I attended the Land Bank (LB) Meeting and Annual Retreat on Dec. 13, 2019. At that meeting, there was a significant discussion about the negative publicity surrounding the LB, particularly in terms of social and local media. A round table discussion included a multitude of observations and ideas related to how the LB could improve its tarnished image and build public support.

During the meeting and the round table, there were multiple references made to the Amaro lawsuit and several newspaper articles and letters illustrating the arguments between the Amaros and the LB. The general perspective of the LB appeared to be that most of the negative publicity and loss of public support was the result of the LB’s conflict with the Amaros.

I listened to repeated reference to the Amaros, and it occurred to me that perhaps the wrong question was being asked. The Amaros arrived on San Juan Island in 2015. Four years before their arrival, in 2011, a ballot measure to extend the excise tax that funds the LB passed by only 52 percent. It had previously passed by 73 percent. What these numbers illustrate is the LB had lost 21 percent of its support four years BEFORE the Amaros even came on the scene.

The Amaros aren’t the cause of Land Bank’s negative PR. The Amaro’s are a symptom of the LB’s administrative failure, just like other lawsuits and disputes that the LB is involved in. The LB’s fall from grace started years before the Amaros arrived. The first part of finding the right answer is to start with the right question. Instead of the LB asking how they can build public support perhaps they should be asking how they lost it in the first place.

Ron Whalen

San Juan Island