I am responding to Jean Ball’s March 5 opinion column on the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR).

Zoning regulations aim to leave rural areas rural. The one exemption is the MPR.  An MPR is not just a residential development, but must have certain recreational features and infrastructure.  The first development agreement between the county and the developer did not meet the statutory zoning requirements.  The Brinnon Group appealed to the  superior court. The court directed the county to change the agreement to meet these requirements.  Subsequent proposals by the developer appear also to fail to meet statutory requirements.  One recent proposal is for a facility to manufacture modular construction parts.  The area is not zoned for manufacturing. It appears that these modular parts will be sold for non MPR construction.

There is no proof that the MPR will make money for the county.  Washington state published an analysis of MPRs that stated that only 1 out of 10 is profitable. An Oregon study concluded the infrastructure cost was higher than the income to government in similar resorts. Jefferson County residents have asked the county to institute bonds for the developer to protect county taxpayers. The county has ignored these requests.  The county has never done an independent analysis of the costs and benefits of the MPR.

Barbara Moore-Lewis

Snohomish