In what may be a fruitless effort to rechannel our Thursday evenings to a pursuit other than a shoreline hearing, we would propose that all parties enter into the following stipulations:

First, that while current science suggests that it would be

A Good Thing if we could return our shorelines to pre-settlement conditions, no one can say for certain what impact those changes would have on salmon populations, especially if only the shores of Bainbridge Island were restored.

Second, a large number of homeowners are really, really annoyed at the prospect of re-landscaping their waterfront properties to suit the city, and are way beyond annoyance at any notion that they might have to pick up their homes and move them back from the water.

Those stipulations would have substantially shortened several of recent meetings, and made Thursday’s Bainbridge Planning Commission session completely unnecessary. The meeting consisted of a lengthy (1 hour, 45 minutes) power-point presentation on science and the shoreline, followed by a lengthy (1 hour) period of citizen venting.

Names were called. Tempers were displayed. Suits were, of course, threatened. Yet the sides moved no closer to resolving or even addressing the real questions.

Those questions, we think, are readily discernible. The 1996 version of the city’s shoreline master program does include a requirement for a zone of native vegetation 50 feet landward of ordinary high water. But islanders have lived unconcerned under that mandate for half a dozen years because the requirement has never been applied retroactively to existing dwellings, even if they are remodeled, and has been applied only flexibly to new construction – trees have not been required, at least until recently.

The question, then, is the application – how, when, why and on whom will the planning department impose the requirements already on the books. On that score, the parties have hit a frustrating circularity. The planning staff says, “We can’t answer that question yet, because that’s regulation, and we’re still talking about policies.” The planning commission says, “We can’t talk about policies without knowing what they will mean in practice.” The citizens say, “You’re stonewalling us.”

A week ago, one citizen wanted to know what circumstances would require him to remove his landscaping and re-plant native vegetation. He was told that would be the topic of this week’s meeting. This week, the planning staff listed six issues for discussion, the last two of which dealt with application. Time ran out before those questions could be addressed.

As virtually everyone involved has said from the outset, the problem is balancing science against property rights. With the issues well defined, the planning commission ought to make its recommendations quickly.

Balancing competing priorities is the essence of politics in the best sense. In the short run, this issue will be decided (as it should be) by the city council. In the longer run, the voters will render a judgment of their own.

In the meantime, fact-gathering has given way to position-arguing. It’s time to decide.