North Kitsap Forum Explodes with Coroner’s Race

by Johnny Walker

@KingstonJW on Twitter

It was a packed house at the Greater Hansville Community Center Friday night, as 2010 political candidates vied for undecided votes with only three weeks left on the campaign trail. Co-hosted by the Community Center on the week of its 69^th birthday with the League of Women Voters of Kitsap County, the evening began extraordinarily well with the local tradition of pie and genuine fellowship that small communities love to evoke. Unfortunately, the levity did not last.

The surprises came quick for this forum as moderator Fred Nelson made the rounds to turn off video cameras in the room. A last minute rule made by the hosts decided to censure accurate reporting and accountability of this public forum by video. To be fair to Nelson, he was clearly the messenger. I’ll follow up on this unusual hindrance at another time. This entry will cover Congressional and State House commentary with one exception at the tail.

First up under strict rules of time and engagement, were the federal candidates for Washington’s 1^st Congressional District; Jay Inslee (D) and challenger James Watkins (R).

Jay Inslee and James Watkins continue to offer clear voter choices to the future of Congressional leadership, accountability and self-government. Inslee blamed the prior Bush administration at least three times for the country’s financial woes but failed to acknowledge his own role in the Democratic majority during that time. Using a blame and attack strategy to deflect from his own culpability, Inslee even accused Watkins of being against protecting health care coverage for pre-existing conditions. The accusation cherry picked the massive Obama-care package Watkins would seek to repeal and replace, a program the majority of Americans disapprove of, and echoed the false and misleading rhetoric most common to a candidate on his heels. James Watkins had perhaps the most impassioned speech of the exchange when debating the viability of social security’s future. Responding to an accusation by Inslee that Watkins would seek to put social security in the greedy hands of banks and investment firms, Watkins countered that he would protect social security from the “greed and avarice of career politicians” that have borrowed and spent the people’s security on other programs over the years. Watkins also pointed out that Jay Inslee voted with the majority Democratic Party to turn down efforts by the Bush administration to provide oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an exemption that apparently remains in the Inslee supported finance reform legislation.

The Washington State House candidates for 23^rd District were equally polar and contentious in their positions. Sherry Appleton (D) and Christine Rolfes (D) continue to acknowledge the challenges of balancing the budget but make no indication that the State has a spending problem as the result of their progressive ideologies. This should be a problem for independent voters. Challengers Pete DeBoer (R) and James Olsen (R) are strong advocates of greater fiscal accountability and job creation. One clear indicator of party divisions erupted over I-1053, which would reinstate a super majority vote for the legislature to raise taxes (recall that the Democratic majority suspended the 2/3-majority rule earlier this year). Neither Appleton or Rolfes support reinstating the rule, with Sherry Appleton suggesting that if our democracy were really about majority rule, then a 2/3-majority was an inappropriate hindrance because 17 people could “stand in the way” of the majority [of legislators]. Challenger Pete DeBoer smartly countered that if it were really about majority rule, legislators should respect the majority will of the people and honor the 2/3-majority rule. James Olsen piles on by telling the audience that the 2/3-majority does not tie the hands of the legislature but forces them to work together” instead of just raising taxes. These are two markedly different positions and should be clear indicators for voters to follow.

I’m passing over the other County offices for now so I can focus a brief discussion on the Kitsap County Coroner’s race. I actually hesitate in this because I don’t want to give the more inflammatory details of this story unnecessary traction, but the story is important regardless for the lessons we could learn.

In an incredibly ill devised misstep, challenger Pete Favazza (D) lobbed several personal integrity and morals accusations against incumbent Coroner Greg Sandstrom (R) that immediately backfired. I will not detail the accusations; suffice the audience was universally appalled. The accusations were highly personal, embarrassing, and lacked relevance to the forum. The smear tactic was an obvious and epic fail of disastrous proportions for his campaign in the north end and easily overwhelmed any possible value the man could have had in the office. I emphasize “could have had” because I can’t imagine he’ll get any rational voter support from North Kitsap residents as a result of his atrocious behavior, regardless of qualifications.

In an attempt to be fair to Favazza, personal integrity is an important qualification for any office and can be a barometer for how a candidate might be expected to behave legally and ethically. That said, the lesson here is that questions of integrity must also be substantial, substantiated, and relevant. American voters are increasingly intolerant with the politics of destruction, false, and misleading accusations that lack relevance to performance in office. Favazza has become the victim of his own sword.

As the result of Pete Favazza’s public behavior, I call upon him to immediately issue a public apology to Greg Sandstrom and disqualify himself from the Coroner’s race. He has publically demonstrated a sufficient lack of personal integrity and ethics to manage sensitive information so necessary to an investigative office, has maliciously attempted to exploit the personal life of a public servant and his family for gain, and in doing so has most certainly caused personal, emotional harm to the friends and family of Greg Sandstrom. And all of it unnecessarily so. Pete Favazza earns from me an early “NO VOTE” level of confidence in a race that in most years would fly under the radar.

Know your candidates and vote. November is coming.

Pass The Class Hatred, Comrade

Speaking of anti-bourgeoisie manifestos, did anyone catch some of the Pullman League of Women Voter's ballyhooed "non-partisanship" on display in Lenna Harding's colmnn in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News today?

What kind of people can be happy with failure to address some of our country's most basic problems? It is this smug head-in-the-sand satisfaction with the status quo that the author of that message shares with our current leadership that has got us deeper into the morass that I have described. Things are just peachy with them. They have their flashy gas-guzzling SUVs or sports cars along with speedy boats and ATVs that tear up our pristine wilderness. They have enough money to buy corn-fed beef and the latest electronic gadget when it hits the market.

These same head-in-the-sand types often are the same folks who equate pledging allegiance, flag-waving, wearing flag lapel pins with patriotism, and who decry those who don't follow protocol or criticize our leaders as unpatriotic. Like the flowers that bloom in the spring - tra la - these have nothing to do with the case.

Aren't you glad that so-called "progressives" are not bigoted, don't question others patriotism, don't play to stereotypes, don't practice the politics of division, and don't encourage class warfare?

Let me skewer the myth of the wealthy, selfish conservative one more time. A recent study by Arthur C. Brooks, an economist at Syracuse University, found that on average, liberal families annually earn 6 percent more than conservative families. Furthermore, conservative households give 30 percent more money to charity than liberal households.

Liberal Fascist Quote of the Day

I recognize the subject of handguns, assault weapons and repeating rifles is controversial. The term "gun control" is a buzzword that seems to shut off all rational debate and thought on the subject. These are not proper hunting weapons. They are designed to kill people - as many as possible. Personally, I feel that ownership of them by ordinary civilians should be banned. If this means amending the Constitution - so be it.

- Lenna Harding, "Gun laws should be balanced with public safety," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, March 6, 2008

Very, very scary.

The League of Anti-Wal-Mart Vipers

Last night, the streets of the Paradise Ridge subdivision in Pullman were filled with the laughter of hundreds of trick-or-treaters.

Many of those children, including my own, after consuming far too much candy, settled down to sleep in safe, clean, new affordable homes in that same housing development.

But if Cheryl Morgan had had her way, my house, and all the others up here, would still be the site of Steve Mader's wheat stubble.

I first had a hint of this latest League of Women Voters' moonbattery back in June at Dino Rossi's Washington Idea Bank event. Pullman LWV President Alice Schroeder's great "idea" was wouldn't it be nice if the Growth Management Act and Critical Area Ordinances applied all over Washington, not just the urban areas. The Growth Management Act and Critical Area Ordinances, as you may know, are the satanic spawn of Olympia Democrats that have urban King County residents saddled with nationally-ranked high home prices and traffic congestion, while rural King County residents fear to trim weeds on their own property.

Why in the hell would we need more discussion about development in Pullman? Haven't three years, three appeals, three days of public hearings, 150 plus stories and editorials in the Daily News, innumerable press conferences and press releases, petitions from people in Perth, Australia, position papers, booths at the Lentil Festival, and about a gazillion angry letters to the editor bashing Wal-Mart been enough? Is there anyone in Pullman who thinks PARD has not had more than ample opportunity to make their case, over and over and over again, ad nauseam? Isn't developing anything in Pullman in particular, and Washington State in general, hard enough already? I quote from a story in today's Daily Evergreen:

Affordable Housing Glenn Crellin [sic], director of the Washington Center for Real Estate Research at WSU, said buying a first home is out of reach for many Pullman residents who earn a median income of approximately $33,600.

Housing in Whitman County is one of the least affordable in Washington, even though housing prices in Pullman are about $90,000 less than the average $316,700 in Washington, Crellin told the city council.

Many factors contribute to the problem. Pullman’s high student population lowers the median income, while relatively well-paid university employees drive up the price of housing with their demand. Interest rates, which reached 40-year lows in 2005, are again on the rise. Although land is comparatively cheap in Pullman, there is a lack of property owners interested in developing their land.

From a development point of view, building a home in Pullman is more expensive than in other areas, said Steve White, president of Coeur d’Alene-based Copper Basin Construction. Issues such as tough soil quality, a limited construction season, a shortage of laborers and a lack of locally available building materials make construction in Pullman more expensive then elsewhere.

“There is no magic wand we can wave to reduce costs,” White said.

Although there is no easy solution to such a complex issue, there are numerous options available. Inclusionary zoning, freeing up more land for development, mixed zoning and townhouse developments all might be used to create more affordable housing.

Pullman organizations have also worked to combat the issues. Tammy Lewis of the Palouse Economic Development Council has organized forums to increase awareness of alternative development concepts, zoning and land use policy and to inform landowners of their developmental options.

The Community Action Center is another Pullman organization working to address Pullman’s need for affordable housing. Karl Cozad, executive director of the group, said the CAC is working on a project to provide 26 low-cost family housing units.

Addressing affordable housing needs and adopting a comprehensive downtown plan were among city goals adopted this year.

Let's get something out of the way. There is NO SUCH THING as a perfect development. SOMEONE will always be against it. SOMEONE will always be negatively affected in some way. That is the nature of progress. It is painful sometimes. It can be disruptive, chaotic even. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

This LWV proposal shows the hypocrisy of these latte liberals. Many of the LWV members are comfortably retired from the university, with no small children at home and mortgages long since paid off. On issues that do not affect them directly, such as foreign policy, immigration, abortion, health care, education, etc. they have no problem backing the socialistic, collectivist solutions that ease consciences during their coffee klatches. But, by God, if they are going to be personally inconvenienced by two seconds more of traffic, driving 5 feet further to find a parking spot, having their favorite view of a moose in the wheatfield blocked by ugly cookie cutter tract houses, or Heaven forbid, seeing more disgusting rednecks shopping here in town, then they become the biggest advocates of individual rights since Friedrich Hayek.

The (Chester County, PA) Daily Local News said it all in an editorial a few years ago.

If individuals can afford to buy up open space and keep it open, I say God bless 'em. The problem is that nobody is rich enough to preserve the "character" of a whole township, so the gentry wants to make decisions about other people's property, not just their own.

Of course, there is a role for public comment concerning development in a democracy. But that comment has to be proportional to the individual's involvement and the impact of the project upon the indvidual, not the minority veto the LWV envisions. In my mind, the rights of the landowner come first, followed by the greater good of the community. And the greater good sometimes means sucking it up and keeping your mouth shut. Your nice view of the sunset going to get blocked? Buy the land yourself then. Otherwise, keep your pie hole shut. You think a certain housing development is ugly? Fine. Don't live there. You don't like a certain store's "cheap Chinese crap?" Good for you. Don't shop there. My God, have we become such a nation of selfish whiners that we expect everything to go our way all the time, and when it doesn't, bitch all the way to city hall?

And make no mistake. The anti-Wal-Mart agenda is written all over this proposal. Last year's Pullman LWV Secretary was PARDner Marj Grunewald. Marj and her husband Bob testified at last year's public hearing they didn't want to "spend eternity at the ass-end of a Wal-Mart." This year's Pullman LWV Membership/Hospitality Chair is none other than our old friend Judy "The Trolley Conductor" Krueger.

I'm glad the Pullman City Council and Pullman Planning Commission will give this proposal the place it so richly deserves: the wastebasket.

From Monday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Group pushes for more input; Pullman League of Women Voters submits proposal that would require public meetings on all development projects

The Pullman League of Women Voters want residents to have more input in local development projects.

Organization President Alice Schroeder presented a proposed ordinance to the Pullman City Council last week that would require developers to host public meetings before submitting significant project applications.

The goal of the "Pre-land Development Application Community Meeting Ordinance" is to open the line of communication between developers and the public - an area Schroeder said city requirements lack.

"There are flaws communicating what is going to happen (with a project,)" Schroeder said. "We don't think that's good for the community or any of us citizens. The community should be involved in proposed development early."

The council did not discuss the proposal during its meeting last week. Schroeder also presented the Pullman Planning Commission with the idea Wednesday.

City Planner Pete Dickinson said he has not read the proposed ordinance in full. Discussions both internally and publicly will need to occur before anything is written into code. Similar proposals have been brought to the city in the past, but Dickinson said "to see a proposed ordinance with the language like (the Pullman League Of Women Voters draft) is uncommon."

The proposed ordinance is similar to ordinances in place in Spokane and Bellingham, Wash. It mandates that community meetings be scheduled prior to any development project applications are submitted, except that of single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes or manufactured homes on one lot. Amendments to the comprehensive plan and permits for signs also could be conducted without a meeting.

Residents living within 300 feet of the subject property would have to be notified of the meeting along with most city officials. A newspaper notice and sign installed on the property 30 days prior to the meeting also would be required. Developers would be required to submit an audio tape and written summary sheet of the meeting's proceedings and list of attendees to the city.

Schroeder said rumors and misinformation tend to circulate around the community regarding proposed developments, often resulting in heated public hearings, name calling and hurt feelings. If the public was able to weigh in on projects before the application process, the developer would likely deal with "more level headed people" and know the community's stance on the project before going through the lengthy application process.

Munir Daud, a Pullman-based architect, engineer and founder of Munir Daud and Associates, doesn't see it that way.

He said developers already have enough hoops to jump through to proceed with projects in Pullman. Environmental check lists, zone changes and reviews by the City Council and planning commission are challenging and time consuming. Each step, requires a meeting that provides the public a chance to voice their opinion.

"They have opportunities. You can go and say whatever you want ... If you're really concerned, you could write a letter. You don't have to add another (meeting,)" he said.

Dickinson said he has deferred the draft to City Attorney Laura McAloon for review.

Daud said adding another meeting into the mix could cause extended delays on some projects. Any alteration to a plan could add three to six months to a development.

"Every time you delay it, it's extremely costly," Daud said. "A six-month delay could kill the project."

Schroeder said she doesn't expect the process would delay projects, and developers wouldn't have to follow any of the public's suggestions. She noted a project may even benefit from resident input.

"It's a matter of a few hours to send (a meeting notification) out, put up a sign and have the meeting. I think in the long run, it's kind of an insurance policy for developers. I don't think it would delay at all. It's a courtesy," she said.

Schroeder used a 50-unit mixed use development - proposed for the intersection of Paradise and High streets earlier this year - as an example. The proposal, submitted by Paradise Downtown, LLC and H and R Development, LLC, was greatly opposed by the community because of potential effects to the Pioneer Hill neighborhood and area parking. H and R Development eventually withdrew its conditional use application, but Schroeder said both time and money could have been saved if the developers had met with the public before putting in an application.

"If they had talked to the community earlier, not only would it have saved effort and money ... they might well have come up with solutions," she said.

Planning Commission Chairman Stephen Garl said the commission and city staff recommend that developers talk to neighbors around a project site. The city also takes note of public comments, be it formally in a meeting, casually in conversation or by mail. Project applications also are public record, which can be accessed in the city planning office.

"We know that the public wants to be involved," he said. "The good developers - the 95 to 98 percent of them - are going to be talking to their neighbors and such anyway. This was to address the 2 to 5 percent."

Garl said he believes the proposed ordinance could invite opportunities to deviate from the city's comprehensive plan if the public is able to weigh in on each step of the process.

"Planning needs to be both long-range vision - which is the comprehensive plan - and its day-to-day implementation, which is the zoning ordinance. (The proposed ordinance) potentially brings in a piecemeal chopping up of each project, rather than setting the vision in the comprehensive plan and writing code that implements it," he said.

"If you start making every project revealable at a public meeting - for good or bad - what you're doing is you no longer are planning and keeping the big vision picture in front of you," Garl added. "If there is a change of the vision, it should be written in the comprehensive plan and zone code, rather than project by project."