I am writing in response to Mr. Petersen’s letter posted on Oct. 6 on SanJuanJournal.com, in which he criticized the Land Bank’s lease of its King Sisters’ property in San Juan Valley to a local farmer.

He claims that Farmer B was unfairly subsidized by the Land Bank to the detriment of Farmer A.

Such is not the case.

As they say, you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

In this case, Mr. Petersen conveniently omitted the fact that both farmers had the opportunity to submit bids in an open bid process for the use of the property.

Either Farmer A submitted a bid and lost, or he or she decided not to bid.

In either case, Farmer A and anyone else who wanted to bid had an equal opportunity to submit a competitive bid.

Mr. Petersen also claims that the Land Bank shouldn’t have spent money on fencing and water on the property. Instead of criticizing it, I would like to thank the Land Bank for making this commitment to conservation, continued farming of the property, and to public access.

Fencing and adequate water are necessary assets for the property to be farmed successfully. Moreover, the fencing in this case provides a dual benefit, in that it allowed for the development of a 4,600-foot walking trail parallel to San Juan Valley Road.

Who doesn’t like another place to walk, particularly in the San Juan Valley, where other walking trails are non-existent?

Thank you Land Bank for conserving our farm land and providing public access with all of its recreational and health benefits to the public it serves.

David Dehlendorf

San Juan Island