Letters to the Editor

Letter to the Editor | PenMet’s Madrona website postings

The “Threat”

PenMet has posted a lot of information on its website regarding Madrona — even devoting an entire page just to the golf course. I’d like to comment on many of these postings, but there’s so much to say, I’ll have to publish my comments in more than one Letter to the Editor. In this Letter, I’m addressing the fact that PenMet has multiple postings on its website about ZTM issuing “threats” to PenMet. Let’s take a dive into that oft repeated claim by PenMet.  First, the postings:

1.  The current owner of the 14-acre parcel, ZTM, has threatened to develop the land into 72 residential housing units…

2. The current owner of the 14-acre parcel, ZTM, has threatened to develop the land into 72 residential housing units, which would prevent Madrona Links Golf Course from operating as a public 18-hole championship golf course and impact the surrounding neighborhoods

3. Unfortunately, ZTM’s threat of development and their unwillingness to engage in good faith negotiations have endangered the future of Madrona Links and have left PenMet Parks with no other option but to consider proceeding with acquiring the property through eminent domain.

4. ZTM has threatened to develop the land into 72 residential housing units, which would prevent Madrona Links Golf Course from operating as a public 18-hole championship golf course and impact the surrounding neighborhoods.

5. Moreover, ZTM has threatened the future of Madrona Links by suggesting they will develop the 14-acre property into 72 housing units.

Clearly, PenMet feels strongly that ZTM has issued a threat that jeopardizes the future of Madrona, but was there actually a threat?  I filed a FOIA request with PenMet asking for its support for the five statements posted on their website.  Fortunately, PenMet responded quickly (that’s not always the case).  In that response, PenMet referred me to a news article written by Ed Friedrich about a meeting ZTM held at Hackers on August 13, 2024 (the article was published on August 15).  In that report, Mr. Friedrich paraphrased Mr. Rosenbloom of ZTM as follows:

Rosenbloom tried to calm them, saying he could build 72 houses on the property and rake in millions of dollars, but that’s not what he wants to do. 

Is this a threat or just a statement of fact?  Early on in my investigation of Madrona, Mr. Rosenbloom told me personally that he would readily agree that if PenMet were to sell the larger parcel to ZTM he and his partner would agree to a deed restriction limiting the use of both PenMet’s property and ZTM’s own 14 acres as a golf course. Mr. Rosenbloom has now publicly confirmed that statement by making a formal offer, in writing, to purchase PenMet’s property with a restriction on both PenMet’s and ZTM’s properties that the two parcels would only be used as a golf course for the next 50 years.  I ask you:  Does this confirm PenMet’s assertion that what Mr. Rosenbloom said was a threat or does it shatter it?

But, as long as we’re talking about threats, there is more to the story.  Let’s look at one more document.

PenMet’s attorney sent an offer letter to ZTM dated July 18, 2024 (more than a month prior to the Hackers meeting). In that letter, the attorney said:

Although PenMet Parks is authorized by statute to condemn property, this offer is not made under threat.

Because of this statement, PenMet proudly posted this on its website:

This offer was not made under the threat of eminent domain and was PenMet Parks’ good faith attempt to engage the owners in an arm’s-length negotiation to purchase the property.

Why is this “reminder” in a letter containing a, supposedly, good faith offer? Can one consider this a “threat” if ZTM does not sell to PenMet? I thought that was a reasonable interpretation when I first read it and now the interpretation has proven to be true hasn’t it? PenMet followed through on that threat. Reminder:  Mr. Rosenbloom showed me he is a man of integrity by following through on his commitment to assure everyone that he has no intention of developing either the 14 acres or PenMet’s parcel. Do you consider PenMet’s attorney’s subtle reminder as evidence of PenMet’s “good faith” offer? I will leave it up to you to determine if you would consider the attorney’s statement regarding condemnation a threat…a threat that has taken place.

The emphasis that PenMet has placed on the alleged “threat” by Mr. Rosenbloom when coupled with the lack of any reasonable support for that claim (especially taking into account subsequent events), has created a lack of confidence for me in all the other claims made by PenMet. I have serious issues with many other statements as well and will be addressing them. It would be my advice to take PenMet’s Madrona statements with a good dose of skepticism.

Craig McLaughlin

Fox Island

Gig Harbor Now accepts signed letters to the editor of up to about 800 words. Submit them on the Contact form by selecting “Letter to the Editor” from the Purpose dropdown.