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.