Keep Kirsch property

I frequently question government decisions: federal, state, or local, to sell off public property and to place that property into the hands of a private party, with the very permanent result that forever and for all time the property is no longer available for whatever public uses there are now or that might be found or dreamed of in the future.

I believe that public property and its uses define a community and that any change in its ownership should be part of a broad public planning process that a) takes account of who we are and of our vision for the future, and b) is insulated from routine legislative business, especially business that is trying to meet the perennial challenge of balancing the government budget.

In this case, the “Kirsch” property, a piece of waterfront property that belongs to all 900 of us – the town’s residents – will in a flash be transferred to one person or family.

Waterfront property is precious. Homes and offices can be accommodated elsewhere, and done without removing public holdings from public, either actual or prospective, uses.

That we have a most-appreciated boardwalk is beside the point. The existence of one valued public space should not provide cover or an excuse for selling off another.

Balance the budget through tighter controls, not by selling off valuable public waterfront access and property.

Bob Raymond

La Conner