Beverly Browne, managing editor of the Port Ludlow Village Voice, has come out against Bert Loomis’ offer to buy and develop property next to the Bay Club. And she’s not alone.

Loomis acknowledged Tuesday, Dec. 6 that a majority of people who showed up at a Monday, Dec. 5 meeting at the Bay Club were “initially against developing anything on the property.”

“There are many reasons why selling the property, or any other, would not be advisable,” Browne wrote in the Voice.

Browne outlined a number of reasons, ranging from ownership questions, value of the property in its natural state versus being developed, access issues and what she called Loomis’ low-ball offer of $690,000 for the 5 acres.

She said the property is owned by members of the Bay Club, not the South Bay Community Association board, and as such, a vote would require approval from two-thirds of the club’s members. Loomis said he welcomes a vote.

“There are other reasons why selling this property would be one of the bad ideas of all time, but space precludes listing them,” Browne concluded in her editorial. “Considering the demonstrated commitment of most residents to keeping Port Ludlow ‘a village in the woods by the bay,’ the directors should not waste their time – or ours. Reject this offer if you have not already done so. Just say, No!”

In a follow-up email with Browne Monday night, she elaborated on some of her concerns.

Access to property next to the Bay Club would require widening the road and removing parking and screening vegetation, and that would have a “very negative impact on those homes, their privacy and value,” Brown wrote.

Browne also disputes use of the term “excess land,” saying the resort’s original developer, Pope Resources, had planned to develop the property into an urban park.

“We have documents from the county that show that to be true,” she wrote. “It serves that function now and will be even more important in the future as the membership of the club increases.”

Browne further questioned why Loomis has created a sense of urgency about the sale.

“He has proposed an unrealistic timeline based on his belief that development, if not done now, will make it impossible to obtain water and sewer hookups,” she wrote to the Leader. “I think this is a spurious argument and it impacts the ability to do a proper investigation of the impact of any development on that slope and on the residents. It is a false urgency.”

(Loomis’ arguments are noted in a separate story in this edition.)

Browne said she and others have consulted with real estate agents and tried to look at the value of similar properties, which she said is not easy.

Browne said the area’s zoning is “muddled and may not actually be multiple family as claimed.”

Browne pointed to a county planning document that implies there were mapping errors and that planners had suggested the permitted use of land near the Bay Club area be “limited to community organization activity facilities and recreation center/club.”

Loomis maintains that the property he wants to buy has been zoned multifamily since 1999. “There is nothing vague about zoning,” Loomis said.