Salmo and Dave....I am totally for protecting our streams and runoff etc to protect the environment but why a blanket taking of 65% of all the rural King County lands...Are all of those acres endangering the environment? I doubt it. Have you ever been to the Snoqualmie Ridge development off of I-90? Thousands of acres of pristine timber land turned into thousands of small lots and homes 5 ft apart...I was there when the project started as I was involved in some of the commercial projects. When I first drove in off of Hiway 18 where it intersects I-90 it was a temporary dirt road leading to the soon to be clearcut mega acreage. As far as the eye could see were huge fir trees...A deer jumped out in front of my vehicle. Later on as the development took shape there were very few trees left. As far as the same eyes could see nothing but clearcut land. Now that was something planned by King County that allowed a big company (Quadrant / Weyerhauser) to do what they would not let the average property owner do.

I say the properties should be examined for the effects to the environment. Not perceived or expected problems but real ones. Set development back from streams etc....but taking all the land under the guise of protecting the environment is baloney and is against the constitution of the state.

I have talked about balance before and in this case a balance is fair. Saying you need to stop all use of land by humans to save the environment is just asking for push back when it comes to logical plans.

We are still talking about private property aren't we. The extreme environmental folks who pushed for this blanket plan feel that the land belongs to all of us...only the individual has to pay for it and then cede it to everyone else....That doesn't wash in my book.