So many broad brush approaches to "protecting the environment" are smoke and mirrors. I have seen many construction projects that were forced to add "habitat" as if there were salmon spawning where no water flows. One such example is near the Alderwood Mall shopping center...behind Best Buy there are stumps and logs that were placed in a mock river bed as a requirement . Absolutely no fish were there in the first place and won't appear when it rains.

At the other end of the parking lot sits Barnes and Noble...beneath that parking lot is a monstrous water runoff collecttion vault which controls the surface water in the lot and also serves as a filter for the silt....good for the water that finds itself in the closest local creek. About a mile to the South in Brier there are some small housing developments going in. The "developers" are required to install huge collection vaults on the same scale as the one in the Barnes and Noble lot. Why? Certainly the amount of potential runoff is many times greater at the mall with its huge asphalt lot as opposed to the housing development with 4 homes and grass and trees.

Now the questions is, what scientific findings were used to determine these measures? Should we subscribe to the theory that big blanket takings of land are ok because they certainly will prevent any problems. Should the same measures required of a shopping mall be applied to a single home owner? Reminds me of the theories that spawn huge marine sanctuaries to protect one small portion of the area or one or two species within the area but by eliminating all uses they penalize many who have nothing to do with what they are trying to protect. Excluding all use just in case.

So the balance is to protect when science supports measures needed to protect and leave the land alone when no specific protection is warranted. And if the people want to condemn or take land for the perceived common good they need to step up and pay for it. To do anything less is dangerous to our democracy.