Concerning the "First priority for lakes is not as human playgrounds" letter from Robert Howell, some clarification is in order. The personal attacks against a previous writer are unfortunate but some basic facts are what need to be addressed.

1. "There are hundreds of privately owned lakes in Washington state." Somewhat true but not really relevant. Weyerhaeuser alone probably owns the land around hundreds of lakes. They also grant access to the significant ones with no significant damage to the lake.

2. "While the water in these bodies belongs to the state, the state does not advocate (as the first priority for their use) opening them to the general public." "Public recreational access is the lowest priority for the use of the shorelines."

These are very misleading statements and essentially false. As stated in the letter, the cited R C W states that preferences should be given to uses which (my shortened versions):
1. Have statewide interests over local interests
2. Preserve natural character...
3. Have long term over short-term benefits
4. Protect ecology
5. Increase public access
6. Increase recreational opportunities

Preferred uses include the above. Note that private ownership, residential development, commercial development, etc. are not included as a priority at all. Also note that the first four points are basically policy issues. The only "uses" of the shorelines included in the priority list are public access and recreational opportunities. By not being listed, any other use is a lesser priority.

In the case of Lake Burien and the Ruth Dykeman Center property, public access consistent with the first four requirements would, therefore, be the highest priority use of a shoreline.

This issue is about public access to Lake Burien. The City Council chooses to support private interests rather than public access and added a provision to the SMP that says if access does happen, the public can not hand launch any craft from the access. Beachfront owners can launch anything that does not have a gasoline motor, however.

When DOE objected to that provision, the city's justification was essentially that such discrimination is not prohibited by the Shoreline Management Act. Of course, they didn't call it discrimination.

Actually, the DOE objected to a number of provisions that were put into the proposed Shoreline Master Program at the request of the well-financed and organized homeowners associations and against the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission.

If a citizen questions how well democracy works in Burien, it is not hard to see why.

Lee Moyer
Burien