As a member of the Shoreline Advisory Committee, I read Ken W Smith's letter with interest. Since I expected to be incorporated into the City of Burien, I thought serving on the committee would be a good way to become involved in my new city.

Like the other members, I answered a notice for committee membership. The city seemed to want the best diversity of members and all who applied appropriately were accepted to the committee. I suppose that makes me a community activist.

Like the other members, I care about the environment, so I'm also an environmentalist. Like most citizens of Burien, I can't afford to live on the water, so I guess since that's all he knows about me, in Mr. Smith's mind that makes me a ne'er-do-well.

As a proud member of what Mr. Smith calls a "stacked committee of community activists, environmentalists and ne'er-do-wells" I, like the other members of the committee, put in a considerable amount of time in and out of meetings working out the details of the SMP.

We were given no direction from the city that could be interpreted as "a thinly disguised attempt to take property from its rightful owners."

The city planner did a great job of supplying information we asked for, giving us copies of the numerous comments from the public hearings (which we went over point by point), giving us information of what was required under state law, giving us information on what other jurisdictions were doing, and researching answers to our questions.

He also did an admirable job of keeping his professional demeanor in the face of public testimony and some audience reaction that seemed to prefer rudeness and disruption of civility and discussion.

Like all the other ne'er-do-wells who own property in Burien that is not on the water, if my house sustains substantial damage, it may have to be repaired to new standards that it does not currently meet but is grandfathered in.

This would include items like fire codes, plumbing codes, building codes, easements and setbacks, electrical codes, utility hook-ups, etc.

There are additional requirements for sensitive areas like shorelines.

The trigger to activate much of this updating is damage that exceeds 50 percent of the assessed value of the improvements (some shoreline residents have demanded that they be given a more lenient 75 percent).

The setback formulas are complicated and may need some more tweaking. That is what the planning commission is trying to do.

However, Mr. Smith's claims that it "would make it impossible to replace damaged properties and it totally abrogates the privacy and use rights of property owners..." and "All of these are designed to make the properties unusable and worthless to their current owners" is obviously not consistent with fact.

It is hard work to be part of a committee and produce a good plan. It is much easier to side on the sidelines and throw mud. After all, it
Mr. Smith had been part of the committee, look what he would have been called.

It is probably too much to hope for that some of the energy spent on this topic will be in the form of light, rather than heat.

Lee Moyer
Burien