“Concerned Island Citizens” post “DANGER! Sound Hazard Zone” signs + Video “Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign”

Author:BillB

Along WA State HWY 20, south of NOLF Coupeville, heading north

A group calling itself “Concerned Island Citizens” has recently posted signs advising people to wear ear protection due to a sound hazard zone on Whidbey Island, WA.

Drivers heading north on Highway 20 encounter one sign just south of the Navy’s OLF Coupeville, near Squire Road. 

Just north of Duguala Bay, near Jones Road, southbound Highway 20 motorists encounter the other sign. Both signs have similar construction and signage. 

Along WA State HWY 20, north of Duguala Bay, heading south

The sign near Jones Road is accompanied by a nearby, much older, now fallen, dilapidated sign which reads “SAY NO TO CRASH ZONE”: an apparent reference to Accident Potential Zones which Island County instituted near Ault Field a number of years ago.

Continuing south on Highway 20, just after passing Duguala Bay and heading up the hill, yet another sign says “HEY! CAN YOU HEAR  TIRED YET? HAD ENOUGH?”

The group claiming responsibility for these signs claims a “sound hazard zone” extends for 25 miles in either direction. Their web site blames the Navy for “patterns of disinformation” while it is their claimed desire to “inform the community with the truth”.

“Say No to Crash Zones” sign on ground

Island County’s AICUZ noise zones map delineate increased areas of noise intensity in proximity to both Ault Field and NOLF Coupeville.

The AICUZ noise zones differ greatly from what these roadside signs suggest, and suggestions to motorists that they may need hearing protection while traveling along highway 20 is a gross example of irresponsible “disinformation” on the part of these concerned citizens who claim to be providers of truth.

Along HWY 20, heading south, after passing Duguala Bay

What these people are claiming with their “noise hazard” signs is simply over-the-top. These signs, however, DO deserve to be discussed, to be laughed at, and to be ridiculed.

With that in mind, please enjoy one of my favorite songs, to get you in the mood simply to laugh and smile at the silliness of the folks who put up these laughable signs.

Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign

Tags: , , , , , , ,

  1. avatar

    Here we go again…these are the same well funded left wing groups that want to throw the Navy off the Island along with the same group that wants to make Whidbey Island a gun free zone. Think about it.

    Reply

  2. avatar

    This is the work of Becky Spraitzer, Garrett Newkirk, Paula Spina, Ken Picard and other Progressive Democratic Socialists.

    Reply

  3. avatar

    LOL Their web page looks like it was set up by a third grader. “Navel” Air Station?

    Reply

    1. avatar

      That is because they spend waaaay tooo much time gazing at their own navels instead of looking at the facts…

      Reply

      1. avatar

        It’s not at, but through their navels because of the current location of their heads.

        I hope these signs comply with the county’s new sign ordnance. I would hate to see planning / code enforcement slap them with an “Emerson” for no sign permit.

        Reply

    2. avatar

      Two days after Ken posted about the spelling of “Navel” versus “Naval”, they have now corrected the spelling.

      However, pointing that spelling error out to them apparently made no difference with respect to the very next “sentence” at their Home page, which still reads:

      “the amount of Noise created of 150+ decibels to the Fuel they are Expending in the air.”

      Let’s see if they can eventually figure out that one for themselves.

      Reply

      1. avatar

        Third grade grammar. In math terms 3+7+8=Garrett Newkirk (new math)

        Reply

  4. avatar

    You would think that these people would want to thank the US Navy.

    As their primary complaint is concerning noise issues study after study has shown that the FA-18 is quieter than the EA-6B. Of course facts and logic mean little to these folks but the facts are the facts.

    Below is a link to a chart from the noise study done for the Boardman bombing range that shows noise levels by aircraft type and overflight range.
    http://www.islandpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/N4242.jpg

    It clearly shows that the FA-18G is quieter by quite a large degree when compared with the EA-6B at all ranges tested.

    This is not about noise, this is not about ‘health and safety” this is about this group having the opportunity to complain because of the new platform the Navy has decided to base at NAS Whidbey. They are using this opportunity to spread lies and falsehoods about the OLF and NAS Whidbey with the goal of seeing the Navy activities reduced or stopped at NAS Whidbey.

    In the early 60′s when the P2V Neptunes were phased out and the A-6′s were moved to Whidbey the US Navy spent millions of dollars in compensation to make the area surrounding NAS Whidbey and the OLF compatible. All of the turkey farms that studded the landscape at what is now Ebeys Reserve and the Oak Harbor area were bought out by the US Navy to compensate the turkey farmers who’s turkeys were affected by the noise. Many of the members of the same families that were paid compensation are now complaining about the noise after having previously been compensated by the Navy for the increase in noise the A-6′s have brought. Now instead of looking for compensation they are lobbying to stop the flights and the noise altogether. After spending millions in “Turkey Compensation” and making sure that everyone that purchases property here is notified of the noise issue do they really think the US Navy is going to be willing to see this all go away because of a small group of complainers?

    It is and has been known for years that the NAS and OLF generates noise. This is nothing new in our environment here on Whidbey Island. What is new is the number of people here who will take advantage of any change to revisit the idea of having the Navy based here on the Island. Many of those like Paul Spina who bought land here sight unseen now want to rewrite the narrative over the noise issue when really this is nothing new to those of us that have lived here.

    The A-6 was phased out years ago and EA-6B’s are now being phased and being replaced with the new platform the FA-18G. I live almost all of my life directly under the flight pattern of NAS Whidbey and have noticed the difference. The FA-18G IS quieter than the EA-6B no matter what this group says.

    Look at the facts and do not listen to this vocal group of “story tellers” who wish at all costs to see the Navy disappear from Whidbey Island.

    Reply

    1. avatar

      Wrong again Cliff, as I corrected you below with the Navy’s own 05 AICUZ report.

      Reply

      1. avatar

        You corrected nothing. You took selected bits from the 2005 report and left out others attempting to make your case.

        Reply

  5. avatar

    I was unable to find any reference or reporting to PDC for this Political Action Committee: i.e.

    “A group not endorsed by a candidate or political party but organized to engage in political election activities, especially the raising and spending of money for “campaigning.”

    Many types of special-interest groups have established PACs, including the following examples: coal operators, hospitals, labor unions, banks, doctors, feminist groups, lawyers, insurance agents, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers.

    These groups commonly form PACs to promote their legislative goals. Some of these, such as the coal industry and labor PACs, generally give most of their donations to candidates they expect to favor their legislative agendas.

    Other PACs, such as those created by chiropractors or publishers, may dole out small contributions to dozens of candidates with widely varying political views.”

    I sent an email to their site this AM requesting the names of the Committee’s officers and funding sources, money/contributions received to date, etc.

    Reply

    1. avatar

      Also, Mary Jane Aurdal-Olson reported, “I could find an organization of this name registered with the Secretary of State’s office, Corporate Division.”

      They’ve been very active with their sound detection equipment readings with their settings on the equipment resulting in data showing hearing damage.

      But if they used proper settings and recording methods they would have data that is the opposite of their hearing damage claims.

      Reminds me of the bogus Holmes Harbor contamination tests caused by defective Septic systems claimed by those wanting to build a Freeland sewer system.

      Reply

      1. avatar

        With their claims of “Grievous Damage” based on a hand held noise meter and done under who knows what conditions they are really making themselves fools. There have been many controlled scientific studies done on the aircraft noise generated from both the EA-6B and the Growler and all of these reputable studies have shown the Growler is considerably quieter. Of course fools with a hidden agenda don’t like discussing facts as they have conducted their own carefully controlled scientific studies by holding a hand held noise meter at an unknown range from the noise that show these previous studies wrong. So goes the science in Coupeville.

        Reply

        1. avatar

          Actually you are grossly misinforrmed Cliff.

          Keeping in mind that each 3 dB increase doubles sound intensity,the Navy’s own 05 AICUS report indicates the Growlers are 7 dB louder on approach, 3 dB lounder on departure, which covers the major area of the OLF affected area–i.e., all of Admirals Cove, the kids ballpark, WAIF, the new transit terminal, the dog park, the east side of Coupeville, the recylce center, and not least, the island’s only national park.

          Cliff’s sort of misinformation does not benefit the island or the community and fails to move us forward, instead dragging us backward to WWII mentality.

          We can pull together to work towards a real doable solution, but folks like Ciff, still stuck in the mud, have find their shoulder.

          Reply

          1. avatar

            Grossly misinformed? Here is the chart from the 2005 study:
            http://www.islandpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/N4120.jpg

            It does show that the Growler is 3dB noisier on departure and 2dB on approach at 1000′ not 7dB and 3dB as you state. What you fail to mention is the climb out rate which is much steeper for the Growler compared to the EA-6B which mitigates those noise levels in the local area.

            The report states:

            “The decrease in CY13 DNL contours versus those of CY03 is primarily attributed to the better performance of the EA-18G compared to the EA-6B. For example, the E/A-18G climb-out rate is much faster that that of the EA-6B. A better climb rate generally results in an aircraft spending less time at lower altitudes and a lower resulting noise exposure as the aircraft’s elevation rises farther away from the airfield.”

            So, in effect. we have seen a decrease in the size of the noise contours surrounding the OLF with the introduction of the EA-18G. Is the EA-18G noisier in some instances? Yes it is, but the noise increase is limited to the area of the OLF and it is of much shorter duration than the EA-6B due to the steeper climbout rate of the EA-18G.

            The effect of all of this increase? Very little, unless you live directly under the area the EA-18G uses to “climb out” from the OLF, which does not include any of the areas that you mention and are complaining about.

            ALL other areas in the existing noise contour areas see a decrease in noise from the EA-18G when compared to the EA-6B.

            And those are the facts directly from the 2005 AICUZ report…

            BobBee wrote:

            “Cliff’s sort of misinformation does not benefit the island or the community and fails to move us forward, instead dragging us backward to WWII mentality.”

            The information I supplied in these comments is directly from the US Navy reports and recommendations, which were performed by independent testing agencies. While you claim that I am “Grossly misinformed” and are “dragging us backward to WWII mentality”, I am merely quoting the facts. If you consider that to be “grossly misinformed” then why don’t you attempt to combat what I quoted from the reports instead of making hysterical comments about those facts?

            Reply

          2. avatar

            BobBee, man or whatever, oh, that we could restore the mentality, common sense, responsibility, dedication, and patriotism of the WW II era in place of the whining, of today’s dunderhead commies. However, I venture to say that wherever your head is, it is not stuck in the mud. Think, SOUND OF FREEDOM, and perhaps the few minutes of that lovely sound will will not seem as unacceptable. National Park? The nearest thing to a National Park on Whidbey is Navy OLF and Ault Field where American Patriots hone their skills to protect all of us.

            Reply

            1. avatar

              Thank you. I think OLF Coupeville should be renamed “Growler Joe” Park at OLF Coupeville.

              There.

              Reply

              1. avatar

                Might not be bad , however they don’t park ‘em there, but with additional squadrons, including P-8 squadrons being assigned to NAS Whidbey, there may be a need for hangers, etc adjoining the practice field. I kinda like “Rick Larsen Field” since he’s been a leading proponent for military expansion in his district. Must remember to thank Rick on behalf behalf of G.N. and his (confidential) followers.

                Reply

          3. avatar

            Here’s a real doable solution:

            MOVE.

            There. Why the ffffffffffffff should I subsidize your choice to live next to Heavenly EA-18Gs and your whining about a joyful sound?

            Reply

      2. avatar

        Make that “I could find NOT an organization of this name registered with the Secretary of State’s office, Corporate Division.”

        That’s because they are NOT registered and cannot solicit funds, etc., as such.

        Reply

      3. avatar

        PDC responded to my request for clarification with the following:
        No, not a political action committee because, as far as I can tell, it’s not working to support or oppose candidates or ballot measures. If your suspicions are true, then the group is lobbying. Only state-level lobbying gets reported to the Public Disclosure Commission – no local or federal lobbying.

        Only at the point where “Concerned Island Citizens” start passing money to politicians or candidates would PDC require reporting

        The PDC response is somewhat in line with the following concerns Rufus Rose expressed:

        “1.At what point of “organization” is a PDC Report required?

        2. What if groups of people meet and act periodically, but without “Membership,” By-Laws, without dues, without lobbying, or filing with the IRS as “tax exempt, or at all?”

        3. What requirement exists for people to disclose their self and community interests?

        4. I wonder if free people can still assemble, talk and listen to each other, write letters and emails to anyone they want, post notices or web sites without reporting to Government.

        5. I’m not certain of the answers to my questions. I believe (hope) the answers favor individual freedom.

        6. I hope the power of an informed public can compete with organized special interest groups.

        7. Is it only about money?”

        Freedom of speech protected, by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws is not dead yet!

        As long as they continue their current tact it looks like we need to focus on their bogus data and their every move in trying to get rid of NAS Whidbey

        Reply

  6. avatar

    If their intent is to rid Whidbey Island of the Navy Base, then these individuals are idiots — pure and simple. Can you imagine what the local businesses would do WITHOUT the Navy base?

    Reply

    1. avatar

      These people are a bit of a re-incarnation of a group which called itself “Whidbey Islanders for a Sound Environment (WISE)” and who were active back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

      For background on that group, see:

      Navy plans could mean larger force at Whidbey

      Whidbey Melodrama: Who Fired Fatal Shot?

      The Snag (A WEAN Production)

      Whidbey Camano Land Trust Fall Newsletter 2010 (Whidbey Islanders for a Sound Environment (WISE) is listed as a $100+ contributor)

      Reply

  7. avatar

    Note from BillB: I approved the below submitted comment from “BobBee” as an example of what supporters of the folks putting up these signs apparently believe is an argument worthy of response. Know this, “BobBee” and friends: I am fully intent on continuing to publicize your videos and signs along with whatever commentary we feel is appropriate, Please, by all means, do continue to send us anything you want, and we’ll very likely be more than happy to use it here as we decide. ;-)

    “The comments here are silly. Their “authors” (gag) know there is a problem and both BillB and the turkeys prefer gobbling to meaningful and thoughful discourse about the issue.

    The Navy could rape their women folk, and they would proclaim in was a necessary sacrifice for defense of the country, which is absolute stupid talk.

    Instead of being lemmings, think for yourselves because your collective couch-potato brains obviously need the exercise.

    Also know that Bill argues from both sides of the APZ fence — anything to make a little fire and thereby promote ego-manisim.”

    Reply

    1. avatar

      BillB, how about a little show of journalistic objectivity by posting a similar comment across your friends’ mischevious commentary. Not likely, huh.

      Okay, BillB, I have been nearly startled into a head-on several times by jets before they conditioned me into knowing not to flinch when in certain areas of the island.

      So you BillB let’s get this straight, you are all in favor of not notifying innocent drivers of sudden unexpected noise events and instead letting the head-ons occur.

      It nearly happened twice with me; it’s going to happen for real, dude, albeit the cause will be quickly swept under the political carpet.

      Reply

      1. avatar

        BobBee stated:

        “I have been nearly startled into a head-on several times by jets”.

        So you weren’t actually startled, but just about startled.

        I’ve been living on this island for 25 years and have never heard of a head-on accident being caused by jets. You sound like an easily distracted wimp!

        Let me guess: you’ve never been in the military (in fact, you hate the military), you sport a pony tail and earrings, you draw a check from the government and carry a “man purse”. A gun shot within 25 ft. would probably traumatize you. How close am I?

        Reply

        1. avatar

          Yeah..let’s hope this person never drives in the city. With average city traffic noise in the 80db to 90db range it seems this person would be a danger to be on the roads in a city. Imagine this person driving in a contruction zone where a jackhammer may be in use and heaven forbid an emergency vehicle with sirens being close… maybe this explains the accidents we have been seeing on the Island?

          Reply

      2. avatar

        BobBee wrote:

        “I have been nearly startled into a head-on several times by jets…”

        The one time I have ACTUALLY been started by a jet taking off or landing around here is when I was jogging down the road towards the “back gate” at NAS Whidbey Island, with a set of earbuds in my ears playing rather loud rock n’ roll music.

        As I jogged along that road directly at the approach end of Runway 7, an EA-6B in landing configuration passed DIRECTLY over my head, on its way to land on the end of the runway directly to my right.

        Due to having the loud and rock n’ roll music playing in my ears, I did not hear the approaching jet until it was directly over my head, at maybe 125′ altitude and at a high power setting.

        However, nobody driving near the OLF – or anywhere else for that matter on Whidbey Island- EXCEPT on that ONE road ON NAS Whidbey Island (Ault Field) itself – comes anywhere near a runway end such as I described above.

        There have not been any “head-ons” on that road on the NASWI -, and there have not been any “head-ons” anywhere else on Whidbey Island due to aircraft activities.

        If your concern for motorists is genuine, I’d suggest instead signs that say something like:

        “Deer road-crossing hazard zone next 25 miles! Use extreme caution, especially after dark!”

        I had $3,900 damage done to my vehicle a few summers ago due to a large buck darting at full speed across Highway 525, and into the front of my van, when I was coming back from the Island County fair.

        Literally dozens of motorists on Whidbey Island have “head-ons” with deer on the island each and every year. In one other example of this occurring, an Oak Harbor judge even wound up being airlifted to Harborview with rather serious injuries after hitting an island deer while riding a motorcycle!

        If your signs were about the island deer hazard, at least they would then be about an ACTUAL hazard – not an imaginary one.

        Moreover, IF some motorists were actually to take the silly advice of wearing hearing protection while driving their vehicles along HWY 20, doing so would itself create a potentially unsafe conditions, for a plethora of potential reasons.

        I can imagine, for example, the unlikely scenario where such a person, perhaps wearing 30 dB sound attenuation, does have an airplane pass directly over their head when driving along the extended runway end at NOLF Coupeville.

        In that case, the normal onset noise of an approaching aircraft would be severely muffled, but it COULD perhaps startle the driver when it finally passed directly overhead, if that were to occur.

        Therefore, what “Concerned Island Citizens” suggests to people is NOT in their personal safety interest whatsoever as drivers (i.e. to artificially diminish one’s sense of hearing while driving).

        What “Concerned Island Citizens” suggest that people should be doing (i.e. wearing hearing protection while driving along HAY 20) seems likely to increase the probability of the situation where a driver may be startled by a loud noise that he or she would have likely perceived much sooner had they not been wearing such protective gear. That seems like poor advice from “Concerned Island Citizens”.

        Reply

        1. avatar

          Hard to imagine this person driving during a lightening/thunder storm eh?

          Reply

          1. avatar

            It’s difficult to imagine anyone who actually knows what “Concerned Citizens” is referring to actually taking their irresponsible advice to artificially make themselves practically deaf when driving along the highway due to unnecessarily wearing hearing protection.

            The ear “mufflers” depicted on their Jones Road sign appears to be very much like those used when target shooting with firearms, and they DO extremely attenuate sound when worn properly.

            Then again, if someone who did not know what they were talking about were to take the advice of “Concerned Citizens”, and then that driver had a vehicular accident due to having made themselves practically deaf via artificial means, maybe they would have grounds to sue “Concerned Citizens” for misleading them into a potentially unsafe driving situation by following their roadside-marketed advice.

            An implausible scenario?

            I can’t say for sure how probable it may be, but if such an accident were to occur, “Concerned Citizens” had better hope that such a potential lawsuit does not place at risk his/her ownership of the property or properties on which these irresponsible signs rest.

            Concerned Citizen “BobBee” claims that:

            “…it’s going to happen for real, dude, albeit the cause will be quickly swept under the political carpet.”

            Maybe, if it were to happen, it will instead be swept directly to your front door(s).

            Be careful what you wish for, “Concerned Citizens”.

            Reply

      3. avatar

        BobBee,

        You must be blind since there are “Caution Low Flying Aircraft” signs posted on roads around OLF.

        Reply

      4. avatar

        BobBee wrote:

        “BillB, how about a little show of journalistic objectivity by posting a similar comment across your friends’ mischevious commentary.”

        I can read those charts for myself:
        http://www.islandpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/N4120.jpg

        I do see where an EA-18G is louder than an EA-6B on “Takeoff and Approach” at 1000′ away.

        I can also see that an EA-18G is quieter at all altitudes than an EA-6B on the downwind leg of an FCLP pattern.

        Different airplanes have different noise patterns. No surprises here. The data has been around and known for years.

        Your buddies recently posted a YouTube video of an EA-18G in the FCLP pattern at NOLF Coupeville on its downwind leg. However, when doing so, you / they failed to mention that this was, in fact, a quieter experience than if it had been an EA-6B in that landing pattern instead.

        Maybe that video is worth another look?

        North Whidbey Little League Patmore Road ball field users promulgate video of EA-18G in OLF landing pattern

        (In that video, the little kid going around on the scooter is a nice touch. I especially love it when the person holding the equipment says something about the noise not being good “for the kids”. Apparently, however, no adults present were at all concerned about the little kid on the scooter RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM as the airplane went around its pattern, since, in reality, they knew it it was a a NON-ISSUE).

        Reply

    2. avatar

      The only “problem” the authors here see is the level of misinformation presented by the anti OLF people. Of course when people comment about the Navy raping their women folk and proclaiming that the rape would be overlooked due to national defense what else can we say?

      The Coupeville area has been overtaken by a form of mass hysteria which brings out the weirdest people…

      Reply

    3. avatar

      The absolute stupid talk is from BobBee, Mikie Monson and Garrett Newkook.

      Reply

  8. avatar

    BobBee wrote:

    “We can pull together to work towards a real doable solution”

    Frankly, an offer like this from people who also claim (as BobBee has in this thread)…

    “The Navy could rape their women folk, and they would proclaim in (sic) was a necessary sacrifice for defense of the country”

    …speaks for itself.

    It is very likely the only so-called “doable solution” these folks want is to be handed $$ from the Federal Government due to them having had to persevere whatever made up hardship they are trying to create from a bunch of disjointed factoids about naval aviation operations on Whidbey Island.

    And, who are the folks who are seeking this monetary gain from their rich “Uncle Sam“?

    BobBee has already indicated to us with whom he or she is in cahoots: people closely affiliated with:

    “…Admirals Cove, the kids ballpark, WAIF, the new transit terminal, the dog park, the east side of Coupeville, the recylce center, and not least, the island’s only national park.”

    Reply

  9. avatar

    At the very least one who wishes to have a civil discussion about this issue should come forward without misleading the public. There is NO “non profit organization” registered in the State of Washington in the name of “Concerned Island Citizens”. Although they do have a website that implies they are an organization – http://www.concernedislandcitizens.org.

    They are clearly hiding inside “a plain brown wrapper” to conceal not just their own identities but others who are assisting them financially. This certainly gives the lie to every statement they make. They are not a credible or believable source. It would have been more honorable for them to call themselves simply, Plain Brown Wrapper Group – You Don’t Know What You’re Getting!

    Reply

    1. avatar

      In a recent email from “info@concernedislandcitizens.org”, it was stated:

      “We are a private group of concerned citizen’s. We have no funding and are NOT a PAC. We have no ties to any political party, elected officials, nor candidates past or present. We have no officers.”

      So, yes, these folks are attempting to use anonymity as one of their tools.

      How far they think they can take that anonymity will be interesting to see.

      According to one person who alluded to the Jones Road sign (a comment made over at the WNT forum), that Jones Road sign appears to be on property well known to belong to the Newkirk family (e.g. Garrett Newkirk).

      Also, the person who, last week, first mentioned the existence of the sign near the OLF to me, today also indicated to me that the sign now at Jones Road HAD BEEN the original sign being used near the OLF.

      Why “Concerned Citizens” subsequently moved the original OLF sign to Jones Road and then replaced it with a different sign is unclear.

      The original sign near the OLF (the one now located at Jones Road) has both a telephone number and web site contact information, but the sign now near the OLF is void of either a web site address and / or telephone number.

      I am curious why the signs were swapped.

      I am curious to know who owns the property near the OLF that hosts that particualr sign.

      Maybe “BobBee” or someone else from “Concerned Citizens” can come on here and delineate:

      1. Who owns each of the properties on which these various signs are located?

      2. Why was the original sign near the OLF sign subsequently moved to Jones Road?

      Reply

    2. avatar

      The .org domain name does not signify that you are an actual legal organization. We also use the .org extension here at Island Politics and do not have an official organization attached to it either. An organization in the eyes of ICANN who is the “boss” in charge of the internet naming conventions is whatever you wish it to be…

      They are using anonymity as one of their tools but all’s I can say to that is Welcome to the Internet!

      Reply

      1. avatar

        I was double checking with the SOS because on the signs, it implies they are an organization. Doesn’t have the usual www. to go with the name.org. I’m sure you looked at their website and there is no way you can see who they are. Anyone who support this “org” is taking a huge risk.

        Reply

        1. avatar

          At this juncture, about all we know about these folks, besides that they like to put up signs along the road suggesting to motorists to undertake potentially dangerous driving habits due to imaginary driving hazards, is that their official organizational name appears to be:

          “Washington State Whidbey Island Concerned Citizens”

          Here’s a current snapshot of their home page…

          http://www.islandpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Concerned_Island_Citizens_Home_Page.jpg

          ..including the phrase “Navel Air Station” in all its glory.

          Reply

        2. avatar

          Web site registration is hidden

          Domain ID:D168213782-LROR
          Domain Name:CONCERNEDISLANDCITIZENS.ORG
          Created On:20-Mar-2013 22:02:29 UTC
          Last Updated On:20-Mar-2013 22:02:30 UTC
          Expiration Date:20-Mar-2014 22:02:29 UTC
          Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, LLC (R91-LROR)
          Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
          Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
          Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
          Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
          Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
          Registrant ID:CR139285877
          Registrant Name:Registration Private
          Registrant Organization:Domains By Proxy, LLC
          Registrant Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
          Registrant Street2:14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
          Registrant Street3:
          Registrant City:Scottsdale
          Registrant State/Province:Arizona
          Registrant Postal Code:85260
          Registrant Country:US
          Registrant Phone:+1.4806242599
          Registrant Phone Ext.:
          Registrant FAX:+1.4806242598
          Registrant FAX Ext.:
          Registrant Email:CONCERNEDISLANDCITIZENS.ORG@domainsbyproxy.com
          Admin ID:CR139285879
          Admin Name:Registration Private
          Admin Organization:Domains By Proxy, LLC
          Admin Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
          Admin Street2:14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
          Admin Street3:
          Admin City:Scottsdale
          Admin State/Province:Arizona
          Admin Postal Code:85260
          Admin Country:US
          Admin Phone:+1.4806242599
          Admin Phone Ext.:
          Admin FAX:+1.4806242598
          Admin FAX Ext.:
          Admin Email:CONCERNEDISLANDCITIZENS.ORG@domainsbyproxy.com
          Tech ID:CR139285878
          Tech Name:Registration Private
          Tech Organization:Domains By Proxy, LLC
          Tech Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
          Tech Street2:14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
          Tech Street3:
          Tech City:Scottsdale
          Tech State/Province:Arizona
          Tech Postal Code:85260
          Tech Country:US
          Tech Phone:+1.4806242599
          Tech Phone Ext.:
          Tech FAX:+1.4806242598
          Tech FAX Ext.:
          Tech Email:CONCERNEDISLANDCITIZENS.ORG@domainsbyproxy.com
          Name Server:NS75.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
          Name Server:NS76.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
          Name Server:
          Name Server:
          Name Server:
          Name Server:
          Name Server:
          Name Server:
          Name Server:
          Name Server:
          Name Server:
          Name Server:
          Name Server:
          DNSSEC:Unsigned

          Reply

        3. avatar

          I do agree about the risk of monetarily supporting an unknown entity, but it is not uncommon to find anonymously registered domain names on the internet. There are many reasons to register a domain name anonymously: spam from your registration information and identity theft are, to me, the primary reasons.

          We did register the domain name of IP anonymously, but we do maintain our Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice as is required to protect us against copyright infringement claims and website “takedowns” for infringement claims, so anonymity is not the goal with us.

          Anyone can find out who the administrator of IP is because we publish the link the the DMCA notice directly on our home page. As it leads to the below link it is pretty hard to hide :)
          http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agents/i/island_politics.pdf

          Obviousl,y though, the people who own the website in question are doing so to hide their identity, because there is zero identifiable information on the website.

          They, too, could fall under DMCA copyright infringement if not careful…I do notice that they are using as a background a copyrighted image from Microsoft, with the copyright notice intact (see bottom of page), this could result in a take down notice to their ISP and without a Registered Agent to answer it would be an automatic shutdown of their website…

          Reply

  10. avatar

    Earlier in this thread, BobBee asked for:

    “meaningful and thoughful discourse about the issue”.

    I have not tried to digest this below document in its entirety, but it seems to me “Concerned Citizens” should at least be concerned with what is said in:

    WSDOT: Highway Advertising Control
    http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-95/HighwayAdvertisingControl.pdf

    The intro:

    “47.42.010 Declaration of purpose

    The control of signs in areas adjacent to state highways of this state is hereby declared to be necessary to promote the public health, safety, welfare, convenience and enjoyment of public travel, to protect the public investment in the interstate system and other state highways, and to attract visitors to this state by conserving the natural beauty of areas adjacent to the interstate system, and of scenic areas adjacent to state highways upon which they travel in great numbers, and to insure that information in the specific interest of the traveling public is presented safely and effectively.”

    If one of these “Concerned Citizens” signs actually led to a lawsuit in which damages were sought due to someone having followed the advice of “Concerned Citizens” to wear hearing protection while driving along state HWY 20 on Whidbey Island, who believes that a “jury of peers” or, for that matter, a judge, would actually agree with “BobBee” and “Concerned Citizens” that their signs somehow improve public safety?

    After all, BobBee says:

    “…it’s going to happen for real, dude…”

    You have thus now effectively injected your misleading roadside signs directly into such a scenario, and since you have no officers and are not a corporation or a PAC of any type, the aftermath would all come down on you folks personally, and any anonymity you think you now enjoy will be swept away by the power of subpoena.

    For real, “dude”.

    Then again, what do I know?

    According to “BobBee”, we at IP are all just a bunch of “collective couch-potato brains”.

    Reply

    1. avatar

      BillB – you make a very valid point. If someone actually wears earplugs due to the advice of the signs and can’t hear horns honking or emergency vehicle sirens, there could be serious consequences. The signs are frivolous, foolhardy and dangerous. DOT should remove them at once!

      Reply

      1. avatar

        I have no idea what the folks at the WSDOT might actually think, but I did give them the opportunity to chime in, by sending them the below:

        “Here is an article I wrote about some road signs recently erected along WA State Highway 20 on Whidbey Island.

        “”Concerned Island Citizens” post “DANGER! Sound Hazard Zone” signs”

        http://www.islandpolitics.org/?p=10425

        As absurd as I feel the signs themselves are, there is perhaps the possibility that they might mislead someone into actually wearing hearing protection while driving along highway 20 due to an alleged “sound hazard zone” extending some 25 miles in either direction from these signs.

        What do you think?

        Are these signs simply a case of a private citizens’ group exercising their 1st Amendment Rights by putting up signs on their own property that people can read while driving along, or….?”

        They have my email and phone number via which to reply, if they want to do so.

        Reply

        1. avatar

          Maybe “Concerned Citizens” should contact WSDOT, too?

          Nah…ignorance is bliss.

          In fact, “Concerned Citizens”, please do stay especially ignorant of this tidbit from page 51 of the “Washington
          Driver Guide

          “Do not drive with head or earphones that cover or go in your ears. These are illegal in Washington…”

          Reply

          1. avatar

            I am beginning to think that “Concerned Citizens” could give a hoot about WA State driving laws!

            I went to their contacts page and sent them a message that said:

            “Hey! Don’t you know that is illegal in WA State to drive with head or earphones that cover or go in your ears? In fact, that is pretty common knowledge. So, why are you posting signs suggesting to motorists that they should BREAK THE LAW?”

            Reply

        2. avatar

          Here’s the reply I got today from the WSDOT:

          “Greetings Bill, thanks for the interesting question/comment. By way of introduction, my name is Pat O’Leary and I manage the WSDOT Highway Advertising Control program.

          I had another comment on these signs last month. I believe your intuition is leading you to the right conclusion about the whether or not the signs would be regulated by state (Scenic Vistas Act RCW 47.42) or federal (23 CFR 750) advertising control laws.

          WSDOT generally leaves this kind of sign alone because there is no specific language in the law that prohibits them. Personal speech is protected by the 1st amendment and there are number of signs across the state that simply voice opinions or concerns about general society or religion or the government or some other button-pushing topic. The most notorious is probably the ‘Uncle Sam’ sign on I-5 in Lewis County south of Chehalis. WSDOT attempted to remove this sign under purview of the Scenic Vistas Act back in the 1980s. WSDOT lost that case in the State Supreme Court and the loss established a kind of unwritten policy here at WSDOT; while some or many may find such signs to be alarming or uncalled for or uncouth, when considering the case law, it’s likely a very poor investment of the tax-payer’s dollars to attempt to abate such a sign.

          I am not familiar with the local agency sign code where the signs have been erected. You may want to present your comments to the city or county of jurisdiction where the signs are located and see what happens.

          Hope this information is helpful, thanks again for your email.

          Regards,

          Pat O’Leary
          WSDOT Highway Advertising Control Program
          (360) 705-7296″

          Reply

          1. avatar

            Here’s a couple of examples of the things that get posted at the “the ‘Uncle Sam’ sign on I-5 in Lewis County south of Chehalis” to which Pat alludes:

            http://otrwjam.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/dsc00508.jpg

            http://otrwjam.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/dsc00501.jpg

            Reply

  11. avatar

    Suggest when you pass one of these signs that you lay on your horn in appreciation for The Sound of Freedom, appreciation that the federal government is actually performing one of its Constitutionally mandated duties, and for the expression of free speech exhibited by the sign makers and displayers that we also might not otherwise notice their deficient attitudes.

    God bless America!

    Reply

    1. avatar

      That could get you ticketed…

      RCW 46.37.380
      The driver of a motor vehicle shall when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation give audible warning with his or her horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.

      RCW 46.37.010
      (2) It is a traffic infraction for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required under this chapter or rules issued by the Washington state patrol.

      Not likely, but it’s still illegal…just sayin’

      Reply

      1. avatar

        Got it! Thank you.

        Reply

  12. avatar

    As an individual that is currently looking at purchasing a home on Whidbey Island in the next month or two, this intense discussion by both sides of the issue is certainly spirited to say the least. My wife and I are moving from a larger community that has a very heavy military presence (Colorado Springs). The economic impact (and risk of loss of those dollars to the Colorado Springs community during budget fights in Congress) is a real issue here. Quality of life in Colorado Springs is another real issue as communities adjacent to the army and air force bases have specific issues, including recent FAA change that increased training flights of USAFA cadets training flights over a well established neighborhood.
    To me, an “outsider” but hope to be a member of the Whidbey Island community soon, the discussion has taken the path of not resolving a situation but investing a lot of energy walking a lower road or two. Is either side of the debate offering up “solutions” that make both sides uphappy, i.e. compromise. Brainstorm solutions more, character disparaging (spelling?) and data disputing less. Park a mothballed carrier off Ault Field to practice on? Practice touch and goes on another field that is in less bucolic area? That type of problem solving or brainstorming might lead to both sides getting to a compromise. Just a thought.

    Reply

Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>