One Day of Honor, 364 Days of Neglect

Beschreibung

For one afternoon earlier this month, Veterans Memorial Park in Port Angeles was clean, peaceful, and worthy of the sacrifices it was built to honor during the Clallam County Sheriff’s Office annual Law Enforcement Memorial Ceremony. But within days, the park returned to open drug use, camping, and disorder. This Memorial Day, many are asking whether we truly honor veterans if the memorials built for them are no longer safe or welcoming to the public. Earlier this month, the Clallam County Sheriff’s Office hosted its annual Law Enforcement Memorial BBQ and ceremony honoring officers who died in the line of duty and those who continue serving the community every day. Following the barbecue on the courthouse grounds, attendees gathered at Veterans Bell just north of the courthouse for a solemn and deeply moving ceremony. There were speeches, an invocation, the national anthem, and a flag line provided by the American Legion Riders. For those who attended, it was a powerful reminder of sacrifice, service, and civic duty. And the park looked beautiful. The Veteran’s Bell itself — a replica of the Liberty Bell — stood over spotless grounds, clean walkways, manicured landscaping, a clear reflecting pool, and memorial plaques that visitors could actually approach and read. Veterans Memorial Park, located north of the Clallam County courthouse on Lincoln Street in Port Angeles, was renamed in 1986 to honor Americans who served in every branch of the military and in every conflict since the Civil War. It was built as a permanent public tribute to those who sacrificed for the country and the freedoms Americans enjoy today. But according to local resident Mitch Zenobi, the park's condition the day before the ceremony looked very different. Zenobi recorded video around Veteran’s Bell showing loitering, camping, open drug use, and pipes being passed around near the memorial grounds. The park’s temporary transformation was achieved only through an intensive, coordinated cleanup effort involving the Port Angeles Police Department ahead of the ceremony. Within days, Zenobi returned and again documented individuals camping, sleeping, publicly urinating, and smoking drugs off foil around the memorial. That contrast is difficult for many residents to ignore this Memorial Day. Perhaps the best way to honor veterans and public servants is not simply with an annual proclamation, ceremonial bell ringing, or speeches once a year. Perhaps the greater act of respect is maintaining the memorials built in their honor as safe, welcoming, dignified public spaces every day of the year. Right now, it is impossible to comfortably approach Veterans Bell and quietly read the plaques honoring service members without encountering behavior that makes the space feel neglected, unsafe, or hostile to families and visitors. That is not honoring veterans. It dishonors the men and women who served. It dishonors the citizens and veterans who fought to establish and maintain the memorial. And it dishonors the community the space was built for. Mike French has argued that the public itself must help reclaim public spaces while he’s supporting a new criminal justice sales tax proposal. Meanwhile, the County’s Health Officer Allison Berry has publicly suggested that photographs online can be manipulated [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/people-who-use-drugs-deserve-to-get] and has accused CC Watchdog [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/harm-reduction-hypocrisy-and-who?utm_source=publication-search] of “stoking anger,” while framing criticism of current policies as hostility toward poor people or indifference toward people suffering from addiction and disease. But many residents insist that is not what they are asking for at all. They are asking for measurable outcomes. They are asking for accountability. They are asking whether current policies are actually helping people escape addiction instead of simply managing visible decline. They are asking for public spaces that families, veterans, seniors, and children can safely use again. They are asking why compassion for struggling individuals increasingly appears to come at the expense of the broader public’s ability to safely enjoy the very parks, memorials, and civic spaces their tax dollars built and maintain. Memorial Day is ultimately about sacrifice. It is about remembering those who gave something of themselves for the benefit of others — sometimes everything. And perhaps this year, as ceremonies conclude and the flags are folded away, the community should ask itself a difficult but necessary question: If we cannot preserve dignity, cleanliness, safety, and public access at the very memorials dedicated to those who served this country, what exactly are we honoring? “A nation that does not honor its heroes will not long endure.” — Abraham Lincoln Today’s Tidbit: Memorial Day, Citizenship, and the Responsibility to Vote A recent letter to the editor in the Peninsula Daily News carried a message that feels especially relevant this Memorial Day weekend. Port Angeles resident Kim Butler argued that many of the problems frustrating residents today did not appear overnight. They grew slowly while people became distracted, disengaged, and increasingly absent from the voting process. “Residents got busy with life and stopped voting,” Butler wrote. “The political elite is counting on apathetic no-shows on voting day.” Memorial Day is ultimately about sacrifice, but it is also about citizenship. The men and women honored this weekend did not serve simply so Americans could enjoy freedom passively. Self-government only works when citizens remain engaged, informed, and willing to participate. Voting may seem small compared to military service, but both are rooted in the same idea: responsibility to community and country. Many Americans died defending the right to representative government. Choosing not to participate in it at all may be one of the quietest ways a society begins surrendering it. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

The Two Mike Frenches

When Clallam County’s controversial Conservation District parcel fee came up for a vote, Commissioner Mike French cast the lone dissenting vote and portrayed himself as standing up for struggling rural residents. But public records, meeting footage, and even French’s own campaign statements tell a different story. Long before the fee reached the commissioners’ desk, French was one of the Conservation District’s strongest advocates, openly questioning why county government wasn’t doing more to permanently fund the agency. So what changed? The fee—or the politics surrounding it? Here we are in the first year of the Clallam Conservation District collecting its controversial $5-per-parcel fee, a revenue stream projected to transfer roughly $2 million from property owners to the agency over the next decade. The Conservation District has a fresh new website [https://www.clallamcd.org], a polished public image, and ambitions to expand its role. The county commissioners even approved a generous new payscale for district employees. According to an April presentation to county commissioners, however, the agency is still working to determine exactly “where its place is” in county wildfire planning. District leaders also indicated they need to do a better job telling their story and are considering hiring a consultant to help do it. Meanwhile, the agency recently submitted a letter of support to the Washington Department of Ecology backing a Jamestown Corporation proposal to identify alternative irrigation water sources for the Cedars at Dungeness Golf Course, including the possibility of drilling deeper wells to keep the 122-acre course green during the driest months of the year. That detail is particularly noteworthy because tribal trust lands—including the golf course—are exempt from the parcel fee. In other words, ordinary property owners are paying the fee while the Conservation District is spending time supporting efforts that could benefit landowners who do not pay into the program at all. Yet perhaps the most interesting story isn’t the Conservation District. It’s Commissioner Mike French. The Vote That Didn’t Match the Rhetoric When the parcel fee came before the Board of Commissioners [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/commissioners-approve-5-ccd-parcel?utm_source=publication-search], the vote was not unanimous. Commissioners Mark Ozias and Randy Johnson supported the fee, while Commissioner Mike French cast the lone dissenting vote. French explained that while he respected the Conservation District and valued its work, he was uncomfortable asking residents in the western half of the county—many of whom live in rural and economically struggling communities—to pay a fee when much of the CCD’s focus appeared concentrated in eastern Clallam County. He challenged the agency to provide more services to District 3 residents, mentioning possibilities such as rainwater catchment programs and septic-related assistance, and repeatedly apologized for voting against the measure. To many observers, it sounded like a principled stand on behalf of rural taxpayers. It was one of the few times the commissioners did not vote in lockstep and one of the rare occasions where French positioned himself in opposition to a new fee. There was only one problem. Just weeks earlier, French had been making the exact opposite argument. Three Weeks Earlier During discussions surrounding the Conservation District on September 2nd, French argued passionately that the agency provided essential public benefits and that county residents depended on its work. “The most essential need that we as humans have is water,” he said. “It’s clean and available water.” French emphasized that both residents and commerce relied on the Conservation District’s expertise and suggested that ensuring stable funding for the organization was an important public responsibility. While he expressed some hesitation about enforcement provisions that could place liens against property owners who failed to pay the fee, he ultimately accepted those provisions because they would help ensure the fee could actually be collected. More notably, French voiced support for the ten-year duration of the fee because it effectively “locks the people in.” That is a remarkable statement for a politician who now frequently campaigns on affordability concerns and the financial pressures facing working families. The same commissioner who later voted against the fee had previously defended the mechanisms that would make the fee mandatory, enforceable, and long-lasting. So which Mike French is the real Mike French? The answer may lie not in the parcel fee debate itself, but in comments French made years before he became a county commissioner. Rewind Four Years To answer that question, it helps to go back to October 2022, when then-Port Angeles City Councilmember Mike French participated in a League of Women Voters virtual candidate forum against incumbent Commissioner Bill Peach. The moderator asked a question that remains relevant today: How can Clallam County ensure a sufficient water supply while continuing to build housing developments? Peach discussed long-term planning and the Dungeness River Off-Channel Reservoir. French’s answer took a different direction. Rather than focusing on a specific water project, French praised the Conservation District extensively and expressed disappointment that county commissioners were not doing more to provide stable funding for the organization. “One question I was disappointed that no Clallam County Commissioner asked was how can we plan on permanently supporting the Clallam County Conservation District’s budget to make sure that they’re not just dependent on grants to make sure that they’re doing the work to preserve our water quality and quantity all the time whether or not a yearly grant cycle doesn’t go their way.” Years before the parcel fee proposal reached the Board of Commissioners, Mike French was publicly calling for permanent funding for the Conservation District. Not temporary funding. Not grant funding. Permanent funding. The parcel fee that eventually came before the commissioners would accomplish exactly what French had argued for years earlier. In hindsight, one could reasonably argue that the commissioner who ultimately voted against the fee was also one of the people most responsible for laying the philosophical groundwork supporting it. What French Believes About Rural Living The debate footage also provides a revealing glimpse into how French views growth, development, and rural communities. During the same discussion, he argued that Clallam County’s high number of private wells was evidence of poor planning. “Clallam County I believe has the most private wells per capita of any county in the state,” French said. “That means that we haven’t done a good job planning around water use in the past.” For many residents, that statement is worth pausing on. French wasn’t simply discussing water policy. He was describing one of the defining characteristics of rural Clallam County as evidence of planning failure. He went on to argue that dense urban housing conserves more water and energy than rural development, stating that “building dense urban housing does more to conserve water and energy than anything else we can do.” Throughout the discussion, French repeatedly emphasized clustering people together in urban areas and limiting suburban sprawl. He argued that suburban development results in people relying on individual wells, driving longer distances, and consuming more resources. “Suburban sprawl is where we lose all of that conservation opportunity,” French said. “Where people have individual wells, where people are driving long distances and using those natural resources.” He continued by arguing that cities are where future density should be concentrated because residents can share infrastructure and resources more efficiently. That perspective may resonate with planners and environmental advocates, but many rural residents would likely see things differently. People do not move to Joyce, Beaver, Clallam Bay, Agnew, or other unincorporated parts of Clallam County because they want to live in dense housing developments. They move there specifically because they do not. The ability to own property, maintain a private well, enjoy open space, and live independently is not viewed as a planning failure by many county residents. It is the very reason they chose to live there in the first place. The comments are revealing because they demonstrate that French’s support for the Conservation District was never simply about water quality. It was connected to a broader vision of land use, growth management, housing density, and how people should live. The Politics of a Dissenting Vote This is where timing becomes difficult to ignore. After Jake Seegers delivered 1,032 signatures from residents opposing the parcel fee, public opposition became impossible to dismiss. The proposal had become controversial, and elected officials knew it. French also knew something else. The votes were already there.Ozias was going to support the fee.Johnson was going to support the fee.The measure was going to pass regardless of how French voted. A dissenting vote suddenly carried very little risk. The Conservation District would still receive its permanent funding. The fee would still be collected. The agency would still get exactly what French had advocated for years earlier. At the same time, French could position himself as the lone commissioner standing with taxpayers. Whether that was genuine conviction or political strategy is something voters will have to decide for themselves. But it is difficult to ignore the optics. The commissioner who once publicly questioned why the county wasn’t permanently funding the Conservation District became the commissioner who voted against the funding mechanism only after it became politically unpopular. With reelection looming, many observers viewed the vote less as a principled stand and more as a carefully calculated political maneuver. French could now claim he sided with the people while knowing the fee would pass anyway. What the Record Reveals The Conservation District got its funding. The fee passed. Property owners will continue paying it for the next decade. What remains is a question of leadership. As Mike French asks voters for another term, they will have to decide whether his opposition to the fee reflected a genuine change of heart or a politically convenient vote on a measure that was already guaranteed to pass. The answer may say less about the Conservation District and more about the kind of leadership voters can expect in the years ahead. “The politician’s promises are like babies: easy to make, hard to deliver.” — Common political proverb Today’s Tidbit: Protecting Protection Island Some of the very environmental advocates who helped create Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge are now raising concerns about the proposed transfer of the refuge to the Jamestown Corporation. At a recent gathering at Cape George, longtime conservation leader Lorna Smith—who played a key role in the effort to establish Protection Island as a national wildlife refuge in the 1970s and 1980s—joined her husband Darrell Smith and others to discuss both the refuge’s history and unanswered questions surrounding the proposed transfer. Also attending were family members of Eleanor Stopps, one of the women credited with helping save the island through a grassroots campaign that ultimately won bipartisan support and President Ronald Reagan’s signature. The Smiths questioned why ownership needs to change when the Tribe already receives federal funding to co-manage the refuge and tribal leaders have previously described the co-management arrangement as successful. They also raised concerns about future aquaculture activities, regulatory authority, public oversight, and whether future tribal leadership could make decisions that affect the refuge’s wildlife habitat without broader public input. Whether readers agree with their concerns or not, it is important to recognize who is raising these questions. These are not anti-environment activists. They are people who dedicated decades of their lives to protecting Protection Island and Dungeness Spit in the first place. For those interested in learning more about the history of the refuge and the concerns being raised, consider following and subscribing to conservation advocate Al Bergstein’s blog [https://olyopen.com/2026/06/01/meeting-held-to-discuss-protection-island/], where he continues to provide updates and commentary on this issue. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

2. Juni 202644 min

Ann Soule Wants Someone to Blame for High Gas Prices. She Forgot to Mention Washington State.

A recent letter to the editor by League of Women Voters activist Ann Soule blames oil companies, the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, and nearly everyone else for high gasoline prices. What her letter never mentions is Washington State's own role in creating some of the highest fuel costs in America. The omissions raise an uncomfortable question: when activists support policies that directly increase fuel costs, can they fairly complain about the consequences those same policies create? Many Clallam County residents recognize the name Ann Soule. She serves on the County’s Marine Resources Committee, which recommended to the commissioners [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/county-advises-retreat-or-removal?utm_source=publication-search] that flooding in the Three Crabs area should be dealt with by “retreat or removal” of the homes and road. Through the League of Women Voters, she has pushed for the creation of a county Water Steward position. She has participated in Peninsula Behavioral Health initiatives, including turning the first shovelful of dirt at the NGO’s North View low-barrier, luxury, permanent housing complex [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/dishpan-hands-a-barrier-to-success?utm_source=publication-search] — a publicly funded project that offers harbor views, rooftop terraces, a dog-washing station, and other amenities, with an average price of $350,000 per unit. Recently, Soule authored a Peninsula Daily News letter titled “Oil Repercussions,” arguing that oil companies are reaping excessive profits while consumers struggle under high gasoline prices. In her view, political corruption, insider trading, corporate greed, and Republican leadership deserve much of the blame. What was missing from her analysis, however, was perhaps the single largest state-level factor affecting fuel prices in Washington: Washington State government itself. The Missing Piece of the Story Washington routinely ranks among the most expensive states in America for gasoline. At the time of this writing, only California has higher average fuel prices. Neighboring Idaho is more than a dollar per gallon cheaper. If corporate greed alone explained the difference, one would expect similar prices throughout the region. Instead, Washington has spent years layering taxes, regulations, and climate policies onto the cost of fuel. The most significant of those policies is the Climate Commitment Act. The CCA established a cap-and-invest carbon auction system that requires fuel suppliers to purchase emissions allowances before bringing fuel to market. Those costs are then passed through the supply chain and ultimately to consumers. “It’s not as though their costs have gone up; they’re playing the market because they can.” — Ann Soule Whether someone supports or opposes the Climate Commitment Act, the basic economics are not controversial. The program increases the cost of fuel distribution in Washington. A Return on Investment What costs working families more money at the pump can simultaneously become additional revenue elsewhere. State Senator Marko Liias, who represents the 21st Legislative District in Snohomish County—not the Olympic Peninsula—was one of the leading advocates for the transportation package that increased Washington’s gas tax by six cents per gallon last year. Campaign finance records show that the Jamestown Tribe made the maximum allowable contribution to Liias’ campaign in 2023. At first glance, it raises an obvious question: why would a tribe on the Olympic Peninsula financially support a legislator from the Seattle-area suburbs? One possible answer is that policy matters more than geography. For most Washington residents, the six-cent gas tax increase means higher costs every time they fill their tank. But the impact extends far beyond gasoline. Because nearly everything on the Olympic Peninsula arrives by truck, fuel taxes become a hidden cost embedded in groceries, baby formula, building supplies, farm products, restaurant deliveries, and countless other necessities. Families pay the tax directly at the pump and indirectly through higher prices on everyday goods. For some tribal fuel retailers, however, the equation looks different. Under existing fuel-tax compacts, tribal gas stations can retain 75 percent of the state gas tax [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/fueling-funding-shortfalls?utm_source=publication-search] collected on fuel sales. That means a six-cent gas tax increase translates into roughly 4.5 cents per gallon in additional retained revenue for qualifying tribal stations. If a high-volume station such as Jamestown’s Longhouse Market sells 400,000 gallons of fuel per month—a figure that is not unreasonable for a major highway fuel stop—that increase could generate approximately $18,000 in additional monthly revenue, or more than $216,000 per year. Viewed through that lens, a $2,400 campaign contribution begins to look less like political generosity and more like a remarkably good investment. The Tax Activists Support A repeal effort targeting the Climate Commitment Act reached Washington voters. Among those campaigning to preserve the program [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/joined-at-the-hip?utm_source=publication-search] was Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias. That support was hardly surprising. The Climate Commitment Act generates billions of dollars that flow to government agencies, environmental programs, nonprofits, and tribal governments, including projects involving the Jamestown Corporation, Ozias’ top campaign contributor. The Water App Nobody Talks About One example of a CCA beneficiary is the League of Women Voters’ Future of Water Committee [https://lwvcla.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=851536&module_id=450073], which helped develop a digital app allowing users to monitor Dungeness River flow conditions. The project was presented as a community education tool and, on its face, appears civic-minded and useful. What received far less attention was where the funding originated. According to publicly reported information, software development was financed through a grant administered by the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe using money that ultimately came from Washington’s Climate Commitment Act funding stream. That means a project promoted by Soule and her colleagues was funded, at least indirectly, through revenues generated by the same climate policies contributing to Washington’s unusually high fuel prices. Just Buy an EV? Perhaps the most striking portion of Soule’s letter comes near the end, where she offers a solution to rising fuel prices: buy an electric vehicle or hybrid. That recommendation may sound reasonable from the perspective of environmental activists, but for many Clallam County families, it reflects a disconnect from economic reality. Median household income in the county hovers around $60,000 per year. Families are already struggling with housing costs, insurance increases, utility bills, inflation, and grocery prices. Telling those families that the answer to expensive gasoline is purchasing a $40,000 vehicle is a bit like telling someone worried about food prices to buy a second refrigerator and start shopping in bulk. Even used electric vehicles can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Many households simply do not have that kind of money available. Selective Outrage None of this means global events do not affect fuel prices. They do. Wars matter. Supply disruptions matter. International instability matters. But acknowledging those realities does not require ignoring state policies that also increase costs. What makes Soule’s letter noteworthy is not that she criticizes oil companies. Many people do. What stands out is the selective nature of the criticism. When oil companies make money, she sees profiteering. When government-backed climate programs increase costs but fund projects supported by the “nonpartisan” League of Women Voters, those costs disappear from the conversation. When working families struggle with higher energy expenses, the solution becomes buying a different car. When policies supported by environmental activists create financial burdens for residents, responsibility is assigned elsewhere. If gasoline prices are too high, every contributing factor should be on the table, including Washington’s carbon auctions, fuel taxes, regulatory costs, and the sovereign, governmental, and political interests that benefit from them. Ann Soule’s letter points toward oil companies, politicians in Washington D.C., and events happening thousands of miles away. It says very little about the policies, taxes, and beneficiaries much closer to home. If we’re going to follow the money, the trail shouldn’t end when it becomes politically inconvenient. "People are more likely to notice what is wrong with others than what is wrong with themselves." — Leo Tolstoy Today’s Tidbit: Emily Randall If you’d like to see how Congresswoman Emily Randall’s town hall in Chimacum went last week, the entire event was recorded and posted on YouTube. 5:30 — How can young people help?9:25 — Transfer of National Wildlife Refuges to Jamestown Tribe #1.16:50 — Transfer of National Wildlife Refuges #2.19:20 — Can you help with kidnappings by ICE?26:05 — How do we restore the Voting Rights Act?31:00 — Lethal removal of seals and sea lions.34:45 — Also, the lethal removal of marine mammals. 38:15 — Infectious diseases.43:20 — Artificial Intelligence.47:50 — Nationalizing Artificial Intelligence.49:40 — Military Industrial Complex. Here is the Port Angeles Food Bank van mentioned in the podcast: The real estate video also mentioned in the podcast: This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

1. Juni 202645 min

One Day of Honor, 364 Days of Neglect

Beschreibung

Kommentare

2 Monate für 1 €

Alle Folgen