Saturday, June 20, 2015

Most Official County Response?

As a brief interlude ...

As some of you may know, Stan Matthews recently retired, so he's no longer the County public spokesperson.

A reader sent me the video below purporting to show the new County spokesperson providing the official County response to the ongoing controversy over the Portland Fair situation. I also was sent a related video purporting to show Mike Thomas and his wife being interviewed about their involvement in that controversy.

Enjoy!








82 comments:

  1. I've seen the laughing interviewer before. It's hilarious. The real story behind that one is that it was a comedy skit about reality shows. It was so real that some people still think it is a real show about medical problems where the interviewer lost it and was fired. However, it is all a skit. Everyone is an actor. The laughter is real though. The guy who plays the interviewer, Tom Van Dyck, just couldn't keep it together when his fellow actor, Lucas Van den Eynde, was saying his lines.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow. You've followed up the only worthy journalism ever posted on here with this rubbish? What a shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love the post. I also love to read the criticisms of the Heron. Everybody loves to hate it.

      If you want real news, go to the Journal, Orcas Issues, San Juan Islander, or Guardian. They're all the same now anyway.

      Delete
    2. I always smile at the people who always come to TH to say there's nothing to read on the TH.

      Delete
    3. I smile at TH critics who admit that it produces worthy journalism. Keep at it TH. You're the only straight-shooting, non-boring read in the islands.

      Delete
  3. I have to agree with @3;51 (laughter). This is really beneath TH (snort). The county deserves much more respect (uncontrollable laughter). They may have been involved in something untoward, but they still don't deserve this (hilarious laughter).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Greetings free and happy SJC comrades. Hahahahahahahaha!!!! I can actually hear that coming out of some people's mouths.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Heron should compile all the insults and criticisms of it from over the years and do its own version of mean tweets

    xD

    ReplyDelete
  6. This just in from Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea news service:

    Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Gaylord angrily denounces American government web site Trojan Heron as colony of dung-eating howler monkeys.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This appears to be an attempt by Ed to divert the conversation from Jack's support of corruption. Is it possible that Ed and Jack are both really part of The Machine?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was thinking along the same lines. I don't think it was any coincidence that this was put up just a couple of days after the 200th anniversary of Waterloo. ECK was drawing parallels between the futility of human existence, as exemplified by the loss of life in that great battle, with the modern socio-politcal evil we contend with locally. The themes of human frailty and struggle in the face of overwhelming odds, as portrayed by the protagonists in the works of Trotsky, Dickens, and Marquez, provide a cultural touchstone for all of us. Ed and Jack, as you call them, aren't really Ed and Jack, but actors on a stage immemorial. They represent each of us caught in this wonderful, horrible thing we call life. Who are we to question the diversion of support and corruption from your view of the support of the diversion of corruption? We are all part of this great machine we call life. If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.

      I want to thank the commenter for pointing out some deep truths that were welling up within me, but I had not yet dared to express even to myself. It all makes sense to me now.

      Delete
    2. And to think, I just thought it was funny.

      Delete
    3. Me too. I haven't laughed that hard in a while. It is a simple reflection as to what San Juan county politics have become. Lets get back to simple and do whats right. 2016 time for change.

      Delete
    4. Someone should do a Downfall parody involving the prosecuting attorney's office.

      Delete
  8. Yes....simply funny. Needed a good laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I watched this and laughed pretty hard.
    Then I realized this, while humorous and satirical, is largely grounded in truth.

    It would be funny if it weren't so serious. Corruption at the highest levels of management in our government.
    Making rules, demanding people follow those rules under penalty of law, then having the ruling class subvert those rules for friends and neighbors.
    That is textbook corruption.
    Thomas, Jarman and Gibboney are shameful, untrustworthy, and need to be removed.

    We can not have a serious conversation anymore about fixing local government when stuff like this is tolerated.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is time for heads to roll! Be done with the continuous corruption!!!!

      Delete
  10. Well, as several previous readers pointed out in the last TH post, there are some possible RCW violations by Thomas and possibly Gibboney.
    Their failure and lapse of ethics may very well be in violation of RCW.
    Now, getting a local PA to press charges, that's another story.

    Jarman, basically, unless he does something even more colossally stupid that he has already done, is sitting in that chair until 2016.

    Gibboney and Thomas, on the other hand, are at will employees.

    I wonder if the TH can get a copy of their contracts. Probably a few sections that were violated and would be grounds for removal.

    Can Hughes roll up his sleeves, hike up his skirt, set his drink down, and get to the uncomfortable decision of doing what is right?

    Replace this clown Thomas with a non-urban planner type person. Someone who is from a rural area. Someone who can look at a budget and find places to cut.
    Not some cheesy, quasi-polished, two faced, slick car salesman, that is willing to subvert process for benefit of those who ask him to. And to top it all off, this clown is getting paid 11% more than he was contracted to receive. After a short time in office? Hughes made it sound like they had some wink and nod agreement in place and this was inevitable, as a condition of employment.
    Plenty of those other candidates would have done it for less.
    Rick, Jamie, and Bob, you need to fix this.

    When you have continual problems, over and over, over and over, you need to take a long hard, INDEPENDENT look at the situation.
    Thomas isn't going to tell you he's screwing it up.
    Gibboney isn't going to tell you she can do more with less money.
    NO, they are going to tell you what you want to hear.

    REFORM. NOW.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes let's manage the county and spend carefully like we would our own household funds!!! What a concept.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Can Hughes roll up his sleeves, hike up his skirt, set his drink down, and get to the uncomfortable decision of doing what is right?"

    Set his drink down?! What kind of weird Carrie Nation gulag do you think we're running around here? Rick will put that glass down when it's empty and not a second sooner. Bottoms up!

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you had to sit around and spend a bunch of your time listening to Jarman laugh at his own jokes, breach a host of ethical lines, order Thomas to break the law, and then try to cover it up and lie to the citizens of this county, of course you would probably drink too.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Will anything happen from all of this? No; because this is the daily reality of SJC.,

    ReplyDelete
  15. Let's start looking for Bob's replacement now. Please

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trust me, we are looking for Bob's replacement. We have a few people we are talking to trying to convince to run.

      Replacing Jarman will be easy.

      The discussion should be about replacing Thomas and Gibboney.
      Why the outgoing council was allowed to have any role in his selection is beyond me.
      Stop using prothman. Stop hiring planning types, period.
      There was an old Heron post during the selection process that listed the candidates and ranked them. Of course Thomas was near the bottom and the commentary was something along the lines of "oh please Lord no. Not a king county planner".

      We are rural.
      We shouldn't be in the GMA.
      The fools we elected haven't made an ounce of effort to get us out.
      Rick and Bob are for sure one termers. If we don't find a good replacement for Rick, we will have to settle for whoever the machine chooses to run. If it was Byers and Rick again, I would vote for Byers.
      Even if that is labeled cutting off my nose to spite my face, I can still find an upside. If I don't have a nose, then I can't smell the bullshit.

      Delete
    2. While Byers doesn't believe in private property, over the last 4 years, we've seen that Rick doesn't believe in anything. Except perhaps Mike Thomas, which is just another way of saying the same thing.

      (Almost) anyone but Rick in 2016.

      Delete
  16. And just to summarize the recent events about the Portland Fair wetland development.

    Homeowner submits plans.
    CDP tells them they need a wetland report.
    They allegedly cry to Bob, their neighbor.
    Bob has Mike Thomas go "take care of it".
    Thomas takes his wife out and she can't find a single wetland.
    Thomas strong arms Gibbboney to approving it.
    Gibboney, is so inept, she literally doesn't know how to use the CDP database, so she can't do it herself, then directs a planner to approve it without the report.
    Planner protests and asks for documentation.
    None is produced.
    Development starts.
    Wetland is violated and neighbor complains.
    Code enforcement finds out about the nefarious sign off.
    Randy tries to sugar coat it, all the while admitting that Thomas had in fact committed a violation that constitutes Improper Governmental Action.
    When the issue finally comes to light, Bob and Jamie deny any knowledge of the situation and say that they will look in to it right away.
    Bob foolishly runs to Sharon K and tells her that "although it may look bad, no wrong doing occurred". (Note that this was only hours after "hearing about it for the first time"). Quick to judge they are.
    The local media picks up the story.
    The Island Guardian is slow on the uptake because Bob is a friend.
    IG writes a borderline incoherent story that confuses the issue, blames the messenger, and acquits Jarman of any wrong doing.
    IG fails to mention that Jack was on site doing perk testing of the area for the septic design.
    No bias there.
    Did I miss anything?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Can someone make Jack retract his story...highly inaccurate and does not contain all the facts

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes. Jack has agreed to reprint the story. Look for the new headline "Jarman Good. Wetland Bad."
    He's making Fox news look middle of the road.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has always been the Faux News of San Juan County. Some people are just starting to figure that out, that's all.

      Delete
    2. Jack's body of work over many years has been the most factual and fair reporting in the islands, bar none. No other news source can hold a candle to him, including the TH ... Islander, Journal/Sounder/Islands Weekly. Taken as a whole, he's simply the best around.

      Delete
    3. The Island Record was pretty damn good, but, of course, that was before your time.

      Delete
  19. A few more facts for the list. Sheryl gets yelled at by the Hughes for doing her professional due dillgence. Sheryl resigns from Portland Fair board.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @10:59 in regards to getting us out of the GMA. The way I read it we did not voluntarily adopt the GMA we were mandated under population criteria so we can’t opt out. The GMA was passed in 1990/1991 and the requirement we fall under is a county with a population of less than 50,000 but with a growth of more than 20% over the previous 10 years. Our population in 1980 was 7838 and in 1990 it was 10035 according to the census and that is an increase of 28%. If we really can opt out like you say we are running out of time because it has to be done by 12/31/15.
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/6194%20SBA%20GOV%2014.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Light bulb moment. I might be comprehending for the first time. So the reason SJC was photoshopped out of this opt out legislation was because AT THAT TIME, growth in the county had exceeded 20% over past ten years. That was the '80s. What was growth rate of the '90s? Of the oughties? Certainly during the past decade growth was pretty much flat-lined.

      I didn't understand this provision -- GMA was mandatory, not voluntary for the County, any definition of rural (i.e. under 100 people per square mile) didn't matter. Growth mattered, so GMA was mandatory, not voluntary.

      But that was then, this is NOW. The ground truth has changed, growth has flat-lined. It isn't sustainable at this level any more than 28% was sustainable in the '80s (and let to howling Cassandras that the islands would have over 200,000 before we knew it. Never happened.

      I think we need to look at the change in the percentages. We can't opt out due to the demographics back then. That was before re-zoning. That was before 9/11, housing bubbles, financial shocks and the situation we find ourselves in now. I don't think the original intent of GMA was to crush our community and economy. The original intent was to provide local governments tools to manage their own growth so local character could survive. But that is not what happened. I am sure that the current law has no provision to recognize CURRENT growth patterns over the past ten years, only the historical growth pattern when GMA was passed. That's completely NUTS! Thank you for this information.

      Delete
    2. Interesting side trip: want to know what the chicken littles of the oughties were afraid of? The Joe Symons crowd explained it this way:

      "The current full time resident population of San Juan County (Jan, 2001) is estimated to be about 14,000. (2000 Census Data is expected in March or April 2001) The CP would allow us to more than quadruple our year 2000 estimated population size. Rural character would change as the number of vacant existing parcels are built upon combined with the number of new parcels that can be created from subdivision are also built upon. The 'guest house' policy, referred to earlier, would legally allow the number of structures to double, thus potentially doubling the about 57,000 population to 115,000."

      http://www.doebay.net/appeal/rurallandchart.html

      So, by their prediction, we should currently be well on our way to a county population of 115,000. How's that calculation working out? Must have gone to the Paul Ehrlich School of Weighty Predictions. Do we want to live under policies determined by those idiots?

      Delete
    3. I think you're looking in the wrong place - SB 6194 never made it into law. The place to look is the growth management act itself:
      http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.040

      Delete
    4. Here is the applicable language of RCW 36.70A.040:

      “(b)(i) Until December 31, 2015, the legislative authority of a county may adopt a resolution removing the county and the cities located within the county from the requirements to plan under this section if:

      “(A) The county has a population, as estimated by the office of financial management, of twenty thousand or fewer inhabitants at any time between April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2015;

      “(B) The county has previously adopted a resolution indicating its intention to have subsection (1) of this section apply to the county;

      “(C) At least sixty days prior to adopting a resolution for partial planning, the county provides written notification to the legislative body of each city within the county of its intent to consider adopting the resolution; and

      “(D) The legislative bodies of at least sixty percent of those cities having an aggregate population of at least seventy-five percent of the incorporated county population have not: Adopted resolutions opposing the action by the county; and provided written notification of the resolutions to the county.

      “(ii) Upon adoption of a resolution for partial planning under (b)(i) of this subsection:

      “(A) The county and the cities within the county are, except as provided otherwise, no longer obligated to plan under this section; and

      “(B) The county may not, for a minimum of ten years from the date of adoption of the resolution, adopt another resolution indicating its intention to have subsection (1) of this section apply to the county.”

      So, per the RCW, to answer the question as to whether SJC can elect out of the GMA, we need to know the answer to four questions:

      a) Does SJC have a population of fewer than 20,000 at any time between 4/1/2010 and 4/1/2015? Answer: Yes, continuously for that entire time.

      b) Has the county previously adopted a resolution indicating that the GMA should apply to the county? Answer: Yes – a copy of that resolution has previously been posted to Trojan Heron here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WaESDrdFEFM/T0CKwJ2gEjI/AAAAAAAAAB4/JHx71XpOx_k/s1600/GMA_Resolution.jpg

      c) At least 60 days prior to adopting a resolution opting out (i.e., going for partial planning), has the county provided written notification to each city of its intent? Answer: No, but we have until around Nov 1st 2015 to do so, assuming that, as usual, the clowncil waits until the very last minute to adopt the resolution (12/31/2015)

      d) At least 60% of the cities named in c) representing 75% of the incorporated county population haven’t adopted resolutions opposing the action in c). Answer: not clear – the language could be read that cities representing at least 75% of the county population need to opt to stay in, or it seems to me that it could alternatively be read that our only incorporated city (i.e., representing 100% of the incorporated cities in the county since it’s the only incorporated city) could veto SJC opting out of GMA. Assuming the council of FH could get anything as complicated as a resolution done in 60 days.

      Short answer, I think a plain reading of the RCW allows SJC to opt out, albeit with the question mark of FH screwing it up.

      Delete
  21. If we cant opt out then Let's do our very best to help our public deal with CAO regs. We have some talent here on island and we need to tap into their ideas. We could do great things with grant money and award it to properties for their efforts, adding value back that which feels taken by CAO restrictions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can opt out. We fell into a special category of three counties who were "automatically" included in fully planning but because of our small population (regardless of our growth rate), we were allowed to opt out. By BOCC resolution we decided (stupidly IMHO) not to opt out. We therefore fit the criteria for opting out now because local legislative action was taken to fully plan (i.e., not opt out).

      Delete
    2. OK, looking back at @7:43 that says we can't get out because we were mandated to fully plan because of the growth rate at the time the GMA was passed.

      And yet, @2:17 seems to say we were "automatically" included (because the growth rate was higher than 20% maybe??) however due to population (X per sq mile) we were allowed to opt out, but we did pass the resolution for the Full Fucking Monty.

      So which is it and why can't we find out?? The clock is ticking! Who were the other rural counties referenced in the bill (I am lazy and don't want to do the research if some one knows). What are those counties doing about it? Are resolutions working their way through those other county governments? Are they models we can adapt here, maybe they've done all the work for us ...

      Delete
    3. Yep, that AnonymousJune 24, 2015 at 5:43 PM

      Anonymous June 24, 2015 at 3:33 PM - see 5:41 pm above. IANAL (Thank God), but my read is that we can opt out.

      Delete
  22. What I can't fathom is why anyone would want to be GMA'd. Maybe in the beginning, but not now. ("Mistakes were made.") Hold your nose, but I actually would like big D to pipe up and explain to the electorate why the GMA now is a bloody good idea. Wanna bet it is all about grants, the Pete Rose justification for just about everything.

    Certainly there are several "County planners" who know exactly how-to kick out of the GMA but their lips are sew shut by the usual suspects.

    Build a legacy; make a motion, developer/councilman, good for you and for us.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Not sure why the big push to opt out of planning under GMA since there is still a requirement to designate critical areas, whether or not you plan under GMA. Counties that plan under GMA are required to have "early and continuous public participation." This is not a requirement for counties that do not plan under GMA. GMA applies to the entire state. The only distinction is whether or not the local entity chooses to plan under GMA.

    The remark about county planners is silly. The knowledge of how to do this is not a big secret. Anyone can research this stuff online and figure out how to get it done. That is, if you are really interested in getting something changed rather than just complaining. Before starting the process of opting out, though, I would strongly advise everyone to look at the pros and cons. I seem to recall a charter being adopted recently, and then amended, and then there are still complaints. So, be careful what you ask for.

    One thing for sure, though. I am fairly certain there would be fewer grants for counties that are not planning under GMA. If that's the main goal, and I'm guessing it is for many on this site, then opting out is the way to go, IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact is that opting into the GMA carries significant burdens for a rural county, and the main difference is a jurisdictional one. When you decide not to fully plan (i.e., opt out), the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) has no jurisdiction. If someone wants to challenge your CAO or other aspect of the GMA, they have to go to court.

      The GMHB is a political body interested in political compliance, not environmental compliance. It is the primary attachment point for Ecology and the Friends.

      Opting out has significant benefits, event thought the same things are required.

      Delete
    2. Yes, taking GMHB out of the loop is huge. GMHB simply obfuscates issues that should go directly to court. GMHB is a "quasi-judicial body" made up of political appointments by the governor. GMHB is expensive, ideologically driven, time consuming and a road block to all parties seeking judicial relief. That applies to the County, the Friends, CSA, CAPR, FutureWise, or individual claimants. I can imagine a time when the Friends loved having the GMHB there when there were no other organizations in the county capable of serious litigation. Those days are over and the Friends -- and the County are going to get frogmarched to the Supreme Court. The GMHB is just an expensive distraction. I would think that everyone would like to send the GMHB packing, and that some strange bed-fellows might come of this if an opt-out campaign started getting legs.

      Delete
  24. I would have to agree w/8:59. One thing I've always wondered is....who ARE the people on the Growth Management Hearings Board? How are they chosen? I just don't trust an invisible panel of unknowns whom you are not allowed to communicate with except through comments to your council etc.... Too mysterious for me.

    Another problem that concerns me is the requirement under GMA to provide available lots whenever the town runs out. In Colville WA maybe a large town surrounded by rural areas doesn't pose a threat but on an island? At what point is that requirement made nil? How far out could the town boundaries go? Especially w/so many areas already divided up. Will the only open land be owned by the government?

    ReplyDelete
  25. There seems to be some misunderstanding. The GMA, even it's political board, are maybe, and that's a big maybe, appropriate for King County, and other large population growth centers in the State that suck up good productive land with housing sprawl, and these large urban growth centers are necessarily in need to such planning and control as intended by the GMA.

    But not us. Not the pitiful population of San Juan County. Go back in the TH, there's a whole lot of supportable info saying us sorry shits don't have a growth management problem.

    Face it folks, it is highly unlikely (relax Luddites---supremely unlikely is a better put) we will have 2,000 tech workers placed on Henry Island by Google even with the $1.5M fiber courtesy of OPALCO running out there. (OK, the island needed a new power cable too. All eight full time residents, and a SYC out-station.)

    Yes the GMA is just fine burning up countless tax dollars as it generates lawsuits and employs post-docs on their way to fiefdom.

    But not here!

    Out Now!





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. All that money wasted you could have paid everyone to protect their wetlands and shorelines. Government is so stupid. They can't think and come up with simple solutions. Out of the box thinkers please. Why is it so tough there is no growth problem here because there are no jobs to generate growth.

      Delete
    2. Well, it's not completely accurate to say there's no growth. I mean, just take a look at the WA Office of Fin Mgmt population numbers out today:

      http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/ofm_april1_population_final.pdf

      Between April 2010 and April 2015, San Juan county has grown by a whopping 411 people. To be fair, that's a net number and given that the average age of this county rivals Indian Wells, CA (i.e., God's Waiting Room), one growth area in the county is funeral homes.

      Now, for those keeping score, that 411 person increase amounts to 2.6% over half a decade. Careful there Sparky - that's not 2.6% annually, that's 2.6% total over 5 years. Stunning growth. Why, I can completely see why the Friends are so worried about the looming Californication of San Juan county.

      Delete
  26. The discussion about the GMA is quite valuable and very time sensitive. Let's not forget for a second why this thread is here.
    Dishonesty, corruption, and abuse of process by Bob Jarman, Mike Thomas, and Sam Gibboney. They are paid a combined $300,000 + probably another $100,000 in benefits, every year.
    They are supposed to be our leaders, decision makers for our county.
    What they have shown is a complete and utter failure of ethics, corruption, and a willingness to subvert the process for their own personal gains.
    This is inexcusable and they should be fired. Thomas and Gibboney need to be shown the door. Jarman needs to be voted out if he is foolish to try to run in 2016.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 1) Bob Jarman is council chair for 2015 (yes?). As such he has a LOT of influence on the agenda. He can put a discussion of the opt out legislation and how it applies to San Juan County. Have the questions raised here addressed and put to rest in the public record. Hey, Bob? Its only a work session, right? Just put a work session on the agenda raise these questions and have them considered in public?

    2) If I recall, the final bill signed by the Gubner listed out the several qualifying rural counties. San Juan County was NOT listed. Why?

    3) The narrative spin over the past year when question #2 arises seems to have been that SJC was mandated to play, irregardless of any resolution the BOCC may have passed. Why?

    Let's get down to brass tacks. Here is a way for Bob to put this recent SNAFU behind him, get the questions in this thread answered for once and for all (and these questions have been punted around a lot already), and a way to gin up the Clowncil to do its job to "consider" opting out without missing the deadlines.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The legislation, combined with the method of opting in to GMA originally are, IMHO, clearly designed to let us Opt-out.

    The letter listing the counties isn't the law itself.

    We need to pursue this and if we can get the vote, push it forward. If someone higher up decides that we don't qualify, then fine, but we have taken the actions that will allow us to litigate it.

    Doing nothing, this goes away for ever.
    Doing something preserves the right to argue about applicability.
    Very important.

    It's not frivolous to argue. At best, the legislation is ambiguous if it applies.

    ReplyDelete
  29. So to the point. Step One: Lean on the Clowncil to hold a work session within 45 days to address the questions raised here, take public comment and figure out what it would take for the County to "consider" an opt out resolution. Do this work session BEFORE Labor Day. This will at least create a "Tee-Up" condition; otherwise we snooze and lose.

    Pros and cons to this please, people? Let's do something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you call them puerile, and insulting, names like "Clowncil", they are less likely to want to work with you on this issue. You might try treating people with respect, for a change. Maybe that's the way to get something done. This isn't a private forum, you realize, right?

      Delete
    2. Right, I remember now. It's printed right in the description of the job that they ran for: use of the word "clowncil" by any citizen of the county at any time in any context relieves them from the responsibility of doing their fucking job. Silly me. Thanks for the reminder.

      Delete
  30. I will show the council respect the exact same instant that Bob and Jamie apologize for lying to the public.
    The same instant that Jarman admits to doing something he shouldn't have. As soon as they discipline Thomas and Gibboney for corruption and subversion of the process that the rest of us have to follow.

    Fair enough?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point isn't that you are required to show them respect. The point is, that if you want to work constructively with someone you have to show them respect. Otherwise they won't work with you. So, if you want a result, you need to do that. If you want to keep complaining and calling people juvenile names, cool. It's your choice. Really, nobody is the boss of you.

      Delete
    2. A lightbulb just went on. If I show the council respect, I'll get results. It's all so simple and clear to me now. It's all my fault. The council is but an empty vessel into which I pour my desires, and if treated well, they will make us all happy.

      Have you been working effectively with this council? You sound like you've gotten results. Tell me about them because I'd really like to know what you've achieved for all of us.

      Tell us some of your mutual accomplishments.

      Delete
  31. Well that wasn't very constructive. Council member's feelings are delicate, they are fragile things aren't they? Things are a bit touchy, eh? Perhaps begging will help? Down on bended knee? Have one of the adults in the room go talk to them, a bit of the old time courtesies might help. Bring a box of chocolates, I don't care, just organize a work session on the opt-out legislation and if you refuse tell us why.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Are you serious?
    The three retards....I'm sorry, that was insensitive, I mean the tree mentally challenged clowncil members who think they're smart based on an election shouldn't be trusted to do anything except what they're told.
    Jamie takes orders from dominating women.
    Rick takes orders from Mike Thomas (and a mouth full).
    And Bob takes orders from hypocrites.
    Truly sad state of affairs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And who was it who supported two of those "retards" and pretty much put them up there? Do you take no responsibility for this at all?

      Delete
    2. As in most elections, there wasn't much choice. I take full responsibility for working to put two of the "retards" in office. They're so full of themselves, however, think they did it all on their own.

      Delete
  33. I wonder what the odds are that the council will come out with some completely lame-ass, factually debunkable puff piece that exonerates Thomas and Gibboney?
    Probably worse that that. They will probably go so far as to actually praise them in some bizzare and twisted way about what great work they do.
    It would be like giving Shireene Hale an award for the CAO work she did.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dear Jamie,
    Please explain to all of us the sweet heart (possibly corrupt, possibly illegal) deals you're dishing out.
    Looks like corruption loves company, wetlands disapearing, whistleblowers fired.
    Gotta love it, you're a class act.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jamie ran unopposed in the last election. A number of people, including your very own Ed, were eligible to run. So what's the beef, exactly here?

      Delete
    2. Jamie's sitting on bigger problems than any of you know. The council is sitting on bigger problems than any of you know. The county has bigger problems than any of you know. It's being held together by threads at the moment. It has been, and continues, to rot from the inside out. Watching the council and Thomas is like watching people trapped in quicksand, or a cesspit.

      This is entertainment folks. Who would want to join this particular wreck at this particular time. No one sane. Wait for the next election cycle. It's only going to get worse from here on out.

      Delete
    3. How do you know that some of us don't know?
      You know?

      Delete
    4. Is this about the multi-million dollar unnecessary road on Orcas that now looks like it was paved by Picasso on a bad acid trip, during an earthquake?

      The same road that we have seen emails with Rick joking about it?
      Hey Hughes, NOT FUNNY.
      Not Funny at all.

      I'm sure the contractor and the county are having "difficult conversations". Nice of them to keep that out of the public eye.

      It's a road. An expensive one. And they couldn't help but somehow screw that up. Bad.
      Really? Come on.

      Delete
  35. Wait,
    I'm missing something.
    What the hell is Jamie doing now?
    Why is it impossible for these three stooges to not do illegal, corrupt, and stupid shit?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Need a reliable Lopez Islander to post here as to what dear Jamie is up to. Rumor is that he is going for a large, by Lopez standards, project, which is fine unless it getting some crank from his Council standing. I, of course, assume he is too smart for anything like that.

    Anyone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Something about a high dollar natural food store? His kid? Something along those lines I heard?
      Isn't he on the water board over there too?
      I'm sure there is nothing nefarious going on there.

      Next you crackpots are going to try to convince me that Rick Hughes and all of his real estate owning buddies are on the Eastsound planning and design committees just so they can affect zoning laws to benefit them and their cronies?
      Puuuhleeeezzzzz.....
      It's all about preserving the rural charm, doncha know....

      Delete
    2. Expanding his natural food store, remodeling old lumber yard. Blossoms is the name of the store......, not sure which building he is in now. Thomas Fragnoli out of Seattle... Fragnoli a former islander turned big city boy got the job. Million dollar remodel.

      Delete
  37. You're assuming Jamie is smart?
    The guy drives a POS jaguar, until called out.
    Thinks Superfly is awesome.
    Takes direction from the FOSJ.
    Is a Ranker tool.
    Thinks he has a political future outside of Lopez.
    LMAO.

    ReplyDelete
  38. And meanwhile, some Israeli diplomat is still living with the deepest of shame and regret for his actions from years ago.
    Just remember, if people will commit the ultimate betrayal of their spouse, how can we even consider them a serious leader?
    Isn't that a sign of serious lapses of morality?
    It's beyond bad judgment.
    Just because Jesus forgives doesn't mean we need to put these people in power, reward their ongoing incompetence, and give them trophies when they engage in corruption and subversion.

    How is the planning department doing these days anyway?
    I hear it's utter chaos.
    I'm sure that a wall full of multi colored post-it notes based on some bullshit "LEAN" model will fix things in a snap.
    It's not like the place has failed and incompetent leadership at the highest levels. Nope, not it at all.
    I think all that department needs is a front office remodel, change the name, do the LEAN post it note thingy, and voila!!! All of a sudden it isn't the stupidest place in the county.
    Fuggin magic.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Any word from Lopez on what Jamie's is up to?
    Heard it's a million dollar pocket-stuffer full of favors.

    ReplyDelete
  40. OK alrighty the Trojan Heretics have once again steered nimbly clear of a pretty decent simple request to the Most High Council ... Please m'Lords we beseech thee, on bended knee and by Droit du seigneur of the Brides of Lopez, our first male born, our livestock and sacrificial goats ... Please conduct a two hour worksession before Labor Day to reveal unto your poor and undeserving subjects the TRUTH OF GMA OPT-OUT. I beg of you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Please remember that these three jokers won popularity contests stop groveling.
    For two of them it will be their last.
    Jamie may hang in there because he knows how to spell his name (most of the time) and that's all it takes for the life coaches and jewelry makers of Lopez.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Are you saying that requesting that the San Juan County Council conduct a formal worksession on GMA opt-out qualifications and issues before Labor Day is a bad idea, or a good idea? Don't fret about the rhetoric and life coaches. Stick to the question. Are you in favor or not? I'm in favor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me, yes, and I'm not even sure I'm in favor of opting out. But a work session is definitely a good idea to discuss the possibility and yes it needs to be soon. I'm not on a position to make the request, but it should not be too hard for a few to make the request (and I would suggest doing it respectfully) during public comment.

      Delete
  43. @7:04
    I always fret about life coaches because their low information vote counts as much as mine.
    In favor?
    Yes.
    I'm also in favor of them directing CD&P to rewrite the idiotic CAO, cutting the budget, closing down unnecessary committees and generally doing their job.
    None of which is likely to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  44. If there is a Pandora's box, it must be on Lopez.

    ReplyDelete