Open letters to Mike DeSimone, Director of the Pacific County Department of Community Development:

As a concerned landowner and resident of the Peninsula since 1959, I would like to go on record as to being opposed to Mr. Doney's further development in Seaview.

I am not against progress and development - that is inevitable and necessary - but with the proper guidelines and foresight to prevent irreparable damage we should be able to retain much of what has brought us here and kept us living and enjoying this area. We were able to attract many visitors because of this natural surroundings available too.

There are so many good examples of irresponsible developing, from California on up the entire western coastline. Isn't it possible to learn from their mistakes before it's too late for us?

Will the latest developers stay around to see the results of the work, or will they just take the money and run? We have already had that type of "improvement." It's time to take a closer look at what preventative measures are needed to control and supervise all aspects of future land use before it's too late.

How much will this land use (and abuse) contribute to the county in increased income, employment, tax base and economy? Enough to compensate on what will be lost in the long run? Will the permanent residents be penalized more to support the increased utility, water, sewer, access roads and upkeep? Does it balance out the loss of our seashore, dunes and open spaces free to be enjoyed by every citizen and visitor to enjoy? I don't feel that it does!

Patricia Ring

Seaview

Dear Mr. DeSimone,

I am submitting my comments regarding Pacific County's latest determination of environmental "non-significance" for developer Matthew Doney, file No 04-0661b.

I understand that this is a portion of the entire phased project, and I have had the opportunity of viewing the site. I saw the first structure built earlier in this project, and based on my prior experience with erosion, I am concerned. Therefore I ask some questions regarding the building already placed:

1. Where are the certificates of occupancy and when were they issued?

2. Was an architect employed?

3. Was a structural engineer employed?

4. Was a civil engineer employed?

5. Were all, or any of the above licensed? in this state?

6. Were the above licensed as residents of this state, or licensed through reciprocity?

7. Were any of them qualified as a soils engineers and/or soils experts?

8. Do the set backs from the top of the bank conform to what would be derived from Section 2906.3 - footing set back from descending slope surface of the Uniform Building Code?

10. Who was the building inspector and was the building inspector involved in the soils investigation and did he have the final say in its acceptance?

11. Were approvals based solely on the reports and recommendations of the building inspector?

I feel strongly that these outstanding issues of the ongoing Doney project must be resolved in the public interest before you grant the further "non-significance" determinations for this ongoing project.

I do appreciate your work in the public interest. I will wait for your reply.

Fay T. Brill

Seaview

Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.