Anyone Know Representative Haler - RINO?/Appears he's not - Updated

[Knocker of rocks]

I just got a call from Rep Haler and we discussed both bills. The first, 2342, which would've  limited or prohibited access to public waterways across smaller parcels of land was indeed aimed at helping select constituents. However, it was because there has been a problem with two families with children, and people coming onto their land and approaching the children with possible criminal intent. After exhausting his efforts with the county commissioners, his next recourse was with a House bill. This bill will be amended so that either the specific property is the only place addressed, or so that other areas are not closed off to fishing/access. If it even comes up to discussion, which at this point is up in the air, he's going to request it be tabled until proper wording can be added to protect public access.

A state law to protect a single property,  where people may have or may have not approached children?  Sounds like somebody needs a fence and not a law.

Is there a reason that the the county and possibly the police have not acted on these problems? 

[blackdog]

Sounds like B.S!

[pianoman9701]

I just got a call from Rep Haler and we discussed both bills. The first, 2342, which would've  limited or prohibited access to public waterways across smaller parcels of land was indeed aimed at helping select constituents. However, it was because there has been a problem with two families with children, and people coming onto their land and approaching the children with possible criminal intent. After exhausting his efforts with the county commissioners, his next recourse was with a House bill. This bill will be amended so that either the specific property is the only place addressed, or so that other areas are not closed off to fishing/access. If it even comes up to discussion, which at this point is up in the air, he's going to request it be tabled until proper wording can be added to protect public access.

A state law to protect a single property,  where people may have or may have not approached children?  Sounds like somebody needs a fence and not a law.

Is there a reason that the the county and possibly the police have not acted on these problems?

He took it to the county commissioners and they couldn't do anything, according to what he told me. The police can't do much without an actual crime being committed.

[pianoman9701]

Look, I'm just reporting how the conversation went with him yesterday. Draw your own conclusions from it, but it sounds to me like a guy who can listen to reason and isn't afraid to step up for his constituents. He may have overstepped and now he's rethinking that. I was satisfied from speaking with him that he's trying to do the right thing.

[Knocker of rocks]

Or a pol who bends to the will of his bourgeois constituent puppet masters by taking from the masses

[SCRUBS]

He wants to pass a bill that would limit access to publicly owned recreational land because the wealth people who got him elected don’t want the great unwashed getting poorness all over their nice waterfront property. That sounds like a pretty Republican move to me. Same goes for invasive medical procedures in the name of being “tough on crime.” I’d bet lunch that someone he’s close to owns a DNA collection company that would find itself on the short list for that government contract.

 

[Knocker of rocks]

But at least it's nice that he inserted the de rigueur "it's about the children" disclaimer as he tried to steal our land

[pianoman9701]

I started a thread because I was concerned about two bills this guy was on which had been featured on previous threads. He called me and gave his side and I felt good about the interaction with him and was obligated to give my impressions of talking with him directly. If you guys are convinced he's a bad guy, there's nothing I can do about that. I'm not. I'm out of this one. Have a good day.

[arees]

Justifying blocking everyone's access to public land because one home owner may have had an attempted crime in one place is completely bogus.  Everyone who lives near a public amenity experiences more perceived crime and probably more real crime.  It comes with the territory.  If that homeowner doesn't want so much exposure to the public, they should move.  Apparently living on the river is more important to them then their child's safety.

Offering to amend the bill to only protect this one family runs perilously close to that "equal protection under the law" stuff in the Constitution.  This family would be getting additional protection at the public expense (i.e. loss of access, a spate of parking lot building and a lot of law suits over what "adequate public parking" means).

This guy should not be in the business of writing bills.

I had an a guy working for me that was a good guy and took correction easily.  He also took it frequently, on everything he did.  He doesn't work for me any more.

[Knocker of rocks]

Justifying blocking everyone's access to public land because one home owner may have had an attempted crime in one place is completely bogus.  Everyone who lives near a public amenity experiences more perceived crime and probably more real crime.  It comes with the territory.  If that homeowner doesn't want so much exposure to the public, they should move.  Apparently living on the river is more important to them then their child's safety.

Offering to amend the bill to only protect this one family runs perilously close to that "equal protection under the law" stuff in the Constitution.  This family would be getting additional protection at the public expense (i.e. loss of access, a spate of parking lot building and a lot of law suits over what "adequate public parking" means).

This guy should not be in the business of writing bills.

I had an a guy working for me that was a good guy and took correction easily.  He also took it frequently, on everything he did.  He doesn't work for me any more.

 

[bearpaw]

Elections are more or less popularity contests and sometimes people who are elected may not be the best qualified in all areas. I don't like the language of the bills but I suppose he could have overlooked the consequences and thought he was promoting something to help constituents without realizing the full reach of the language. It's hard to know much more about this guy without studying other bills he has been involved with.

What seems important to me on the surface is that this person is listening to people who point out the consequences. I think that puts him ahead of some legislators. Glad to see that piano was able to talk reason with the guy, there's a good chance he heard from many others as well if he is going to make changes.

[blackdog]

This same type of thing is happening on a lake I believe in Kitsap county with only one public lot. A Senator has been prohibiting the Public agency from developing public access.

[bearpaw]

This same type of thing is happening on a lake I believe in Kitsap county with only one public lot. A Senator has been prohibiting the Public agency from developing public access.

Sorry to hear, if the lake is publicly owned that is a significant injustice. I hope that is corrected, it sounds like the senator you speak of does not care about the public interest.

[Knocker of rocks]

This same type of thing is happening on a lake I believe in Kitsap county with only one public lot. A Senator has been prohibiting the Public agency from developing public access.

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2013/jul/23/lake-tahuyeh-boat-launch-stopped-again/#axzz2riE06PiY

[snowpack]

Justifying blocking everyone's access to public land because one home owner may have had an attempted crime in one place is completely bogus.  Everyone who lives near a public amenity experiences more perceived crime and probably more real crime.  It comes with the territory.  If that homeowner doesn't want so much exposure to the public, they should move.  Apparently living on the river is more important to them then their child's safety.

Offering to amend the bill to only protect this one family runs perilously close to that "equal protection under the law" stuff in the Constitution.  This family would be getting additional protection at the public expense (i.e. loss of access, a spate of parking lot building and a lot of law suits over what "adequate public parking" means).

This guy should not be in the business of writing bills.

I had an a guy working for me that was a good guy and took correction easily.  He also took it frequently, on everything he did.  He doesn't work for me any more.

For the bolded, and not saying this is the case for all you may be referring to, but the homes could've been there well before the 'problematic' land became owned by the public.  Seems to be happening around the peninsula where government (WDFW mostly comes to mind) is buying up land for salmon habitat restoration and recreational access.  Most of the ones I'm thinking of are small and fragmented in size.  A set of issues was created where there were none previously.  My opinion is this shouldn't be a statewide law to address a very localized problem; the guy should be pressuring the county or the police.

The rep should also look ahead for the law of unintended consequences.  He may think that the parking bill will in a roundabout way solve this perceived child safety issue, but he may be creating one that is even worse.  What if they actually build the parking lots?  Some of the areas I am thinking of are small parcels of public land, that when they had no parking, were only really used by fisherman, kayakers and inner-tubers that just parked on the side of the road.  Then the county put in small parking lots (4 cars) and a picnic table and trash can.  Now they are hangouts for homeless, tweekers and meet up areas for gays that go do things in the bushes.  In the past the seedy element may have assumed that it was private or that they couldn't use the land.  Now with the parking lot/picnic tables/trash can the areas are now have trashed dumped everywhere, lots of used syringes, used condoms laying all over.  Theft and other crime have gone up.