Subtle Shift in Proposition 1 Message ??

[Fun CH]

Weeks ago I took Justin Porter up on his invitation to talk about the measure. We met over coffee and had an amazing conversation about community affairs. He was very articulate in his arguments and I appreciate his conviction. We have so much in common, except this one issue. I followed up by giving him my copy of Dr. Jennifer Sherman's book "Dividing Paradise" which chronicles observations and analysis of rural poverty and class division in amenity communities (the Methow was her case study). It is core to my concern about this proposal.

Same here, my core concern as well. Steve, I don't know how long you've been here, how were you able to understand the issue of "class blindness" that Dr Sherman talks about?

Do you think that Justin will understand what he and his cohorts are doing to the rural culture that existed here long before they arrived? Those were the people that actually built this community.

The book review quote of "Divided Paradise" below speaks to the new comers as being "class blinded". Will this book remove Justin's "blinders"? Or will self interest desire allow him to justify his "blindness" to the plight of people less fortunate than him?

On the FOP web page they wrote about 187 seniors who are on the senior property tax exemption program. What they didn't write about is that the senior property tax program doesn't completely exempt seniors from paying all property taxes, especially for regular levies which is the primary taxing structure of a Metropolitan Park District.

This inaccurate information has created confusion and has given the FOP supporters justification for imposing a regressive tax. It's like "Oh low income seniors don't pay taxes so we'll vote yes? No. Low income seniors and other low-income people struggling to survive in this Valley do still pay property taxes. That program only reduces taxes that seniors pay according to a three-tiered structure That is fact.

In our State, low income people pay 15.7% of their income in tax while the upper end of the income scale pay just 4.4% of their income.

"In Dividing Paradise, Jennifer Sherman tells the story of Paradise [Methow] Valley, Washington, a rural community where amenity-driven economic growth has resulted in a new social landscape of inequality and privilege, with deep fault lines between old-timers and newcomers. In this complicated cultural reality, "class blindness" allows privileged newcomers to ignore or justify their impact on these towns, papering over the sentiments of anger, loss, and disempowerment of longtime locals."

[Jingles]

From what I am gathering from the words of FOP and what they appear to be trying to get started they call themselves Friends Of the they should change it it Fund Our Pool
To bad that folks can only have 1 Letter to Editor per month as their statement about needing the MPD to go forward regardless of what the community desires with a very clear description of how the MPD would have uncontrolled taxing power and total control how those tax dollars are spent.

This is just another attemp after rewording their last failed attemp to pull the wool over the tax payers eyes to establish an organization that will get them what they want for their toys activities
It is clear that the apparent wording in Proposition 1 is not actually about a pool it is about establishing a taxing District that the voters/ taxpayers have no control over. Causes me to wonder who actually approved the wording of the Prop 1 for the ballot and what favors they given or promised

I quote Mister coffee
" I don't so much see nefarious intent here as I do folks with good intentions and poor organizational and political skills"

Is it political skills or political aspirations? What their statement about how the commission can deal with the communities desires indicates it is more political aspiration than poor skills. If it is poor organizational and political skills why should anyone believe those skills will improvee once they have uncontrolled access to taxpayer funds?

[Fun CH]

There is absolutely a way out of the mess created with this Proposition. The solution or compromise is as plain as day, but we won't get there until everyone gives a little bit. This is a tremendous opportunity for a local leader with political skill to step in. Waiting . . . .

The solution is to withdraw Prop 1 from the ballot if that can be done.

Send out a scoping letter.

Survey the Wagner pool that may or may not support their unsubstantiated claim that the Wagner pool is beyond repair.

And work hard to find support and money to replace or repair the historic Wagner pool.

There is no way that I'm going to support the formation of any kind of recreational District here after this Fiasco.

But I would definitely volunteer my labor to help restore the historic Wagner pool. That sounds like a fun project to me and it would serve my self interest of getting stronger.

[Fun CH]

It is all just very disappointing. Also disappointing to see some folks here who in other contexts are quite willing to point out "divisive" behavior in others are behaving in a "divisive" fashion with respect to a debate about a swimming pool that may or may not ever get built. So I'd like to hear more from the FOTP folks here on this forum.

Its not about a pool. Its about the formation of a Metropolitan Park District.

If the facts of past behavior of the potential candidates to an unelected MPD board falls into the category that shows that they can't be trusted with holding public power, how is that divisive?

If that's what you are referring to, if not please elaborate on your thought for clarity.

And good luck getting anyone from the FOP to have a discussion here. They seem to not want to be accountable to the voters until after they hold power. But we know they don't want to be transparent, accountable or beholden to the voters as is stated in their sales pitch even if this passes. They choose a structure where the voters can't even elect board members as is done in 99% of the Metropolitan Park Districts in the State. Past and current behavior is a pretty good indication of how they will act If prop 1 passes.

If they want to be beholden to the voters as they've stated, why would they ban Ray from even looking at their Facebook page? And why would I be harassed by an FOP board member right after I mentioned that they might desire a climbing wall in Mazama to support FOP board members family guiding businesses and why past behavior excludes them from receiving the public Trust?

It is they who choose to divide this community. A similar measure Was Defeated 78 to 22%, no vote. Why would they try this BS again?

[PAL]

In my letter to the editor last month I said that I supported a pool but not the indoor aquatics center. The same holds true. But not by taxing property owners only and not with a MPD. An outdoor pool is fine and can be affordable, I believe.

[SOulman]

David -

Again, good points.

I wish that there was more input from Friends of the Pool and other supporters of Proposition 1. I support replacing the Wagner pool, but I cannot support the indoor aquatic center as proposed. It is possible to hold these two seemingly opposing views.

Weeks ago I took Justin Porter up on his invitation to talk about the measure. We met over coffee and had an amazing conversation about community affairs. He was very articulate in his arguments and I appreciate his conviction. We have so much in common, except this one issue. I followed up by giving him my copy of Dr. Jennifer Sherman's book "Dividing Paradise" which chronicles observations and analysis of rural poverty and class division in amenity communities (the Methow was her case study). It is core to my concern about this proposal.

Over the weekend I had a lively debate on the Friends of the Pool facebook page that in my mind was not personal, but simply disagreeing about interpretations of the feasibility study, social media and local newspaper reporting. I have not yet been blocked from that facebook page, which I consider something of a success.

There is absolutely a way out of the mess created with this Proposition. The solution or compromise is as plain as day, but we won't get there until everyone gives a little bit. This is a tremendous opportunity for a local leader with political skill to step in. Waiting . . . .

[mister_coffee]

I think online fora like this are very constructive means for airing messy differences and working towards consensus solutions. If they are used properly and the participants know how to do so.

So it deeply bothers me that this forum has only one person who is even advocating for any kind of pool at all, and is willing to argue that FOTP might even have some good points. What we are seeing here is that each side is preaching to the converted and not really engaging each other at all.

It is all just very disappointing. Also disappointing to see some folks here who in other contexts are quite willing to point out "divisive" behavior in others are behaving in a "divisive" fashion with respect to a debate about a swimming pool that may or may not ever get built. So I'd like to hear more from the FOTP folks here on this forum.

I mean, if we can't talk stuff out in our own community, how can we possibly do so at larger scales?

Maybe the internet is really only good for cat videos...

[Fun CH]

Their statement clearly shows this is not about a new pool or even rehabbing the Wagner pool. It is about establishing a MPD so a few hand selected individuals can control an untold amount of taxpayer monies without having to answer to anyone.
If the majority of the public doesn't want a year round facility why do we need the district commission?


"If the majority of public doesn’t want a year round facility the district commission can respond to that. We need the district first to carry the work forward."

That is exactly the Crux of the biscuit.

It should be pointed out that you are quoting the FOP in that last paragraph which Steve posted in the OP.

They've shifted to telling the voters what they want to hear in order to establish THEIR fully controled taxpayer funded Metropolitan Park District.

If the MPD proposal passes they can do whatever they want and build any recreational facility within the school district that they desire. And we have nothing to say about it unless we vote no on Proposition 1

[Fun CH]

The FOP is basically saying you can trust us to to the right thing for the community. This while banning Ray, who is trying to address voter concerns, from even seeing their facebook page. Not to mention FOP board member Bo Thrasher publicly harassing me in front of the Mazama store. Why? Is it because I'm a strong vocal opponent of taxing low income people to serve their desire for power and control? Is it because I'm trying to get the facts of their behavior out to the voters?

My experience with offering that public trust to two of the FOP board members husband's didn't work out so well. Both, who control commercial guiding in the North Cascades, violated the terms of their Forest Service special use permits with one, North Cascade heli-ski, going so far a breaking the law by inflicting environmental damage to our mountains.

Both families could conceivably serve on the highly paid and unelected 5 member Metropolitan Park District Board of Commissioners. Future recreational projects could be developed to serve their commercial needs with out further voter accountability.

And they want the public trust? I don't think so.

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

[Jingles]

Their statement clearly shows this is not about a new pool or even rehabbing the Wagner pool. It is about establishing a MPD so a few hand selected individuals can control an untold amount of taxpayer monies without having to answer to anyone.
If the majority of the public doesn't want a year round facility why do we need the district commission?


"If the majority of public doesn’t want a year round facility the district commission can respond to that. We need the district first to carry the work forward."

[SOulman]

David again makes excellent points.

Another way to think about Proposition 1 is that it simply creates more process -- more analysis, more debate, more meetings. Without a well-formed proposal from which to move forward on, the community will spend time arguing about what to do and who should pay.

Funders, individuals or organizations, don't waste time on expensive concepts that lack detail. They back winners.

Until someone with skin in the game steps forward and provides clarity, the community will continue to churn this issue.

[mister_coffee]

I don't so much see nefarious intent here as I do folks with good intentions and poor organizational and political skills advocating for a poorly articulated idea. And in practice the latter is much more common and on the average much more destructive.

Again, like I've said, I think you can make a good argument for a year-round pool here (I note that other people, including many whom I respect, might disagree with me). However, the proposal on the table, such as it is, is not a very good argument. It is proposing a very large ask and insufficient specifics on how it will all work. And serious people would not ask for the money without having those specifics worked out. In detail.

The corollary is that serious people shouldn't give out that kind of money without seeing the specifics and thinking they are credible.

[PAL]

I noticed that sentence too Jingles and it is rather vague to me.

Outdoor pool-sales tax, no burden on property taxe.s Their mantra,"the pool is for everyone", Everyone pays then. No on Prop 1!
In another post about the wealthy, once again, how many of them vote here?

[Jingles]

Ray correct it is quite evident by their statement that this is NOT about a pool it is about forming a MPD that has total control

"If the majority of public doesn’t want a year round facility the district commission can respond to that. We need the district first to carry the work forward. If the majority of public doesn’t want a year round facility the district commission can respond to that."

[pasayten]

You don't need a permanent Metropolitan Park District to carry the work forward... They other two types of districts on a 6 year voter approval cycle could do the same thing. They are desperately trying to soften their message now that voters are starting to look at the facts as they come into the light.

Strange that their website still promotes the year round mega complex. So, they want us to believe the future unelected governing Board will "right size" the pool replacement project, but they don't trust the voters on a 6 year renewal cycle of the other less toxic district types?

[SOulman]

To the extent that this message can be read as a statement hedging support for the year-round/indoor aquatic center, it is a positive step.
It is fair to say that this statement merely kicks the issue down the road to the unelected governing board to deal with.
I await proponents of Proposition 1 to say they reject the notion of a year-round/indoor aquatic center and advocate a fiscally-responsible replacement of the Wagner Pool.
The feasibility study, the proponent's social media, and MVNews reporting on the proponent's behalf still frames the discussion in terms of a year-round/indoor aquatic center.
Will we see a change? The jury is still out.

--------------------------------

"August 19
"Friends of the Pool - Twisp
Steve Oulman this proposition isn’t a vote for a $20M facility-it’s a vote for formation for a public entity who can sustain and replace a new pool and therefore be competitive for state and federal and private dollars for construction. The State wants to see local support and the district does that. We need the district first to carry the work forward. If the majority of public doesn’t want a year round facility the district commission can respond to that. We need the district first to carry the work forward. If the majority of public doesn’t want a year round facility the district commission can respond to that."