Let the public decide. Or not.

Let the public decide. Isn't that the drum Orvis and Martin and others have been blowing lately? "Let the public decide on mayor v. city manager!" they repeat mantra like in a frenzy of new found populism.

Yet the very man who led the charge for this change; who put it out there, then took it back, then put it out there again, just took it away. I guess Mr. Plunkett realized he didn't have the votes. But as the guy who dragged this contentious idea through the streets of Edmonds (twice) and got the public riled up, on both sides of the fence, he should have faced the public. Instead he pulled it from the agenda and kicked it under the carpet.

Ironic, isn't it Dave, Ray and Michael, that Strom Peterson and D.J. Wilson were the only ones voting to continue the public hearing that so much of the public showed up for. I look forward to hearing the spin on that.

In case you missed it.

Here is Mr. Orvis' erudite response to my post below, likening him to the vuvuzela.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Orvis said...

Since you are clearly annoyed by the subject of taller buildings:

You want taller buildings, and the public doesn't.
You want taller buildings, and the public doesn't.
You want taller buildings, and the public doesn't.
You want taller buildings, and the public doesn't.
You want taller buildings, and the public doesn't.

Are you still annoyed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stand in awe of his rhetorical prowess and the sheer power of his logical might. Clearly there is no way to top this retort except perhaps "I know you are but what am I." Failing that I may jump to "I'm rubber and you're glue..."

The vuvelza of Edmonds politics

That would be Dave Orvis. One singular, discordant note.

Comments on Myedmondsnews.com

# Dave Orvis on July 7th, 2010 at 8:40 pm

Mr. Young,

C’mon, we know you don’t like Ms. Petso because she opposes taller building and she supports acquiring more land for parks. She also won’t tolerate the public being excluded from quasi-judicial hearings.

Why don’t you just say you disagree with her, rather than getting all bitter.

------------------------------------------------
# Michael Young on July 7th, 2010 at 10:05 pm

@Dave: Once again you strive to re-frame the argument. Then you follow that up with some ad hominom insinuations, make sweeping generalizations, beg the question, and come to an irrelevant conclusion. You are a walking encyclopedia of logical and rhetorical fallacies. Try making a logical argument for once instead of spouting rote inanities. Stop flogging the dead horse that is building heights. The only person talking about it is you and you are starting to sound like rain man.

If you want to talk about bitter, take a hard look in the mirror.

------------------------------------------------
# Dave Orvis on July 8th, 2010 at 8:41 am

Shoot, bad grammar on my part: redone with corrections

Mr. Young,
You’re not fooling anyone, you’re upset because you are not getting you’re way on development in Edmonds. You wanted taller buildings in MPOR, you didn’t get them. You wanted taller buildings in downtown, you didn’t get them. You want taller buildings on the waterfront, and I hope you fail their too. Lora Petso does NOT help your cause, so you’re upset. Let’s just be honest.

Todd,
Heights on the waterfront is still a major issue in Edmonds, and as long as politicians who accept $3000 dollars from waterfront developers (like D.J. Wilson) are still on the council, taller buildings will always be an issue. Lora Petso’s appointment is not good news to these folks.

------------------------------------------------
# Michael Young on July 8th, 2010 at 9:59 am

Mr. Martin – You are the master of “petty character assassination attempts whenever someone disagrees with you.” Pot, meet kettle.

Dave – Again, give the dead horse a break. If you ever feel possible to have an intelligent debate, I’m there. However, you consistently make logical errors in your rhetoric with which no high school student would pass a civics class. You re-frame arguments and answer them yourself.

I am not a developer and I have no money to build your bigger buildings. I own a house and three small, very small, businesses in Edmonds. So you can stop acting like I am a part of Dr. Evil’s plan to destroy Edmonds. The fact is you and I disagree about what is right for the future about Edmonds.

In your words, let’s just be honest. For years you have simply been unable or unwilling to engage in a real discussion to discuss those differences. You resort to name calling and disingenuous twisting of the truths to attack those who do not believe in what you do. A few hundred years ago you and other small minded people would have been burning women as witches because your crops failed. The times change, but the danger behind narrow-minded, pigheaded, self righteousness never changes.

------------------------------------------------
# Dave Orvis on July 8th, 2010 at 11:15 am

Michael,

I stopped reading your response after the phrase “intelligent debate”.

Look, I know you don’t like Lora’s beliefs. Fine, why can’t you just say you disagree with her. It has nothing to do with Ms. Olson. You dissagree with Lora because she’s a small town charm person not a “wreck and build it bigger person” like yourself.

------------------------------------------------
# Michael Young on July 8th, 2010 at 11:55 am

Dave Orvis -"I stopped reading your response after the phrase 'intelligent debate."

That does not surprise me. It is good to know one’s limitations.

------------------------------------------------
In response to some other comments

# Dave Orvis on July 8th, 2010 at 3:37 pm

So, anyone who talks about small town charm and opposes height increases has “personality disorder”, is a “junior high school student”, is not talking about “relative issues.”

BTW, no one on the blog chain is on the council, so how does this get linked to how council debate goes.

Look, this is the same old stuff, and I’m not intimated by it. Call me what you want, I am going to about small town charm, keeping our limits, and expanding parks.

The city council continues to honor the memory of Peggy Pritchard Olson

Ms. Olson was much beloved by the entire town. Her constant giving to the community was an inspiration to us all. She wore a button that said "Edmonds Loves Peggy." She was one of the great civic leaders of Edmonds.

Our city council shows their respect for Peggy in an odd way. First they ignore her express wishes and appoint Diane Buckshnis to the positioned vacated by her death. Then they follow this insult up by appointing the woman Peggy beat in the election in 2003.

For a group who claims to be so involved in the history and heritage of Edmonds they have pretty short memories.

Gary was a dictator! (According to Diane Buckshnis)

Hey, did anyone else catch this? While interviewing a candidate for City Council Diane started with this:

""I've done a lot of research and continue to do research about a city
manager versus a strong mayor. I've also worked in countries that have had dictators and have seen the effect of dictators on countries; so,in my mind what I see that's nice about city managers is you do have a professional that has a wonderful resume..."



Really?

Today is the day.

During the election in which she was convincingly defeated, Ms. Buckshnis sent a letter to all the sitting council members that repeatedly described Richard Senderoff as her campaign manager. It wasn't some off the cuff remark; she wrote it down more than once. Yet now they both deny it.

Why is quite striking is that during the interview Mr. Seneroff could have simply said he indeed filled that position but could be independent. Yet he chose to deny, dance, bluff and bluster around the facts. Is that what we need in a new council member?

The word has been Rich is a lock for this position since before applications were even available. I would say that is hard to believe; but remember, there was the same chatter about Ms. Buckshnis before she was appointed. She was put in place after one round of nominations, virtually no discussion and one round of voting.

Despite earlier stating that he couldn't support someone who lost in the last election, Mr. Bernhein this time choose to vote for her two months after she was routed in the polls. He followed that up with an quasi illegal quorum at a local pub where he told someone who objected "You haven't seen anything yet." He then continued to publicly berate the citizen who brought this to light.

I guess we find out tonight if the majority of the council will chose to continue to rub our noses in their pedantic, haughty, and overweening arrogance.

Hey, that 'splains it!

I kept wondering why the push for a city manager. I mean, not only will it cost money to even vote on the issue, but none of the arguments are strong enough to demand the change now. We are in a fiscal crisis, but Mr. Plunkett feels the need to spend time pushing a change in government. (In fact he already nominated a person for the position in a letter to the papers, without telling that person, and while that person was out of town. Stay classy Michael.)

Removing the strong mayor reduces tax payer’s direct representation while empowering an already fractious and divided city council. It demands more money for salary from a position that is often held for less time than a four year mayoral term leading to more turnover and less continuity. The city manager is often hired from outside while the mayor must be a citizen who is directly affected by the council and the decisions that they make.

So why now? Why is our system failing us?

Turns out that it it isn’t. However the republican party had put forth to it’s minions to lead the charge to a city manager in cities that it does not think it has a chance to take and hold in future elections. Cue Jim Smith in Lynnwood and Michael Plunkett in Edmonds.

Hey, that explains why Mr. Plunkett says Lynnwood is exploring the idea, like it is the wave of the future.

Do your own research. www.mrsc.org is a great place to start. It is a Seattle based nonprofit dedicated to excellence in government. Search “strong mayor-council” and the “council-city manager” on google or yahoo to help determine your thoughts. Although I think the timing is horrible and misguided, chances are we will have to vote on this. (At least we only have to pay about $.50 a person to let our voices be heard) I think Edmonds will vote to keep their mayor, but at least Michael Plunkett can go back to his Republican sith lords and declare that he got it on the ballot.

Maybe this explains why Mr. Plunkett demands three to four public hearings on every other subject to hear from the voters fully what is on their minds, but is content to have but one on this dramatic, not very timely or relevant, and very much done for personal gains, subject.

City Manager?

Can anyone tell me why we are having discussions regarding switching to a city manager form of government? Is this really necessary now?

Putting this on the regular ballot will cost 20 grand. A special election will cost over 100 thousand bucks. Wouldn't it be just as effective a waste of money and as dramatic of a statement for certain council members to light cigars with burning $100 bills while cackling and rubbing their hands together like Snidley Whiplash???

City Council Vacancy

17 people submitted applications for the city council position vacated by Dave Orvis. In order of submittal they are:

- Stacy Gardea
- Amy Walker
- Carl Brecht
- Lora Petso
- Todd Cloutier
- Andrew Eccleshall
- Deborah Anderson
- Paul Anderson
- Don Fiene
- Richard Senderoff
- Harry Gatjens
- Frank Yamamoto
- Alvin Rutledge
- Cyndi Correnti
- Jeff Wilson
- Frank Demme
- Roger Hertrich

There are some pretty qualified names on that list. However I am pretty sure this is all a formality. Remember the last appointment where there was no discussion, one round of nominations and one round of voting to put Diane Buckshnis on the council? It almost looked like the fix was in.

(This may be an appropriate time to remind people that Mr. Bernheim stated he couldn't support appointing someone who lost a recent election, and then did; of the inappropriate quorum after that meeting; Mr. Bernheim's statement of "You haven't seen anything yet" after being called out on it; and members of the council attacking a citizen for having concerns regarding their inappropriate, if not illegal, or at least unethical, quorum. You have thus been reminded.)

So my guess is we will see the same blatant flaunting of power by the majority who will deny the citizens even a sham of pretending to consider the applicants carefully and they will seat Richard Senderoff on the first vote.

Maybe I'll be wrong. I hope so.

It's good to know our City Council treats it's citizens with respect. Oh wait!

From Approved City Council Minutes of May 25, 2010.

Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to email communication with Councilmember Buckshnis prompted by a levy proposal he sent to Councilmember on May 11. He qualified his proposal with three assumptions, 1) approximately $600,000 in Fire District 1 receipts would be returned to the General Fund, 2) pay increases for 2011 and 2012 be limited to 2.5% versus the 3.5% in the forecast, and 3) the ending balance for each year would be no lower than $3 million. Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed with his assumptions, stating that was how misinformation got disseminated. He acknowledged
Councilmember Buckshnis’ right to disagree with his assumptions; however, in the context they were provided, they were not misinformation.

In a series of emails that followed, that was the last reference to the levy proposal and Councilmember Buckshnis proceeded to criticize him for other alleged failings including why he had not audited the Fire District 1 numbers and that if he had listened to her and others it may have been possible to save the City $1 – $1½ million. Councilmember Buckshnis arrived at that conclusion via a flawed analysis by totaling expenses that included compensation and not other expenses incurred by Fire District 1. He suggested if Councilmember Buckshnis audited Fire District 1 costs, she would find the contract with Fire District 1 was a bargain for Edmonds. Next, he disagreed with Councilmember Buckshnis’ assertion that $400,000 was removed from the REET fund, commenting she did not understand the 2009 REET statement. Finally she insulted him with a statement that it was no wonder he did not get past the primary and speculated he had a problem with intelligent women.

He quoted from an email by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, “do not waste your time Diane with him, he still thinks he is on Council as evident by attending every event and meeting possible...you need to consider his age and his need to remain involved no matter if he is correct or not. Kind of sad.” Mr. Wambolt invited the public to email him at RRWambolt@msn.com to read the emails.

Does this look familiar to anyone? (and it is under three minutes)

What a week - a few thoughts

• Good luck with the new job Gary. I know the county will benefit from your experience and leadership, although I fear for our new mayor. (If it is one of the current apparent pretenders: be careful what you wish fir) Whether you like Gary or not, and for the record I think he was and still is a superb mayor, I think everyone can admit he sets the bar for an elected official. He has an amazing ability to put up with continued abuse and defamation and let it roll off his back with a smile. I don't envy him the last few years, and I think the city is poorer for his loss.
• How is it we can offer $1.2 million dollars for a piece of land with no appraisal, no plans and no funds but suddenly we can't afford a $15,000 contract with Climate Solutions to address environmental issues including energy efficiency, clean energy financing, distributed renewable technologies, smart grids, and electric cars.
  
• On that note, I am disturbed by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas waffling on this vote. Again, she was set to spend money the city didn't have on a giant albatross last month, but wants to "sit back" and see "what the budget looks like" before making up her mind, after making it up, then unmaking it, before making it up again. I have no problem with someone changing their mind after considered debate and discussion. In fact I think that shows a sign of intelligence and strength. Two weeks and a few citizens yelping is not considered debate and discussion.
  

Thanks Dave

I would like to thank Dave Orvis for proving my point. Oddly enough he gets the point of this blog - The anti-crank crank - without getting it.

I think that his blog should be reading materiel for anyone studying logic or debate. His logical fallacies, re-framing of arguments and spurious statements are the stuff of legend. Here he welcomes me to the blogosphere:

editors note: Ouch! Note the savage use of the Microsoft Bean. One of Dave's favorite and most potent tools in his arsenal. Back to the blog:

"Let's face it. It's easy to label your opponent, it's harder to debate them.

Which is why I find Michael Young's new blog so darn funny! I am adding it to my links below.

Michael Young divides folks into two categories: those who are agreeable, and those who are cranks.

And guess what category I fall into? And guess what category he believes he falls into.

In fact, he has decided to name his blog, "The Anti-Crank Shaft". Apparently, he plans on dealing with us "cranks."

I have watched Michael Young over the years. He's a taller building proponent through and through, and he is clearly upset that he is not getting his way.

My recent encounter with him occurred during the interview to fill a concil vacancy. Mr. Young applied for the position. He made a point in the interview of criticizing the council for engaging in personal attacks, and then, after I asked him for an example, he engaged in a personal attack against me!

In short, Mr. Young isn't an "anti-crank", he just another crank posing as an anti-crank. He wines about public comment being civil, yet he cannot seem to produce civil discourse on his own.

Mr. Young, I know that I sometimes let my passions get the better of me. Maybe you should start by making the same confession, too. Then, start arguing for what you think needs to be changed (which is the desire for taller buildings). I think you'll find it's a more constructive way to deal with your frustrations. "

- Dave Orvis 11:24 am 31 May 2010

I need another project.

Actually, I don't. I need another project like I need another hole in my head. But here I am.

I go through fits and starts with my public comments at city council and my level of involvement in local politics. Not because my passion waxes and wanes, but simply because I get too frustrated.

It seems to me that politics on a local level should be even more civil, more cooperative than on a bigger scale. Over the years the us vs. them mentality has gotten to a level that is beyond disgusting when we discuss national politics. If you do not conform to every line on a checklist you are no longer with me, but against me. Republicans vilify democrats and then the tea party turns on its parents. Everyone is embarrassed yet the seperations grow.

Sadly, that is the case even here in lovely Edmonds. Taking a page straight from the Karl Rove/Dick Cheney playbook many local officials take the tact that they know better than the sheep that they herd and they will do whatever it takes to move in the direction they see fit. Facts do not get in the way of their beliefs, and if they say a thing enough times, it must be true.

I like to believe that we all have the ultimate same end game in sight - continue to make Edmonds a beautiful place to live and work. I just disagree with those that seem determined to destroy it in order to save it.

I think Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch proved that we could disagree without being disagreeable. Perhaps we will reach that level here soon. In the meantime I plan on calling it like I see it. You may not agree with me and I am okay with that. Make your point. Let's have a discussion.

However, it ain't a free ride. I'm tired of the cranks and I'm not going to let them get a free pass anymore.