NVN Article 11/7/08 - RSE Sewer Overtapped ...

This forum will list the news articles relative to the topic of RSE, directly or indirectly.
California Dreamin'
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:15 pm

NVN Article 11/7/08 - RSE Sewer Overtapped ...

Unread post by California Dreamin' » Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:02 am

RSE sewer overtapped, say Yelm developers
Thurston Highlands developers are taking aim again at JZ Knight, claiming she doesn?t have the sewage capacity to accommodate the thousands of people who attend events at her Ramtha School of Enlightenment.
Posted Nov 07, 2008. E-mail this article to a friend.
By Megan Hansen
Nisqually Valley News

Thurston Highlands developers are taking aim again at JZ Knight, claiming she doesn?t have the sewage capacity to accommodate the thousands of people who attend events at her Ramtha School of Enlightenment.

Doug Bloom and Steve Chamberlain sent two letters to Thurston County officials Wednesday stating they do not believe Knight?s sewage system or special use permit are in compliance.

?We are concerned that our projects are being held to a very high standard, including support of highly treated wastewater and reclaimed water use, while in the same area, a Large On-Site Sewage System (LOSS) on the property of JZ Knight is a non-conforming system operating well outside the original design parameters,? Bloom and Chamberlain wrote.

?This is not only inconsistent and unfair -- we believe it is a potential threat to the public health and the environment.?

They sent their letters to Steven Petersen, program manager for Thurston County Public Health and Social Services.

Bloom and Chamberlain are asking Thurston County to look into their concerns.

James Flick, property manager for RSE, declined to comment Wednesday.

?When we started doing our projects, we thought we were doing everything right,? Bloom said Wednesday. ?Then we started getting challenged by JZ Knight.?

?So we started looking into her operation.?

In the letter, the developers said that Knight?s sewage system was developed in 1989, and is over-extended.

?Although portable toilets are claimed to be utilized to mitigate flows, all available records reflect the sewage system is being burdened beyond the designed capacity,? their letter said.

?This LOSS operating permit should be revoked immediately pending further evaluation of the disposal area and proof that groundwater, the shallow aquifer and adjacent water bodies have not been compromised by excessive loading of this sewage system.?

If Knight had a maximum attendance, she would need 133 additional portable toilets to accommodate the extra sewage, Bloom and Chamberlain said.

The pair also ask Michael Kain, senior planner for Thurston County Development Services, to look into Knight?s Special Use Permit, or SUP.

Knight is limited to 2,000 participants per event. Exceeding that number would require revising the SUP.

?Visual observation would indicate the number of event attendees and staff exceeds the allowed capacity,? Bloom and Chamberlain wrote.

They include an aerial photo taken of an RSE event with their letters.

User avatar
G2G
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:09 am
Location: Planet Earth

Unread post by G2G » Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:13 am

That's leaving out those who urinate and otherwise on the grounds without using the "facilities."
8) 8) 8)
"I never really understood religion - it just seemed a good excuse to give" - Ten Years After circa 1972

Tree
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 12:31 am

Unread post by Tree » Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:17 am

This is great.
Fight back in the same legal arena.
oh yes, those facilites fall wickedly short of being ample supply for so many people.
This ought to be good.

and how about a lecture from the "big guy" regarding proper toilet etiquette during Blue College
where the entire audience in attendance used the woods as the main facility??!!!
(8 porta potties were supplies out in the "Blue College" area. Most people chose to go to the woods
during those 5 day episodes of being fully blindfolded.)

Tree
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 12:31 am

Unread post by Tree » Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:19 am

We need the poll code for:

1) I have peed in the woods while attending an event
2) I pooped in the woods while attending an event
3) I brought my own little porta potty and disposed of it wherever I felt like during an event
4) I was a living Christ and had no need for any bodily function removal during an event

Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit » Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:20 am

tree said, "4) I was a living Christ and had no need for any bodily function removal during an event"

ROFLMAO !!!!!!!

Wakeup-Call
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:20 am
Location: Washington

Unread post by Wakeup-Call » Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:56 am

#4 was funny!

Yes, confession is good for the soul. Instead of a midnight porta-potty run, I pee'd on the ground outside the tent or trailer.

I love that the developers came up with this approach! Should creep out the community, too, all that extra sewage...

joe sz
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

Unread post by joe sz » Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:33 am

Around here, you will pay a fine of $300 if caught:

http://www.phila.gov/philacode/html/_DA ... r_Def.html

?10-609. Public Urination or Defecation. [92]


(1) Definitions.

(a) Private Property Used to Accommodate the Public. Any building, structure, equipment or other thing,[93] including the land upon which it is situate, abutting premises that are used incidentally for the accommodation of the public, including the sidewalks and streets adjacent thereto.

(b) Public Right-of-Way. All public streets, parks, alleys, passageways, sidewalks, steps and other corridors through which vehicles or persons may travel, including motor vehicles parked within such right-of-way.

(2) Prohibited Conduct. It shall be unlawful for any person to urinate or defecate on any public right-of-way, underground platform or concourse, elevated platform serving public transportation facilities, underground or elevated passageways used by the public, railroad or railway passenger stations or platforms, or on the steps leading to any of them, or on any private property used to accommodate the public, or on any private property without the permission of the owner.

(3) Penalties.

(a) The penalty for violation of ? 10-609(2) of this Chapter shall be a fine of three hundred dollars ($300).[94]

(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, any person to whom a ticket is issued may, within eight (8) days of receipt, pay fifty dollars ($50) in lieu of contesting the violation and in lieu of any other fines or penalties. The ticket shall contain an appropriate notice to the recipient of his or her right not to contest the violation and appropriate instructions and procedures for payment, as prescribed by the Director of Finance.

(4) Enforcement.

(a) Any person authorized to enforce ordinances may issue a ticket to any person in violation of this Section, pursuant to the procedures set forth in ? 10-1606. Contested charges shall be resolved, fines shall be imposed, and payments shall be collected and processed by the Director of Finance and the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication, all pursuant to the procedures set forth in ?? 10-1604 through 10-1609. Upon a finding of violation, the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication may issue an Order permitting the violator to perform appropriate community service in lieu of payment of any fine.

(b) No enforcement activity shall target homeless persons in a discriminatory manner.

Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit » Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:45 pm

LACEY MUNICIPAL CODE

A Codification of the General Ordinances of the City of Lacey, Washington


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Title 9: PUBLIC PEACE, SAFETY AND MORALS

Chapter 9.16

CRIMES AGAINST MORALITY AND DECENCY

9.16.050 Urinating or defecating in public places.

A. It is unlawful for any person to urinate or defecate in a public place in the city which is not specifically designated and intended for that use.

B. For purposes of this section, the term ?public place? means an area generally visible to public view and includes streets, sidewalks, bridges, alleys, plazas, parks, driveways, parking lots, buildings open to the public, and the doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings and the grounds enclosing them. (Ord. 786, 1986).

Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit » Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:54 pm

by the way...jz's ranch property is part of thurston county...where lacey is.

truster
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:12 am

courtroom karma

Unread post by truster » Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:00 am

live by the courtroom,die by the courtroom

i hope that quickly, the restriction is placed on rse.

California Dreamin'
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:15 pm

Steve Klein's spin

Unread post by California Dreamin' » Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:21 pm

Check out Steve Klein's column at http://Yelm.com (DEAD LINK) regarding this latest NVN article. It's under the heading November 8, 2008.

I've tried unsuccessfully to copy/paste it on this page, but am unable to do so (Perhaps someone else can successfully copy and paste it on this forum.)

Marie
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:55 pm

Unread post by Marie » Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:28 pm

I did not read the whole thing, just scanned .. so I apologize if I inadvertantly posted any material on the blog not relevant to this current discussion....

Below is the post from the above link CD provided:

****************

November 8, 2008

COURT UPHOLDS LETTER OPINION - CITY CAN'T OPERATE "BUSINESS AS USUAL"
Regarding the NVN October 10th front-page story quoting Mayor Harding and the City of Yelm Press release concerning the case of JZ Knight vs City of Yelm et al titled "Lawsuit Ruling: Business as usual", Judge Chris Wickham made final yesterday his Letter Opinion dated October 7, 2008 about this case and did not change anything. The Court listened to a partial list of objections from the City and developers representatives and then stated that the City was attempting to keep the truth from being known in this case, overruling the City's objection to have to inform Ms. Knight when any permits are issued in these five developments.
One can see that developers' Bloom & Chamberlain Tahoma Terra phases will be impacted with this decision. Telling the NVN in mid-October,
"Recently, we spent hundreds of thousands of our hard-earned money in attorney and consultant fees defending our livelihood.
Other local developers.builders and the city also spent an equivalent amount and for what?"

For what, they ask?
That was presented by Knight's attorney before a Hearing Examiner in Yelm and the Yelm City Council in 2007, which has now been addressed by the Thurston County Superior Court -
to get the City of Yelm to follow the laws of the State of Washington on water.
[Ed. Note: Bloom & Chamberlain knew all along there was not enough water to support these developments, as they have been feverishly attempting to acquire water rights for their properties for a couple of years now. Did they just go along and trust the City, expecting no one would be perceptive that there was not enough water or go to Superior Court if they did notice? Wise developers should make absolutely certain the city has the water available before committing on any development. Otherwise, they may sink alot of money into a project, not be permitted to build and accrue out-of-pocket expenses they may never be able to recoup.]

Yesterday, the NVN published Bloom/Chamberlain's unfounded accusations about Ms. Knight's property not operating in compliance & filing a complaint with Thurston County. Where was the NVN's award-winning invetigative journalism on this issue. The only thing that was given ink were Bloom & Chamberlain's accusations, with NO questioning of the County. The NVN has previously reported the State's Dept of Health & Ecology were called on by Bloom & Chamberlain to investigate Knight's water systems and found to be in compliance, TWICE. Now Bloom & Chamberlain are asking the County to investigate Knight's sewage systems.

Playing the victim and then throwing out accusations is an easy way to divert attention from the fact that these 2 developers just did not do their homework on Yelm's water issues & moved ahead with their investments here anyway, expecting to acquire sufficient water only to be told the City does not have water to support some of their Tahoma Terra phases.

Bottom line:
"So it is clear that the City must make findings of "appropriate provisions" for potable water supplies in this case by the time of final plat approval.

The final determination of the Court concluded the City is required to show approved and available water rights sufficient to serve all currently approved and to-be approved subdivisions in this case. "The "reasonable expectation" based on historical City's suggested finding potable water would be considered insufficient to satisfy this condition."


This case has nothing to do with stopping or limiting development, rather to direct the City to follow the laws of:
the Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC)
the Washington Water Code
and that a determination of 'appropriate provision' [of water] are a condition of preliminary plat approval and must be provided at final plat approval.

Quoting City Administrator Shelly Badger in a press release, "'it is ironic that the decision equates to Yelm doing business as usual. 'The permitting process isn?t changed.'"

That is not true now as NO permit can be issued in any of these five subdivisions unless adequate water is proven at final plat, NOT at building permit issuance stage.

Mayor Harding can say this is "business as usual", however to quote Knight's attorney Keith Moxon,
"The Judge agreed with JZ Knight that a "reasonable expectation" (Yelm's current wording to approve developments' water rights acquisition in the future) is not sufficient to meet the legal requirement of making "appropriate provisions" for a potable water supply.

JZ Knight is grateful that this Judge carefully reviewed the record of the city's actions and determined that the city's approach to approving development without provision for potable water is not lawful.

Hopefully, the City of Yelm will now make arrangements to stay within its water rights and approve new development only when it has an adequate water supply."

Read Judge Wickham's October 7th Letter Opinion in the case of JZ Knight vs. City of Yelm et al which was made final on Friday, November 7, 2008.

The City of Yelm Water Press Release dated October 10, 2008 says:
"'To set aside water rights at a time other than building permit does not make sense. In essence, the City would have to set aside water for lots that might not ever be developed,' said Yelm Mayor Ron Harding, who is happy with the decision.

'If the judge had agreed with Knight,' Harding explained, 'all growth in Yelm, including the construction of new homes and businesses would stop.'

'With the economic challenges we are facing, both nationally and locally, continued development is essential to maintain a healthy community,' Harding concluded."

Mr. Mayor, did you not read Judge Wickham's Letter Opinion about the 5 subdivisions as quoted above???
Bottom line: Water has to be proven to be available for these 5 subdivisions at final plat. If not, then construction in these developments cannot move forward.

Therefore, the City's Press Release and quotes from Mayor Harding & City Administrator Badger are not-so-subtle, calculated and deliberate attempts at subterfuge of the truth and public trust. Quoting only the city's own Press Release and not Judge Wickham's Opinion Letter is indicative of the newspaper's complicity, too, which is no surprise...

The Court saw that as well and mentioned this on the record yesterday!

The City must follow the Court's findings or be in contempt.
The City can appeal the court's decision.

Will the readers of the NVN be informed of this major decision affecting the way the City of Yelm conducts business?

Wakeup-Call
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:20 am
Location: Washington

Unread post by Wakeup-Call » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:25 am

It can't be just me....

I swear, I'm actually still interested in the topic and I can barely make myself read Steve Klein's prattle.

In that way, I thank him for his service to the demise of RSE by boring Yelm-ites out of their mind such that they stop reading as soon as they see his name and think, "there he goes again...the mayor-wanna-be from that cult"

Tree
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 12:31 am

Unread post by Tree » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:52 pm

It can't be just me....
I know. I thought the same thing.
Prattle is a perfect word for his rhetoric.
And I would think the town folks have the same reaction.

NO permit can be issued in any of these five subdivisions unless adequate water is proven at final plat, NOT at building permit issuance stage.
so...this IS business as before Steve. They just took out a grammatical "/or" dude.
wth is he still bellyaching about?
gets the rest of the Ramster's knickers in a wad as can be witnessed by subsequent comments by them. Trying to get them stirred up like Hitler did in the beer halls.

User avatar
G2G
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:09 am
Location: Planet Earth

Unread post by G2G » Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:55 am

Just what on earth is JZ and company "manifesting" over there!!!!

:wink: :wink: :wink:
"I never really understood religion - it just seemed a good excuse to give" - Ten Years After circa 1972

Post Reply

Return to “News Articles”