Doubtful Dealings in Planning Department Emerge
The Daily Astorian failed to report on the fact that while Jennifer Bunch was investigating the alleged wrong doings of Richard Lee in regards to his development Bunch was helping a coworker process paperwork on his own development, paperwork that looked as messed up as Bunch said Lee’s looked. At the same time that the Lees were receiving notification from Bunch for having made an illegal partition of their property 10 years previously, Bunch was signing paperwork that changed co-worker Jeff Heinzman’s development from an RA-2 zone to an RA-1 zone.
A Resolution and Order No. #070613 Dated June 27th, 2007 is an approval of a partition to create three parcels on Heinzman’s development with no mention of a measure 37 claim, yet one of the lots created would only be 1.25 acres in a RA2/AF zone. One of the boxes checked on the list is that all lots would meet minimum requirements.
Another odd thing about the application, signed by Ed Wegner, is the line by geological hazard is checked “no” when, in fact it is in said zone. The partition plat looks as if it is recorded without a sign-off from Ed Wegner (one still can’t be found in the voluminous amounts of paperwork), for sure there was no water available to the development through February 10, 2008 when last NCO checked with Burnside Water Association.
Rule Bending
Yet, through the help of his coworkers, Heinzman was able to get his measure 37 claim development partitioned, approval on and septic system installed, a manufactured home set on a geohazard overlay site, a road put in and named, an address given to his developed site, electrical and septic hooked up and a permit for a deck all without water rights to the site, one of the first things essential and without which a development permit should never have been granted.
The only reason this is stressed is because Jennifer Bunch, and her co-worker Stewart Scarborough both said that the only developer to enjoy special privileges with impunity was Richard Lee because of his status as a commissioner and their fear they would lose their jobs. Jennifer Bunch’s boss, Patrick Wingard, also commented that he felt in fear of his job if he didn’t allow Lee to bend the rules.
Why did they allow Heinzman to bend the rules, with impunity? Why, when they found out he lied about the water and had placed the manufactured home on his site back in July of 2007, didn’t they make him move the home, follow the rules for developing a site for a manufactured home on a geohazard overlay, but first make him follow the rules for getting the proper development permit? Were they afraid for their jobs on this development, too? They were helping Heinzman’s Measure 37 claim in September through December 2007 and into January 2008, the same period of time they were saying Lee was “running amok”. The Daily Astorian’s disregard for this story is telling.
The same planner that Goldsmith reported complaining that he had to step down from his job as head planner because of the preferential treatment he saw being given to Lee also signed off on Heinzman’s permits. Scarborough issued two permits to Heinzman after another planner, Kunland, had discovered that the Burnside Water District didn’t approve Heinzman’s request to join their association so issued a stop work order.
The Daily Astorian was so focused on “getting Lee” they either missed theses stories, or, as some contend, once again refused to run them. With the discovery of Jeff Heinzman’s preferential treatment in the planning department the accusation against Lee could lose all merit.
Daily Astorian ready to attack?
In November of 2007, after the defeat of ballot measure 4-123 District Attorney Josh Marquis turned in to the Board of Clatsop County Commissioners a letter containing a list of performance measures that he purposed using for his budget. He asked the Board to get back to him as soon as possible on whether or not the list met their criteria. The Board responded, according to the minutes of the November 20, 2007 with thanks and Derickson offered to meet with Marquis to go over the measures. Ed Wegner was brought in on the meeting with Marquis as he had previously volunteered to help department heads develop their budgets using the performance measure method. Through Wegner’s diligent help and training Marquis was able to turn in a performance based budget for review on time in 2008.
The editorials for that month call the commissioners to task for the close race. Forrester or Webb, whichever wrote Close election begs for a solution, lied saying, “Clatsop County will pay its thrice-elected district attorney less than any other county in Oregon.” Clatsop County joined 13 other counties in choosing not to pay a district attorney stipend. Zero is the same amount for all fourteen counties. The editorial goes on to misinform the readers regarding the relationship of the district attorney with the commissioners in regards to having an attorney for negotiations in regards to the MOU. It would be like saying that Richard Lee can no longer talk to anyone at county, other commissioners included, now that he has an attorney for the tort claim. It is not a sensible statement. And, repeatedly, the editor refuses to show the readers what a performance based budget is, instead drawing upon the tired argument that no one will tell Marquis exactly what they want from him. Offering nothing more than his opinion, the editor asserts that the Board is, “obsessed with its own importance,” and is “unwilling to learn from their mistaken tactic.” He attacks Derickson, “we have an administrator who has failed to exercise restraint, but instead has egged on commissioners in their reckless, needless and costly behavior.”
The next editorial plants in the readers mind that it is Lee who is the boss, Clatsop County has an old-time Boss. “Voters have already glimpsed Lee’s willful dominance of county government in his bold venture to slash the salary of the popularly elected district attorney.” Ignoring the three other commissioners for a short moment, the editor states Lee lead the charge. But for what reason does Lee have for doing this? Vendetta, is all the editor replies. Logically, a vendetta comes about when someone has lost, when someone has been damaged. Marquis wife lost, Marquis’ pride and pocket book were damaged, however, the editor has decided that it is Lee who has the vendetta.
“In a front-page article last Friday, Joe Gamm reported on the personal litmus test that Lee is exercising on appointments to the county planning commission. One prospective planning commissioner, former Warrenton Mayor Paul Rodriguez, was not interviewed by county officials or the county commission as a group, but by Lee personally,” the editor laments. What the reader isn’t told is that Paul Rodriguez already was sitting on one of the county commissions, one he wasn’t making it to regularly and the reason Lee stopped by to talk to Rodriguez was to ask about his attendance on the Commission on Children and Families. Auerbach, too, was already sitting on another one of the County committees, the Recreation Lands Planning Advisory Committee. At least a mention to the reader that these people’s services were being used is owed. The reader can ascertain whether or not it justified not being added to or let go from another committee. The fact is the Daily Astorian refuses to give the reader all of the facts on an issue, or even at the very least a balanced perspective on the most cogent issues from both sides.
Goldsmith Report
Had the Daily Astorian been on Lee’s side in this matter in would, no doubt, have ripped the Goldsmith interview apart, showing the glaring discrepancies between Bunch and Wingard’s recounting of how the incident at the counter with Lynda Lee came about. The Daily Astorian would have been the first to point out that Goldsmith seemed disappointed in the Lees’ for not taking her heart-to-heart discussion with them in October of 2007 more seriously,
Another interesting observation that radio newsman Tom Freel brings out is the fact that Jill Goldsmith seemed predisposed to write a report against Richard Lee. Freel questions whether it was a good idea to bring someone who has investigated Lee twice on the same charge to investigate allegations again. Many question how it is that Bunch came to the conclusion that her job was threatened in the exact same way that Scarborough felt his job was threatened. A telling point in Goldsmith’s report is this section:
“This was rejected by planning because the code required the height to be 7 feet,” she wrote. “Lee said that planning should have waived this minor problem and allowed the development of that building. Lee said that if a development is legal, there should be ways of doing it.”
Goldsmith said Lee’s example is appropriate, if only because his interpretation is wrong. “If a code requires a height of 7 feet, then it should be clear that 6.9 feet is insufficient,” she wrote. Goldsmith confused the height in inches instead of millimeters. “It was off the width of a piece of paper,” Richard Lee stated.
Lee believes that had Goldsmith looked at the evidence with a discerning eye instead of the preconceived idea that he was guilty the report may have turned out differently.
Daily Astorian Posts Correction
On March 3, 2007 a small four line correction was inserted into the Daily Astorian, apologizing for an “inaccurate detail” in its February 20th , story. The Daily Astorian stated: “A story in the Feb. 20 edition of The Daily Astorian about the Richard Lee recall campaign incorrectly quoted a lawyer’s investigation and made a statement that described a demand for the resignation of Clatsop County planner Jennifer Bunch. The newspaper would like to point out that the lawyer’s report did not state that Richard Lee called for Ms. Bunch’s resignation. The newspaper apologizes for its error.” The Daily Astorian, however, had misquoted the report numerous times (for instance, the very next day on February 21st, and the recall group had used it in its advertising and sound bites.
Next Installment: Was there or wasn’t there an Department of Justice investigation? If so who was the complainant? If not, who reported it to the Daily Astorian? What were the findings?
Related:
No comments:
Post a Comment