As I started to read Phil Dinsmore’s letter about the golf course in the Jan. 11 Leader, I was like — wait, there’s a disconnect here.

Phil says “for thousands of years this area was probably an important hunting and food-gathering area for the native S’Klallam, as well as a portage.” Then he says, “Because it is owned by the city, what happens on that property is determined by the community at large.”

But what changed between the historic S’Klallam use of the land, and city ownership? Was the land exchanged in a fair bargain, and was that bargain kept in good faith by both sides? Or, was the land taken by underhanded means that were not well-understood by the tribal representatives? In a world in which justice and fairness had prevailed since the arrival of white settlers in the Northwest, who would own the land in the city of Port Townsend now?

I personally do not know the history of white settlement of Port Townsend all that well. I think there are both city and tribal historians who could shed light on the question. My guess is that at least part of Port Townsend’s land area should rightfully belong to the tribes. There are large swaths of our city that would be difficult to return to tribal ownership now, such as my house and lot. But there are 58 acres of city-controlled land, in an area that was once used for food gathering and portage, that could be returned in one piece. Then the ancestral owners could make the critical decisions about what to do with it.

This seems like a question that should be given serious consideration. I am curious why it does not seem to be on the table in the city decision-making process that is currently underway.

Richard Berg
PORT TOWNSEND