that is there in places is because of non-conforming uses that PC neither has the willingness or resources to regulate.  Your representative has been around long enough to know that changing the law to address the administrative rules at DOT to allow your sign is possible if it's addressed in that manner, but it could be the degree of effectiveness of your representative has to choose to do it this way instead.  This type of legislation turns the legislature into a "planning commission in the sky" where anyone with a bone to pick with zoning can get it circumvented, which should be the impetus for forcing a change in the overall law, not cutting sections of highway out of it.  I agree that PC is easily subject to the whims of political influences in this way, as the hideous blackhead of a landfill on SR 161 (another scenic corridor to Mt. Rainier but without designation) shows.

What I do know is that the scenic designation is an argument for PC to keep from the expansion of the UGA southward, which development interests have coveted for years (ironically, all the way to 276th), and I feel this issue is an innocent lever to open the gates for "big box" stores to move southward.  Your representative also has a politcal ally as chair of the PC Council that advocates this, which will start with the parcel of public land being sold at 224th to commerical interests. 

The other issue I have is the characterization of the highway in the bill report.  Fort Lewis is a corridor of tall douglas fir on the west side for much of the route, not just a "military base with a wire fence".  The stand of firs along the east side by the weigh station also add to the aesthetics, but I assume they will be mowed down when the shopping center goes in after the County gets their cash from a developer. With some exceptions, most of the corridor still acts as a gateway to a respite from the "strip" development of Mountain Highway - which, ironically, got it's rezone to mixed use with one of the arguments that it was "already ugly."  This characterization in testimony, to me, makes it's motives suspect.

Once again, I agree with your plight, but there's a better way to fix it... and as far as dealing with the legislature, I've given up on trust - I follow the money.  Although my gut tells me Rep. Campbell has signed on to "force the issue on your behalf", the $1600 from BOMA  (and other commercial development interests) to the prime sponsor puts a stink on this bill.

Regards.

D

 You have my name an addrees, Show me a  better way and i will follow. jim

Good afternoon:

Sorry this got my dander up... but try this.

The target is RCW 47.42.40, sections (3) and (8).

I've tried some verbage that would, I believe, more fully meet your intent (draft in bold):

RCW 47.42.40 - permitted sign uses

Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}      (3) (a) Signs advertising activities conducted on the property on which they are located, or, (b) permanent business enterprises located on a connecting public right of way that is the only ingress or egress to the main traveled way may have one sign, not to exceed thirty-two square feet, located on property adjacent to the main traveled way, with the permission of the property owner.

That one may be too all-encompassing for some, but it doesn't "give away the store", i.e. 4 miles of scenic designation.  "Permanent business enterprises" is not intended to include the construction of a subdivision.

You also may have "peak" seasons, if that's the case, try this one from paragraph (8):

Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}      (8) Temporary agricultural or recreational directional signs, with the following restrictions:

     (a) Signs shall be posted only during the period of time the seasonal agricultural or recreational product or activity is being sold, not to exceed 180 days;

     (b) Signs shall not be placed adjacent to the interstate highway system unless the sign qualifies as an on-premise sign;

     (c) Signs shall not be placed within an incorporated city or town;

     (d) Premises on which the seasonal agricultural or recreational products are sold must be within fifteen miles of the state highway, and necessary supplemental signing on local roads must be provided before the installation of the signs on the state highway;

This may work from opening day of fishing season, through the summer.  The time limit, I think, is palatable.  This would also work for small ski areas, private campgrounds, and the like for winter/summer activities.  DOT would still call the shots on location, hazards, time frame, etc.

Hope this helps.  It's better than giving away the store, and if I'm going to gripe, I better have a solution.  Here it is.

For now, I'm going fishing.

D
 

Sorry about all the Microsoft gobbledygook.   It was a cut and paste from the RCW.  Hopefully you can read through that.