- About Us
COER president has no right to cry ‘victim’ | Letters
This is in response to Citizens of Ebey’s Reserve President Michael Monson’s Jan. 24 letter to the editor.
In his letter, Mr. Monson continues ad nauseam his straw-man fallacy. Yet again, he misrepresents what Form 22W accomplished, which was to warn prospective home buyers, Mr. Monson included as we all know, of “significant airport noise.”
He cannot simply state that Form 22W is a “nondisclosure,” and then use that as a means to attack the disclosure process as a whole.
The bottom line for Mr. Monson can be boiled down using the following three passages from his own letter:
“Noise victims like me have claimed that we never signed a noise disclosure or a proper one.
“When Windermere Real Estate Coupeville offered to check my personal file in their office for a ‘noise disclosure’ late this last December, I agreed. They found a [Form 22W airport noise disclosure] document I initialed 10 years ago.
“This so called ‘Form 22W’ said nothing about jets, or the OLF and only made reference to ‘airport noise.’”
He refers to himself as a “noise victim.” The definition of a victim, as per a Random House Dictionary, is one whom was “… deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency.”
He was duly warned of the possibility of significant airport noise by virtue of his having initialed a form disclosing that very thing.
Is the form vague? Yes. However, jet noise falls under a reasonable expectation of what might constitute ‘airport noise,’ notwithstanding the fact that the airport in question is a military installation.
Therefore, Monson’s stipulation that Form 22W is worthless and is a “nondisclosure” does not somehow magically make it so.
As a final thought, if Mr. Monson is as concerned about full disclosure as he claims to be, perhaps it is time he discloses that which has been obvious to a great many on both sides of the debate since his initialed Form 22W was discovered, which is that he is more concerned with having been exposed as being someone whom was duly warned.
This is contrary, of course, to his claims otherwise — and thus can no longer play the “victim card” more so than he is concerned about the level of detail in a disclosure form warning prospective home buyers of the possibility of significant airport noise.