To be heard by our town administration, we were told by our town lawyer, Scott Thomas, to write to La Conner Weekly News. There seems to be a blocked pathway for citizens to reach our town administrators. Citizen letters of critical concerns go unanswered. So, if letters to the editor is the line of communication our town lawyer suggests, we should expect a reply to this letter via the same route.

In the matter of exchanging clear information and concerns between our town administrators and their citizens, let the echo chamber of Maple Hall be a metaphor. The fact that our town administrators did not provide microphones for the Town Council meeting displayed that the council, mayor, lawyer and planner only wanted to hear themselves talk to each other. Citizens missed much of what was transpiring among the council.

When many of the citizens spoke, without microphones, their concerns were inaudible. If I, in the audience, could not hear what was being said among us, how could our town administrators hear our concerns? One could get the impression our council did not want us to hear what they were saying and doing. They, therefore, did not want the influence of citizens on their decisions. Another pathway of communication blocked. This is not transparency.

I would like to thank Ken Stern for the July 14 issue of his newspaper providing the “Scorecard” (timeline and explanations) of the Hedlin family sale of the ballpark to the town. Ken makes it noticeably clear that the sale included the Restrictive Covenant of a 24,000 sq. ft public park. No parking. No easements. Just a 24,000 sq. ft patch of grass. That was April 16, 2021.

Over a month later the town council agreed to reduce the public park from 24,000 sq. ft. To 20,000 sq. ft with easements to the Landed Gentry development. Our town lawyer gave 4,000 sq. ft of public park to a developer and our council approved it. The question many of our town citizens are asking is why. What are the priorities of our town council? A public space to benefit generations to come? Or allowing conveniences to a developer of unaffordable housing?

Respectfully,

Susan Widdop

La Conner