I recently read several thoughtful letters (Brad and Diane Eamon Nov. 11; David Campiche Dec. 1) concerning newly proposed development of houses in the Seaview Dunes. As an affected Seaview landowner, I concur with the majority of their statements. A few years back, my wife and I purchased and have been restoring an 80-plus-year-old beach cottage in Seaview. Like most of our neighbors, what attracted us to the area was the quiet charm, the friendliness and the natural attributes. A recent rezone to R-1/R-2, itself controversial, has now turned the Seaview area into a target for developers and changed the nature of the neighborhood. It is increasingly clear that our attraction points are not mutually shared with developers or their objectives.

Be assured, I do not always agree on every issue with folks like Mr. Campiche. For instance, while he favors the Discovery Trail, I question why it is necessary to have a paved trail running parallel to a perfectly walkable/rideable beach that is self-maintaining twice a day. Indeed, as Campiche notes in his letter, there are currently very few places along the Lewis and Clark expedition route that are “pristine” or reasonably so. Why not keep it that way to enhance the experience of tourists expected for the bicentennial? I do agree with Mr. Campiche, the Eamons and others that it is extremely short-sighted of Pacific County to encourage development in a currently undeveloped area of such high national and even international interest, indeed, one which state and national entities have expressed interest in purchasing and preserving. Federal and state agencies seem to “get it,” why not local government(s)? Surely the Peninsula will reap far greater benefits from long-term preservation of the Seaview Dunes for tourism rather than short-term development for a relatively few private homes.

Ultimately, however, this boils down to a matter of Pacific County, the city of Long Beach and a handful of developers forcing their “vision” of the Peninsula on the rest of us. In my experience, Mr. Campiche’s comments regarding Commissioner Cuffel are typical of what I have now come to expect regarding the county’s attitude, lack of “understanding,” lack of a definable direction and lack of public involvement and process. As the purpose and goals of the Growth Management Act eloquently note, “Uncontrolled growth and a lack of common goals expressing the public’s interest in the conservation and wise use of our lands were seen by the State Legislature as threats to the state’s environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by its residents.”

We, as Pacific County property owners and taxpayers, have a right to expect and demand these threatened items from local government. “Business as usual” will, in my opinion, lead to a hodgepodge of urban sprawl further overtaking the Peninsula, as it has elsewhere, and to a subsequent decline in the amenities, natural resources and economic viability we all appreciate, want and deserve so much.

Tracy L. Fleming

Vancouver and Seaview