the current situation

APPEAL

We filed an appeal in Superior Court to invalidate the agreement for Statesman’s urban-scale resort at Black Point. The Superior Court Hearing is August 20. See legal documents below.

Next, our appeal to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) will be filed.

 

CELEBRATE BRINNON

We will hold an event celebrating Brinnon and showcasing Brinnon's small businesses Saturday, August 25 from 11 am to 4 pm at Whitney Gardens.  We are planning on food, music, a silent auction, T shirts and information on what local business offers.

 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1.     What is an MPR?

A Master Planned Resort (MPR) isn’t whatever a developer wants to build.  It is defined by both state law (RCW 36.70A.360) and Jefferson County ordinance (18.15.025).

An MPR must have self-contained, integrated facilities, focused on a range of recreational facilities.  Permanent residences are allowed only if they support onsite recreation.  The emphasis is on short stay.

 

2.     What are important details about the Pleasant Harbor MPR proposal?

  • It is located on Black Point, on about 250 acres, adjacent to the Pleasant Harbor Marina, which the developer also owns. 
  • There is one aquifer for Black Point and wells already are experiencing salt water intrusion.
  • The completed MPR will have 890 units.  At least one building will be 4 stories high. 
  • The MPR will add more than 2000 people per day to Brinnon.
  • The MPR will add up to 4100 car trips a day on highway 101.
  • 80% of employees will be paid below the poverty level.
  • The resort will not add to the affordable housing in Brinnon.  A dormitory will house seasonal staff and they will pay up to 30% of their wages to stay there. 
  • The MPR will harm shellfish and other aquatic life in Hood Canal, both through in increase of traffic emissions and pollution from the MPR itself, including golf course maintenance.

 

3.     Are MPRs generally economically successful?

The Washington State report on MPRs states: 

After reviewing North American resort and recreational projects over a 30-year span, some resort industry leaders estimated that as few as 10 percent were profitable for the original developer. (page 10).

The guide describes areas that have set specific investment targets for developers and recommends that counties ensure that developers have the experience and financial capability to carry out the development.

Jefferson County has refused to ask the developer to provide this information, despite many requests from the public.

 

4.     What is the current status of the MPR?

  • Development agreement and regulations have been approved by all 3 members of the BOCC. 
  • The developer has not signed the development agreement.
  • There are no permits; it is not yet at the permit stage.

 

5.     What is the basis of the Brinnon Group’s appeal?

The current MPR plans do not meet the state or county requirements for an MPR.  The design is so vague and the timing so unclear, that you cannot tell what the county has agreed to with the developer. And it is unclear that there will be short term rentals.

 

6.     What will be the impact on taxes?

  • Some people believe that it will reduce their property taxes, because more people in Jefferson County will be paying for county expenses.  However, to know the true cost you need both income and expenditure figures.
  • The county has refused to do an analysis of the revenue and costs to taxpayers from the MPR, despite being asked by citizens many times.
  • An Oregon study of a similar development concludes:
    • In conclusion, local governments and local taxpayers will be left with a net cost burden of $45.94 million if the Thornburgh Resort is fully completed as proposed. This is a net cost after the resort has been credited for all known payments and tax revenues it will generate. The $45.94 million cost will be externalized and will ultimately be borne by other taxpayers (not the resort) through some combination of higher taxes, reduced public services, and lower facility service standard
  • The development agreement approved by Jefferson County transfers costs to taxpayers in a number of ways.  For example, construction of the MPR could take 45 years, but the developer doesn’t need to pay for costs to fix 101 to accommodate the increased traffic until the last phase.  All initial costs will be borne by taxpayers. 

7.     What would real economic development in South County look like?

 During the 1994-95 process to update the 1982 Community Plan, the first such plan for Brinnon, the Planning Committee gathered survey results and comments in order to create a profile of the community. The essential theme echoed by residents was the importance of maintaining the rural character of Brinnon. As before, respondents favored the development or improvement of single- family residences, convenience stores, retail and service businesses, agricultural and/or aquaculture production, marina operation and boat launches, and the expansion of parks and other public areas.

8.     What do I need to do to stop the MPR?

  • Keep up to date with information from these sites:

www.brinnoninfo.com

www.brinnongroup.org

  • Donate to our legal expenses at

PO Box 572

Brinnon, WA 98320

Or

www.brinnongroup.org

  • Help with fundraising

7/22/18

Donate