Well, I was totally put off by the offensive piece I found in my mailbox yesterday and wondering what to do about it. I should have known, Janet St Clair was on top of it. Here's her response to a somewhat childish hit piece by Rick Hannold. On one side of the mailer he tells us all the wonderful things he claims to have done. As I've mentioned before, he is very good at taking credit for the work of others. On the other side he makes all sorts of claims about Janet, including using $ signs for the S in her name.
Here's an interesting one: while Hannold claims to have "saved" Conservation Futures, in this piece he accuses Janet of wanting *Increased "Conservation Futures" property taxes on Island County homeowners. So which is it? Did he save Conservation Futures or destroy it? We know he advocated against the program - and then claimed credit for the good it did at Barnum Point. As I've said before, giving credit where credit is due doesn't cost anything and there's plenty to go around. I guess not for Rick Hannold.
He claims Janet wants to raise gas prices 'for $eattle special interest groups.' That translates to Janet supports I-1631, the fossil fuel fee which is necessary to move Washington to a renewable economy. But then Rick Hannold doesn't believe climate change is real, so why change what we're doing?
Anyway, let Janet say it in her own words:
Subject: Staying positive, staying focused...it's about the issues
Date: October 21, 2018 9:42:20 AM PDT
To: Marianne Edain <fh@whidbey.com>
Well, my opponent released his first mass mailer this weekend. While doorbelling, a voter commented that he received it and considered it “campaign silliness.” I guess Mr. Hannold can make up silly names about me but we will continue a campaign based on the issues and our values of inclusive, respectful and responsive leadership.
As a senior executive in nonprofit organizations, I spent nearly 20 years developing effective programs to better serve people, with efficient resources and strong outcomes. My responsibilities spanned six counties in North Puget Sound where I worked to develop and advocate for access to care across urban and rural areas. I built strong and effective teams that worked collaboratively to provide innovative solutions. I know how to work with local stakeholders as well as state and federal partners to bring resources to our communities.
I’m quite certain my opponent doesn’t want the voters to look too closely at the true results of his four years in office. But let’s take a look by starting with his own claims:
1. He claims he “led the ban on fish net pens.” That legislation was passed in 2012…THREE years before he took office. He denies climate science and resists policies to protect our environment. I will continue to promote education, incentives and when necessary legislation for a sustainable Puget Sound.
2. He claims he “shepherded Barnum Point across the finish line” yet initially opposed that land acquisition and gives no recognition to Whidbey Camano Land Trust or FOCIP for their heroic efforts to protect this legacy for future generations. I will work with community partners to support their efforts and give credit where credit is due.
3. He says his first response is “What about Camano” and he brought “extra” services to this Island, extra services that are core programs on Whidbey. Camano Island has waited years for housing, mental health and veteran support. It finally arrived in his last year in office and only on a limited basis. He claims we "are resistent to change" when criticized for not engaging the community on our new county annex. We are not resistent to change, Mr. Hannold, we just want a voice in the issues that affect us.
in his recent mailer, he dug down deep and the worst he came up with about me…I’m from Seattle and a Democrat. Then in an astounding lack of knowledge about the difference between the roles of a County Commissioner and a State Legislator created a confusing list of policies I’ve neither suggested nor, in many cases, could implement as your next Island County Commissioner. Let’s elect someone who understands the job, demonstrates integrity and has a truly proven record of accomplishments.
So what can you do to make sure we don’t allow Rick Hannold to waste four more years with negative and extreme partisan politics, self-centered leadership and inability to develop effective and broad-based solutions for our communities…Help me set the record straight. Share this email with friends or neighbors, join our social media outreach and share our message or volunteer to phone bank or doorbell to get out the vote. It’s time for voters to make a new choice.
Janet St. Clair has proven leadership, experience and integrity.
Fire Rick, hire Janet as your next Island County Commissioner.
Thank you for your support,
Janet
Janet St Clair http://www.janetstclair.com/
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Thursday, October 18, 2018
2018 General Election
Its the 2018 General Election
I can hear the thud of ballots dropping as I type furiously to get the blog done. I know I promised to have it available before you got your ballots. Then I was informed that the October 19 date was not the deadline for mailing but the deadline for receiving. I started getting calls yesterday. I presume that many of you have received your ballots today. Good thing we’re live and ready.
First, you need to know that you are registered to vote. To check, go to
https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVote/#/login
The deadline for registering on line or for changing name or address has passed. If you miss that deadline you will have to go to the
Elections Office at
400 N Main Street in Coupeville.
The deadline to register or change your name or address in person is October 29, 2018.
For more information call 360-679-7366 or email elections@co.island.wa.us
They’re open 8:00 – 4:30 Monday - Friday
The Elections Office tells us that ballots must be postmarked
on or before election day, November 6.
The League of Women Voters has just let us all know that the Postal Service is being less than helpful. Ballots dropped in mailboxes in Island County get shipped to Seattle for processing, and are usually postmarked the next day. Which means your ballot would be postmarked too late. So if you drop your ballot in the mail on November 6 it may very well not be counted. NOT GOOD!
There are several solutions.
1. Get your ballot in the mail by Monday, November 5.
2. If you can’t do it before November 6, take it to the counter and ask the postal clerk to hand stamp it. And no, you don’t need to put a stamp on it.
3. Drop it in one of the 6 ballot drop boxes before 8:00 pm on Tuesday, November 6. They are located at:
Island County Elections Office
400 N Main Street Coupeville
Trinity Lutheran Church
18341 Hwy 525 Freeland
Ken’s Corner Shopping Center
4141 Hwy 525 (at Langley Road) Clinton
Island County Camano Annex
121 N East Camano Drive Camano Island
Langley Post Office, front patio
115 2nd Street Langley
Oak Harbor City Hall
865 SE Barrington Oak Harbor
If you haven’t received a ballot by October 22, contact the Elections office.
And here is Marianne’s regular disclaimer: I would never presume to tell you how to vote. That is very much your business. I’m merely telling you how I intend to vote and why. You can make your own decisions from there.
I’m beginning to learn about this blogging business, so that now I no longer have vagrant italics or underlines, and this time I’ve even figure out how to make sure all the web links are live and functional. Next thing you know I’ll learn how to add images (don’t hold your breath).
Whatever you do, VOTE. And encourage, hassle, bug, and convince everyone you know to vote as well. Feel free to forward information about the blog to all and sundry. Your vote has never been more important. The planet and government you save may be your own.
I can hear the thud of ballots dropping as I type furiously to get the blog done. I know I promised to have it available before you got your ballots. Then I was informed that the October 19 date was not the deadline for mailing but the deadline for receiving. I started getting calls yesterday. I presume that many of you have received your ballots today. Good thing we’re live and ready.
First, you need to know that you are registered to vote. To check, go to
https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVote/#/login
The deadline for registering on line or for changing name or address has passed. If you miss that deadline you will have to go to the
Elections Office at
400 N Main Street in Coupeville.
The deadline to register or change your name or address in person is October 29, 2018.
For more information call 360-679-7366 or email elections@co.island.wa.us
They’re open 8:00 – 4:30 Monday - Friday
The Elections Office tells us that ballots must be postmarked
on or before election day, November 6.
The League of Women Voters has just let us all know that the Postal Service is being less than helpful. Ballots dropped in mailboxes in Island County get shipped to Seattle for processing, and are usually postmarked the next day. Which means your ballot would be postmarked too late. So if you drop your ballot in the mail on November 6 it may very well not be counted. NOT GOOD!
There are several solutions.
1. Get your ballot in the mail by Monday, November 5.
2. If you can’t do it before November 6, take it to the counter and ask the postal clerk to hand stamp it. And no, you don’t need to put a stamp on it.
3. Drop it in one of the 6 ballot drop boxes before 8:00 pm on Tuesday, November 6. They are located at:
Island County Elections Office
400 N Main Street Coupeville
Trinity Lutheran Church
18341 Hwy 525 Freeland
Ken’s Corner Shopping Center
4141 Hwy 525 (at Langley Road) Clinton
Island County Camano Annex
121 N East Camano Drive Camano Island
Langley Post Office, front patio
115 2nd Street Langley
Oak Harbor City Hall
865 SE Barrington Oak Harbor
If you haven’t received a ballot by October 22, contact the Elections office.
And here is Marianne’s regular disclaimer: I would never presume to tell you how to vote. That is very much your business. I’m merely telling you how I intend to vote and why. You can make your own decisions from there.
I’m beginning to learn about this blogging business, so that now I no longer have vagrant italics or underlines, and this time I’ve even figure out how to make sure all the web links are live and functional. Next thing you know I’ll learn how to add images (don’t hold your breath).
Whatever you do, VOTE. And encourage, hassle, bug, and convince everyone you know to vote as well. Feel free to forward information about the blog to all and sundry. Your vote has never been more important. The planet and government you save may be your own.
Initiative 1631
Initiative Measure No. 1631 concerns pollution.
This measure would charge pollution fees on sources of greenhouse gas pollutants and use the revenue to reduce pollution, promote clean energy, and address climate change impacts, under oversight of a public board.
Should this measure be enacted into law?
yes
no
I’ve been studying 1631 since before it qualified for the ballot. It is long and complicated. This is a whole program which will change how a number of state agencies operate. The initiative itself runs to 38 pages. The Voter’s Guide which has now shown up in your mailboxes has a surprisingly good (and long) summary, particularly the ‘fiscal impact’ section. I recommend reading it.
The basics: energy used in Washington State will pay a fee at the wholesale end, starting at $15.00/ton of CO2 emissions, into a special state fund. This means that pipelines bringing oil, trains hauling coal, and similar sources, will pay the fee. There is a complicated schedule of just who pays and when, in order to avoid either double payment or non-payment. There are, as the NO people tout constantly, certain exemptions. One of those exemptions is for fuels moving through Washington but not for use here. There is an exemption for PSE’s Centralia coal fired electric generation plant, with the rationale that it is scheduled to be shut down in 2025 anyway. There are also exemptions for certain power intensive industries which claim they could not continue to operate otherwise. I have some heartburn with that, but it is relatively small in the overall scheme of things.
Yes, it is likely that some prices will increase, especially gasoline and propane, but probably also PSE, which generates some 60% of its electricity from fossil fuels. There is no mandate for retail price increases, and the fee is actually a very small amount compared to profits, but we can expect the industries to use the fee as an excuse to raise prices.
Ok, that’s the down side. The up side is that the funds collected will go into a specifically designated fund – and here’s where things get a bit complicated. There are specific targets for how the funds are to be disbursed. Hold your hats. Here we go.
70% of total expenditures must be used for clean air and clean energy investments.
25% must be used for clean water and healthy forests investments.
5% must be used for healthy communities investments.
Don’t even try to add up the percentages because there is a whole lot of overlap.
The state agencies are directed to map out particularly contaminated and polluted areas of the state. Those will be designated as “pollution and health action areas.” and will have priority for cleanup funds.
A minimum of 35% must provide direct meaningful benefits to “pollution & health action areas.”
A minimum of 10% of funds must benefit one or more tribes. There is a provision that the tribes must be consulted on any project affecting either their lands or their usual and accustomed fishing sites.
There is a specific definition of what constitutes a benefit.
This kind of says it all:
§4. (1) All funds must be used for programs, activities, or projects that yield or facilitate verifiable reductions in pollution or assist affected workers or people with lower incomes during the transition to a clean energy economy.
Various state agencies, including Dept of Commerce, WSU Extension Energy Program, WSDOT, Utilities Commission, Ecology, DNR, Dept of Ag, and RCO (the Recreation & Conservation Office, which disburses funds for acquisition of lands for conservation) are all given pieces of the fund to administer, and are all directed to create procedures and criteria. The bottom line is that they all need to show to the new board how they plan to meet the CO2 reduction standards.
The plan must prescribe a competitive project selection process that results in a balanced portfolio of investments containing a wide range of tech, sequestration, and emission reduction solutions to reduce CO2 from 2018 levels by a minimum of 20 million metric tons by 2035 and 50 million metric tons by 2050 – while creating economic, environmental, and health benefits.
There are very specific requirements for how to help poor people and those whose jobs will disappear.
Either Commerce or a utility, in consultation with poor people, will develop plans to carry out this section to maximize the number of poor people who will benefit. The plan must be submitted to the Board for approval. It anticipates:
~ bill assistance programs
~ reduce dependence on fossil fuel transportation via public and shared transportation
~ reduce household energy consumption via weatherization and/or solar panel installation
~ community renewables, owned by participants
In consultation with non-profits and tribes, design and implement comprehensive enrollment campaigns. The intent is to enroll 100% of poor people.
(5) within 4 years a minimum of $50mil/year must be set aside to maintain a worker support program for fossil fuel workers affected by the transition. Commerce may allocate additional funds as necessary.
(a) worker support: full wage replacement, health benefits, pension contributions for every worker within 5 years of retirement. (there is a whole calculus of how long people have to have worked, etc). Up to 2 years of retraining costs, including tuition & related costs based on in-state community and tech college costs. Peer counseling services during transition, employment placement services, prioritizing employment in the clean energy sector, relocation expenses, and many other services deemed necessary.
§5. Clean Water & Healthy Forests
Funding must be used to: restore and protect estuaries, fisheries, and marine shoreline habitats; prepare for sea level rise; address ocean acidification; reduce flood risk; restore natural floodplain ecological function; increase the sustainable supply of water; improve aquatic habitat, including groundwater mapping and modeling; improve infrastructure treating stormwater from inside UGAs.
Healthy forests funds must be used to: increase resilience to wildfire; improve forest health; reduce vulnerability to changes in hydrology, insect infestation, and other impacts of climate change.
DNR must set standards and create rules. These funds may not be used to violate tribal treaty rights or result in ‘significant long term damage’ to critical habitat or ecological functions. Investments must result in long term environmental benefit and increased resiliency to the impact of climate change.
§6 Healthy Communities investments. Creates a Healthy Communities account.
Funds will: enhance community preparedness and awareness before, during, and after wildfire; relocate tribal communities impacting by flooding as sea level rises; teacher professional training re environmental, social, & economic impacts of climate change; and strategies to reduce pollution.
DNR must develop procedures, criteria, and rules, which must prioritize benefits to communities with limited English proficiency and other vulnerable populations in communities at risk from wildfire.
20% of the fund must be set aside to develop community capacity to participate in implementation, including teaching people grant writing. Funding is a competitive process, with a preference for vulnerable populations in Pollution and Health Action areas (defined elsewhere) and rural communities. Any tribe that applies must receive up to $200k/year to build tribal capacity to participate.
(9) "Environmental burdens" refers to the cumulative risks to communities caused by historic and current:
(a) Exposure to conventional and toxic hazards in the air, water, and land, and;
(b) Adverse environmental effects, which are environmental conditions caused or made worse by contamination or pollution or that create vulnerabilities to climate impacts.
There will be created an Environmental and Economic Justice panel which will review funding proposals for consistency with the standards set. This is the “unelected board” the NO people are so upset about. That “unelected board” actually consists of 15 voting members, who must review and approve projects. It will consist of the Commissioner of Public Lands (DNR), directors of Dept of Commerce, Ecology, and Recreation and Conservation Office, 4 at-large positions and 6 co-chairs of the 3 investment panels. There are specific requirements for these positions. The governor appoints the chair and the 4 at-large positions, one of whom must be a tribal representative and one of whom must represent vulnerable populations in a polluted area. The Dept of Health, WSDOT, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction will be non-voting members. The chair is a full time staff position housed in the office of the governor. Board members serve 4 year terms. Those who are not state employees are entitled to compensation.
The Clean Air and Clean Energy panel must be co-chaired by one business representative and a representative of labor. The panel may have a maximum of 9 members representing tribal, environmental, business, and labor communities.
The Clean Water and Healthy Forests panel must be co-chaired by one tribal leader and one representative of statewide environmental interests. Again, a maximum of 9 panel members representing tribal, environmental, business, labor, and a “pollution and health action” area.
The Environmental and Economic Justice panel must be co-chaired by one tribal leader and one representative of vulnerable populations, plus 2 union reps, and 5 other members of whom at least one is a tribal rep and two represent vulnerable populations.
The duties of each of the panels are spelled out in great detail, including a schedule of deadlines for each of the many tasks.
And on it goes. This is long, detailed, incredibly thought out, inclusive, and workable for poor people. There are parts of it I don’t like, for instance the part that says that utilities can take a credit against the fee for qualifying projects. I feel somewhat better about it when it says that Investor Owned Utilities (read that as PSE) may not take a profit from any fee exempt project.
I was crabby about 1631 at first. I thought it was too little too late. After reading the thing I have changed my mind. This is going to be a major change in how Washington operates. It is a desperately needed major change. Most of you will have heard of the latest report by the International Panel on Climate Change, the one which gives us about a decade to clean up our act before the planet simply shrugs us off. 1631 is Washington’s attempt to take that warning seriously and do what needs doing – and trying to take care of those who could be hurt most in doing so.
Here’s the financial picture:
Clean Air Clean Energy Washington (the coalition sponsoring 1631) $11,215,526.13
Major donors include:
The Nature Conservancy
League of Conservation Voters
Bill Gates
Action Now Initiative
Nick Hanauer
Washington Environmental Council
Washington State Labor Council
Washington Conservation Voters
NW Energy Efficiency Council
Green Advocacy Project
Front and Centered/Latino Community Fund
Climate Solutions
Audubon Washington
No on 1631 (sponsored by Western States Petroleum) $22,127,179.90
And just in case you were under any illusions, the major donors to the No campaign are:
Phillips 66
BP America
Andeavor (used to be Tesoro)
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
US Oil & Refining Co
Koch Industries
Chevron USA
Valero Energy Corp
PBF Energy
Western States Petroleum Assoc
I have been campaigning for 1631, writing about it, testifying for it, even going way out of my comfort zone and canvassing door to door for it. And now I’m blogging for it. If we want to continue living on a planet which continues to support us, we need 1631.
I will be voting an enthusiastic and hopeful YES.
This measure would charge pollution fees on sources of greenhouse gas pollutants and use the revenue to reduce pollution, promote clean energy, and address climate change impacts, under oversight of a public board.
Should this measure be enacted into law?
yes
no
I’ve been studying 1631 since before it qualified for the ballot. It is long and complicated. This is a whole program which will change how a number of state agencies operate. The initiative itself runs to 38 pages. The Voter’s Guide which has now shown up in your mailboxes has a surprisingly good (and long) summary, particularly the ‘fiscal impact’ section. I recommend reading it.
The basics: energy used in Washington State will pay a fee at the wholesale end, starting at $15.00/ton of CO2 emissions, into a special state fund. This means that pipelines bringing oil, trains hauling coal, and similar sources, will pay the fee. There is a complicated schedule of just who pays and when, in order to avoid either double payment or non-payment. There are, as the NO people tout constantly, certain exemptions. One of those exemptions is for fuels moving through Washington but not for use here. There is an exemption for PSE’s Centralia coal fired electric generation plant, with the rationale that it is scheduled to be shut down in 2025 anyway. There are also exemptions for certain power intensive industries which claim they could not continue to operate otherwise. I have some heartburn with that, but it is relatively small in the overall scheme of things.
Yes, it is likely that some prices will increase, especially gasoline and propane, but probably also PSE, which generates some 60% of its electricity from fossil fuels. There is no mandate for retail price increases, and the fee is actually a very small amount compared to profits, but we can expect the industries to use the fee as an excuse to raise prices.
Ok, that’s the down side. The up side is that the funds collected will go into a specifically designated fund – and here’s where things get a bit complicated. There are specific targets for how the funds are to be disbursed. Hold your hats. Here we go.
70% of total expenditures must be used for clean air and clean energy investments.
25% must be used for clean water and healthy forests investments.
5% must be used for healthy communities investments.
Don’t even try to add up the percentages because there is a whole lot of overlap.
The state agencies are directed to map out particularly contaminated and polluted areas of the state. Those will be designated as “pollution and health action areas.” and will have priority for cleanup funds.
A minimum of 35% must provide direct meaningful benefits to “pollution & health action areas.”
A minimum of 10% of funds must benefit one or more tribes. There is a provision that the tribes must be consulted on any project affecting either their lands or their usual and accustomed fishing sites.
There is a specific definition of what constitutes a benefit.
This kind of says it all:
§4. (1) All funds must be used for programs, activities, or projects that yield or facilitate verifiable reductions in pollution or assist affected workers or people with lower incomes during the transition to a clean energy economy.
Various state agencies, including Dept of Commerce, WSU Extension Energy Program, WSDOT, Utilities Commission, Ecology, DNR, Dept of Ag, and RCO (the Recreation & Conservation Office, which disburses funds for acquisition of lands for conservation) are all given pieces of the fund to administer, and are all directed to create procedures and criteria. The bottom line is that they all need to show to the new board how they plan to meet the CO2 reduction standards.
The plan must prescribe a competitive project selection process that results in a balanced portfolio of investments containing a wide range of tech, sequestration, and emission reduction solutions to reduce CO2 from 2018 levels by a minimum of 20 million metric tons by 2035 and 50 million metric tons by 2050 – while creating economic, environmental, and health benefits.
There are very specific requirements for how to help poor people and those whose jobs will disappear.
Either Commerce or a utility, in consultation with poor people, will develop plans to carry out this section to maximize the number of poor people who will benefit. The plan must be submitted to the Board for approval. It anticipates:
~ bill assistance programs
~ reduce dependence on fossil fuel transportation via public and shared transportation
~ reduce household energy consumption via weatherization and/or solar panel installation
~ community renewables, owned by participants
In consultation with non-profits and tribes, design and implement comprehensive enrollment campaigns. The intent is to enroll 100% of poor people.
(5) within 4 years a minimum of $50mil/year must be set aside to maintain a worker support program for fossil fuel workers affected by the transition. Commerce may allocate additional funds as necessary.
(a) worker support: full wage replacement, health benefits, pension contributions for every worker within 5 years of retirement. (there is a whole calculus of how long people have to have worked, etc). Up to 2 years of retraining costs, including tuition & related costs based on in-state community and tech college costs. Peer counseling services during transition, employment placement services, prioritizing employment in the clean energy sector, relocation expenses, and many other services deemed necessary.
§5. Clean Water & Healthy Forests
Funding must be used to: restore and protect estuaries, fisheries, and marine shoreline habitats; prepare for sea level rise; address ocean acidification; reduce flood risk; restore natural floodplain ecological function; increase the sustainable supply of water; improve aquatic habitat, including groundwater mapping and modeling; improve infrastructure treating stormwater from inside UGAs.
Healthy forests funds must be used to: increase resilience to wildfire; improve forest health; reduce vulnerability to changes in hydrology, insect infestation, and other impacts of climate change.
DNR must set standards and create rules. These funds may not be used to violate tribal treaty rights or result in ‘significant long term damage’ to critical habitat or ecological functions. Investments must result in long term environmental benefit and increased resiliency to the impact of climate change.
§6 Healthy Communities investments. Creates a Healthy Communities account.
Funds will: enhance community preparedness and awareness before, during, and after wildfire; relocate tribal communities impacting by flooding as sea level rises; teacher professional training re environmental, social, & economic impacts of climate change; and strategies to reduce pollution.
DNR must develop procedures, criteria, and rules, which must prioritize benefits to communities with limited English proficiency and other vulnerable populations in communities at risk from wildfire.
20% of the fund must be set aside to develop community capacity to participate in implementation, including teaching people grant writing. Funding is a competitive process, with a preference for vulnerable populations in Pollution and Health Action areas (defined elsewhere) and rural communities. Any tribe that applies must receive up to $200k/year to build tribal capacity to participate.
(9) "Environmental burdens" refers to the cumulative risks to communities caused by historic and current:
(a) Exposure to conventional and toxic hazards in the air, water, and land, and;
(b) Adverse environmental effects, which are environmental conditions caused or made worse by contamination or pollution or that create vulnerabilities to climate impacts.
There will be created an Environmental and Economic Justice panel which will review funding proposals for consistency with the standards set. This is the “unelected board” the NO people are so upset about. That “unelected board” actually consists of 15 voting members, who must review and approve projects. It will consist of the Commissioner of Public Lands (DNR), directors of Dept of Commerce, Ecology, and Recreation and Conservation Office, 4 at-large positions and 6 co-chairs of the 3 investment panels. There are specific requirements for these positions. The governor appoints the chair and the 4 at-large positions, one of whom must be a tribal representative and one of whom must represent vulnerable populations in a polluted area. The Dept of Health, WSDOT, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction will be non-voting members. The chair is a full time staff position housed in the office of the governor. Board members serve 4 year terms. Those who are not state employees are entitled to compensation.
The Clean Air and Clean Energy panel must be co-chaired by one business representative and a representative of labor. The panel may have a maximum of 9 members representing tribal, environmental, business, and labor communities.
The Clean Water and Healthy Forests panel must be co-chaired by one tribal leader and one representative of statewide environmental interests. Again, a maximum of 9 panel members representing tribal, environmental, business, labor, and a “pollution and health action” area.
The Environmental and Economic Justice panel must be co-chaired by one tribal leader and one representative of vulnerable populations, plus 2 union reps, and 5 other members of whom at least one is a tribal rep and two represent vulnerable populations.
The duties of each of the panels are spelled out in great detail, including a schedule of deadlines for each of the many tasks.
And on it goes. This is long, detailed, incredibly thought out, inclusive, and workable for poor people. There are parts of it I don’t like, for instance the part that says that utilities can take a credit against the fee for qualifying projects. I feel somewhat better about it when it says that Investor Owned Utilities (read that as PSE) may not take a profit from any fee exempt project.
I was crabby about 1631 at first. I thought it was too little too late. After reading the thing I have changed my mind. This is going to be a major change in how Washington operates. It is a desperately needed major change. Most of you will have heard of the latest report by the International Panel on Climate Change, the one which gives us about a decade to clean up our act before the planet simply shrugs us off. 1631 is Washington’s attempt to take that warning seriously and do what needs doing – and trying to take care of those who could be hurt most in doing so.
Here’s the financial picture:
Clean Air Clean Energy Washington (the coalition sponsoring 1631) $11,215,526.13
Major donors include:
The Nature Conservancy
League of Conservation Voters
Bill Gates
Action Now Initiative
Nick Hanauer
Washington Environmental Council
Washington State Labor Council
Washington Conservation Voters
NW Energy Efficiency Council
Green Advocacy Project
Front and Centered/Latino Community Fund
Climate Solutions
Audubon Washington
No on 1631 (sponsored by Western States Petroleum) $22,127,179.90
And just in case you were under any illusions, the major donors to the No campaign are:
Phillips 66
BP America
Andeavor (used to be Tesoro)
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
US Oil & Refining Co
Koch Industries
Chevron USA
Valero Energy Corp
PBF Energy
Western States Petroleum Assoc
I have been campaigning for 1631, writing about it, testifying for it, even going way out of my comfort zone and canvassing door to door for it. And now I’m blogging for it. If we want to continue living on a planet which continues to support us, we need 1631.
I will be voting an enthusiastic and hopeful YES.
Initiative 1634
Initiative Measure No. 1634 concerns taxation of certain items intended for human consumption.
This measure would prohibit new or increased local taxes, fees, or assessments on raw or processed foods or beverages (with exceptions), or ingredients thereof, unless effective by January 15, 2018, or generally applicable.
Should this measure be enacted into law?
yes
no
https://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/Connelly-Coke-and-Pepsi-put-5-1-million-into-13147294.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailynewsletterspi&utm_term=spi
As of 10-18-18 the PDC reports that “Yes to Affordable Groceries” has raised over $20 million. By painful contrast, the Healthy Kids Coalition has raised a whopping $16k.
Other jurisdictions have taxed or banned outright the sale of high fructose sugary drinks and can actually track improvements in public health as a result. The industry obviously is not thrilled with having their somewhat toxic products banned or taxed and is throwing millions into some very imaginative advertising campaigns. I just Googled I-1634 and the first hits are: Washington Initiative 1634, Prohibit Local Taxes on Groceries, and Yes! To Affordable Groceries, and November 6, 2018 general election TNT endorsement against Initiative 1634.
Ballotopedia (www.ballotopedia.org/Washington) reported in September that the Yes campaign had received over $8 mil in donations from such companies as Coca Cola, Pepsi, Dr Pepper/Snapple, Red Bull, and the Washington Grocery Association. The opposition, the Healthy Kids Coalition, reported $250.00. As ever and always, the big guys, in this case the soft drink industry, can buy or bully to get what they want, which is no responsibility for the damage they are doing the public health.
Here’s the breakdown as of 10-18-18:
Coca-Cola Co $9,653,767.73
Pepsico $7,278,737.28
Keurig Dr Pepper $2,109,261.30
Red Bull $237,212.31
I am disgusted, and even though I expect this will pass based on that huge advertising budget,
I will be voting a resounding NO.
This measure would prohibit new or increased local taxes, fees, or assessments on raw or processed foods or beverages (with exceptions), or ingredients thereof, unless effective by January 15, 2018, or generally applicable.
Should this measure be enacted into law?
yes
no
https://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/Connelly-Coke-and-Pepsi-put-5-1-million-into-13147294.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailynewsletterspi&utm_term=spi
As of 10-18-18 the PDC reports that “Yes to Affordable Groceries” has raised over $20 million. By painful contrast, the Healthy Kids Coalition has raised a whopping $16k.
Other jurisdictions have taxed or banned outright the sale of high fructose sugary drinks and can actually track improvements in public health as a result. The industry obviously is not thrilled with having their somewhat toxic products banned or taxed and is throwing millions into some very imaginative advertising campaigns. I just Googled I-1634 and the first hits are: Washington Initiative 1634, Prohibit Local Taxes on Groceries, and Yes! To Affordable Groceries, and November 6, 2018 general election TNT endorsement against Initiative 1634.
Ballotopedia (www.ballotopedia.org/Washington) reported in September that the Yes campaign had received over $8 mil in donations from such companies as Coca Cola, Pepsi, Dr Pepper/Snapple, Red Bull, and the Washington Grocery Association. The opposition, the Healthy Kids Coalition, reported $250.00. As ever and always, the big guys, in this case the soft drink industry, can buy or bully to get what they want, which is no responsibility for the damage they are doing the public health.
Here’s the breakdown as of 10-18-18:
Coca-Cola Co $9,653,767.73
Pepsico $7,278,737.28
Keurig Dr Pepper $2,109,261.30
Red Bull $237,212.31
I am disgusted, and even though I expect this will pass based on that huge advertising budget,
I will be voting a resounding NO.
Initiative 1639
Initiative Measure No 1639 concerns firearms.
This measure would require increased background checks, training, age limitations, and waiting periods for sales or delivery of semiautomatic assault rifles; criminalize noncompliant storage upon unauthorized use; allow fees; and enact other provisions.
Should the measure be enacted into law?
Yes
No
The League of Women Voters (bless them) has done a great job of summarizing the issues. Check their review here: https://lwvwa.org/ballot-measures
They tried valiantly to maintain a neutral stance, but that is really hard when the “no” side comes up with the inane arguments they do. For starters, we’re dealing only with assault rifles. I, for one, believe that assault rifles, if they are to exist at all, belong strictly in the military, in spite of Dave Hayes’ quip at the candidates’ night that “one man’s assault rifle is another’s hunting rifle.” If we can’t ban these weapons outright, then the least we can do is impose some pretty obvious and basic measures. It turns out that the limitations being proposed already exist for hand guns. Who knew that assault rifles were less regulated than pistols? The “no” people claim that a background check is an imposition on their 2nd amendment rights. They claim that even if we limit the legitimate market there will still be a black market. They don’t seem to understand that the black market is illegal. That’s why its called the black market. They object to the 21year minimum age to own one of these weapons with the argument that young people are able to enlist in the military at age 18 and they’ll use such weapons there. What seems to be lost on these people is the fact that the military is highly regimented, and while young soldiers are indeed taught to use these weapons, they are also taught the rules and responsibilities around that use, and they don’t get to take them into town on leave. I’m just waiting for the gun lovers to claim they have a 2nd amendment right to own a shoulder mounted missile launcher, and a Scud missile, and . . .
The part about "criminalize non-compliant storage upon unauthorized use" translates as: if you leave it lying around, rather than storing it under lock and key, and someone does something bad (like killing the neighbors) with it, then you will be held criminally liable for making the weapon easy to get at.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article218426785.html
Prospective owners would have to prove that they have completed a firearm safety training program in the last 5 years.
Existing rules that dealers must wait to deliver pistols to buyers with outstanding arrest warrants would be expanded to include semiautomatic rifles. One wonders just why people with outstanding arrest warrants are able to buy any kind of gun.
I think it is telling that the conditions being imposed already exist for hand guns. One has to wonder why a permit and training are required for a pistol but not for an AR 15.
Following the money:
Pro 1639:
Safe Schools, Safe Communities $4,662,378.02
Major donors include:
Paul Allen
Nick Hanauer
Steve Ballmer
Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund
Alliance for Gun Responsibility Foundation
FUSE Voters
Nancy Nordhoff
Washington State Association for Justice
Anti 1639:
Save Our Security, No on 1639 $51,613.28
Shall Not Be Infringed $29,801.61
Stop 1639, Shall Not Be Infringed $31,075.96
Washingtonians & NRA for Freedom $455,780.83
I happen to hate guns and the harm they do to innocent and unsuspecting citizens just trying to live their lives.
I will be voting an enthusiastic YES.
This measure would require increased background checks, training, age limitations, and waiting periods for sales or delivery of semiautomatic assault rifles; criminalize noncompliant storage upon unauthorized use; allow fees; and enact other provisions.
Should the measure be enacted into law?
Yes
No
The League of Women Voters (bless them) has done a great job of summarizing the issues. Check their review here: https://lwvwa.org/ballot-measures
They tried valiantly to maintain a neutral stance, but that is really hard when the “no” side comes up with the inane arguments they do. For starters, we’re dealing only with assault rifles. I, for one, believe that assault rifles, if they are to exist at all, belong strictly in the military, in spite of Dave Hayes’ quip at the candidates’ night that “one man’s assault rifle is another’s hunting rifle.” If we can’t ban these weapons outright, then the least we can do is impose some pretty obvious and basic measures. It turns out that the limitations being proposed already exist for hand guns. Who knew that assault rifles were less regulated than pistols? The “no” people claim that a background check is an imposition on their 2nd amendment rights. They claim that even if we limit the legitimate market there will still be a black market. They don’t seem to understand that the black market is illegal. That’s why its called the black market. They object to the 21year minimum age to own one of these weapons with the argument that young people are able to enlist in the military at age 18 and they’ll use such weapons there. What seems to be lost on these people is the fact that the military is highly regimented, and while young soldiers are indeed taught to use these weapons, they are also taught the rules and responsibilities around that use, and they don’t get to take them into town on leave. I’m just waiting for the gun lovers to claim they have a 2nd amendment right to own a shoulder mounted missile launcher, and a Scud missile, and . . .
The part about "criminalize non-compliant storage upon unauthorized use" translates as: if you leave it lying around, rather than storing it under lock and key, and someone does something bad (like killing the neighbors) with it, then you will be held criminally liable for making the weapon easy to get at.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article218426785.html
Prospective owners would have to prove that they have completed a firearm safety training program in the last 5 years.
Existing rules that dealers must wait to deliver pistols to buyers with outstanding arrest warrants would be expanded to include semiautomatic rifles. One wonders just why people with outstanding arrest warrants are able to buy any kind of gun.
I think it is telling that the conditions being imposed already exist for hand guns. One has to wonder why a permit and training are required for a pistol but not for an AR 15.
Following the money:
Pro 1639:
Safe Schools, Safe Communities $4,662,378.02
Major donors include:
Paul Allen
Nick Hanauer
Steve Ballmer
Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund
Alliance for Gun Responsibility Foundation
FUSE Voters
Nancy Nordhoff
Washington State Association for Justice
Anti 1639:
Save Our Security, No on 1639 $51,613.28
Shall Not Be Infringed $29,801.61
Stop 1639, Shall Not Be Infringed $31,075.96
Washingtonians & NRA for Freedom $455,780.83
I happen to hate guns and the harm they do to innocent and unsuspecting citizens just trying to live their lives.
I will be voting an enthusiastic YES.
Initiative to the Legislature
Initiative Measure No. 940
Initiative Measure No. 940 concerns law enforcement. This measure would require law enforcement to receive violence de-escalation, mental-health, and first-aid training, and provide first-aid; and change standards for use of deadly force, adding a “good faith” standard and independent investigation.
Should this measure be enacted into law?
yes
no
We’re going to have to take a step back here. I-940 is an initiative to the legislature rather than an initiative to the people. An initiative to the people, if it gains enough signatures, goes directly onto the ballot. An initiative to the legislature goes to the legislature. The legislature has a few options. They could adopt the initiative as presented, in which case it goes to the governor for signature into law. Or the legislature can put the initiative on the ballot in the next general election. Lastly, if they really don’t like it, they can put the initiative on the ballot along with their own alternative proposal. Instead of these options, Rep Dave Hayes sponsored a bill in the legislature, HB 3003, to bypass the initiative. HB 3003 passed and was signed by the governor. Then the whole mess went to court because Tim Eyman sued to keep 940 off the ballot. Supporters of 940 pointed out to the judge that there was a poison pill hidden in 3003 which said that if 940 qualified for the ballot, which it did, then 3003 would go away. Tricky, eh? The judge agreed that it was tricky and allowed 940 to go on the ballot.
You can see and hear Dave Hayes claiming we don’t need 940 because we’ve got 3003. But by its own language 3003 is dead precisely because 940 is on the ballot.
I’ve been listening to Dave Hayes, who is a cop, and the candidates for sheriff, talk about 940. They all claim that they already receive de-escalation training. You could’ve fooled me, based on the stories I’m seeing about homeless and/or mentally ill people being shot in Oak Harbor and abused in Langley. It would also require first aid training. What? You mean our cops aren’t getting first aid training as an automatic part of their job training? And then there are the standards for use of deadly force. I would certainly like to see those standards spelled out very clearly. Dave Hayes has been heard to say that 940 as written is a catch 22 for cops. On the other hand, sheriff candidate Rick Felici says this is no big deal and they can work with it.
Follow the money:
Pro 940:
De-Escalate Washington $3,200,059.37
contributors include:
Puyallup Tribe
Nick Hanauer
ACLU
Open Society Foundation
ACLU of Washington
UFCW Local 21
SEIU
Vulcan Inc
Muckleshoot Tribe
FUSE Washington
Progress Alliance of Washington
Seattle Seahawks
Snoqualmie Tribe
Tulalip Tribes
Disability Rights Washington
WA State Association for Justice
Rooted in Rights
Raise Up Washington
Amnesty International
Not This Time
PNW Regional Council of Carpenters
Anti-940:
Coalition for a Safer Washington $154,105.01
contributors include:
Seattle Police Officers’ Guild
King Co Police Officer’s Guild
San Jose Officers’ Association PAC
Sergeants’ Benevolent Assoc
San Francisco Police Officers’ Assoc PAC
WA Republican Party
SnoCo Republican Party
Cops Against I-940 $42,922.50
contributors include:
WA Council of Police & Sheriffs
Tacoma Police Union Local # 6
Vancouver Police Officers’ Guild
Responders Emergency Services
Spokane Police Guild
Lynnwood Police Guild
I don’t like sneaky attempts to cancel out the peoples’ will. I believe we need more training for our various police agencies and more specific standards.
I’ll be voting YES.
Advisory Vote No 19
Advisory Vote No. 19
Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 6269
The legislature expanded, without a vote of the people, the oil spill response and administration taxes to crude
oil or petroleum products received by pipeline, costing $13,000,000 over ten years for government spending.
This tax increase should be:
Repealed
Maintained
To start, you need to remember that this measure has already been passed into law, and the entire advisory vote is an expensive charade forced on us by yet another Tim Eyman initiative. The negative language is required by that Eyman initiative, and the “costing $13 mil for government spending” translates to: “will bring in $13 mil over 10 years.” And its completely advisory. It has no weight of law. But at least we can let the legislature and the Dept of Ecology know that we support oil spill prevention and cleanup.
This bill was introduced at the request of the Dept of Ecology. Its title is Strengthening Oil Transportation Safety.
In 1990 the legislature passed legislation which created the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Program. You may remember the concerns about super tankers threading their way among the rocks and shoals of the San Juans. The legislation put the responsibility for this program on Ecology. The program requires oil spill prevention plans, contingency response plans, and documentation of financial responsibility for vessels and facilities which may discharge oil into navigable waters.
Ecology’s responsibility covers railroads, oil refineries, pipelines, and vessel operators. The report (6269-S2/E SBR FBR 19.pdf) goes into all the gory details of the plans. Bottom line: all those facilities must submit their various plans to Ecology for review and approval. There is an oil spill response tax of $0.01/barrel to fund the state’s response to spills whose cleanup cost exceeds $50k. When the oil spill response account hits $9 mil the tax is suspended. There is a credit against the oil spill account for any crude or petroleum sold for export. The bottom line here is that the tax is tiny, downright infinitesimal, compared to what it would likely cost to clean up a spill in the Salish Sea.
Ecology has become concerned that the diluted bitumen (‘dilbit”) which is coming out of Alberta and North Dakota acts very differently from the fuels which were the subject of the earlier reviews. The existing response plans just plain don’t take account of this new material.
There is something called the Northwest Area Contingency Plan to coordinate federal, state, tribal, local, and international response to oil and hazardous substance “incidents.” Ecology needs to update its contingency plans and rules to account for the new “dilbit” material by the end of 2019. Part of that process is setting up equipment and training responders.
Every 3 years Ecology must require at least one joint large-scale multiple participant equipment deployment drill of onshore and offshore facilities and vessels to determine the adequacy of compliance by owners and operators.
Ecology, in consultation with the Puget Sound Partnership and the Pilotage Commission must complete a report on vessel traffic and safety in the Salish Sea. There are a lot of requirements which I will not copy. The preliminary report is due to the legislature November 1, 2018 and the final report is due June 30, 2019. By July 1, 2020 Ecology must report to the legislature on what activities are not expected to be continued, recommendations for potential funding sources, and a forecast of future funding needs.
The first $200k each year is allocated to the National Guard for oil spill and cleanup training.
This went into effect 4-1-18.
So, what we have is a minuscule tax of $0.01/barrel of oil to deal with painfully predictable spills of fossil fuels into our waters. We already know that the producers and shippers of that oil immediately point fingers and fail to do what’s necessary to prevent further damage. So the state has reasonably stepped in to create a program to minimize that damage. We also know that $9 mil is basically just about enough to buy coffee for the responders and not much more. What we can say is that, small as it is, it’s a start in the right direction.
Even though technically it doesn’t matter, I will be voting MAINTAINED.
Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 6269
The legislature expanded, without a vote of the people, the oil spill response and administration taxes to crude
oil or petroleum products received by pipeline, costing $13,000,000 over ten years for government spending.
This tax increase should be:
Repealed
Maintained
To start, you need to remember that this measure has already been passed into law, and the entire advisory vote is an expensive charade forced on us by yet another Tim Eyman initiative. The negative language is required by that Eyman initiative, and the “costing $13 mil for government spending” translates to: “will bring in $13 mil over 10 years.” And its completely advisory. It has no weight of law. But at least we can let the legislature and the Dept of Ecology know that we support oil spill prevention and cleanup.
This bill was introduced at the request of the Dept of Ecology. Its title is Strengthening Oil Transportation Safety.
In 1990 the legislature passed legislation which created the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Program. You may remember the concerns about super tankers threading their way among the rocks and shoals of the San Juans. The legislation put the responsibility for this program on Ecology. The program requires oil spill prevention plans, contingency response plans, and documentation of financial responsibility for vessels and facilities which may discharge oil into navigable waters.
Ecology’s responsibility covers railroads, oil refineries, pipelines, and vessel operators. The report (6269-S2/E SBR FBR 19.pdf) goes into all the gory details of the plans. Bottom line: all those facilities must submit their various plans to Ecology for review and approval. There is an oil spill response tax of $0.01/barrel to fund the state’s response to spills whose cleanup cost exceeds $50k. When the oil spill response account hits $9 mil the tax is suspended. There is a credit against the oil spill account for any crude or petroleum sold for export. The bottom line here is that the tax is tiny, downright infinitesimal, compared to what it would likely cost to clean up a spill in the Salish Sea.
Ecology has become concerned that the diluted bitumen (‘dilbit”) which is coming out of Alberta and North Dakota acts very differently from the fuels which were the subject of the earlier reviews. The existing response plans just plain don’t take account of this new material.
There is something called the Northwest Area Contingency Plan to coordinate federal, state, tribal, local, and international response to oil and hazardous substance “incidents.” Ecology needs to update its contingency plans and rules to account for the new “dilbit” material by the end of 2019. Part of that process is setting up equipment and training responders.
Every 3 years Ecology must require at least one joint large-scale multiple participant equipment deployment drill of onshore and offshore facilities and vessels to determine the adequacy of compliance by owners and operators.
Ecology, in consultation with the Puget Sound Partnership and the Pilotage Commission must complete a report on vessel traffic and safety in the Salish Sea. There are a lot of requirements which I will not copy. The preliminary report is due to the legislature November 1, 2018 and the final report is due June 30, 2019. By July 1, 2020 Ecology must report to the legislature on what activities are not expected to be continued, recommendations for potential funding sources, and a forecast of future funding needs.
The first $200k each year is allocated to the National Guard for oil spill and cleanup training.
This went into effect 4-1-18.
So, what we have is a minuscule tax of $0.01/barrel of oil to deal with painfully predictable spills of fossil fuels into our waters. We already know that the producers and shippers of that oil immediately point fingers and fail to do what’s necessary to prevent further damage. So the state has reasonably stepped in to create a program to minimize that damage. We also know that $9 mil is basically just about enough to buy coffee for the responders and not much more. What we can say is that, small as it is, it’s a start in the right direction.
Even though technically it doesn’t matter, I will be voting MAINTAINED.
Local Measures
North Whidbey Pool, Park and Recreation District
Operations and Maintenance Levy
Shall the North Whidbey Pool, Park and Recreation District be authorized to impose regular property tax levies of twenty cents ($0.20) or less per thousand dollars of assessed valuation for each of six consecutive years commencing in 2018, for collection in the years 2019 through 2024, to pay a portion of the District’s operation and maintenance expenses, all as provided in North Whidbey Pool, Park and Recreation District Resolution No. 18-04?
Yes
No
This is one of those no-brainers. The people of Oak Harbor obviously do not understand just how lucky they are to have a public pool. I so desperately want one down here on the south end. Those folks have this absolutely wonderful community asset for which the capital costs have already been paid. Now its just a matter of maintenance and operation. I am so sad and sorry that internal dissension in the Parks District led to the closing of the pool. Get over it! You (the Parks District) owe it to the people of the community, young and old, to re-open the pool (which I understand has now happened, and for which I applaud you) and to keep it open. Everyone from ambitious young diving teams to arthritic seniors will thank you.
If I could vote in Oak Harbor I would vote an enthusiastic YES.
Operations and Maintenance Levy
Shall the North Whidbey Pool, Park and Recreation District be authorized to impose regular property tax levies of twenty cents ($0.20) or less per thousand dollars of assessed valuation for each of six consecutive years commencing in 2018, for collection in the years 2019 through 2024, to pay a portion of the District’s operation and maintenance expenses, all as provided in North Whidbey Pool, Park and Recreation District Resolution No. 18-04?
Yes
No
This is one of those no-brainers. The people of Oak Harbor obviously do not understand just how lucky they are to have a public pool. I so desperately want one down here on the south end. Those folks have this absolutely wonderful community asset for which the capital costs have already been paid. Now its just a matter of maintenance and operation. I am so sad and sorry that internal dissension in the Parks District led to the closing of the pool. Get over it! You (the Parks District) owe it to the people of the community, young and old, to re-open the pool (which I understand has now happened, and for which I applaud you) and to keep it open. Everyone from ambitious young diving teams to arthritic seniors will thank you.
If I could vote in Oak Harbor I would vote an enthusiastic YES.
US Senate
US Senate
Susan Hutchinson, R
https://www.susan4senate.com/
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/05/18/26248767/senator-maria-cantwell-draws-a-challenger-former-state-gop-chair-susan-hutchison
Former chair of WA Republican party, quit after a series of foot-in-mouth incidents.
~ called Seattle’s income tax on the wealthy “a veiled attempt to turn over the constitution” and urged rich people to engage in “civil disobedience” by refusing to pay.
~ said Trump’s “grab ‘em by the pussy” remark was just him channeling Bill Clinton, and besides, Trump was a registered Democrat at the time so it doesn’t count.
~ told Ted Cruz he was a ‘traitor’ at the Republican national convention for not being pro-Trump enough.
~ she refers to herself as “ballot babe.” Meaning?
~ wrote to Inslee about Syrian refugees vs 1970s Vietnamese refugees, explaining that Syrians were “the ISIS JV team” and all they really want is charter schools.
from her website: https://www.susan4senate.com/
~ she has successfully fought a state income tax. And that is literally the only policy statement to be found on the entire website. She stresses all the committees to which she has been appointed and all the good works she has done as a volunteer. Oh, and she was a reporter for KIRO radio for many years.
Video rap – claims “the incumbent” cares about DC, not WA. She lists all the ills in Seattle, while the city collects more taxes. Fighting tax increases. Republicans gave college tuition cuts, balanced the budget, and funded public schools. Opponent is a lifetime politician.
“When Trump is good for WA, I’ll support him, and when not, I can talk to him.”
Opening speech, debate #1: We are in desperate need of change. Our economy is thriving. Cantwell worked furiously against the tax cuts and jobs bill fueling this prosperity. Cantwell is a DC professional. No one sees her here in Washington. I’m a military wife, mother, and daughter. I care so much for people. You may remember me from my old days on the news. You trusted me then and you can trust me now.
10-6-18 press release re Kavanaugh.
Congratulations to Judge Kavanaugh. I hope today's vote brings to an end the divisive and highly partisan attacks on the U.S. Supreme Court and our Constitution.
The confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh follows weeks of abuse of our most important liberties by the Senate Democrats. From the very first days of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, my opponent Senator Maria Cantwell pledged to do whatever it took to defeat him, even on Meet the Press threatening her colleagues about their possible “career ending” votes. She voted NAY against Kavanaugh, just as she voted NAY against Neil Gorsuch. Just as she would have voted against ANY nominee. Let’s make sure her vote is career ending by voting her out of office in November.
Democrats and their media allies worked to destroy this man’s reputation and family for their political gain.
You can see the smoke from out of control forest fires. Inslee and Cantwell say its global warming, but its really mis-management. I am not beholden to the ‘let it burn’ Seattle extreme environmentalists. I will work for science based resource management so we will have clean air and salmon and jobs.
These are my18 issues
1. Supreme Court – I support Justice Kavanaugh and will vote Republican every time.
2. Economy & Jobs – I support President Trump’s tax cuts, which have created lots of jobs and cut unemployment and increased wages.
3. Taxes – I’m in the front line of the fight against a state income tax, carbon tax, and Seattle’s ‘head tax.’ I intend to downsize IRS and cut the federal budget.
4. Military Readiness – I will vote to increase the depleted military budget.
5. Immigration – I will promote legal entry and block illegal entry. I will support a border wall in every effective form, physical, electronic, and law enforcement.
6. Trade – I will speak persuasively with the president about our state’s interests. Tariffs should be discouraged.
7. 2nd amendment, gun control - We need to deal with mental health issues. Don’t penalize millions of law-abiding gun owners. Mass shootings by disturbed young men could have been avoided but authorities failed to act.
8. Obamacare – Socialized medicine is bad. Single payer is bad, Universal health care is bad. I will work for market based solutions.
9. Opioids – I will tighten prescription rules, prosecute drug traffickers across borders, promote recovery programs, and re-evaluate Medicaid distribution of opioids.
10. Agriculture – I am endorsed by the Farm Bureau. I will fight for farmers by protecting property and water rights from burdensome federal regulations.
11. Forestry & Fishing – The federal government has mismanaged federal forests so now they burn and the salmon are disappearing. I will defend our fish and forests, timber jobs, and fishing fleet. I will work to restore salmon runs. I will support modern and effective forest management practices for federal lands.
12. Housing Affordability – 40% of the cost of new housing is red tape and impact fees. The federal government can provide incentives for housing ‘opportunity zones’ around transit hubs. I will support housing affordability.
13. 21st Century Education – I will work for systemic changes that emphasize learning and competency. I will work to stem the skyrocketing cost of college education.
14. Israel and the Middle East – I support moving the US embassy to Israel’s capitol, Jerusalem. I favor a 2 state solution for Palestine but no negotiations can begin while some factions remain committed to the destruction of Israel. A wise strategy is to support our friends’ military capabilities & encourage strong economic growth.
15. Debt – The national debt is unsustainable. I will work to reduce annual deficits and balance the budget. Economic growth is the engine for debt reduction.
16. Women and Workplace Equity – I will support economic opportunities for women. There is no place for ‘me too’ incidents in the workplace.
17. Infrastructure and Traffic – I will bring federal infrastructure dollars home. I will work for fully electric clean vehicles, driverless vans, and more efficient commuter patterns. I will get funding to help alleviate traffic congestion on our highways.
18. Term Limits – I agree that Cantwell should not have a 4th term.
Where to begin. Ms Hutchinson is so fundamentally a Trumpista. I wonder if she even realizes the internal inconsistency of her wish to shrink the federal budget while increasing the already bloated military budget. She loves the Trump tax cuts which are devastating domestic programs and wants to make sure there is no income tax in Washington, which has the most regressive tax system in the country. She loves Israel and evidently sees no inconsistency in her position of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem while claiming to favor a 2 state solution. Just her hate for “socialized medicine”, single payer, and her claim that market based solutions are the way to go would be enough to put me completely off. We have long had a market based medical system. Its called fee for service and if you don’t have the fee you don’t get the service. So simple. Of course that leads to a whole lot of unnecessary deaths of people who have been exposed to untested and/or unregulated toxics. Somehow the corporations are free to profit from the sale of these toxics but the exposed public has no right either to prevention or cure without the fee for service payments. What’s wrong with this picture?
The fact that she champions both Trump and Kavanaugh is more than enough.
I’m not going to refute everything the woman says but it is 99% bogus. Even if she were running against a really weak wishy-washy dem, I would still not vote for her.
Maria Cantwell, D, incumbent
https://www.cantwell.com/
She believes climate change is real and needs to be dealt with. She sees a potential for clean energy creating many good jobs. She strongly supports the Paris agreement. She’s been fighting to protect our coasts from offshore oil drilling, our national lands from exploitation, and to keep our waters clean.
She worked to get rid of Scott Pruitt from EPA and pledges to oppose any new nominee with similar anti-environmental policy.
She has supported the Mueller investigation from the start, is very concerned about Russian interference with US elections, and is doing what she can to keep it from happening again.
She is a strong supporter of net neutrality, the Affordable Care Act, and pretty much the whole progressive agenda. Oh, and she’s a big supporter of Roe v Wade, which is why she fought long and hard against Kavanaugh.
She has fought for DACA, Dreamers, and the release of the children kidnapped at the border.
She fought the tax “reform” ripoff.
She is by no means perfect, but she’s been in the Senate long enough to have some influence, and she uses it for the most part to push our issues and to oppose the right wing takeover.
Here are excerpts from my email log:
“The evidence (of climate change) is too strong, and too terrifying, to ignore. Join me in demanding that the Trump administration step up to fight climate change. Our future depends on it!”
About yesterday’s debate (with challenger Susan Hutchinson) “Washington State and our country cannot afford another rubber stamp for Donald Trump.”
“The GOP got what they wanted all along: Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. But America watched. And we will remember. And we will act in November.” She campaigned against Kavanaugh.
“I recently helped secure $70 million in the National Defense Authorization Act which will help clean up the groundwater contamination of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). I was also able to secure $10 million for a health impact study on the effects of these substances, which are still unknown. Contaminated water remains a serious health threat to communities in Washington State and across the country. Harmful contamination in drinking water systems is unacceptable.”
“The Land and Water Conservation Fund is in danger of losing its funding (it lapsed as of 10-1-18). I’m asking you to add your voice to mine urging Congress to reauthorize funding for the LWCF.”
“While I am proud to have worked with the administration to secure funding for our brave firefighters currently putting out the blazes that are choking Washington State families, when it comes to combating the root problem our environment and planet faces, our president and his administration are in deep denial. My opponent has been in lockstep with the president since the 2016 campaign. She’s even blamed me for the wildfires that are devastating our state.”
“On Thursday they (Senate Republicans) voted AGAIN to try to defund Planned Parenthood. The GOP has taken every chance is has gotten to try to strip away access to critical healthcare services and a woman’s very right to choose.”
“I am proud to have received the endorsement of the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund. Together we will go head to head against corporate polluters, expand access to public lands, and stand up for places like Puget Sound, Bristol Bay, and the Methow Valley. I will continue to fight every day to stop this administration’s ridiculous plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, protect Washington’s clean air and water, and combat climate change.”
From the Conservation Voters’ endorsement: “She has also been a strong supporter of America's clean energy future and has helped the State of Washington become a leader in green jobs. She fought to stop the tripling of National Park fees and has been an important ally of America's best parks program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Senator Cantwell has earned an impressive 92% lifetime score on LCV's National Environmental Scorecard.”
“Our fears have been realized - our public lands are being sold off to the highest bidder. Newly released documents confirm that the Interior Department plans to use land stripped away from National Monuments for commercial logging, fishing, and ranching.
“And it's not just our Monuments and Parks, either. The administration is also fast-tracking their plans to turn our Arctic into an oilfield, rushing environmental inspections so that they can pay for their tax cuts for billionaires - no matter the cost to our environment.
“From selling off our public lands and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, to polluting Bristol Bay and our Northwest fisheries, the Trump administration is actively undermining environmental protections and threatening our health, economy, and our planet's future. I'm outraged.”
“The images and stories emerging of young children ripped from their parents' arms and being held in detention camps are appalling and deeply disturbing. This latest assault on our American values of decency, family, and hope for a better life is unconscionable.”
“It is heartbreaking knowing that this past Father's Day weekend hundreds of children were being forcibly separated from their parents by federal agents. It's worse that the Trump administration knows about it, supports it, and continues to perpetuate it every day.”
“Time has run out for net neutrality. Republicans in the House of Representatives have the chance to follow the Senate's lead. They have the opportunity to pass bipartisan legislation that would join us in halting the FCC's repeal of net neutrality. Instead, they have refused to act. And now, net neutrality has been officially rolled back. Starting today, internet service providers can begin taking steps to undermine the free and open internet. They can create fast lanes for corporations who can pay more, while putting average Americans in the slow lane. They can determine which content you see and which content you can't.”
“One year ago today, Republicans in the House voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They acted like it was a holiday, driving to the White House en masse to party with President Trump. GOP leaders even played the 'Rocky' theme song. But while the GOP was celebrating the loss of healthcare for 23 million people, we jumped into action. Thanks to the work of hundreds of thousands of progressives like you, the GOP's repeal bill died in the Senate.”
As I said above, she’s not perfect, but she obviously shares our/my values.
I will be voting for Maria Cantwell.
Susan Hutchinson, R
https://www.susan4senate.com/
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/05/18/26248767/senator-maria-cantwell-draws-a-challenger-former-state-gop-chair-susan-hutchison
Former chair of WA Republican party, quit after a series of foot-in-mouth incidents.
~ called Seattle’s income tax on the wealthy “a veiled attempt to turn over the constitution” and urged rich people to engage in “civil disobedience” by refusing to pay.
~ said Trump’s “grab ‘em by the pussy” remark was just him channeling Bill Clinton, and besides, Trump was a registered Democrat at the time so it doesn’t count.
~ told Ted Cruz he was a ‘traitor’ at the Republican national convention for not being pro-Trump enough.
~ she refers to herself as “ballot babe.” Meaning?
~ wrote to Inslee about Syrian refugees vs 1970s Vietnamese refugees, explaining that Syrians were “the ISIS JV team” and all they really want is charter schools.
from her website: https://www.susan4senate.com/
~ she has successfully fought a state income tax. And that is literally the only policy statement to be found on the entire website. She stresses all the committees to which she has been appointed and all the good works she has done as a volunteer. Oh, and she was a reporter for KIRO radio for many years.
Video rap – claims “the incumbent” cares about DC, not WA. She lists all the ills in Seattle, while the city collects more taxes. Fighting tax increases. Republicans gave college tuition cuts, balanced the budget, and funded public schools. Opponent is a lifetime politician.
“When Trump is good for WA, I’ll support him, and when not, I can talk to him.”
Opening speech, debate #1: We are in desperate need of change. Our economy is thriving. Cantwell worked furiously against the tax cuts and jobs bill fueling this prosperity. Cantwell is a DC professional. No one sees her here in Washington. I’m a military wife, mother, and daughter. I care so much for people. You may remember me from my old days on the news. You trusted me then and you can trust me now.
10-6-18 press release re Kavanaugh.
Congratulations to Judge Kavanaugh. I hope today's vote brings to an end the divisive and highly partisan attacks on the U.S. Supreme Court and our Constitution.
The confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh follows weeks of abuse of our most important liberties by the Senate Democrats. From the very first days of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, my opponent Senator Maria Cantwell pledged to do whatever it took to defeat him, even on Meet the Press threatening her colleagues about their possible “career ending” votes. She voted NAY against Kavanaugh, just as she voted NAY against Neil Gorsuch. Just as she would have voted against ANY nominee. Let’s make sure her vote is career ending by voting her out of office in November.
Democrats and their media allies worked to destroy this man’s reputation and family for their political gain.
You can see the smoke from out of control forest fires. Inslee and Cantwell say its global warming, but its really mis-management. I am not beholden to the ‘let it burn’ Seattle extreme environmentalists. I will work for science based resource management so we will have clean air and salmon and jobs.
These are my18 issues
1. Supreme Court – I support Justice Kavanaugh and will vote Republican every time.
2. Economy & Jobs – I support President Trump’s tax cuts, which have created lots of jobs and cut unemployment and increased wages.
3. Taxes – I’m in the front line of the fight against a state income tax, carbon tax, and Seattle’s ‘head tax.’ I intend to downsize IRS and cut the federal budget.
4. Military Readiness – I will vote to increase the depleted military budget.
5. Immigration – I will promote legal entry and block illegal entry. I will support a border wall in every effective form, physical, electronic, and law enforcement.
6. Trade – I will speak persuasively with the president about our state’s interests. Tariffs should be discouraged.
7. 2nd amendment, gun control - We need to deal with mental health issues. Don’t penalize millions of law-abiding gun owners. Mass shootings by disturbed young men could have been avoided but authorities failed to act.
8. Obamacare – Socialized medicine is bad. Single payer is bad, Universal health care is bad. I will work for market based solutions.
9. Opioids – I will tighten prescription rules, prosecute drug traffickers across borders, promote recovery programs, and re-evaluate Medicaid distribution of opioids.
10. Agriculture – I am endorsed by the Farm Bureau. I will fight for farmers by protecting property and water rights from burdensome federal regulations.
11. Forestry & Fishing – The federal government has mismanaged federal forests so now they burn and the salmon are disappearing. I will defend our fish and forests, timber jobs, and fishing fleet. I will work to restore salmon runs. I will support modern and effective forest management practices for federal lands.
12. Housing Affordability – 40% of the cost of new housing is red tape and impact fees. The federal government can provide incentives for housing ‘opportunity zones’ around transit hubs. I will support housing affordability.
13. 21st Century Education – I will work for systemic changes that emphasize learning and competency. I will work to stem the skyrocketing cost of college education.
14. Israel and the Middle East – I support moving the US embassy to Israel’s capitol, Jerusalem. I favor a 2 state solution for Palestine but no negotiations can begin while some factions remain committed to the destruction of Israel. A wise strategy is to support our friends’ military capabilities & encourage strong economic growth.
15. Debt – The national debt is unsustainable. I will work to reduce annual deficits and balance the budget. Economic growth is the engine for debt reduction.
16. Women and Workplace Equity – I will support economic opportunities for women. There is no place for ‘me too’ incidents in the workplace.
17. Infrastructure and Traffic – I will bring federal infrastructure dollars home. I will work for fully electric clean vehicles, driverless vans, and more efficient commuter patterns. I will get funding to help alleviate traffic congestion on our highways.
18. Term Limits – I agree that Cantwell should not have a 4th term.
Where to begin. Ms Hutchinson is so fundamentally a Trumpista. I wonder if she even realizes the internal inconsistency of her wish to shrink the federal budget while increasing the already bloated military budget. She loves the Trump tax cuts which are devastating domestic programs and wants to make sure there is no income tax in Washington, which has the most regressive tax system in the country. She loves Israel and evidently sees no inconsistency in her position of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem while claiming to favor a 2 state solution. Just her hate for “socialized medicine”, single payer, and her claim that market based solutions are the way to go would be enough to put me completely off. We have long had a market based medical system. Its called fee for service and if you don’t have the fee you don’t get the service. So simple. Of course that leads to a whole lot of unnecessary deaths of people who have been exposed to untested and/or unregulated toxics. Somehow the corporations are free to profit from the sale of these toxics but the exposed public has no right either to prevention or cure without the fee for service payments. What’s wrong with this picture?
The fact that she champions both Trump and Kavanaugh is more than enough.
I’m not going to refute everything the woman says but it is 99% bogus. Even if she were running against a really weak wishy-washy dem, I would still not vote for her.
Maria Cantwell, D, incumbent
https://www.cantwell.com/
She believes climate change is real and needs to be dealt with. She sees a potential for clean energy creating many good jobs. She strongly supports the Paris agreement. She’s been fighting to protect our coasts from offshore oil drilling, our national lands from exploitation, and to keep our waters clean.
She worked to get rid of Scott Pruitt from EPA and pledges to oppose any new nominee with similar anti-environmental policy.
She has supported the Mueller investigation from the start, is very concerned about Russian interference with US elections, and is doing what she can to keep it from happening again.
She is a strong supporter of net neutrality, the Affordable Care Act, and pretty much the whole progressive agenda. Oh, and she’s a big supporter of Roe v Wade, which is why she fought long and hard against Kavanaugh.
She has fought for DACA, Dreamers, and the release of the children kidnapped at the border.
She fought the tax “reform” ripoff.
She is by no means perfect, but she’s been in the Senate long enough to have some influence, and she uses it for the most part to push our issues and to oppose the right wing takeover.
Here are excerpts from my email log:
“The evidence (of climate change) is too strong, and too terrifying, to ignore. Join me in demanding that the Trump administration step up to fight climate change. Our future depends on it!”
About yesterday’s debate (with challenger Susan Hutchinson) “Washington State and our country cannot afford another rubber stamp for Donald Trump.”
“The GOP got what they wanted all along: Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. But America watched. And we will remember. And we will act in November.” She campaigned against Kavanaugh.
“I recently helped secure $70 million in the National Defense Authorization Act which will help clean up the groundwater contamination of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). I was also able to secure $10 million for a health impact study on the effects of these substances, which are still unknown. Contaminated water remains a serious health threat to communities in Washington State and across the country. Harmful contamination in drinking water systems is unacceptable.”
“The Land and Water Conservation Fund is in danger of losing its funding (it lapsed as of 10-1-18). I’m asking you to add your voice to mine urging Congress to reauthorize funding for the LWCF.”
“While I am proud to have worked with the administration to secure funding for our brave firefighters currently putting out the blazes that are choking Washington State families, when it comes to combating the root problem our environment and planet faces, our president and his administration are in deep denial. My opponent has been in lockstep with the president since the 2016 campaign. She’s even blamed me for the wildfires that are devastating our state.”
“On Thursday they (Senate Republicans) voted AGAIN to try to defund Planned Parenthood. The GOP has taken every chance is has gotten to try to strip away access to critical healthcare services and a woman’s very right to choose.”
“I am proud to have received the endorsement of the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund. Together we will go head to head against corporate polluters, expand access to public lands, and stand up for places like Puget Sound, Bristol Bay, and the Methow Valley. I will continue to fight every day to stop this administration’s ridiculous plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, protect Washington’s clean air and water, and combat climate change.”
From the Conservation Voters’ endorsement: “She has also been a strong supporter of America's clean energy future and has helped the State of Washington become a leader in green jobs. She fought to stop the tripling of National Park fees and has been an important ally of America's best parks program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Senator Cantwell has earned an impressive 92% lifetime score on LCV's National Environmental Scorecard.”
“Our fears have been realized - our public lands are being sold off to the highest bidder. Newly released documents confirm that the Interior Department plans to use land stripped away from National Monuments for commercial logging, fishing, and ranching.
“And it's not just our Monuments and Parks, either. The administration is also fast-tracking their plans to turn our Arctic into an oilfield, rushing environmental inspections so that they can pay for their tax cuts for billionaires - no matter the cost to our environment.
“From selling off our public lands and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, to polluting Bristol Bay and our Northwest fisheries, the Trump administration is actively undermining environmental protections and threatening our health, economy, and our planet's future. I'm outraged.”
“The images and stories emerging of young children ripped from their parents' arms and being held in detention camps are appalling and deeply disturbing. This latest assault on our American values of decency, family, and hope for a better life is unconscionable.”
“It is heartbreaking knowing that this past Father's Day weekend hundreds of children were being forcibly separated from their parents by federal agents. It's worse that the Trump administration knows about it, supports it, and continues to perpetuate it every day.”
“Time has run out for net neutrality. Republicans in the House of Representatives have the chance to follow the Senate's lead. They have the opportunity to pass bipartisan legislation that would join us in halting the FCC's repeal of net neutrality. Instead, they have refused to act. And now, net neutrality has been officially rolled back. Starting today, internet service providers can begin taking steps to undermine the free and open internet. They can create fast lanes for corporations who can pay more, while putting average Americans in the slow lane. They can determine which content you see and which content you can't.”
“One year ago today, Republicans in the House voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They acted like it was a holiday, driving to the White House en masse to party with President Trump. GOP leaders even played the 'Rocky' theme song. But while the GOP was celebrating the loss of healthcare for 23 million people, we jumped into action. Thanks to the work of hundreds of thousands of progressives like you, the GOP's repeal bill died in the Senate.”
As I said above, she’s not perfect, but she obviously shares our/my values.
I will be voting for Maria Cantwell.
2nd Congressional District
2nd Congressional District
https://www.goskagit.com/news/elections/candidate-questionnaire-congressional-district/article_13b3455a-200b-51ff-8fa5-b99255e8aa02.html
Rick Larsen, D, incumbent
https://larsen.house.gov/
Senior member, House Armed Services Committee
https://www.ricklarsen.org/
We all pretty much know Rick from the years he’s been in office. And we’ve had some knock down/drag outs with him over his support of the military over the people of Island County, and his support for climate killing fossil fuel trans-shipment facilities in the name of jobs. We all know that he doesn’t get it on a lot of issues important to us.
And then the coup of 2016 happened and suddenly Rick is a new man. He voted against the Trump budget, against many of the insane and egregious proposals coming out of the fascist right. And he now believes in dealing with climate change, including cap & trade as one means to limit CO2. One has the distinct impression that the farther right the fascists push, the farther left Rick leans.
On the environment
~ He now touts his voting record of trying to eliminate subsidies for the oil industry.
~ He wrote that exiting the Paris agreement is/was a big mistake.
~ He fought to keep transit/light rail funds in the federal budget.
~ He supports salmon habitat restoration, protecting critical habitat areas, and conserving open space. ~ He worked to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has now expired.
~ He signed a joint letter to NOAA fisheries and Army Corps asking them to deal with the Atlantic salmon fish farm disaster by not permitting any new or refurbishment of existing pens.
~ He voted to prevent logging of the Tongass Roadless Area in Alaska.
~ He supports keeping our public lands (Bears’ Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante) public.
On economic development
~ He claims to have secured impact aid for schools with children of active military.
~ He’s against the Trump tariffs, as they hurt US workers and businesses.
On people issues
~ He supports Medicare and Obamacare, and is fighting to prevent the destruction of both.
~ He cosponsored the DREAM act.
~ He objected vehemently to the Trump policy of breaking up families and imprisoning children and participated in Keep Families Together rallies in Mt Vernon & Bellingham.
~ He co-signed a petition to his fellow congress members to fund rebuilding of Puerto Rico
Now here’s an interesting one. He issued a press release demanding that the Navy explain why it is insisting on putting all its Growlers in the Whidbey basket and expressing his concerns for Whidbey communities. Aw shucks and golly gee. We didn’t know you cared. There is some question about how this translates to his support for NAS Whidbey.
Brian Luke, Libertarian
https://www.luke4congress.com/
personal info:
Has worked in the grocery business for 20+ years, grocery dept manager. MA in International studies, with Middle East focus, BAs in history, classics, comparative religions, paralegal certificate. Worked on nuclear non-proliferation issues, especially US policy toward Iran’s nuclear program.
issues:
Primary issue: the national debt, which he proposes to reduce by cutting domestic and military spending.
U.S. Foreign Policy - The United States should not waste precious blood and treasure abroad. Foolish foreign engagements disrespect the soldier and add more debt, which now stands at over $18 trillion. The peoples of other countries must choose and be responsible for their own governments. The United States must seek diplomacy with all nations but be cautious of being a patron to governments or peoples.
Taxes and Spending - We must collect sufficient revenue to pay for the federal government and not overspend. We do neither, which is why we have huge deficits. The policy seems to be to lower taxes without getting significant domestic spending cuts and then on top of that cranking up military spending. We must be willing to cut domestic, foreign policy and military spending. In other words, there can be no sacred cows. Moreover, we must be careful how much we lower taxes. Even though the federal government does too much, we must pay for things.
I would love for Americans to keep more of what they earn, but if government does too much with regards to domestic and foreign policy, it is difficult to lower taxes.
Marijuana - I believe that it is time to repeal the federal prohibition of marijuana. I do not believe the U.S. Constitution gives authority to Congress to regulate the commerce of marijuana within a state. And I do not believe that the sick should be criminalized for using marijuana.
Native Tribes - I believe that Congress should move towards giving Native Tribes more sovereignty over their affairs. Furthermore, I would like to work with Native Tribes to help facilitate more cooperation from the federal government in matters that affect their communities.
The Military - Roughly 15% of federal expenditures is for national defense (excludes veterans services and benefits). This percentage is definitely high enough to consider significant spending cuts. Although we should try to reform military spending to maximize savings, we should not neglect asking how much the U.S. military should be doing abroad and how many new weapons are actually needed to keep America safe. We should not be buying every weapon that has new bells and whistles. However, we should make sure veterans are getting the mental and physical care that they need.
Womens’ rights - He favors women’s right to make decisions about their own bodies, equal pay for equal work, and stronger economic opportunity. Has authored or cosponsored every women’s rights bill.
http://www.sanjuanjournal.com/news/libertarian-brian-luke-runs-for-2nd-congressional-district-seat/
Just to avoid confusion, Brian’s brother Mike Luke ran in the primary for the U.S. Senate in Washington State as a Libertarian.
Luke joined the Libertarian Party of Washington in March of this year. Previously, he was involved in the GOP for more than eight years, even serving a term as Vice-Chair of the Snohomish County Republican Party.
As for why Luke left the GOP, he states that, “I realized that there was little room for libertarian ideas in the Republican Party. But I felt that the GOP was fiscally irresponsible at the national level, embraced an expensive and dangerous foreign policy, and had very little youth appeal for a number of reasons.”
Luke states that his campaign “is partly a revolt against the national GOP fiscal and foreign policy. Sometimes Republicans blame everything on the Democrats for the mounting national debt and foreign policy woes, but far too often refuse to look at their own party.”
Rick Larsen is by no means my favorite politician. One observer claims that he is just a contrarian, and the more his constituents push in one direction, the more he pushes the opposite. That bothers me greatly because he is supposed to work FOR, not AGAINST his constituents.
Much of what Brian Luke has to say sounds good. It’s the missing parts that don’t sound so good. I would want to hear a whole lot more about that “cut the domestic budget” part. Just what would he cut? My experience with Libertarians is that they are really good at looking at one side of the budget spreadsheet and figuring out what government should not be doing for us. They’re just not at all good about the other side of that spreadsheet – the damage done by the loss of those “savings.” Back when Eyman’s $30.00 car tab initiative went into effect, Island Transit was hit hard by the loss of revenue. It had to cut back on services. At the time, my dad was using paratransit to take him to Senior Services twice a week. I calculated what it would cost me to have to substitute for that public service compared to what I was saving with the $30.00 tabs, and it would have cut two days out of my work week. I would gladly have paid the larger tab fees. The small increase in sales tax to keep that paratransit was very well worth it. I am not seeing Mr Luke or his fellow Libertarians making any of those calculations.
I am by no means thrilled with Rick Larsen, but I do see him moving more into a (dare I say?) progressive stance than in years past. I used to hold my nose when voting for him as the lesser evil. I think this time I may be voting for him because he is improving.
I will be voting for Rick Larsen.
https://www.goskagit.com/news/elections/candidate-questionnaire-congressional-district/article_13b3455a-200b-51ff-8fa5-b99255e8aa02.html
Rick Larsen, D, incumbent
https://larsen.house.gov/
Senior member, House Armed Services Committee
https://www.ricklarsen.org/
We all pretty much know Rick from the years he’s been in office. And we’ve had some knock down/drag outs with him over his support of the military over the people of Island County, and his support for climate killing fossil fuel trans-shipment facilities in the name of jobs. We all know that he doesn’t get it on a lot of issues important to us.
And then the coup of 2016 happened and suddenly Rick is a new man. He voted against the Trump budget, against many of the insane and egregious proposals coming out of the fascist right. And he now believes in dealing with climate change, including cap & trade as one means to limit CO2. One has the distinct impression that the farther right the fascists push, the farther left Rick leans.
On the environment
~ He now touts his voting record of trying to eliminate subsidies for the oil industry.
~ He wrote that exiting the Paris agreement is/was a big mistake.
~ He fought to keep transit/light rail funds in the federal budget.
~ He supports salmon habitat restoration, protecting critical habitat areas, and conserving open space. ~ He worked to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has now expired.
~ He signed a joint letter to NOAA fisheries and Army Corps asking them to deal with the Atlantic salmon fish farm disaster by not permitting any new or refurbishment of existing pens.
~ He voted to prevent logging of the Tongass Roadless Area in Alaska.
~ He supports keeping our public lands (Bears’ Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante) public.
On economic development
~ He claims to have secured impact aid for schools with children of active military.
~ He’s against the Trump tariffs, as they hurt US workers and businesses.
On people issues
~ He supports Medicare and Obamacare, and is fighting to prevent the destruction of both.
~ He cosponsored the DREAM act.
~ He objected vehemently to the Trump policy of breaking up families and imprisoning children and participated in Keep Families Together rallies in Mt Vernon & Bellingham.
~ He co-signed a petition to his fellow congress members to fund rebuilding of Puerto Rico
Now here’s an interesting one. He issued a press release demanding that the Navy explain why it is insisting on putting all its Growlers in the Whidbey basket and expressing his concerns for Whidbey communities. Aw shucks and golly gee. We didn’t know you cared. There is some question about how this translates to his support for NAS Whidbey.
Brian Luke, Libertarian
https://www.luke4congress.com/
personal info:
Has worked in the grocery business for 20+ years, grocery dept manager. MA in International studies, with Middle East focus, BAs in history, classics, comparative religions, paralegal certificate. Worked on nuclear non-proliferation issues, especially US policy toward Iran’s nuclear program.
issues:
Primary issue: the national debt, which he proposes to reduce by cutting domestic and military spending.
U.S. Foreign Policy - The United States should not waste precious blood and treasure abroad. Foolish foreign engagements disrespect the soldier and add more debt, which now stands at over $18 trillion. The peoples of other countries must choose and be responsible for their own governments. The United States must seek diplomacy with all nations but be cautious of being a patron to governments or peoples.
Taxes and Spending - We must collect sufficient revenue to pay for the federal government and not overspend. We do neither, which is why we have huge deficits. The policy seems to be to lower taxes without getting significant domestic spending cuts and then on top of that cranking up military spending. We must be willing to cut domestic, foreign policy and military spending. In other words, there can be no sacred cows. Moreover, we must be careful how much we lower taxes. Even though the federal government does too much, we must pay for things.
I would love for Americans to keep more of what they earn, but if government does too much with regards to domestic and foreign policy, it is difficult to lower taxes.
Marijuana - I believe that it is time to repeal the federal prohibition of marijuana. I do not believe the U.S. Constitution gives authority to Congress to regulate the commerce of marijuana within a state. And I do not believe that the sick should be criminalized for using marijuana.
Native Tribes - I believe that Congress should move towards giving Native Tribes more sovereignty over their affairs. Furthermore, I would like to work with Native Tribes to help facilitate more cooperation from the federal government in matters that affect their communities.
The Military - Roughly 15% of federal expenditures is for national defense (excludes veterans services and benefits). This percentage is definitely high enough to consider significant spending cuts. Although we should try to reform military spending to maximize savings, we should not neglect asking how much the U.S. military should be doing abroad and how many new weapons are actually needed to keep America safe. We should not be buying every weapon that has new bells and whistles. However, we should make sure veterans are getting the mental and physical care that they need.
Womens’ rights - He favors women’s right to make decisions about their own bodies, equal pay for equal work, and stronger economic opportunity. Has authored or cosponsored every women’s rights bill.
http://www.sanjuanjournal.com/news/libertarian-brian-luke-runs-for-2nd-congressional-district-seat/
Just to avoid confusion, Brian’s brother Mike Luke ran in the primary for the U.S. Senate in Washington State as a Libertarian.
Luke joined the Libertarian Party of Washington in March of this year. Previously, he was involved in the GOP for more than eight years, even serving a term as Vice-Chair of the Snohomish County Republican Party.
As for why Luke left the GOP, he states that, “I realized that there was little room for libertarian ideas in the Republican Party. But I felt that the GOP was fiscally irresponsible at the national level, embraced an expensive and dangerous foreign policy, and had very little youth appeal for a number of reasons.”
Luke states that his campaign “is partly a revolt against the national GOP fiscal and foreign policy. Sometimes Republicans blame everything on the Democrats for the mounting national debt and foreign policy woes, but far too often refuse to look at their own party.”
Rick Larsen is by no means my favorite politician. One observer claims that he is just a contrarian, and the more his constituents push in one direction, the more he pushes the opposite. That bothers me greatly because he is supposed to work FOR, not AGAINST his constituents.
Much of what Brian Luke has to say sounds good. It’s the missing parts that don’t sound so good. I would want to hear a whole lot more about that “cut the domestic budget” part. Just what would he cut? My experience with Libertarians is that they are really good at looking at one side of the budget spreadsheet and figuring out what government should not be doing for us. They’re just not at all good about the other side of that spreadsheet – the damage done by the loss of those “savings.” Back when Eyman’s $30.00 car tab initiative went into effect, Island Transit was hit hard by the loss of revenue. It had to cut back on services. At the time, my dad was using paratransit to take him to Senior Services twice a week. I calculated what it would cost me to have to substitute for that public service compared to what I was saving with the $30.00 tabs, and it would have cut two days out of my work week. I would gladly have paid the larger tab fees. The small increase in sales tax to keep that paratransit was very well worth it. I am not seeing Mr Luke or his fellow Libertarians making any of those calculations.
I am by no means thrilled with Rick Larsen, but I do see him moving more into a (dare I say?) progressive stance than in years past. I used to hold my nose when voting for him as the lesser evil. I think this time I may be voting for him because he is improving.
I will be voting for Rick Larsen.
Legislative District 10, positions 1 and 2
Legislative District 10, positions 1 & 2
Someone asked me at a candidates’ night how it is that we are voting for 2 positions in the legislature. Just in case you didn’t realize it, each legislative district is allotted one senator and two representatives in the legislature. Which is why you will find ‘position 1’ and ‘position 2’ below.
I have now done extensive research on the voting records of the 2 legislative incumbents. To put it succinctly: appalling. Their voting records are very similar and they’re not good. Both vote in favor of guns and against any form of gun control, although Norma cleverly is not available when some of the more contentious issues are voted. Its hard to summarize years of votes on a broad range of issues, but when it comes to favoring fossil fuels both Dave Hayes and Norma are right there. When it comes to alternatives to fossil fuels, not so much.
Neither of them has much of any use for women’s rights or autonomy, based on their anti-contraceptive, anti-abortion votes. Norma also voted anti-gay and anti-paid sick leave.
Both Dave Hayes and Norma hedge about whether they believe climate change is real or not, but both of them oppose I-1631, the one chance Washington has of controlling fossil fuels and CO2 emissions in the state. Norma claims we’ve got it all covered, no problem. Dave Hayes, by contrast, insists that its just another gas tax boondoggle. I have to conclude that neither of them has read either the initiative as a whole or even a reasonable summary. Their claims simply don’t hold water.
Norma is a bit internally inconsistent, voting on the one hand to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen oil transport safety. But then she voted against a bill to tighten greenhouse gas emission regulations, against increasing the gas tax, against energy efficiency improvement bonds, and against an oil importation fee to fund stormwater pollution cleanup.
All four candidates were asked whether or not they supported exempting the legislature from the Public Records Act. Turns out both Norma and Dave Hayes voted in favor of such an exemption but did not own up to it at the event. Both Scott McMullen and Dave Paul voiced very strong opinions that no public business should be done behind closed doors. Dave Paul pointed out that in his position at Skagit Valley College he is subject to the Public Records Act and has had no problem living with that. While Dave Hayes and Norma insisted that some information was just too sensitive, Dave Paul said that the exceptions currently in the law cover that. It should be pointed out that Dave Hayes sponsored legislation to impose fees on public records. That legislation passed and has made life difficult for people researching the public’s business.
On just about every issue Norma talks a good line but can’t be trusted to follow through with good action.
Position #1
Norma Smith, R, incumbent http://normasmith.houserepublicans.wa.gov/
https://www.facebook.com/normasmithpage/
office@votenormasmith.com
She has no campaign website. Her Facebook page is pretty silent on her positions, so I’ve had to go to her voting record.
voted against automatic voter registration
voted against requiring health insurance to cover contraceptives and abortion
voted against a prohibition on ‘conversion therapy’ of juveniles
chose not to vote on banning bump stocks
chose not to vote on exempting the legislature from public disclosure
voted against amending greenhouse gas emission targets downward
co-sponsored a bill (which passed) to charge fees for public records
voted to authorize charter schools
voted against requiring paid sick leave
in her favor, she did vote in favor of net neutrality.
She’s rated 100% by the American Conservative Union and Associated General Contractors of Washington, a mere 93% by the NRA. She’s rated 0% by NARAL. She’s endorsed by Builders Association of Washington, NRA, and Washington Farm Bureau. She has links to the Northwest Policy Center, a right-wing think tank.
Norma comes across as friendly, outgoing, concerned. Good front. When we try to talk to her about specifics, like how the Forest Practices Act allows wholesale logging of wetlands and steep slopes, she slides off into her favorite topic, rare earths. No matter what subject you bring up, she talks about rare earths. After a while you just don’t bother any more, which I think is the whole point. Pretty clearly, whatever she says, her voting record speaks for itself and it is not pretty.
A really important point is that we have now lost the US Supreme Court, and are likely to lose Roe v Wade. As mentioned below, it will fall to the states to legislate a woman’s autonomy. Norma has demonstrated with her vote that she will NOT support a woman’s right to control her own body. To me this is a drop-dead issue.
Scott McMullen, D https://www.scottmcmullen.org/
info@scottmcmullen.org
Scott is very much a political novice in spite of his 8 years on the Mt Vernon city council and it shows. He has been scrambling to put together a viable campaign. His day job is as a firefighter, and he’s used up all his personal leave days, which is pinching his ability to campaign.
Here are the priorities he has listed on his website:
~ education: fully fund k-12 education, no-debt school, safe schools, apprenticeship programs
~ transportation: fully fund transportation programs, invest in infrastructure, safe & efficient ferries
~ public safety: support first responders, common sense measures to protect students in schools & curb gun violence
~ quality of life/environment: protect native fisheries & natural bounty of Salish Sea, GMA is vital, climate change is real, need to prepare for effects and mitigate further damage, invest in clean energy to create jobs; public/private partnerships to end affordable housing crisis.
These statements come from the various candidates’ events:
~ He supports I-1631 and wants to replace oil jobs with green jobs.
~ He wants to see the many tax loopholes for large corporation (mostly B&O & sales tax exemptions) tied to the actual promises of jobs made when the exemptions were passed. He sees this as a major source of funding. He would like to look into a capital gains tax.
~ He opposes dark money in elections.
~ He is against allowing assault/military weapons in the civilian population. He pointed out that his son was doing poorly in classes because he was busy figuring out how to evacuate the school.
I’ve been watching Scott at the various candidate events and he is still not the most polished, but he is showing his colors and I like what I see.
I’ll be voting for Scott McMullen.
Position #2
Dave Hayes, R, incumbent http://www.electdavehayes.com/
electdavehayes@gmail.com
sits on these legislative committees:
Public Safety (Assistant Ranking Republican)
Education
Transportation
Joint Committee on Veterans’ and Military Affairs
Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB)
At the candidate events Dave Hayes said that traffic safety was his specialty, and that he would focus on that, along with law’n order.
Issues:
~ Affordable Housing – he will solve that by reducing government regulation, although he doesn’t say which regulations or how that will reduce housing costs. At candidate events he made it clear that he intended to reduce housing costs by removing all those annoying regulations, like zoning.
~ Opioid & Heroin Addiction – sponsored legislation to fund a Snohomish County Diversion Center to provide services to homeless people suffering from mental illness and addiction. Co-sponsored proposals to provide prevention and treatment resources statewide. Working toward increased enforcement against suppliers/dealers. Note that this conflates homelessness with mental illness and addiction.
~ Fiscal Responsibility – he is bent at having to fully fund education. He calls a capital gains tax “irresponsible and must be defeated.” He has made clear that he thinks there’s money in the budget which could be shifted to education. He’s not so clear what other programs would be shorted by such a transfer. He rails against “unfunded mandates”, which is to say any requirement for which the legislature does not appropriate funds. But he doesn’t want to appropriate funds.
~ Transportation – he is opposed to any mileage tax, claiming it disproportionately punishes rural districts. Reforming the permitting process for roads & bridges will reduce costs. Funding is needed for maintenance and preservation.
This seems to me a really narrow definition of transportation. In fact, at candidate events he said he wanted to drop regulatory/environmental review of all work within a highway right of way – including repair of failing bridges. Really? This one scares me. There is a reason why we have environmental review of road projects – as those of us dealing with the mountains of asphalt left behind by the repaving of Hwy 525/20 know only to well. And the idea of passing on review of plans to rebuild bridges seems a recipe for disaster.
Safe Communities – he wants more funding for local cops and more cops in schools. He will “continue to stand for first responders” and “ensure those who have committed crimes are held accountable.”
He’s got a strong anti-woman bias. He voted against equal pay for equal work. He voted against contraceptive and abortion coverage. He voted against a women’s commission at the state level.
He actively opposes I-1631, claiming “its just another carbon tax” and that it won’t serve the intended purpose but will make life more difficult for poor people. It was pretty obvious he had no clue what 1631 is actually about. He just knows he doesn’t like it.
He actively opposes 940, the police training initiative. He went so far as to sponsor an alternative, HB 3003, which passed and was signed into law. Only 3003 contained language, and Dave Hayes says he wrote the bill, which makes 3003 go away as soon as 940 goes on the ballot. He now argues we don't need 940 because we have 3003. But of course we don't. It went away as soon as 940 was approved. There is something smelly about this. Why is a cop so afraid of a measure to train cops?
My all time favorite quote came at the 10-2-18 candidate’s night when he opened with “one man’s assault rifle is another man’s hunting rifle.” The room broke up in laughter. This is a man out of touch with the majority of his constituency.
And here’s his voting record:
voted to promote renewable natural gas
voted against gender pay equality
voted against automatic voter registration
voted against protecting students from for-profit schools
voted against creating a Marbled murrelet habitat reporting system
voted against allowing municipalities to bank at credit unions
voted against establishing a Washington State Women’s Commission
voted against a tax increase for public transit funding
voted against restrictions on ‘conversion therapy’ of gay teens
voted against increased reporting requirements on campaign contributions
voted against requiring health insurance to cover contraception and abortion
voted against protecting ag workers and communities from pesticides
voted against the Washington voting rights act
voted against extending the voter registration period
voted against banning bump stocks, stating “I don’t think that banning accessories on a firearm is going to make safer communities.”
Dave Paul, D http://www.votedavepaul.com/
dave@votedavepaul.com
Dave is an administrator at Skagit Valley College. He has an obvious and particular interest in education. From his website: Dave facilitated expanded outreach of financial aid to community groups, including instituting College Goal Washington events on both the Mount Vernon and Whidbey Island campuses. He has also led the expansion of student support for Latino students, the addition of bilingual staff members, and dedicated financial assistance for DREAMers.
Here are a few other of his focus points:
* Our property tax system in broken. Instead of fully funding our schools, state legislators have raised property taxes, resulting in greater funding inequities across our state. A more balanced approach should include decreasing unnecessary tax give-aways to big oil, and removing sales tax exemption for out-of-state residents.
* Climate change affects quality of life and important local industries. He will work to significantly reduce carbon fuel dependencies and promote the renewable energy industry.
* Farmland and agrarian economies are critical to our district. Pressures from population growth can be mitigated with common-sense solutions, such as public-private partnerships that purchase development rights, and agriculture-friendly entrepreneurial zones.
* A diverse economy is a healthy economy. We have established employers and industries, as well as fishing, agriculture, timber, tourism, and hospitality. More can be done to help diversify and strengthen our economy, and thus provide living wage jobs.
I spent a productive evening posing questions for Dave Paul at a candidate event. He’s better than his campaign literature suggests. One of the issues raised was the fact that certain elected officials go to lengths to avoid facing their constituents. Dave committed to regular town hall events.
I asked about the state’s regressive tax structure and the possibility of an income tax. Dave is enough of a realist to agree that even whispering about an income tax is political suicide in Washington. Instead, he proposes to educate taxpayers, and to institute a comprehensive program addressing the many tax loopholes and giveaways in the current code. He wants to avoid double taxing ordinary working people but says he has seen as many as 700 business tax exemptions, some of which support the fossil fuel industry. He favors a carbon tax (think Initiative 1631) and a Capital Gains tax, among others. Someone pointed out that millions of $$ of our taxes go to support the Washington Military Alliance, a private non-profit supporting the military, and questioned why our taxes pay for that but not for a Peace Alliance. Dave was not aware of this organization but reasoned that it was most likely all about jobs. And Dave proposed that we use such funds to promote peaceful jobs, such as in solar and wind, jobs which improve our communities.
At a candidate event the question was posed: what incentives would you provide for affordable housing? While Dave Hayes went on about loosening regulations, cutting red tape, Dave Paul said he didn’t want to loosen the regulations, which are in place for a reason. He wants to encourage infill development in urban areas which already have that expensive infrastructure in place.
Dave is enough of an environmentalist to understand the connection between the 4 Snake River dams and starving Orcas. He supports removal of the dams, which will open thousands of miles of stream habitat for salmon, which will then provide a food source for our painfully diminished Orcas. Good on him. And he supports 1631, which is important to me. Sort of a litmus test.
Everything I have seen and heard leads me to believe that he has the right ideas and the administrative/bureaucratic background to understand how the legislative system works.
Given Dave Hayes’ legislative record, I would likely support even a less qualified candidate. Luckily Dave Paul is highly qualified and will represent my views in the legislature.
I will be voting for Dave Paul.
Someone asked me at a candidates’ night how it is that we are voting for 2 positions in the legislature. Just in case you didn’t realize it, each legislative district is allotted one senator and two representatives in the legislature. Which is why you will find ‘position 1’ and ‘position 2’ below.
I have now done extensive research on the voting records of the 2 legislative incumbents. To put it succinctly: appalling. Their voting records are very similar and they’re not good. Both vote in favor of guns and against any form of gun control, although Norma cleverly is not available when some of the more contentious issues are voted. Its hard to summarize years of votes on a broad range of issues, but when it comes to favoring fossil fuels both Dave Hayes and Norma are right there. When it comes to alternatives to fossil fuels, not so much.
Neither of them has much of any use for women’s rights or autonomy, based on their anti-contraceptive, anti-abortion votes. Norma also voted anti-gay and anti-paid sick leave.
Both Dave Hayes and Norma hedge about whether they believe climate change is real or not, but both of them oppose I-1631, the one chance Washington has of controlling fossil fuels and CO2 emissions in the state. Norma claims we’ve got it all covered, no problem. Dave Hayes, by contrast, insists that its just another gas tax boondoggle. I have to conclude that neither of them has read either the initiative as a whole or even a reasonable summary. Their claims simply don’t hold water.
Norma is a bit internally inconsistent, voting on the one hand to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen oil transport safety. But then she voted against a bill to tighten greenhouse gas emission regulations, against increasing the gas tax, against energy efficiency improvement bonds, and against an oil importation fee to fund stormwater pollution cleanup.
All four candidates were asked whether or not they supported exempting the legislature from the Public Records Act. Turns out both Norma and Dave Hayes voted in favor of such an exemption but did not own up to it at the event. Both Scott McMullen and Dave Paul voiced very strong opinions that no public business should be done behind closed doors. Dave Paul pointed out that in his position at Skagit Valley College he is subject to the Public Records Act and has had no problem living with that. While Dave Hayes and Norma insisted that some information was just too sensitive, Dave Paul said that the exceptions currently in the law cover that. It should be pointed out that Dave Hayes sponsored legislation to impose fees on public records. That legislation passed and has made life difficult for people researching the public’s business.
On just about every issue Norma talks a good line but can’t be trusted to follow through with good action.
Position #1
Norma Smith, R, incumbent http://normasmith.houserepublicans.wa.gov/
https://www.facebook.com/normasmithpage/
office@votenormasmith.com
She has no campaign website. Her Facebook page is pretty silent on her positions, so I’ve had to go to her voting record.
voted against automatic voter registration
voted against requiring health insurance to cover contraceptives and abortion
voted against a prohibition on ‘conversion therapy’ of juveniles
chose not to vote on banning bump stocks
chose not to vote on exempting the legislature from public disclosure
voted against amending greenhouse gas emission targets downward
co-sponsored a bill (which passed) to charge fees for public records
voted to authorize charter schools
voted against requiring paid sick leave
in her favor, she did vote in favor of net neutrality.
She’s rated 100% by the American Conservative Union and Associated General Contractors of Washington, a mere 93% by the NRA. She’s rated 0% by NARAL. She’s endorsed by Builders Association of Washington, NRA, and Washington Farm Bureau. She has links to the Northwest Policy Center, a right-wing think tank.
Norma comes across as friendly, outgoing, concerned. Good front. When we try to talk to her about specifics, like how the Forest Practices Act allows wholesale logging of wetlands and steep slopes, she slides off into her favorite topic, rare earths. No matter what subject you bring up, she talks about rare earths. After a while you just don’t bother any more, which I think is the whole point. Pretty clearly, whatever she says, her voting record speaks for itself and it is not pretty.
A really important point is that we have now lost the US Supreme Court, and are likely to lose Roe v Wade. As mentioned below, it will fall to the states to legislate a woman’s autonomy. Norma has demonstrated with her vote that she will NOT support a woman’s right to control her own body. To me this is a drop-dead issue.
Scott McMullen, D https://www.scottmcmullen.org/
info@scottmcmullen.org
Scott is very much a political novice in spite of his 8 years on the Mt Vernon city council and it shows. He has been scrambling to put together a viable campaign. His day job is as a firefighter, and he’s used up all his personal leave days, which is pinching his ability to campaign.
Here are the priorities he has listed on his website:
~ education: fully fund k-12 education, no-debt school, safe schools, apprenticeship programs
~ transportation: fully fund transportation programs, invest in infrastructure, safe & efficient ferries
~ public safety: support first responders, common sense measures to protect students in schools & curb gun violence
~ quality of life/environment: protect native fisheries & natural bounty of Salish Sea, GMA is vital, climate change is real, need to prepare for effects and mitigate further damage, invest in clean energy to create jobs; public/private partnerships to end affordable housing crisis.
These statements come from the various candidates’ events:
~ He supports I-1631 and wants to replace oil jobs with green jobs.
~ He wants to see the many tax loopholes for large corporation (mostly B&O & sales tax exemptions) tied to the actual promises of jobs made when the exemptions were passed. He sees this as a major source of funding. He would like to look into a capital gains tax.
~ He opposes dark money in elections.
~ He is against allowing assault/military weapons in the civilian population. He pointed out that his son was doing poorly in classes because he was busy figuring out how to evacuate the school.
I’ve been watching Scott at the various candidate events and he is still not the most polished, but he is showing his colors and I like what I see.
I’ll be voting for Scott McMullen.
Position #2
Dave Hayes, R, incumbent http://www.electdavehayes.com/
electdavehayes@gmail.com
sits on these legislative committees:
Public Safety (Assistant Ranking Republican)
Education
Transportation
Joint Committee on Veterans’ and Military Affairs
Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB)
At the candidate events Dave Hayes said that traffic safety was his specialty, and that he would focus on that, along with law’n order.
Issues:
~ Affordable Housing – he will solve that by reducing government regulation, although he doesn’t say which regulations or how that will reduce housing costs. At candidate events he made it clear that he intended to reduce housing costs by removing all those annoying regulations, like zoning.
~ Opioid & Heroin Addiction – sponsored legislation to fund a Snohomish County Diversion Center to provide services to homeless people suffering from mental illness and addiction. Co-sponsored proposals to provide prevention and treatment resources statewide. Working toward increased enforcement against suppliers/dealers. Note that this conflates homelessness with mental illness and addiction.
~ Fiscal Responsibility – he is bent at having to fully fund education. He calls a capital gains tax “irresponsible and must be defeated.” He has made clear that he thinks there’s money in the budget which could be shifted to education. He’s not so clear what other programs would be shorted by such a transfer. He rails against “unfunded mandates”, which is to say any requirement for which the legislature does not appropriate funds. But he doesn’t want to appropriate funds.
~ Transportation – he is opposed to any mileage tax, claiming it disproportionately punishes rural districts. Reforming the permitting process for roads & bridges will reduce costs. Funding is needed for maintenance and preservation.
This seems to me a really narrow definition of transportation. In fact, at candidate events he said he wanted to drop regulatory/environmental review of all work within a highway right of way – including repair of failing bridges. Really? This one scares me. There is a reason why we have environmental review of road projects – as those of us dealing with the mountains of asphalt left behind by the repaving of Hwy 525/20 know only to well. And the idea of passing on review of plans to rebuild bridges seems a recipe for disaster.
Safe Communities – he wants more funding for local cops and more cops in schools. He will “continue to stand for first responders” and “ensure those who have committed crimes are held accountable.”
He’s got a strong anti-woman bias. He voted against equal pay for equal work. He voted against contraceptive and abortion coverage. He voted against a women’s commission at the state level.
He actively opposes I-1631, claiming “its just another carbon tax” and that it won’t serve the intended purpose but will make life more difficult for poor people. It was pretty obvious he had no clue what 1631 is actually about. He just knows he doesn’t like it.
He actively opposes 940, the police training initiative. He went so far as to sponsor an alternative, HB 3003, which passed and was signed into law. Only 3003 contained language, and Dave Hayes says he wrote the bill, which makes 3003 go away as soon as 940 goes on the ballot. He now argues we don't need 940 because we have 3003. But of course we don't. It went away as soon as 940 was approved. There is something smelly about this. Why is a cop so afraid of a measure to train cops?
My all time favorite quote came at the 10-2-18 candidate’s night when he opened with “one man’s assault rifle is another man’s hunting rifle.” The room broke up in laughter. This is a man out of touch with the majority of his constituency.
And here’s his voting record:
voted to promote renewable natural gas
voted against gender pay equality
voted against automatic voter registration
voted against protecting students from for-profit schools
voted against creating a Marbled murrelet habitat reporting system
voted against allowing municipalities to bank at credit unions
voted against establishing a Washington State Women’s Commission
voted against a tax increase for public transit funding
voted against restrictions on ‘conversion therapy’ of gay teens
voted against increased reporting requirements on campaign contributions
voted against requiring health insurance to cover contraception and abortion
voted against protecting ag workers and communities from pesticides
voted against the Washington voting rights act
voted against extending the voter registration period
voted against banning bump stocks, stating “I don’t think that banning accessories on a firearm is going to make safer communities.”
Dave Paul, D http://www.votedavepaul.com/
dave@votedavepaul.com
Dave is an administrator at Skagit Valley College. He has an obvious and particular interest in education. From his website: Dave facilitated expanded outreach of financial aid to community groups, including instituting College Goal Washington events on both the Mount Vernon and Whidbey Island campuses. He has also led the expansion of student support for Latino students, the addition of bilingual staff members, and dedicated financial assistance for DREAMers.
Here are a few other of his focus points:
* Our property tax system in broken. Instead of fully funding our schools, state legislators have raised property taxes, resulting in greater funding inequities across our state. A more balanced approach should include decreasing unnecessary tax give-aways to big oil, and removing sales tax exemption for out-of-state residents.
* Climate change affects quality of life and important local industries. He will work to significantly reduce carbon fuel dependencies and promote the renewable energy industry.
* Farmland and agrarian economies are critical to our district. Pressures from population growth can be mitigated with common-sense solutions, such as public-private partnerships that purchase development rights, and agriculture-friendly entrepreneurial zones.
* A diverse economy is a healthy economy. We have established employers and industries, as well as fishing, agriculture, timber, tourism, and hospitality. More can be done to help diversify and strengthen our economy, and thus provide living wage jobs.
I spent a productive evening posing questions for Dave Paul at a candidate event. He’s better than his campaign literature suggests. One of the issues raised was the fact that certain elected officials go to lengths to avoid facing their constituents. Dave committed to regular town hall events.
I asked about the state’s regressive tax structure and the possibility of an income tax. Dave is enough of a realist to agree that even whispering about an income tax is political suicide in Washington. Instead, he proposes to educate taxpayers, and to institute a comprehensive program addressing the many tax loopholes and giveaways in the current code. He wants to avoid double taxing ordinary working people but says he has seen as many as 700 business tax exemptions, some of which support the fossil fuel industry. He favors a carbon tax (think Initiative 1631) and a Capital Gains tax, among others. Someone pointed out that millions of $$ of our taxes go to support the Washington Military Alliance, a private non-profit supporting the military, and questioned why our taxes pay for that but not for a Peace Alliance. Dave was not aware of this organization but reasoned that it was most likely all about jobs. And Dave proposed that we use such funds to promote peaceful jobs, such as in solar and wind, jobs which improve our communities.
At a candidate event the question was posed: what incentives would you provide for affordable housing? While Dave Hayes went on about loosening regulations, cutting red tape, Dave Paul said he didn’t want to loosen the regulations, which are in place for a reason. He wants to encourage infill development in urban areas which already have that expensive infrastructure in place.
Dave is enough of an environmentalist to understand the connection between the 4 Snake River dams and starving Orcas. He supports removal of the dams, which will open thousands of miles of stream habitat for salmon, which will then provide a food source for our painfully diminished Orcas. Good on him. And he supports 1631, which is important to me. Sort of a litmus test.
Everything I have seen and heard leads me to believe that he has the right ideas and the administrative/bureaucratic background to understand how the legislative system works.
Given Dave Hayes’ legislative record, I would likely support even a less qualified candidate. Luckily Dave Paul is highly qualified and will represent my views in the legislature.
I will be voting for Dave Paul.
Island County Commissioner, District 3
Island County Commissioner, District 3
I did a fair amount of work on these two candidates for the primary. I’m using what I posted then as the basis for this update for the General election. You can also scroll down to my notes from the 9-24-18 and 10-2-18 candidates’ nights. They reveal the candidates under a bit of stress and in front of a crowd.
I need to clear up some confusion. Island County, like most, has 3 County Commissioners, each representing their own district. Only the residents of the district vote for a commissioner in the primary. The general election, by contrast, is open to everyone in the county. This is the chance for all of us to weigh in on the District 3 commissioner’s race.
Rick Hannold, R, incumbent http://www.rickhannold.com/
rhannold@comcast.net
I’ve been watching Rick Hannold for the last 4 years and to say that I am underwhelmed would be a gross understatement.
Rick Hannold has concluded that the way to win votes is to claim that Whidbey Environmental Action Network supports Janet St Clair. While individuals involved with WEAN do support Janet St Clair, the organization, being a federal tax exempt organization, does not endorse candidates. While this was made clear by WEAN, Hannold failed to get the message. He believes his claim is a dog whistle for his far right constituents. Given that he does not believe that climate change is real or caused by humans, and given that WEAN is busting a gut and more to get the climate change message across to the public, along with the message of what we can do about it, there are some obvious differences.
I appreciate the work of the anonymous person who compiled stories from the Record about Hannold.
6-16-18 Planning Commissioner’s remarks reflect lack of empathy.
This was the statement by Hannold’s Plannning Commission appointees that people had to earn the right to live here, and those living in tents were making a lifestyle choice.
6-27-18 Hannold defends Planning Commissioner’s remarks.
The latest in a series of foot-in-mouth episodes involves Hannold’s appointment of Planning Commission members. Each County Commissioner appoints 3 Planning Commissioners from their district. Hannold chose to appoint 3 women who all believe that people should have to earn the right to live in Island County, and that people who live in tents in the woods do so as a lifestyle choice. After 2 years of work on an Affordable Housing plan, Hannold’s latest appointee torpedoed the whole thing – and Hannold defended her. The Planning Commission holds a great deal of power over how we live our lives in Island County. Hannold has made it clear with his appointments that poor and working people need not apply for residence.
But then – and this is classic Hannold – he takes credit for having recently passed the updated Housing element of the Comprehensive Plan, presumably over the objections of his appointed Planning Commissioners.
6-23-18 Commissioners were right to join opioid lawsuit.
Hannold voted no. This is a multi-jurisdictional national lawsuit to hold the manufacturers accountable for their massive advertising and distribution of opioids. Hannold’s comment was that this was a law enforcement matter and they just needed to get the dealers off the street. Right.
5-19-18 Commissioners have questions about city request.
Oak Harbor requested review of the just completed Joint Planning Area, asking for expansion. The commissioners voted not to reopen the issue. Hannold voted in favor of reopening. This is tied to the Wright’s Crossing proposal to build 1500 houses on farm land south of Oak Harbor, which incidentally is currently in court. Oak Harbor needs that new review to make the development happen. Hannold has claimed to be against that development, but then he just voted in favor of it.
5-12-18 Commissioners decline federal funds for trail.
This is the Ken’s Corner to ferry proposed trail which has long been in the county’s trails network plan. At a recent candidates’ night Hannold said he opposed it because it was uphill all the way. Yep, and if you’re going the other way it would go downhill, but he evidently forgot that part. Hannold and Jill Johnson turned back that funding because they had other priorities in their own districts. Never mind that there was no funding for those other priorities. We end up losing the Clinton trail and having no funds for the Oak Harbor and north trails. Good work, guys.
He has consistently refused to spend and even refused to accept funds for projects in districts other than his own – and when he is overridden, again, he claims credit for the good the projects have done.
3-18-18 County board revisits debate over health.
This is about the health impacts of growler noise. Hannold expressed his frustration because as far as he was concerned the issue was closed. “I thought we put an end to this conversation, but it still comes up every meeting. Life can cause illness and adverse health effects. The only way around it is death.” If I were less charitable I would translate this statement as an invitation to residents of the prairie to drop dead.
10-27-17 County continues home nurse visits – for now.
Hannold said “I don’t question the value of the program. I question what part county government is responsible for.” It follows for the rest of us to question how this valuable program would continue without Island County’s participation. Hannold said he believes that mental health issues start in homes and schools, and that government should ‘unshackle’ parents and teachers from ‘a lot of liberal rules and regulations.’ I think the public needs urgently to know just what ‘liberal rules and regulations’ are such an imposition on parents and teachers.
10-13-14 Candidates take on spate of topics at South Whidbey forum.
Island County Commissioner candidate Rick Hannold told the audience that the threat of global warming is largely overstated. “I feel its just part of the natural course of things. You can skew the facts either way depending on who’s paying for the study.”
Hannold has consistently tried to shut down the Conservation Futures fund and program. In his campaign literature he claims to have “successfully reorganized” Conservation Futures. Right. His reorganization eliminated the Technical Advisory Group, which did the research on which decisions were based. Conservation Futures is the program which provides the seed money which Whidbey Camano Land Trust so skillfully leverages into significant grants which they then use to buy such places as the Trillium forest, conservation easements all over Ebey’s Landing National Historic Reserve, and Barnum Point on Camano, among many others. Without that seed money those other grants are not available. Rumor has it that Hannold tried to sell off Barnum Point to developers. Failing that, he then took credit for what I hear is becoming a great public asset. And in his campaign material he even takes credit for the Land Trust’s work securing the Fakkema Farm. Now that is some chutzpah, given that WEAN spent inordinate amounts of $$ defending Island County against Oak Harbor’s demand to annex the farm, and WCLT eventually raised the multiple millions to buy the development rights. Hannold’s only participation was his signature on the enabling ordinance.
One of Angie Homola’s accomplishments as a commissioner was to create the Clean Water Utility, intended to fund projects to do just that. I found the minutes of a Water Resources Advisory Committee meeting from late 2016 in which it was reported that “C/Johnson and C/Hannold were not in support of implementing this phase of the CWU. Bill Oakes has a million dollars in reserve with approximately $600,000 spent annually. They voted 2-1 to not release the money this year.” One might conclude from this that Hannold is not interested in protecting our water quality, even when specifically designated funds are available and waiting to be spent.
Hannold also claims to have saved Island Transit from bankruptcy. Right.
Most egregious is Hannold’s claim to have “led Island County’s victorious fight to keep multi-national open net fish farms away from Whidbey and Camano Island waters.” Maybe I’m most PO’d about this one because I was so intimately involved in the entire process. It began in 2010 when Angie Homola convinced her fellow commissioners to support a ban on Atlantic salmon net pens in the upcoming review and update of Island County’s Shoreline Master Program. The review and update went forward and eventually was sent to Ecology for review and approval. Ecology held the Shoreline Master Program hostage, demanding Island County remove the ban. There were a series of meetings and hearings, all of which Steve and I attended. Steve wrote a major paper summarizing all the science he could on the subject, and Ecology’s negotiator, Mr Tim Gates, acknowledged that Steve’s paper was the reason they waited 2 whole years to respond, and when they did it was to cave in and allow Island County’s ban. Rick Hannold’s only involvement in any of this was to approve the final adoption – and to add a weakening amendment allowing for industrial shellfish harvest on our shores. Once again, he takes credit for the work of others.
I need to repeat that Rick Hannold does not believe that climate change is real, so sees no reason why Island County should prepare for it. It might be interesting to hear his response to the recent report by the IPCC telling us that unless we take action NOW, we are all cooked.
I have just posted an inquiry to both Rick Hannold and Janet St Clair asking for their responses to the IPCC report. I will post as soon as I hear back.
I have very strong feelings about giving credit where credit is due. There is no shortage of this commodity and it doesn’t cost a lot to acknowledge what others have done. Rick Hannold has obviously never learned this lesson and takes egregiously inappropriate credit for the actions of others.
Janet St Clair, D http://www.janetstclair.com/
stclair4islandcounty@gmail.com
Janet is more than a breath of fresh air. She’s a bit of a strong wind who will stir up Island County government in a most positive way. Her background is in human services. She sits on the Island County Community Health Advisory Board, so already has some idea of how things work (or fail to work) at the county. Among other things she has seen just how personally offensive some county commissioners can be, which has caused her to take a pledge for civility. That in itself is a welcome and long needed change.
Unlike incumbent Hannold, Janet has genuine hands-on experience in developing and administering significant budgets. I also discovered in my research that Janet is the co-author of a published paper on providing comprehensive physical and mental health services.
Here are the points Janet makes in her campaign literature:
* Access to healthcare, including mental health and substance abuse treatment
* Dignified retirement and resources to age in place
* Affordable housing and economic opportunities for Island County residents
* Parks, access to beaches and open space for everyone to explore our outdoor wonders
* Stewardship of the natural beauty of our islands through sound planning and policies
* Respectful, experienced leadership that values community and people above all
Janet believes climate change is real and that human activity is responsible for it. She sees that Island County can reduce its impact and can prepare for such things as sea level rise. She already leads a small environmental organization in public education on these issues. She proposes, as commissioner, to work locally and regionally to develop policies and provide incentives for positive behavior. She is a proponent of low impact development, reducing stormwater runoff, working toward converting the county’s vehicle fleet to lower energy, providing more electric vehicle charging stations, and supporting I-1631, intended to move Washington from dependence on fossil fuels.
She has plans to deal with homelessness and affordable housing, and the background and experience to lend some reality to those plans. Here’s a quote:
She supports the following strategies that can increase housing inventory while staying within GMA mandates and protect the rural and small town nature of our communities.
a. Increase in-fill housing inventory in established urban growth areas and incorporated towns/cities.
b. Create and incentivize co-housing and shared housing policies that meet septic and water standards.
c. Develop policies for micro-housing on large parcels that do not detract or damage our environment and farms.
d. Provide incentives for owners to transfer existing housing from a VRBO inventory to rental inventory where fiscally possible.
At the candidates’ night Janet pledged to hold town hall meetings on a regular schedule, both on Camano and North Whidbey, in the evening so working people can attend. She also wants to work on ‘virtual representation.’ Something Angie Homola spent years accomplishing was a video link between the county courthouse and the Camano annex, so people on Camano could participate without driving for several hours. The technology has advanced and Janet wants to make use of those advances to increase distance participation.
On the environmental front, she spoke about the need to “de-armor” Island County’s shorelines. There are in fact regulations to prevent new bulkheads, but those are honored primarily in the breach. The effect of all these bulkheads is that the waves which would otherwise run out on the shore are blocked, but bulkheads have ends, so the blocked waves go around the ends of those bulkheads with more volume and energy – and erode the neighboring properties. There are technologies called “soft shore armoring” which could in many cases replace those bulkheads, reduce the wave energy, and prevent damaging erosion. Janet gave the recent project(s) at Cornet Bay as a great example.
Someone raised the issue of NAS and Growler noise over Coupeville and the prairie. Janet responded that this was very much an economic issue, and that even the Navy itself says that there are alternatives. They just don’t want to implement them. Janet sees the preferred alternative as having too great an impact on central Whidbey. She is very clear that challenging the current and proposed flight patterns and numbers does not make people anti Navy. She sees a tremendous adverse economic impact which she does not believe the people on central Whidbey should have to shoulder. She intends to consult with Rick Larsen and Senators Murray and Cantwell to address this, and ask them what plans they have to buy out all those impacted homes and farms. She believes that Island County needs economic mitigation for the Navy’s plans.
What this election comes down to is wildly divergent views of what government is all about. Rick Hannold comes from a military background. The military is organized as a hierarchy. Orders come down from above and are carried out by those below, without questioning the whys or wherefores. That is necessary in a military situation but it is totally counterproductive in a civic situation.
Janet St Clair, by contrast, believes that government is all of us taking care of the business of all of us. As she puts it, government works best when we all participate. There is no imposition of orders from above but rather a community discussion which, with luck, leads to a consensus on the best course of action. Admittedly this democratic approach is much messier than simply giving and carrying out orders, but it does give everybody who participates a voice.
That admittedly messy inclusivity is terribly important to me.
Which is why I will be voting enthusiastically for Janet St Clair.
I did a fair amount of work on these two candidates for the primary. I’m using what I posted then as the basis for this update for the General election. You can also scroll down to my notes from the 9-24-18 and 10-2-18 candidates’ nights. They reveal the candidates under a bit of stress and in front of a crowd.
I need to clear up some confusion. Island County, like most, has 3 County Commissioners, each representing their own district. Only the residents of the district vote for a commissioner in the primary. The general election, by contrast, is open to everyone in the county. This is the chance for all of us to weigh in on the District 3 commissioner’s race.
Rick Hannold, R, incumbent http://www.rickhannold.com/
rhannold@comcast.net
I’ve been watching Rick Hannold for the last 4 years and to say that I am underwhelmed would be a gross understatement.
Rick Hannold has concluded that the way to win votes is to claim that Whidbey Environmental Action Network supports Janet St Clair. While individuals involved with WEAN do support Janet St Clair, the organization, being a federal tax exempt organization, does not endorse candidates. While this was made clear by WEAN, Hannold failed to get the message. He believes his claim is a dog whistle for his far right constituents. Given that he does not believe that climate change is real or caused by humans, and given that WEAN is busting a gut and more to get the climate change message across to the public, along with the message of what we can do about it, there are some obvious differences.
I appreciate the work of the anonymous person who compiled stories from the Record about Hannold.
6-16-18 Planning Commissioner’s remarks reflect lack of empathy.
This was the statement by Hannold’s Plannning Commission appointees that people had to earn the right to live here, and those living in tents were making a lifestyle choice.
6-27-18 Hannold defends Planning Commissioner’s remarks.
The latest in a series of foot-in-mouth episodes involves Hannold’s appointment of Planning Commission members. Each County Commissioner appoints 3 Planning Commissioners from their district. Hannold chose to appoint 3 women who all believe that people should have to earn the right to live in Island County, and that people who live in tents in the woods do so as a lifestyle choice. After 2 years of work on an Affordable Housing plan, Hannold’s latest appointee torpedoed the whole thing – and Hannold defended her. The Planning Commission holds a great deal of power over how we live our lives in Island County. Hannold has made it clear with his appointments that poor and working people need not apply for residence.
But then – and this is classic Hannold – he takes credit for having recently passed the updated Housing element of the Comprehensive Plan, presumably over the objections of his appointed Planning Commissioners.
6-23-18 Commissioners were right to join opioid lawsuit.
Hannold voted no. This is a multi-jurisdictional national lawsuit to hold the manufacturers accountable for their massive advertising and distribution of opioids. Hannold’s comment was that this was a law enforcement matter and they just needed to get the dealers off the street. Right.
5-19-18 Commissioners have questions about city request.
Oak Harbor requested review of the just completed Joint Planning Area, asking for expansion. The commissioners voted not to reopen the issue. Hannold voted in favor of reopening. This is tied to the Wright’s Crossing proposal to build 1500 houses on farm land south of Oak Harbor, which incidentally is currently in court. Oak Harbor needs that new review to make the development happen. Hannold has claimed to be against that development, but then he just voted in favor of it.
5-12-18 Commissioners decline federal funds for trail.
This is the Ken’s Corner to ferry proposed trail which has long been in the county’s trails network plan. At a recent candidates’ night Hannold said he opposed it because it was uphill all the way. Yep, and if you’re going the other way it would go downhill, but he evidently forgot that part. Hannold and Jill Johnson turned back that funding because they had other priorities in their own districts. Never mind that there was no funding for those other priorities. We end up losing the Clinton trail and having no funds for the Oak Harbor and north trails. Good work, guys.
He has consistently refused to spend and even refused to accept funds for projects in districts other than his own – and when he is overridden, again, he claims credit for the good the projects have done.
3-18-18 County board revisits debate over health.
This is about the health impacts of growler noise. Hannold expressed his frustration because as far as he was concerned the issue was closed. “I thought we put an end to this conversation, but it still comes up every meeting. Life can cause illness and adverse health effects. The only way around it is death.” If I were less charitable I would translate this statement as an invitation to residents of the prairie to drop dead.
10-27-17 County continues home nurse visits – for now.
Hannold said “I don’t question the value of the program. I question what part county government is responsible for.” It follows for the rest of us to question how this valuable program would continue without Island County’s participation. Hannold said he believes that mental health issues start in homes and schools, and that government should ‘unshackle’ parents and teachers from ‘a lot of liberal rules and regulations.’ I think the public needs urgently to know just what ‘liberal rules and regulations’ are such an imposition on parents and teachers.
10-13-14 Candidates take on spate of topics at South Whidbey forum.
Island County Commissioner candidate Rick Hannold told the audience that the threat of global warming is largely overstated. “I feel its just part of the natural course of things. You can skew the facts either way depending on who’s paying for the study.”
Hannold has consistently tried to shut down the Conservation Futures fund and program. In his campaign literature he claims to have “successfully reorganized” Conservation Futures. Right. His reorganization eliminated the Technical Advisory Group, which did the research on which decisions were based. Conservation Futures is the program which provides the seed money which Whidbey Camano Land Trust so skillfully leverages into significant grants which they then use to buy such places as the Trillium forest, conservation easements all over Ebey’s Landing National Historic Reserve, and Barnum Point on Camano, among many others. Without that seed money those other grants are not available. Rumor has it that Hannold tried to sell off Barnum Point to developers. Failing that, he then took credit for what I hear is becoming a great public asset. And in his campaign material he even takes credit for the Land Trust’s work securing the Fakkema Farm. Now that is some chutzpah, given that WEAN spent inordinate amounts of $$ defending Island County against Oak Harbor’s demand to annex the farm, and WCLT eventually raised the multiple millions to buy the development rights. Hannold’s only participation was his signature on the enabling ordinance.
One of Angie Homola’s accomplishments as a commissioner was to create the Clean Water Utility, intended to fund projects to do just that. I found the minutes of a Water Resources Advisory Committee meeting from late 2016 in which it was reported that “C/Johnson and C/Hannold were not in support of implementing this phase of the CWU. Bill Oakes has a million dollars in reserve with approximately $600,000 spent annually. They voted 2-1 to not release the money this year.” One might conclude from this that Hannold is not interested in protecting our water quality, even when specifically designated funds are available and waiting to be spent.
Hannold also claims to have saved Island Transit from bankruptcy. Right.
Most egregious is Hannold’s claim to have “led Island County’s victorious fight to keep multi-national open net fish farms away from Whidbey and Camano Island waters.” Maybe I’m most PO’d about this one because I was so intimately involved in the entire process. It began in 2010 when Angie Homola convinced her fellow commissioners to support a ban on Atlantic salmon net pens in the upcoming review and update of Island County’s Shoreline Master Program. The review and update went forward and eventually was sent to Ecology for review and approval. Ecology held the Shoreline Master Program hostage, demanding Island County remove the ban. There were a series of meetings and hearings, all of which Steve and I attended. Steve wrote a major paper summarizing all the science he could on the subject, and Ecology’s negotiator, Mr Tim Gates, acknowledged that Steve’s paper was the reason they waited 2 whole years to respond, and when they did it was to cave in and allow Island County’s ban. Rick Hannold’s only involvement in any of this was to approve the final adoption – and to add a weakening amendment allowing for industrial shellfish harvest on our shores. Once again, he takes credit for the work of others.
I need to repeat that Rick Hannold does not believe that climate change is real, so sees no reason why Island County should prepare for it. It might be interesting to hear his response to the recent report by the IPCC telling us that unless we take action NOW, we are all cooked.
I have just posted an inquiry to both Rick Hannold and Janet St Clair asking for their responses to the IPCC report. I will post as soon as I hear back.
I have very strong feelings about giving credit where credit is due. There is no shortage of this commodity and it doesn’t cost a lot to acknowledge what others have done. Rick Hannold has obviously never learned this lesson and takes egregiously inappropriate credit for the actions of others.
Janet St Clair, D http://www.janetstclair.com/
stclair4islandcounty@gmail.com
Janet is more than a breath of fresh air. She’s a bit of a strong wind who will stir up Island County government in a most positive way. Her background is in human services. She sits on the Island County Community Health Advisory Board, so already has some idea of how things work (or fail to work) at the county. Among other things she has seen just how personally offensive some county commissioners can be, which has caused her to take a pledge for civility. That in itself is a welcome and long needed change.
Unlike incumbent Hannold, Janet has genuine hands-on experience in developing and administering significant budgets. I also discovered in my research that Janet is the co-author of a published paper on providing comprehensive physical and mental health services.
Here are the points Janet makes in her campaign literature:
* Access to healthcare, including mental health and substance abuse treatment
* Dignified retirement and resources to age in place
* Affordable housing and economic opportunities for Island County residents
* Parks, access to beaches and open space for everyone to explore our outdoor wonders
* Stewardship of the natural beauty of our islands through sound planning and policies
* Respectful, experienced leadership that values community and people above all
Janet believes climate change is real and that human activity is responsible for it. She sees that Island County can reduce its impact and can prepare for such things as sea level rise. She already leads a small environmental organization in public education on these issues. She proposes, as commissioner, to work locally and regionally to develop policies and provide incentives for positive behavior. She is a proponent of low impact development, reducing stormwater runoff, working toward converting the county’s vehicle fleet to lower energy, providing more electric vehicle charging stations, and supporting I-1631, intended to move Washington from dependence on fossil fuels.
She has plans to deal with homelessness and affordable housing, and the background and experience to lend some reality to those plans. Here’s a quote:
She supports the following strategies that can increase housing inventory while staying within GMA mandates and protect the rural and small town nature of our communities.
a. Increase in-fill housing inventory in established urban growth areas and incorporated towns/cities.
b. Create and incentivize co-housing and shared housing policies that meet septic and water standards.
c. Develop policies for micro-housing on large parcels that do not detract or damage our environment and farms.
d. Provide incentives for owners to transfer existing housing from a VRBO inventory to rental inventory where fiscally possible.
At the candidates’ night Janet pledged to hold town hall meetings on a regular schedule, both on Camano and North Whidbey, in the evening so working people can attend. She also wants to work on ‘virtual representation.’ Something Angie Homola spent years accomplishing was a video link between the county courthouse and the Camano annex, so people on Camano could participate without driving for several hours. The technology has advanced and Janet wants to make use of those advances to increase distance participation.
On the environmental front, she spoke about the need to “de-armor” Island County’s shorelines. There are in fact regulations to prevent new bulkheads, but those are honored primarily in the breach. The effect of all these bulkheads is that the waves which would otherwise run out on the shore are blocked, but bulkheads have ends, so the blocked waves go around the ends of those bulkheads with more volume and energy – and erode the neighboring properties. There are technologies called “soft shore armoring” which could in many cases replace those bulkheads, reduce the wave energy, and prevent damaging erosion. Janet gave the recent project(s) at Cornet Bay as a great example.
Someone raised the issue of NAS and Growler noise over Coupeville and the prairie. Janet responded that this was very much an economic issue, and that even the Navy itself says that there are alternatives. They just don’t want to implement them. Janet sees the preferred alternative as having too great an impact on central Whidbey. She is very clear that challenging the current and proposed flight patterns and numbers does not make people anti Navy. She sees a tremendous adverse economic impact which she does not believe the people on central Whidbey should have to shoulder. She intends to consult with Rick Larsen and Senators Murray and Cantwell to address this, and ask them what plans they have to buy out all those impacted homes and farms. She believes that Island County needs economic mitigation for the Navy’s plans.
What this election comes down to is wildly divergent views of what government is all about. Rick Hannold comes from a military background. The military is organized as a hierarchy. Orders come down from above and are carried out by those below, without questioning the whys or wherefores. That is necessary in a military situation but it is totally counterproductive in a civic situation.
Janet St Clair, by contrast, believes that government is all of us taking care of the business of all of us. As she puts it, government works best when we all participate. There is no imposition of orders from above but rather a community discussion which, with luck, leads to a consensus on the best course of action. Admittedly this democratic approach is much messier than simply giving and carrying out orders, but it does give everybody who participates a voice.
That admittedly messy inclusivity is terribly important to me.
Which is why I will be voting enthusiastically for Janet St Clair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)