"They Know Where We Live"

Descripción

Anti-Jake Seegers activism is escalating beyond policy disagreements and campaign signs. After stickers labeling Seegers a “carpetbagger” and “out of town real estate investor” appeared at the end of his family’s private driveway — where his children discovered them during a bike ride — questions are now being raised about how far local political hostility is willing to go, and whether some activists are more interested in intimidation than honest debate. Stickers calling county commissioner candidate Jake Seegers a “carpetbagger” and “out of town real estate investor” continue appearing, and not just in downtown Port Angeles. Most recently, the stickers showed up roughly seven miles away from the downtown core — at the entrance to the Seegers family driveway itself. The stickers were discovered by three children riding their bicycles to pick up the family’s mail. The children were Jake’s. The stickers had been placed on signs and posts at the entrance to the shared driveway used by several neighboring families. The message was unmistakable. This was no longer simply, “We disagree with Jake Seegers politically.”The message had evolved into something much more personal: “We know where you live.” Jake’s middle child summed up the moment in a way only a child can: “That’s scary… they know where we live.” That sentence says more about the current state of local politics than perhaps anything else could. A Campaign That Has Intensified With just over five months remaining in the race, Seegers’ campaign has clearly entered a new phase. Jake continues to spend long days meeting with residents, listening to concerns, touring local industries, conducting podcast interviews, writing articles for CC Watchdog, and engaging directly with community members. Jake is putting in 60-hour workweeks while balancing life as a husband, father, volunteer, and friend. But now that the race has narrowed into a two-person contest, another shift has become apparent. The attacks have become less about policy and increasingly about the man himself. Rather than debating county spending, homelessness, public safety, roads, taxes, or economic development, much of the rhetoric online has turned toward labeling, personal associations, and attempts to portray Seegers as politically radioactive. Reddit, Rumors, and Anonymous Politics A lengthy Reddit discussion [https://www.reddit.com/r/portangeles/comments/1t0uns0/comment/okte9pr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/portangeles/comments/1t0uns0/comment/okte9pr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button] about Jake Seegers recently gained traction online after one user reposted what they described as “research” into Seegers’ background, finances, family foundation connections, business relationships, and property ownership. The original post raised questions about transparency, campaign disclosures, out-of-state family associations, grants tied to the Seegers Foundation, Seegers’ involvement with local organizations, and whether certain property ownership interests should have been disclosed in connection with advocacy surrounding Olympic Hot Springs Road. Some commenters described the research as “great work” and argued that Seegers was not being fully transparent. Others used the thread to speculate about broader political motives, national conservative ties, religion, Project 2025, and alleged “MAGA” associations. One commenter referred to Seegers as a “carpetbagger,” while others mocked his background, family wealth, and even his children. The thread also highlighted something increasingly common in modern politics: anonymous online activism replacing direct public conversation. Reddit allows users to operate under anonymous screen names, and discussions can quickly escalate in tone and speculation. In this case, accusations, assumptions, and political labeling rapidly overtook any substantive discussion about county government itself. What makes the situation notable, however, is that Seegers did not avoid the thread. Using his own account, Seegers directly responded publicly: “Thank you for originally raising these legitimate concerns.” He then expanded an open invitation to anyone involved in the discussion to join him for a recorded podcast interview where they could ask any questions they wanted, on the record, in long-form format, with the entire community able to hear both the questions and the answers in full context. He wrote: “Transparency is critical, and this is a way to provide it for everyone interested.” So far, despite the accusations and speculation, no one has accepted the offer. “FTG” One particularly telling comment circulating online suggested creating signs that say “FTG” with arrows pointing toward Seegers at public events. For those unfamiliar with the slang, “FTG” is shorthand for the French phrase Ferme ta gueule, which roughly translates to “shut up” or more bluntly, “shut the f*** up.” That is the level local political discourse is descending toward. Not debate.Not discussion.Not competing visions for county government. Just hostility. From Protest to Intimidation? There is an important distinction between criticizing a candidate’s policies and attempting to intimidate a candidate personally. People absolutely have the right to oppose Jake Seegers politically. They have the right to question his ideas, challenge his proposals, disagree with his priorities, and support another candidate. That is democracy. But when activists begin placing targeted political messaging at the end of a candidate’s private driveway where his children will encounter it, reasonable people begin asking where the line is. Especially when online discussions openly discuss following him to events, surrounding him with signs, and confronting him with nationally divisive ideological litmus tests that have little to do with county government. A Different Response Ironically, just last week, another incident tested the campaign. A person was caught on camera removing and destroying one of Jake’s signs. It did not take long for members of the community to identify the individual involved through social media. The individual later contacted Jake directly and apologized. Rather than escalating the situation, Jake agreed to meet with the man personally to discuss his concerns and ideas about county government. Law enforcement contacted Seegers and asked whether he wished to pursue charges related to the sign destruction. He declined. According to Seegers: “I asked the Sheriff’s Department not to pursue an investigation or press charges. This person appears to have made a poor decision out of frustration and then personally reached out to apologize. That humility is admirable. Additionally, it did not seem like a good use of our limited and already strained law enforcement resources. I look forward to a future conversation with this individual and believe that, like most community members, we can find common ground on local issues.” That response reflects exactly who Jake Seegers is: approachable, willing to listen, calm under pressure, and genuinely interested in hearing from people even when they disagree with him. People may disagree with his policies or question his solutions. That is fair game in politics. But targeting a candidate’s family and sending the message that political opponents are comfortable showing up at the end of his driveway is something entirely different. And many in the community are beginning to notice the difference. “Intimidation and coercion have no place in a free society.” — Harry S. Truman Today’s Tidbit: A Historic Shift Yesterday, for the first time in more than a decade, the Clallam County Commissioners approved a formal response letter to the Bureau of Indian Affairs regarding a proposed transfer of land into federal tribal trust status. That did not happen by accident. It happened because members of the public pushed for it relentlessly for more than two years, refusing to let the issue disappear quietly into bureaucracy and backroom silence. Citizens attended meetings, submitted comments, wrote emails, researched federal processes, and repeatedly asked why Clallam County was not formally responding to trust land applications that directly impact taxation, zoning, land use, and local governance. This is genuinely historic. And whether people agree with every word of the letter or not, County Administrator Todd Mielke deserves substantial credit for helping move the county toward finally engaging the issue formally and professionally. The letter itself is surprisingly direct. It outlines concerns about the cumulative loss of taxable land in Clallam County, noting that roughly 70 percent of the county is already publicly owned and exempt from property taxes when federal, state, local, and tribal lands are combined. The county warns that continued transfers into trust status shift increasing tax burdens onto remaining private property owners while reducing the land base that funds schools, fire districts, hospitals, libraries, roads, and local government services. The response also raises concerns about inconsistent zoning oversight once land enters trust status, particularly when parcels are not adjacent to existing reservation lands. The county notes that trust lands are no longer subject to many local land use regulations, potentially creating situations where neighboring properties operate under entirely different rules. Most notably, the county formally requested that the BIA encourage tribes to enter into agreements similar to the “payment in lieu of taxes” arrangement associated with the Quileute Tribe, recognizing the growing strain placed on local taxpayers and taxing districts. For years, many residents were told these conversations either could not happen, should not happen, or were inappropriate to discuss publicly. Now, they are happening in official county correspondence. 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]

Ayer44 min

The NGO Revolving Door: The Commissioners Keep Writing Checks While Taxpayers Get Locked Out

A simple email exchange between a Clallam County resident and Habitat for Humanity reflects a growing frustration across the county: taxpayers fund projects, commissioners celebrate the spending, and nonprofits ask for more money, but when citizens ask basic questions about results or accountability, the answers become vague. From stalled housing projects to nonprofit financial failures, the same pattern keeps repeating itself while residents asking questions are treated like the problem. “The Project Is Not at the Stage to Share This Information Yet” A short email exchange between a Clallam County resident and Habitat for Humanity of Clallam County may perfectly capture the culture that now defines local government. The resident asked a simple question: What project was using the $800,000 the Clallam County Commissioners approved for Habitat through the county’s Opportunity Fund? The money, Habitat explained, was going toward “Lyons Landing,” a proposed 45-home development in Carlsborg. Then came the obvious follow-up question: Can taxpayers see the grant numbers, project numbers, and cost centers to understand how the money is being spent? That answer was different. “The project is not at the stage to share this information yet.” Habitat’s CEO, Colleen Robinson, was copied on the exchange more a week ago and, as of publication, has not responded to the resident’s questions. It has now been a year and a half since county commissioners approved the funding. Aside from a ceremonial groundbreaking photo opportunity featuring county officials, Habitat leadership, and tribal representatives standing together with shovels in a vacant lot, little work has occurred on the property north of Sunny Farms in Carlsborg. And that response — “we’re not ready to share that information yet” — says a great deal about how Clallam County now operates. Public Money, Private Transparency To be fair, Habitat for Humanity is legally within its rights. It is a nonprofit organization, not a government agency. Once taxpayer money leaves county government and is handed to an NGO, much of the public transparency disappears with it. Citizens cannot demand internal budgets the way they can from government departments. Public records laws no longer apply in the same way. The money may have originated from taxpayers, but once it changes hands, public visibility ends. That is exactly why oversight before funding approvals matters so much. The controversy surrounding Lyons Landing began in late 2024 [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/the-advantages-of-being-disadvantaged?utm_source=publication-search] when the Opportunity Fund Advisory Board recommended awarding Habitat $800,000 for the project. The Opportunity Fund collects a portion of local sales tax revenue and distributes it to economic development projects throughout the county. Problems emerged after it became public that Habitat did not intend to competitively bid major portions of the development. Instead, significant excavation, surveying, and concrete work was expected to go to Jamestown Corporation businesses. The issue raised eyebrows because Jamestown Corporation had also donated $50,000 to Habitat for Humanity. The county paused the award for months while legal review examined whether public funds could legally be used in a project structure that appeared to bypass traditional competitive bidding requirements intended to protect taxpayers and ensure fair pricing. Eventually, the funding was approved. Today, the property still sits vacant. That makes the public’s questions entirely reasonable. What work has been completed? How much of the $800,000 has been spent? What exactly are taxpayers funding? Instead of answers, the public is increasingly told to simply trust the process. When Journalism Starts Reading Like Advertising At the same time taxpayers are being denied answers, local newspapers continue publishing glowing nonprofit-written features celebrating community partnerships, fundraising dinners, wine tastings, and awareness campaigns. One recent Habitat for Humanity article spent far more time discussing silent auctions, wine festivals, and “turning strangers into supporters” than it did discussing measurable housing production. Readers were told repeatedly how important Habitat’s mission is and why the organization needs continued support. What readers were not told was how many homes Habitat is currently delivering annually, how much each completed housing unit costs, how long projects are taking, or how much taxpayer money is now flowing into the organization from local government sources. Another detail stood out as well. Many of Habitat’s major fundraising events are hosted at Jamestown Corporation properties, including Cedars at Dungeness. That raises a reasonable question: do other local venues ever have the opportunity to host these high-profile nonprofit events and receive the economic benefit and exposure that comes with them? Or are these relationships increasingly concentrated among politically connected organizations and tribal enterprises? The question becomes even more relevant given Habitat’s emphasis on its Native American Housing Liaison program [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/habitat-for-humanity-or-habit-for?utm_source=publication-search] and its close partnerships with Jamestown entities. These are not unreasonable questions. In a healthy civic environment, they would simply be part of public accountability. Instead, people who ask them are often treated as troublemakers. The Humane Society Warning Signs Everyone Ignored This same pattern has repeated itself across Clallam County for years. One of the clearest examples occurred during a December 2023 Clallam County Commissioner work session involving the Olympic Peninsula Humane Society. Executive Director Luanne Hinkle appeared before commissioners requesting an increase in county funding from $104,000 annually to $125,000 annually. Hinkle opened the presentation by explaining that her goal was to show commissioners that county money was “very well spent.” Commissioners asked one of the most basic financial questions imaginable: what is the cost per kennel? Hinkle said it was difficult to calculate. No estimate was provided. No follow-up pressure came from the commissioners. During the presentation, Hinkle acknowledged that animals were regularly transferred into the shelter system from outside Clallam County. The discussion relied heavily on emotional appeals about vulnerable animals, overcrowding, and community tensions, but offered little hard financial analysis. The commissioners praised the organization anyway. Then came perhaps the most revealing moment of the entire meeting. As the discussion wrapped up, Commissioner Randy Johnson’s final question was not about costs, operational efficiency, or financial sustainability. “Are you and your husband planning a trip when you retire?” he asked. Within months, the Humane Society suffered a financial collapse [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/humane-society-hits-ruff-patch?utm_source=publication-search] that shocked much of the community. The Bark House facility shut down. Dog intake operations effectively stopped. Reports surfaced alleging serious internal dysfunction [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/inhumane-society?utm_source=publication-search], including claims involving employee treatment and controlled substances intended for animals. Financial records showed that while revenue had significantly declined, salaries and compensation had surged. IRS Form 990 filings showed total revenue dropping from roughly $1.5 million to $1.18 million in a single year, while salaries, compensation, and benefits increased from approximately $758,000 to more than $1 million. Luanne Hinkle’s compensation jumped nearly 50 percent in one year, rising from about $95,000 to nearly $142,000. At the same time, tax documents showed that only 8% of total spending went directly toward animal care itself. Yet despite all of this, the Humane Society had already received taxpayer support, public praise, and minimal scrutiny from county leadership. The Weekly NGO Parade And that is the broader story here. Every week, nonprofits rotate through county commissioner meetings asking for taxpayer money. Housing nonprofits. Behavioral health nonprofits. Arts nonprofits. Food nonprofits. Animal nonprofits. Outreach nonprofits. The presentations are almost always emotional. The scrutiny is almost always light. The commissioners routinely thank the organizations for their work, praise their missions, and approve additional funding. Sometimes those same commissioners simultaneously sit on boards connected to the very nonprofits receiving public money. One recent example is OlyCAP’s “safe parking” program [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/the-olycap-illusion-public-money?utm_source=publication-search] in Sequim, where over $118,000 in taxpayer funding was approved for what amounts to three overnight parking spaces. Residents asking where the money is going and what measurable outcomes justify the expense have struggled to get clear answers from either OlyCAP or the county. The silence is especially troubling because Commissioner Mike French not only voted on funding connected to OlyCAP, but he also sits on OlyCAP’s board [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/when-county-commissioners-fund-the?utm_source=publication-search]. That dual role creates an obvious expectation for transparency and accountability, yet residents increasingly feel they are met with silence. Questions about measurable outcomes, operational efficiency, and financial accountability are often secondary to narratives about compassion, partnerships, and community investment. Meanwhile, taxpayers increasingly feel like the only people ever told “no” are the citizens asking for transparency. The Disappearance of the Local Watchdog The larger problem is cultural. Local journalism once acted as a watchdog over government and public spending. Increasingly, many local publications now resemble public relations platforms for government agencies, nonprofits, and publicly funded initiatives. Residents are constantly told how transformative programs are, how critical funding is, and why even more taxpayer support is necessary. What is often missing are measurable outcomes and adversarial scrutiny. How many homes were built?How many people exited homelessness permanently?How much did each project cost taxpayers?What are the actual performance metrics?What happens when organizations fail? Those questions are becoming rarer and rarer. Instead, the public is asked to trust institutions that increasingly resist transparency while continuing to demand larger amounts of taxpayer money. This Is the Culture Now This has become the norm in Clallam County. Government praises nonprofits. Nonprofits praise government. Local media amplifies both. Taxpayers fund the entire system while struggling to obtain basic answers about where the money went and whether any of it is actually working. Commissioners get to look compassionate and generous while handing out public money. NGOs receive funding, glowing media coverage, and reduced scrutiny. Meanwhile, residents asking hard questions are portrayed as cynical, divisive, or anti-community. And while millions continue flowing into studies, outreach programs, partnerships, consultants, and nonprofit initiatives, many residents increasingly feel the county’s most basic responsibilities — public safety, infrastructure, accountability, and transparency — are slipping further out of reach. This is not an isolated incident. It is the culture. And until voters demand something different, the revolving door will continue spinning exactly as it does now. “The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.” — Oscar Wilde Today’s Tidbit: Jake in Joyce Join County Commissioner candidate Jake Seegers this Saturday at the Joyce General Store for a casual Community Conversation focused on the future of Clallam County. Stop by anytime between noon and 2pm to meet Jake, share your concerns, pick up a yard sign, and sign the growing petition [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/reopening-the-elwhaa-community-led?utm_source=publication-search] to restore access to Olympic National Park by reopening Olympic Hot Springs Road into the Elwha Valley. The petition effort is calling on state and federal leaders to prioritize restoring one of the county’s most important recreational and economic corridors. Reopening the road is about more than access — it’s about supporting local tourism, protecting gateway communities, and reconnecting families to one of the most iconic areas of the Olympic Peninsula. Residents are encouraged to stop in, ask questions, and be part of the conversation about public safety, government accountability, economic priorities, and the future direction of Clallam County. 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]

28 de may de 202639 min

"They Know Where We Live"

Descripción

Comentarios

Empieza 7 días de prueba

Todos los episodios