Dear editor:

In response to Dossie Overfield’s July 10th letter to the editor, she made the claim I misrepresented the facts and made personal attacks, so I am responding. 

First off, when Dossie said the timeline was three months, it was in fact eight months. On April 18 I submitted the first preliminary legal description plat, and the final approval was Dec. 6. So much for “a reasonable turnaround.”

Second, the claim it cost only $175 for a “thorough review including agency coordination, verifying legal and technical details — all at a fraction of the actual cost.” The pins, stones, metes and bounds were already in place. None of that has changed to this day. The so-called legal issues had to be solved by me before the land could be sold. That’s what the title company does when they issue a clear title including legal access, mortgage free and utility easements before closing. The county had all the information they needed to start to process my application to split off the 10 acres from 110 acres on April 18. Instead, I was forced to give the county new surveys numerous times, creating numerous communications between me, the attorney, the surveyor and the county; all preapplication. 

The application was dated Sept. 8. Next were the public notices, two rounds in the newspaper. Then came the public meetings going on for weeks because I had to get on the docket and then it had to be the correct meeting, also causing more delays. Further, why is the county protecting a bureaucracy involving what should be handled in the private sector, including clear title, easements, perc tests, school bus pick up, garbage, etc?

As for the $175 stated by Dossie, thousands of dollars were paid out by me to the surveyor, the attorney, etc. It doesn’t matter if the county received it, they created the unnecessary cost. If they had gone ahead with their part instead of getting in the middle of my part, which I am the private sector, it would have cost much less and would have been finished months earlier. Dossie in her letter stated the county is protecting long-term interests of all parties including the public, future landowners, and creating safety and legal certainty. It’s not possible and if there were any conflicts after closing, the county would have washed their hands of it.

It should also be mentioned I have a well-known associate who has dealt with the county and is afraid of lawfare by the county in future dealings. Is this how our local government is supposed to work for ‘We the People”? I think not!

Dossie’s claim I misrepresented the facts is untrue. She portrays herself and the county as protecting the public. What I want to know is why she promotes more regulations, bigger bureaucracy, less private property rights and more taxes? Marxist ideals all of them. 

Phil Campbell

Powell