Archive for Sound Off
Alpha Dog
Posted by: | CommentsNow that it is clear that the city plans on holding yet another retreat, in the name of efficiency and generally getting along, I thought I should offer up a suggestion on potential areas they could concentrate on for the year 2010.
This year I would like to see the City Council and Mayor Jenkins work on something not inherently obvious to them (by definition). The need to understand subtext.
Subtext is defined by Merriam-Webster as the implicit or metaphorical meaning (as of a literary text). You may recognize it more readily as a device used in television and film. It is often referred to as the story within the story.
For example, you may remember the popular advertising campaign where the fastidious grocer named Mr. Whipple implored the patrons not to squeeze the Charmin. In this case, he is actually telling the shoppers not to squeeze the toilet tissue.
Squeezing toilet tissue. Who cares? What harm is there in an edifying squeeze? What seemed like the kindly merchant trying to maintain the integrity of the product was really about Mr. Whipple: control freak; and his obsessive quest to maintain order in a world of chaos.
He couldn’t stop the world from changing around him but, dammit, he sure could try to control the homemakers of yore from squeezing the always predominately displayed tissue.
Of course, that is one interpretation of Whipple’s mania. Ultimately, he would always succumb to the sins of the tissue and wantonly squeeze it himself! (the cad) To that end, Mr. Whipple may have had a simple fetish and rather than confront his own base desires he employed transference to the unwitting shoppers. Perhaps the toilet tissue represented the breasts of the women he chose to confront; and in the end, Mr. Whipple always surrendered to his desire.
The last, and perhaps most controversial interpretation of subtext in the Charmin campaign is that Mr. Whipple is actually protecting the women from themselves. There is something virginal about toilet tissue in that state. White purity that is unspoiled but with the realization that it will one day be torn, debased, and ultimately discarded unceremoniously; and once defiled, it can never be made pure again. Stand aside, ladies, your guardian angel Whipple is going to preserve in you what he so desperately wants taken from himself.
And why did they always have to sniff it while squeezing?
Face it, the guy needed therapy.
I have taken the time to painstakingly edit the following video from the January 12, 2010 televised council meeting to illustrate an example of subtext and how it eludes most of those in attendance. Watch carefully, you should find yourself mired in the same frustration as the citizen speaker.
The untrained observer might conclude that this citizen was complaining about the general rudeness of people who carelessly, or purposely, allow their pets to use his yard as a toilet. Living on a corner lot next to a public trail, I can sympathize. However, there appears to be another theme at play.
I sense a citizen who is frustrated with the city and what he perceives as a lack of acknowledgement and, ultimately, lack of action.
First he begins with a simple email but it escalates to having to take the time to travel to city hall and address the council and mayor personally. What is his treatment? He is facing scorn and inquiry in a semantic battle over what a response is. In Councilman Ehrenreich’s opinion it is a return email acknowledging the problem. To Mr. Davita, response appears to be the lack of solution.
Both sides are talking, both sides are listening, but neither side seems to get it.
What the council and mayor do not seem to understand is that “working” on an issue does not necessarily mean that a solution will be the end result. I could rehash recent history to corroborate this point but Mr. Davita did one step better. He laid down his trump card when he asked how many citations the city has written enforcing this ordinance in the past five years.
Touché.
However, most of us will agree that we would rather the police concentrate on activities that are of a greater benefit to the whole of the public.
The confusion is around why would a statute exist if there was no plan to enforce it even in the face of the fact that it is being violated? We see this all the time, cell phone usage comes to mind.
That brings us back to square one in the situation; looking for solutions. Here we hear the coin drop in the mayor’s juke box of “public education” and the proposed “pet socialization area.” Unfortunately, neither holds much hope that the situation will change on Fisher Avenue.
Who knows, maybe this is just my transference of frustration with the city that I am assigning to Mr. Davita. During the same period I was also expecting a response from the city on a matter that went unanswered over a curiously long period of time. A simple information request two months delinquent. In parallel, I watched and waited for the mayor’s response to the July fireworks related fires and deferred mitigation.
Bupkis.
Take heart, Mr. Davita. It isn’t that they can’t hear you. It is just that they can’t seem to answer you.
City of DuPont Council Workshop Agenda – January 2010
Posted by: | CommentsIn case anyone thought that I was premature in announcing that the City of DuPont leadership had no intention of honoring their commitment I present to you the published agenda for the next council workshop to be held on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.
You can view the PDF here or a screen capture of the agenda here.
A Call To Action or The Wrong Number?
Posted by: | CommentsThere is a document I recently rediscovered buried deep within the city web site. Perhaps it was tucked away for safe keeping, hidden from the deteriorating light of day. Is there a curse associated with this document? Possessors of which will turn to stone? A pillar of salt?
Or that a local government will wander aimlessly in a planned community for 40 years?
That is hard to say, but what the City of DuPont Strategic Plan does offer is a blue print that was abandoned long ago. A secular scripture that is a relic of the past and dismissed long ago.
On one hand, how can you blame the city leaders for straying from the contents of this document. The Vision Statement curiously lacks vision.
Vision Statement: DuPont is a vital city known for its planned setting and hometown sense of community. The City successfully blends natural beauty with a rich northwest[sic] history.
Even if that statement was true it still misses the mark as far as vision is concerned. It reads more like it was lifted off of a mid to late 1990’s marketing brochure. More wishful thinking than a plan of action.
Equally muddled is the city’s Mission Statement. It also contains the nebulous, non-committal language that whoever is in charge at the moment can sculpt like a mound of clay.
Mission Statements: To provide the citizens of the City of DuPont a beautiful natural environment; high quality government services; progressive leadership and community inclusion.
The last part is particularly interesting in its weasely vagueness. Progressive? As in the Merriam Webster variety?
Main Entry: pro•gres•sive
Pronunciation: \pro-gre-siv\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1612
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities.
Up until this point progress in DuPont has been measured by building. The more permits issued meant that more people were moving in to create the neighborhoods. More neighborhoods meant more revenue and need for services.
Here comes the neighborhood.
And while DuPont was growing fast, it wasn’t growing that fast where some of the potential pitfalls that lay in wait could not have been adequately managed along the way. But here we are in nearly 2010 and the city continues to struggle with progressing down their path. Perhaps it is because this document that should serve as a roadmap has been folded up wrong and has slipped between the front seat and consol.
This brings us to the document’s Goals and Guidance Policies. It is the framework that is suppose to guide council through the budget process. But if you take a critical look at the document you begin to realize why it is now under the driver’s seat. Aside from the section of Budget (Goal Statement #3), there isn’t much use for it.
It is time for an overhaul on the DuPont Strategic Plan. The old playbook has left the city facing 4th and Long.
What makes this situation so vexing is not only do you need a reasonable playbook, you need a team that can execute to it.
One thing is certain, regardless of the cause, we have a city that is marching off in several directions. What the city needs more than anything; more than a perspective; more than more stable funding; more than community involvement; is the one thing that has lacked for years:
The city of DuPont needs a vision.
A single, unifying vision. Because without the vision there is nothing that can be measured against a success indicator.
Currently, we have a group working on preservation. A group working on tourism. A group working on keeping taxes low. A group trying to increase funding for facilities. A group that wants chocolate and a group that wants vanilla. A group that wants to please the businesses; a group that wants to please the military; and a group that wants to please the homeowners. Our city leadership is off in so many directions that their opposing directions all negate each other and they all stay firmly planted right where they have been since the notion of a vision statement was adopted: in City Hall bickering, infighting, and sabotaging one another.
This lack of vision and purpose has created a vacuum that is now filled by the city administrator and his staff. As much as we would like to criticize that, someone had to interpret that vision. It is just unfortunate for the citizens that it is now in the hands of the unelected leg of the stool.
You are sure to hear more about this flawed document now that the budget season is upon us. I am not so sure it matters anymore, this “this time we are serious” rhetoric. If you read this strategy you will find several pieces that have been either overlooked, wantonly disregarded, or contains such vague language that is rendered all but useless.
As the budget process chugs forward I will revisit this document and its goals, and you should too, in order to hold the mayor and council responsible for not living up to what they don’t say clearly what they plan to do.
What’s Wrong With This Picture?
Posted by: | CommentsI was more than a little miffed last week after I took the City of DuPont’s online survey. My first impression was This is it?
No, really. Much of the issue when the survey was first proposed was the cost involved. Never mind that some felt that the City should have already known most of what they were asking; or, that others felt that the questions would lead to whatever end they hoped to achieve. Both are valid coffee shop conversations but hard to prove.
At some level, you had to harbor some hope that this effort would at least signal in a new era of outreach, or whatever term the council and mayor used. They said they wanted to hear from those people who usually do not freely offer an opinion. Broaden their perspective. Hear another point of view.
The actions of City Hall once again do not match their words.
The execution of this survey has been questionable, at best. First, the complaints fielded by council members who rightly highlighted the matter at the last city council meeting. Rude phone conversation, confusion questions. You could only hope it got better online.
It didn’t.
The online survey has its own disappointments. The first that jumped out at me was the use of Surveymonkey, a web based survey tool. It seemed a tad low budget considering how much money was being discussed to be spent.
The questions themselves also disappointed. Some were too vague while some were too specific while some were nonsensical.
You were asked whether you worked for wages but not if you ever participated in a city forum before.
This brings us back to outreach. I wondered why something worth so much to the city was not better advertised to those outsiders who still live within the city limits. How was the city going to reach them?
Well, here are some methods they didn’t use. They didn’t take an ad out in the Home Town Clipper. They also did not print a banner like the one’s advertising OWLOM or some soccer camp. They also didn’t direct mail like the Pierce County Library System did seeking to issue new cards. Nor did they use their reader board; teen night with a cop was offered instead.
It was when the reader board changed last week from the Cop Date to schlepping library cards for Pierce County that I decided to inquire. I wrote the mayor an email and CC’ed the council and Bill McDonald. Their answer may surprise you.
One thing must be perfectly clear. The council is not responsible for getting the word out. They are there to make policy and approve the funds. They decided we needed a survey and how much we should pay. Once approved then the ball is squarely in the court of the mayor’s staff. In this case, the matter rests with Bill McDonald.
I won’t get into the details with the emails that were exchanged. I was told that they could change the sign next week and they were also seeking to get the link sent out in the ROA newsletter (Sorry Historic Village). That is an interesting solution considering that the close date of this coveted survey is Wednesday, September 30th.
Oh, don’t worry, I was told. The survey could be arbitrarily extended, Mr. McDonald said. Well, heck Bill, why not keep it open until Christmas?
There was also mention of preliminary results suggesting citizens preferred another means of communication. Or, perhaps it suggests that the city has the answer they want without your opinion. No need to confuse the matter with reaching out to the outsiders.
Well, when you advertise the survey to your mailing list or your Facebook friends, then it doesn’t exactly suggest that much effort was made to seek out those who usually do not participate. I guess they are just not good followers.
Bill McDonald and Mayor Jenkins would be wise to recognize that good followers follow good leaders. Not a pair marching in circles. The execution of the survey, at great cost, has been poor. Not utilizing a taxpayer resource like the reader board is inexcusable. Not vigorously promoting it suggests either incompetence or apathy.
The mayor’s staff, in response to their recent execution, treat your tax dollars like they are your tax dollars. “It got done so stop complaining you whiners!”
That is too bad because staff’s inaction and comments open the door to question the integrity of the results. There is an old saying about statistics; that they are like a drunk clutching to a lamp post. They are used more for support than illumination.
At least that is what the preliminary results say.
If You Don’t Eat Your Meat You Won’t Get Any Pudding
Posted by: | CommentsAfter the May 12th DuPont City Council Meeting I received a couple e-mails complaining about some of the comments made by Councilman Larry Wilcox. I really did not give it much thought since Larry’s usual comments are blogging gold! Overly emotive; non sequitur; words getting in front of thoughts; and tired clichés. You can’t write fiction this good.
No doubt about it.
Still, I dutifully sat through the entire video broadcast. In reality, there are two episodes of Larry speaking his mind. However, the second set of comments, toward the end of the meeting, are the comments of particular note. I have to admit, after viewing them I needed to count to ten.
And then I had to count some more.
Hmmm. I thought I was the only crank in town.
Larry Wilcox and his peers at City Hall are failing to recognize a few key points. The first, and most important, is that you represent the citizens’ interests and not those of city hall. I know it may be difficult to wrap your head around, but some of those interests may differ from the council’s views and interests.
Get over it.
It is obvious from Larry’s comments, and those published on the bogus “survey”, that the council and staff are too closely up each other’s asses (as if the sycophantic fawning wasn’t our first clue). To carry on about a low voter turnout for an April election is pure nonsense. The city could have very easily exploited that apathy to their advantage, but they did not.
Larry, you lost 767 supporters of the levy from November! You lost 767 “Yes” votes between then and now. Why? Where did they go? Did they suddenly stop caring about fire service? Whose responsibility is it to compel them to support the levy? Did they stop making eye contact when you were standing on the corner waving a sign?
Please, Mr. Wilcox, while you are at it, can you report the historical voter turnouts for April elections? Is it significantly higher than 31%?
If you want a clue to why it is so difficult to compel people to come out to city hall it is because of the feeling of futility it fosters. You have the nerve to recognize that the streets are narrow and curbs need to be painted even though the DuPont Municipal Code already states that there should not be parking in those areas? Why does the council refuse to hold city hall accountable to the law already on the books in the name of citizen safety? Where is the accountability in the name of citizen interest after they have approached you time and again?
Save your outrage. You have not earned the right.
This brings me to my second and last point. It is bad form to bitch at your constituents. They are not your children. You are accountable to them and it is time that this legislative body starts acting as such. They watch week in and week out and so little changes. If you are not connecting, and any time you lose 767 votes of support that suggests a lack of connection, then perhaps you would be wise to try another tack.
Before you blame those out in TV Land for being too busy to be sucked into your black hole of inefficiency take a good look at yourself and those around you. It wasn’t those in TV Land who decided an April election was a good idea. It wasn’t those in TV Land who did not bother to survey the citizens before the election. It wasn’t those in TV Land who decided that the only change needed was the dollar amount.
Those you call out in TV Land are just paying their taxes and waiting for results.
Fool Me Once, Shame on You…
Posted by: | CommentsBuckle up kiddies, it is going to be a topsy turvy ride. I hope you have the stomach for it. We are about to go back onto that trill ride known as the DuPont-Fire-Levy-Tilt-a-whirl. Refrain from eating a big lunch because by the time both the city and the opposition stop spinning you around, you may be tasting seconds in your own buffet line.
Didn’t we just go through this? Weren’t we just waiting for the light to change, not making eye contact with the “volunteer” sign wavers? Didn’t we just clean out our inbox of emails from concerned citizens crying foul at the levy amount? And, didn’t we bookmark and check with obsessive frequency the Pierce County Elections web site, seeing what the vote differential was and how many outstanding votes remained?
The mayor recently added some new information to the city website (which proves that either a. She requested the information posted six weeks ago or, b. She can add information to the website when she wants to).
Let’s take a looksy at what she wrote here.
Here are a couple of highlights (or lowlights) that caught my eye. In the first paragraph, regarding the last levy request of $1.80/Thousand, the mayor writes:
“As you might recall, this measure was confusing and your City Council has taken great efforts to be sure that this current measure is well crafted and at a level that will meet the needs of the citizens…”
Confusing to whom? The citizens, or those who drafted it? I understood it perfectly. The city was asking for $450 per year for the same housing value stated here. Perhaps the mayor should restate the sentence so that it more accurately portrays the truth of the matter. In a perfect world, it would look something like this:
“As you might recall, your City Council and I were drunk with excitement at the possibility of fully funding the fire department with this levy and freeing the existing general fund money allocated for fire service to be used on pet projects. That is, until we were informed that this would be in violation Washington state law. By then, the ballot verbiage was already filed with the county. Oops.”
Another nugget contained within this letter is the reference to what we get for the money from Fire District #2:
“…the City would receive…public education programs for our schools, technical rescue services, hazardous materials response, dive rescue, and many other quality programs that our City does not currently offer.”
Does this sound a little like your teenage daughter trying to convince you how buying her a showroom new BMW 3-series is actually a better deal for you than buying her a used Hyundai?
Just how many “technical rescue”, HazMat, and dive rescue situations occur that warrant this level of service? Well, we could check our fire call reports except for the fact there is a glitch in the system at this time. Oh well, at least the fire department will be able to teach our school children fire safety without charging a nominal fee as a city event.
For additional information, another FAQ is provided.
Now, I must caution you, because if you get nauseous easily from spinning around, you may want to avoid this next section. Also, if you choose to click on the FAQ link you may be overcome with an overwhelming desire to check the bottom of your shoe. Don’t worry, you did not step in anything, that is just the stench of obfuscation.
Of note:
Are we annexing into the Lakewood Fire Department?
The answer given is “No” and there is a line regarding such an effort would require a vote of the people. What is not said is that is the city’s end goal, as documented by the mayor in her November 10, 2008 memorandum. Under point 5, she writes:
“[The April 2009 ballot measure] would also be consistent with our message that eventual annexation is our goal.”
Why don’t we just use volunteer firefighters?
According to the mayor, the Fire Services Task Force concluded that having volunteers would not meet the City’s fire service needs. That point has been hotly contested since it was announced. I cannot say for sure, but what I do know is that the DMC still states that we are to have a combination fire department.
13.01.010 Personnel.
Under the provisions of RCW 35A.12.100, the Mayor is in charge of the Fire Department. The Department shall consist of a Chief, one Assistant or Operations Chief, and other career and volunteer officers as necessary for the effective operation of the Department and as funded in the annual budget. Staffing for emergency response shall be primarily volunteer personnel augmented by career personnel. Up to 25 volunteers are authorized by the Department. (Ord. 97 § 1, Art. 1, Oct. 8th, 1970; Ord. 04-763 § 1).
As I read it, the law of DuPont states we are to have both career and volunteers, yet the city has not lifted a finger to change this code. Curious at best.
Why the rush to put the issue on the April ballot?
For the answer to this, I will refer to what is written in the FAQ.
“The ballot measure in April provides enough time to hire and train the personnel necessary to implement a contract for service. It also provides necessary time for negotiations and ratification of the contract for service by both the City of DuPont and Lakewood Fire District 2. Waiting to put a measure on the August or November ballot would simply not provide enough time to properly implement a contract for service in January of 2010.”
But that is not what the mayor said in her aforementioned memo.
“Putting a measure on the ballot in April would also allow for a fall back position for the general election in November.”
Fall back, as in a battle of attrition? Try again in August? Then again in November? How can the answers to the same questions change in four months?
The city makes it so difficult to support this important issue with poorly crafted documents. If we need all of this time to get personnel ready; and we need more money to stay within our agreement with Lakewood; and if annexation is our ultimate goal anyway, then why are we asking for another levy? Why not just get annexation on the table for discussion and citizen input then put that issue on the ballot?
To answer my own question, probably because the city keeps turning these ballot initiatives into a referendum on whether the citizens trust City Hall.
Train Whistle No Longer Blows Its Lonesome Song
Posted by: | CommentsWe are fast closing in on a dubious milestone in DuPont’s brief business district history. Our awarding winning planned community that at one time hosted a street of dreams now has a new landmark. Think of it as the retail spot that time forgot.
Yes, it has been nearly one full calendar year since the most public and wild embracing of our dubious branding effort closed the blinds for good. Last January, Dynamite Jack’s went out of business, catastrophically failing after a bizarre month.
Of course, we all know the spot better as Harbor Rock, and for all intents and purposes, it was Harbor Rock that closed. In fact, that is the sign that still adorns the building.
Just what was Dynamite Jacks? At the time, it seemed like the worst idea of all time. Had the owners of Harbor Rock lost its mind? A plastic banner heralded in a new era that did not last as long as the William Henry Harrison presidency. By the time you actually got in to check out the changes, it was gone. Some would say mercifully so.
The changes took an ordinary looking bar and restaurant, one that previously embraced the oft emulated coffee shop palette, and replaced it with something that can only be described as something between Jackson Pollack and the Tate-LaBianca crime scene.
“I’ll have the “Death to Pigs” pulled pork sandwich, please.”
In addition to the extraordinary paint job inside were artifacts “celebrating” our town’s heritage as a place that once manufactured explosives. Whatever the desired intent the end result was more closely linked to our history of a Superfund site. Gone were the standard issue black and white server’s garb. It was replaced with dungarees held up by suspenders. There was also an obnoxious train whistle that announced the spinning a wheel of (mis)fortune where you could get a 25% discount off your Cobb Salad.
What a mess. They could not be serious. Thankfully, they still had a fully stocked bar where I needed two fingers of Jameson’s just to make sense of it all.
Recently, a new theory was offered to me over the din as I sat in lament one evening at Farelli’s. Perhaps the changes at Harbor Rock were always intended to be temporary. Maybe the owners knew they were going under and decided to ruin the interior to spite their landlord. Wouldn’t it be perfect? The lease is written in such a way where the tenant is responsible for all interior modifications.
Basically, what that means is you pay the rent you can do whatever you want to do inside, including projectile vomiting paint onto the walls. What better way to say Effhew to the owners? That’s what I think of your $25 a square foot.
The January 9th edition of the Hometown Clipper ran a story and interview called The Cost of Doing Business in DuPont. While it made no mention of the nutty theory I heard shortly beforehand, it did offer a glimpse into the world of operating a business in DuPont Station.
The leasing agents (The Neil Walter Company) and ownership of DuPont Station remain steadfast in their assertion that their $25 per square foot rates are competitive for the region. Business owners disagree. And, if you read the article where it cites Hawks Prairie as a basis for comparison to DuPont Station you have to stop and ask what does Lacey have that DuPont does not?
Traffic.
It seems insane to charge Hawks Prairie prices in DuPont when you consider the disparity in the volume of traffic. It also seems to be corroborated by Anytime Fitness owner, Helen Ireland, “I think the biggest issue is that DuPont does not have the people or traffic to justify that high of a lease. I may be paying the same in Yelm; however the traffic is amazing out there. I have been open for nine months and have hundreds more members than DuPont after three years.”
What is bothersome to me is what I perceive as the somewhat cavalier attitude expressed by DuPont Station owner Mike Rabstoff. From the Clipper: Developer Mike Rabstoff of DuPont Station Partners said rent costs can not be entirely blamed for business failure. “In any retail community you have businesses that come and go. One business closing does not a failure make,” said Rabstoff during a phone interview. “Any time that a tenant decides to scale back or close, there are other factors involved. It’s not because of the setting, quality of the development or the community,” he said.
Really, Mike? Then how about three, four, or five failures? What does that say? It may not be “…because of the setting, quality of the development or the community” it may be due to some decisions that were made. It also speaks to the vision and marketing of the property.
The citizens of DuPont were giddy with excitement when that stretch of Wilmington was developed, it represented freedom from having to trudge up to Lakewood or slog down to Lacey. We were like a sixteen year old getting our keys to our first clunker. We were a little too blinded by the thought of what could be than tempered by the reality of what was.
A jewelry store? A self serve ceramic decorating studio? Sure, they didn’t have a snowball’s chance, but what about a smoothie shop? A bakery? A coffee house?
It was a dubious pairing of ridiculous businesses for the community and inept business ownership in some of the cases, to be sure. It also reflects the willingness to rent to anybody regardless of the viability of the tenant. Basically, if you can afford the $25 per square foot then here are the keys.
As much as I want to see a viable business occupy the old Harbor Rock I shudder to think what could go in there next. Who will be willing to fork over the nearly $120,000 a year in rent?
It also makes you wonder what the outlook is now. DuPont Station could not keep spaces leased when the economy in this region was still sound. Now they have that soft pillow of the poor economy to lay their heads upon. Just how much responsibility does DuPont Station bear in this matter? After all, the remaining development around Ross Plaza has slowed and even Venture Bank cannot rent out its retail space. Will the planned growth be enough to push the central business district over the top?
There still remains the here and now, and sadly, it appears DuPont Station is just as happy to let the Harbor Rock space remain vacant and collect no rent rather than lower the rent to attract a possible anchor to the corner spot at Center Drive. Probably because lowering the rent will require messy lease renegotiations with the rest of the tenants hanging by a thread. Selling the property to invigorated ownership is out of the question too, since it likely is nowhere near the claimed valuation of $62M listed on the Miravest, Inc. website.
For some reason, marketing the property in DuPont has also fallen off of the radar. Just for giggles go ahead and click the Miravest link and go to the page representing DuPont Station. The website listed on that page is no longer in existence. There is your Miravest DuPont Station marketing plan. Bupkis.
An interesting aside is that the dead website link that Miravest used in marketing DuPont Station was www.dupontstation.net. Dot net. Why not dot com? If you google www.dupontstation.com you will find that it is offered for sale. Some eighth grade google skills will reveal that the phone number provided is to none other than Arsland, Inc.
Et tu!
If you are still not convinced that DuPont Station ownership is behaving like absentee landlords then just go back to last summer. Anything thing jog your memory?
The fact of the matter is that the people of DuPont have been spoon fed a steaming pile for the last several years regarding this property. Take, for instance, this second hand smoke that was blown up our colon in 2006, “Mike Rabstoff (DuPont Station Partners LLC) provided an update on Economic Development for 2006/2007. He stated that currently they are working to provide a 106 unit apartment complex, Walgreens, Kindercare, and grocery store. He also informed Council that DuPont Station Partners donated as a gold level contributor to the Centennial Celebration Event Fund.” – Source: DuPont City Council meeting minutes, June 13, 2006.
Gold level? In DuPont? Say it ain’t so!
Do you think any of these potential businesses balked once they found out what their rents were going to be?
So while DuPont Station is transmogrifying Wilmington Avenue into a Pottersville, the city wrings their hands claiming to be powerless. It is private property and if an owner wants to keep a property vacant so that it contributes to blight, well, what can they do? Surely, a community development director, with actual marketing experience, who can oversee the direction of the sputtering local business district would seem a logical start. Can someone please give me a shout out on who is fulfilling this role currently?
One year and little motivation to fill the Harbor Rock space. So, this is how we are preparing for the 2010 golf tournament, greet our visitors with vacate store fronts? Of course, as DuPont Station sits idle and collecting no additional tax revenue for city, the city hatches a plan to impose a tax on the golf course. If the city is so keen on creating a new tax then why not consider a vacancy tax? A commercial property not adding to the city coffers is actually taking away from the city coffers.
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose – Glacier Northwest to Flip Coin with DuPont
Posted by: | CommentsThe city has spoken on the GlacierNW proposed mine expansion and the story was carried in this morning’s edition of the Tacoma News Tribune. The story is reprinted below.
Dig, says DuPont, but protect canyon
City wants Glacier Northwest to use pipeline, not ravine, in expansion of gravel mine
The City of DuPont gave its blessing Friday to a dramatic expansion of the Glacier Northwest gravel mine, with one major condition.
Rather than carving out a V-shaped gap in the Sequalitchew Creek ravine, the city wants the mining company to bury drainage from its expanded mine operation in a 500-foot pipeline.
“There is real strong sentiment here that that canyon should not be breached,” City Administrator Bill McDonald said. “It’s a beautiful canyon with historical significance, and people feel strongly that the condition it’s in now needs to be protected.”
Glacier Northwest, which has a 387-acre gravel mine in DuPont, wants to expand its operation onto an adjacent 177 acres. The mining company wants to dig about 80 feet into the new site, cutting through an aquifer and removing about 35 million tons of high-quality gravel over 14 years.
Residents have vigorously objected to the expansion, maintaining it would hurt streams and wetlands.
Pete Stoltz, who’s been overseeing the permitting process for Glacier Northwest, said Friday that the company hadn’t had time to analyze the city’s proposed conditions in terms of cost or productivity.
“We’re still evaluating the staff report and the changes that have been made,” Stoltz said. “We’ll have to look at it from a technical and engineering standpoint before we can tell exactly what it might mean.”
However, Stoltz said he doubted the change would significantly affect production. Installing the pipeline might be cheaper than re-contouring a more natural intersection between the two creeks, he said.
If allowed to proceed, Glacier Northwest will break through a natural aquifer in the mining operation.
In an environmental impact statement prepared by the city, the preferred alternative was to deal with the water flow by constructing a new creek in the bottom of the mine after gravel had been removed to harder glacial till.
The new creek would have flowed through a 70-foot-deep notch in the Sequalitchew ravine in order to connect with Sequalitchew Creek and then out to Puget Sound.
Two critics of Glacier Northwest’s expansion plans, former DuPont Mayor Judy Krill and Tom Skjervold of the Nisqually Delta Association, hadn’t seen the city’s report Friday, but both were skeptical about the pipeline idea.
“That might be a step in the right direction,” Skjervold said, “but I don’t think it begins to address all of our concerns.”
Skjervold said Glacier Northwest’s proposal ignores a 1994 settlement agreement that established a buffer zone around Sequalitchew Creek and the ravine.
The Nisqually Delta Association has hired an attorney, Skjervold said, and the group is prepared to take action to ensure that the 1994 agreement is followed.
The city’s approval of the project is significant, but not the final word on Glacier Northwest’s expansion. The city’s recommendation now goes to a hearing examiner, who’s charged with making the final decision.
The public will have the month of February to review the city’s decision. Then, on the evening of March 3 and all day March 4, the hearing examiner will listen to arguments at public hearings.
The hearing examiner’s decision can be appealed to Pierce County Superior Court.
Glacier Northwest also will need approval from the state departments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife and, possibly, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Stoltz said.
Glacier Northwest also is involved in a gravel project on Maury Island. The company is building a tube and conveyor system to carry gravel to barges.
The company ran out of time this week to complete work in the water for the project, which must be halted until Aug. 15 to protect spawning herring and migrating salmon.
Opponents fighting the project resorted to civil disobedience during the past month. On Tuesday and Wednesday, they launched a flotilla of kayaks to get in the way of cranes and pile drivers.
If you have lived in DuPont for the last several years, this should not surprise you in the least. The public outcry is easily dismissed by the town leadership and the idle rant of a select few. The city clings to the apathy that comprises this largely transient town.
What is interesting about this article that appeared in Tacoma this morning is that there is absolutely no mention of any of the other issues associated with the expansion. Nothing stated about the noise, dust, or other environmental impacts. Nor, does it state just how much money is being wagged in the cash strapped city’s face. Rest assured, it probably isn’t much. Certainly not enough to restore the fire department or expand city services.
Don’t worry, salaries have already been covered.
So the next step is the hearing examiner in March. Glacier should plan a picnic for those days, or to fund the train restoration. Anything suitable to distract the citizens all the while appearing to be magnanimous.
Remember, they are not expanding the mine, but restoring salmon habitat!
Well, that was the original plan before the city proposed a pipeline to drain the water from the aquifer. Not divert, drain. Of course, GlacierNW won’t mind since it saves them some money in having to breach the creek, probably something they never really wanted to do in the first place due to the costs involved.
So we are left with the city promoting this novel win-win proposal. The water won’t flow down the creek (as if this was the only issue) and GlacierNW gets to save some scratch by ordering a pipeline from a catalog.
Next time there is a town hall meeting, be sure to grab a bottle of water and a snack because that is all you are getting.
The Coffey Brood
Posted by: | CommentsCouncilman Ehrenreich offered his opinion on the budget and the obligatory words speaking against the COLA rate of increase. He also said that it is a very lean budget. No question that deriving any budget is an exhaustive process.
I decided to skip to councilmember Penny Coffey’s discussion points. Part of the reason is to keep the ball rolling but also because there are few things that Ms. Coffey said that I adamantly disagree with and those points need to be addressed.
To Penny Coffey’s benefit, she is responsive to my inquiries and was forth coming on her opinions–especially the fire service issues and levy. Though I may not always agree with her I acknowledge that she always strives to have DuPont reach the full potential of her vision.
Knowing this, it is unfortunate that she did not utilize her time to discuss some excellent points she had made regarding COLA and the comparable with other cities. She was absolutely correct that renegotiating the union contract this late in the game would have been costly in the associated attorney’s fees. She is also correct that stability is an important virtue that DuPont had been lacking. However, there are some circumstances other than salary that created that situation of years past. Also, stability at too high of a price isn’t stable at all. You also need to consider the citizens since they are the ones writing the checks.
Councilmember Coffey has a vision for DuPont, unfortunately, I do not think it is a vision shared by many in this community based on previous failed ballot proposals and the lack of consistent citizen input. For whatever reason, it has been a hard sell to the new, expanded DuPont and Northwest Landing. Ms. Coffey’s vision is more closely aligned with the glossy color drawings presented in the original blue print of what DuPont could be. It is a builder’s vision. However, somewhere along the way people moved into town and ruined everything.
Councilmember Coffey mistakenly asked me my salary and benefits. I am unsure of what her point was but if it was to compare industry to government then it is a weak argument. I wrote about this prior to the budget vote. It also was evading a point of why the COLA would go to not represented employees. And, it does not address questions of productivity versus wage.
There are too many points to be made but one does not escape: That the 5.8% COLA that was negotiated and then approved by the city council was egregious in the first place. Somebody within the city leadership needs to take responsibility for that.
I will wait a month of Sundays for a cold day in hell before that happens.
Life Under the Big Top
Posted by: Mike G. | Comments (30)It may surprise you that it is actually quite difficult for me to express my frustration with the city of DuPont. First, you must actually care enough to pursue an issue, any issue. Whether it is the opposing mine expansion; building a skate park; garnering additional bus service into town; pushing for a grocery store; speaking in favor, or against a fire levy; you name it. Once that is done, you can then embark on the tedious odyssey of trying to be heard.
It is important to clarify what exactly it means to be heard. It is actually quite easy to say what you mean. The council and mayor are available by email. Most are approachable while at large in town. And, of course, you could always take the time to attend a city council meeting and speak, not once, but twice, at the allotted time.
The city will listen to you but the real question is will they hear you. By hearing you, I am actually wondering whether they will listen, acknowledge, consider, and respond to you. Sadly, my own experience, and that of many of others who have contacted me through the years, indicate that the answer is no. They will not hear you.
I suppose I need to outline exactly what I am trying to accomplish with the fireworks issue. I will be forthcoming and state that I have ulterior motives beyond wanting to safeguard our bluff from unnecessary or damaging fire.
July 2009
Here is where it all began. We were in the middle of a very dry spring and summer as the Fourth of July holiday approached. According to the Home Town Clipper, there were a total of six brush fires, but Fire Chief Bob Merritt reported on the two largest. He concluded, before council, that both fires were started by illegal fireworks.
The discussion that followed lead to the council and mayor providing anecdotes of receiving calls and emails from citizens voicing their concern regarding the fireworks and the threat they posed, presumably because of the conditions and the spate of fires in town. The mayor famously pledged action by her favorite recourse of public outreach.
Part of the anxiety regarding fireworks that was stated certainly can be traced in the history of the issue. The city website has meeting minutes dating back to 2006 and 2007 addressing some of the same concerns. Bill MacDonald addressed previous failed efforts to ban fireworks when the city was half the size and houses were less densely situated. The impression you got was that the time had finally come for decisive action from City Hall.
I saw this as a perfect opportunity to follow the response, observe the process, and score the implementation. The issue resonated to me since my house is the closest house to the “surprising” fire behind Tract “I” Park. That was the fire that was difficult to assault due the steep grade. It was surprising to the fire chief because it occurred in an area under thick tree canopy and with foliage presumed to retain more moisture. If that fire got out of hand, I would be evacuating, along with my neighbors.
I was initially disappointed that the mayor would defer action on the fireworks issue in the face of the evidence of fire threat. I thought it was absurd to educate the community on the danger of incendiary amusement during the typically wet season around New Year’s Eve. (In fact, it rained hardily on that holiday). Besides, where I grew up we didn’t shoot fireworks off to usher in the New Year, we shot firearms.
November 2009
Not forgetting my example project, near the Thanksgiving holiday I started to look for the action implementation on the “intense” public education. I relied on the city website, and in particular the landing, or main page; and also the calendar. The city tends to use that landing page like most people use their desktop on the computer. If you are not quite down with the computer lingo, the city uses their landing page like a handbill uses a utility pole. It is cluttered with information, much of it out of date.
No information. The feeling of “hate to say I told you so” begins to creeps in.
December 2009
The weather changed profoundly from the summer. The record breaking (unprecedented) heat of July, heat that contributed and aggravated our dry conditions, was replaced with the seasonal rain and devastating cold.
Hooray, a distraction. A distraction on top of the other distractions that you had to reasonably know that were going to exist at the end of the year. The biggest distraction of the season isn’t finishing your Christmas shopping but finalizing the city budget. In fact, I was reminded of that at the last two city council meetings as a way of justifying the fireworks policy implementation delay.
Do you really want to use the budget as an excuse? The same budget that saw a reduction in our services yet a handsome pay raise for every exempt member of the mayor’s staff? Don’t forget this point because it will be the topic of a future post.
January 2010
OK, so the city failed on the educational piece of the solution. To be honest, I didn’t think that this part of the matter was really that important. Besides, the real threat to the forested areas was in the summer. The policy should reflect that. Now was the time that I anxiously, yet skeptically, waited for the matter to be discussed at the city council workshop to be held on the third Tuesday of the month of January.
If you have read this website with any sort of frequency then you probably can guess what happened. Not only was the agenda for this council meeting devoid of any mention of fireworks policy, there was no explanation published anywhere regarding its omission or deferral.
This required a response.
I initiated an email conversation with the mayor regarding the fireworks omission from the agenda. To provide some background, I had a parallel exchange going on for an information request around the same time. For this request, I was waiting on a response to a question I had at the November town hall meeting addressing the survey results. I was already pretty fed up with the lack of timeliness of addressing my inquiry from that meeting I attended.
Who am I kidding? The city either forgot or was completely blowing me off. That is a subject of another post sometime.
So, at this point, I am pretty torqued off. It is the second promise broken in the same nine week time span. Here is the email exchange I had with the mayor on the matter.
—–Original Message—–
From: Mike Gorski
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:30 PM
To: Tamara Jenkins
Subject: RE: Follow Up
On July 14, 2009, at the televised council meeting, there was a review of the two fireworks related fires on the bluff and near the golf course. At that time, you chose to defer any recommendation on the use of fireworks and the DMC. Your deferral would have two components. 1) “Intense” public education via city’s communication channels informing citizens of the DMC and who to call in the case of illegal fireworks launched at New Years celebrations (targeted date of or Dec 2009). 2). The issue of addressing fireworks in the DMC would be on the agenda for the first council workshop meeting (held yesterday).
Refer to the posts for January 14, 15, and 16, 2010 (http://realdupont.com/blogs/). I also referenced the online survey results calling for a complete ban and, if memory serves, mentioned this result at the Nov. town hall meeting.
Understanding both of these misses will help you understand my frustration.
–Mike
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:09:21 -0800 [01/20/2010 06:09:21 PM PST]
From: Tamara Jenkins
To: Mike Gorski
Subject: RE: Follow Up
Yes, I see. Thanks, Mike, for the clarification. I will make sure this is on our official 2010 to do list and gets on the 2nd workshop agenda. I will announce it at the next council meeting. The first council workshop of the year (last night) was very full … No excuses just a note.
Tamara
The result of the email exchange was a pledge to put the issue onto a tracking list, also known as the 2010 To Do List. Since the citizens do not have visibility to this, or any of these tracking lists, the gesture remained hollow to me.
This exchange was shortly after a citizen approached council regarding the issue of the lack of enforcement of the dog poop ordinance. Sure, it seemed over the top but I suppose I felt that I could understand the level of frustration Mr. Davita felt. And, perhaps his address to the council was a little bit theatrical, but I would also soon understand why.
What I did not understand was councilman John Ehrenreich’s response. John was permitted to angrily challenge the speaker with questions and suggestions that really had no relevance to the issue at hand. Call the ROA, John? The citizen was addressing the council about the enforcement; you guessed it, of something in the DMC. Instead, the speaker left after being told that he should build a fence.
I knew I was in for it myself. They were listening but not hearing what was being said.
February 2010
For years I have been told that I should attend the council meetings and speak before council. This posed a couple of issues for me. The first is that of schedule. I am seldom available at that time on Tuesday evenings. Besides, my real objection is the whole format and tenor of the proceedings. The council sits before you in smug delight as some authoritative body instead of a group of people elected to represent my interests. You have three minutes to state your case before a red light appears and you shuffle back to serfdom.
I needed to get over this.
I also had stated to some on council that they should be careful what they wish for regarding me sharing my opinions before the council, cameras, and city clerk recording the proceedings. I come bearing both facts and strong opinions. If they want my respect then they have to provide accountability, otherwise, they are just wasting everyone’s time.
This experience was not fulfilling either. The budget took priority, but that is a weak excuse. The whole idea of putting off something that should have been addressed in July made no sense. It gave the appearance of hoping it would just go away.
The fact of the matter is that they mayor and her staff forgot to add this to the agenda. The issue was effectively bumped by the community center use topic; something that arose after the fireworks promise and could have easily waited until the February meeting (guess what, no decision was made on that either. *sigh* Another post one day).
I, standing at the lectern, there for no other reason but to say that I know you know that I know.
Still, no commitment to a closure date.
The issue was finally discussed on Fat Tuesday, and as you would figure, I did not attend the special council session because it was held at a time at odds with my work schedule. I was given a Cliff’s Notes account of the proceedings and wanted to both scream, and cry.
They did not understand the issue and their proposed solution was borderline ridiculous.
It was later confirmed by a member of council that part of what was discussed was the difficulty in an all out ban on fireworks. I was told that the Police Chief offered an example that the city of Tacoma struggles with an all out fireworks ban to the tune of $35,000 annually spent on extra enforcement. This is a curious data point since Tacoma is twenty-five times the size of DuPont in population and ten times the size in area. Chief Goodpaster was basically saying that we do not have the manpower to enforce an all out ban.
In spite of this questionable data, I completely understand the complexity in banning anything. I never wanted a ban on fireworks, in fact, what I sought was clarity on the matter. That is what made the survey data such a red herring. The verbiage asked if citizens supported an all out ban on fireworks. The number one response (36.8%) was that they did. The survey does not distinguish between legal and illegal fireworks which is an important footnote since the illegal fireworks are the ones that seem to cause many of the problems.
Council had an interesting take on the data; the “reasoning” was later articulated by Penny Coffey where she said they concluded that even though the number one response on the survey was the citizens called for an outright ban the balance of the other responses wanted some sort of fireworks access.
Not only is this flawed logic, it is a dangerous way to “interpret” data, scientific or otherwise. The number one response was discarded in favor of the aggregate of the remaining responses. If Ms. Coffey had her way, Bill Clinton would have lost the 1992 presidential election and George H.W. Bush would be co-President with Ross Perot based on popular vote.
Imagine what will happen to a survey response that rejects a tax increase. The resultant spinning of information may fling us all off of the surface of the planet.
OK, so they don’t have money for an all out ban, but what about the actions that were approved? The council decided that they will remove on whole day from the window where legal fireworks are permitted. No longer will fireworks be allowed on July 2nd. In fact, the “solution” offered by the council was to implement the third most popular response on the survey; ahead of only “Fireworks should be permitted all year long” and “other.” Now that is leadership!
This result completely and entirely misses the point. Let me count the ways.
1. How will this new policy prevent fires and safeguard people and property? It just narrows the window while leaving all the risk intact.
2. How will council and mayor exercise their powers to impose an all out ban if weather conditions suggest increased fire risk (like in 2009)? Since they do not have the manpower to ban fireworks will this provision be stricken from the current DMC?
3. How will the city address the use of illegal fireworks since this is part of state law and the determined cause of the two largest fires last holiday? If we do not have the manpower to enforce state law should we call in the State Police? National Guard? Vigilant groups? What about the local Boy Scouts?
Can we at least form a posse?
4. And if we did enforce the prohibition on what is already illegal how would we contact the proper authorities? Should citizens call 9-1-1? Should they call another, non-emergency line? Should they observe and report?
In fact, none of the really important policy decisions were addressed and yet City Hall declared the meeting productive with a lot of good discussion.
I sincerely wish I could have attended but I decided to send a follow email instead. I wrote to Mayor Jenkins, all of the City Council, and I included the City Administrator and his lady in waiting, as well as the police chief. You can read a copy of the letter sent here.
Any wager on the response to my letter? Well, to her credit, Mayor Jenkins replied to my email. However, she was the only one who bothered with a response, and it isn’t even her policy to make. The rest of the council decided it was better invoke the privilege of the three monkeys. It is best to leave their screeching behind closed doors.
Even with their weak action that completely missed the point here is the final indignity: They still have not set a date to implement the action!
This led me back to city hall last week. I sat through two hours of pointless and inefficient government debating whether or not I should speak publicly again. My decision was set after the mayor gave her report and discussed future agendas. The next scheduled action regarding fireworks was to be held in May 2010.
May is ten months since the first discussion and five months later than promised at the July 2009 council meeting. It was unacceptable to me for two reasons: 1) No real action was taken, 2) any implementation of this weak action left one month to execute.
What was she thinking?
The second public opportunity to speak before council presented itself and I decided to act. I spoke last, without any prepared statement. I voiced my disappointment that this issue was pushed off, again, into the future. I suggested that they city was not taking the matter seriously. I inquired whether the mayor or council felt if this was a reasonable amount of time to make a policy decision; ten months. I was probably more animated in my delivery and it took every ounce to maintain restraint. In truth, I was so pissed off that I could spit nails.
When I sat back down there was no ambiguity left in my argument. You knew exactly how I felt on the matter and their performance.
An impromptu discussion began before adjournment. A reshuffling of the future agendas. The issue would move up the queue to a March “study” session (still, no promise of a date for closure). At this point, Councilman Roger Westman did the unthinkable. He apologized for the amount of time it has taken to finally address this issue. At that moment, I sensed that the blood began to boil in several of the other councilpersons.
To that, I say, it is about effing time! It is about time something or someone knocked them out of their complacency (and I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are competent enough to be complacent). This is a matter of accountability and propriety. This is the same bunch that was so concerned about fire service that they asked for two levy lid lifts between November 2008 and April 2009, presumably because they cared about people and their property.
Hey, council! How about you try to build some credibility by showing genuine concern for preventing fires in town rather than getting drunk with the power to impose a levy increase. You just blew an opportunity to be perceived as leaders and problem solvers.
After the meeting, I waited to discuss a couple points on the matter. Mayor Jenkins was gracious and I felt she better understood my point on enforcement and message to the citizens. I didn’t get the same response from the council.
John Ehrenreich summarily dismissed me with a wave of his hand and said that I was “cranky” (he was right). Oh, sweet irony that the member of the tree board and promoter of Arbor Day would not want to discuss a policy protecting trees.
Penny Coffey went on to say that I was disrespectful in the way I addressed the council; which is interesting since she did not bother to respond to my email, nor did she seem to realize that respect is earned—especially after not taking action as promised. To that end, she decided to throw Mayor Jenkins under the bus by stating that the mayor is the one who sets the agenda.
Lastly, there was the response of Larry Wilcox, who decided to impose himself into the conversation with Penny and myself. Larry declared to all that remained in the council chambers that I was a “disgrace to the city of DuPont” because all I do is focus on the negative.
OK, fair enough. But I did challenge Councilman Wilcox to provide me with a positive to put in my pipe and smoke. Just what positive was he talking about? The botched mine expansion? The gleaming new skate park? The city’s emergency medical response? The new parking restrictions three years in the making? The new bus line from Pierce Transit servicing town? The lack of a community development director? The droves of tourists adding to our coffers?
When I left to drive home I got goose bumps and thought to myself, “Wow. I am a disgrace to the city. That is pretty cool.” I mean, after all, the vast majority of people don’t give a rat’s ass about what happens in town. At least what I do has had an impact, if only to one councilman.
I will close this with the following. I find it interesting that all opinions are welcome, even when they are not.