As some of you may be aware by now Simpson has been retained as mayor. The will of those that took the time to vote must be honored.

While disappointed a little over half feel status quo is a good thing it was good to know nearly half of those who voted wanted change. Simpson should not take this vote as a ringing endorsement of his campaign but a wake up call that there are many who feel just getting by is not enough. In order to grow we must take chances and be willing to change otherwise Aberdeen will continue on the same path it has for the last 25 years.

With that said I will be back in four years because I strongly believe change needs to happen.

Thanks for stepping forward.

*LIKE*

Kinda surprised at that result. I'm not sure how to read that. While I don't live in Aberdeen, although I once did briefly, and I'm out of the loop on the wrong side of the newspaper paywall, I thought things had hit bottom far enough for some electorate rehab time, or just plain time for change. Perhaps this is partially a reflection of the older voter demographic? I've never met Fritts as far as I know but I thought he came forward with some clear ideas. And, Simpson seems okay, I even bought a pair of pants from him once, but ... really?

And I gotta be honest, every time I drive through downtown Aberdeen now (and sometimes walk around a bit too), which is every few months or so, it looks just a bit worse. I think its more noticeable when you don't see it everyday. Really sad. I first came into the area in the late 80's. The difference between then and now is, well, significant. Can't see older status quo doing anything to change that decline, like thinking big and getting ahead of it.

I'm curious, any armchair quarterbacking on this election result? Should I not be surprised at the outcome?

I was surprised, too.

Color me disappointed, but not surprised.

Why?

1.The active electorate trends older. Older people don't like change.

2.Fritts has a bit of a reputation as a loose cannon (welcome to that club, Paul--don't apologize and don't radically change). Simpson was accurately branded as a 'don't rock the boat' type, and tried to capitalize on it at the end.

3.Neither candidate laid out any grand proposals. Business as usual has always been Simpson's modus operandi. Fritts only said things like: let's talk about the police department, or how we pay for street improvements, or what might we do about downtown. No real gameplan was laid out. We should have already been aware of specific gameplans on such topics, based on two terms on council.

4.Aberdeen has not come close to hitting bottom, collectively. There still is not much public discussion, or consensus acknowledgement, of either how bad things are, or that it might be within our local control to make changes that matter. The chamber of commerce 'rah rah rah' mindset still prevails--and not without basis due to the dramatic upturn at the Port. The nature of the public discussion will have to change before the political atmosphere is forced to change.

5.Fritts did not get in any jabs at Simpson. Bluntly, he needed to point out some examples of why a change of personalities was a good idea. Simpson took a swing whenever he could think of something to swing at. This made Paul distracted and defensive.

6.Union endorsements probably hurt as much as they helped. Fritts was already cast as being nothing more than a public safety advocate, and that was where he got endorsements--including from a statewide group that should not have expressed any interest in a local election.

7.Campaign flyers were weak in content--from both candidates. Money wasted.

8.I think Fritts assumed that a vote for Cobb in the primaries was likely a vote for him in the generals. All those votes for Cobb really meant was that those people preferred Cobb over Simpson or Fritts. once Cobb was out of the picture, those votes were up for grabs, and, guess what, they probably were mostly older voters.

I could go on with several other lesser observations. Where Aberdeen chooses to go from here will be dictated by the public discussion. Those of us who want change need to take control of the discussion.

...that should have been taken.

Mr. Bill has repeatedly been quoted in print as saying he has 'season tickets' to all concerts at the D&R. Since individual tickets prices are somewhat spendy for most of the shows, this seems like an expensive proposition. The number of shows seems to be a big variable. Many venues do offer season packages, but guess what, the D&R does not, at least at this time.

It seems reasonable to conclude that our esteemed mayor has been 'comped' untold hundreds, or thousands, of dollars in tickets. There is, of course, nothing wrong or illegal about a business doing such a thing, but the recipient politician, who might have favors to grant, faces stricter scrutiny. Gifts must be disclosed, and an occasional recusal is to be expected.

Curious how the local media never picked up on this either.

I would have thought this would come up, also. In addition, I was interested in the ability for another entity to get the banner across Wishkah consistently. I've tried to get information from the city about how a business does that. I always get "You need to talk to ...." and then someone sends you somewhere else. At one time the Mayor indicated it was non-profit entities and the D & R was one. Of course it is not. And, I don't have a problem with the banners at all. I just want the The Driftwood Theater, or The Bishop Center, or Selmer's, or J.C. Penney's to put up a banner hyping a big sale or event at their entity as well.

1.The active electorate trends older. Older people don't like change.

True but I do need to point out I was pleasantly surprised how many older people I ran into during doorbelling or while doing things around town who told me in no uncertain terms Aberdeen was desperate for change. On this subject though one lady who I would estimate to be in her mid-80’s had one of the funniest quotes to me while doorbelling. While I was speaking with her she pointed to herself and said, “The biggest problem is there are to many of us”. I couldn’t help but laugh.


2.Fritts has a bit of a reputation as a loose cannon (welcome to that club, Paul--don't apologize and don't radically change). Simpson was accurately branded as a 'don't rock the boat' type, and tried to capitalize on it at the end.

I don’t plan on changing.


3.Neither candidate laid out any grand proposals. Business as usual has always been Simpson's modus operandi. Fritts only said things like: let's talk about the police department, or how we pay for street improvements, or what might we do about downtown. No real gameplan was laid out. We should have already been aware of specific gameplans on such topics, based on two terms on council.

I mostly disagree with this. I laid out specific plans on how to improve the downtown area i.e. enforcement of building codes, the transient issues, attracting different business, new attitude toward those “sacred cow” buildings, etc. The question of the police department was brought up by others. I answered the questions. Streets are a huge issue with the public as found by doorbelling. I answered how I thought the improvements should be done and paid for (the idea came from Larry Bledsoe obviously I just agreed it was the right move) You are only given so much “ink” by the media so have to get in as much as possible in a little time. Additionally if you think about it you contradict yourself with talk about grand proposals. As you stated older people do not like change so if you go to grand you have the potential of scaring people off.



4.Aberdeen has not come close to hitting bottom, collectively. There still is not much public discussion, or consensus acknowledgement, of either how bad things are, or that it might be within our local control to make changes that matter. The chamber of commerce 'rah rah rah' mindset still prevails--and not without basis due to the dramatic upturn at the Port. The nature of the public discussion will have to change before the political atmosphere is forced to change.

Agree.


5.Fritts did not get in any jabs at Simpson. Bluntly, he needed to point out some examples of why a change of personalities was a good idea. Simpson took a swing whenever he could think of something to swing at. This made Paul distracted and defensive.

Actually I did but did not really receive much coverage about it. Bad timing on my part probably. I’m not sure I really became defensive or distractred. If you are referring to the Ed Board that was a discussion that occurred and me answering bogus statements made by Simpson inthat meeting .


6.Union endorsements probably hurt as much as they helped. Fritts was already cast as being nothing more than a public safety advocate, and that was where he got endorsements--including from a statewide group that should not have expressed any interest in a local election.

The problem here is the only groups who sought out the candidates and met with them were the unions. Not one community organization or any local business group sought to meet with the candidates and/or express their opinions on the candidates. Simpson continually lied stating he never sought the endorsements of the unions. He attended the same meetings and was asked the same questions as me with the full hope of obtaining these same endorsements. Additionally when the first one came down (from the Fire Union) Simpson left quite the nasty message on the union presidents cell phone voicemail. For someone not seeking an endorsement I found that interesting. They chose not to make that public and I respected their decision. I had nothing to do with the statewide endorsement. First I knew the group considered it was when I was informed I received it.



7.Campaign flyers were weak in content--from both candidates. Money wasted.

Feel free to design a better flyer. You have only so much room to fit a lot of info. Not too mention money in trying to come up with one you can afford to print is a factor. Probably mine would look a bit different with hindsight being 20/20.


8.I think Fritts assumed that a vote for Cobb in the primaries was likely a vote for him in the generals. All those votes for Cobb really meant was that those people preferred Cobb over Simpson or Fritts. once Cobb was out of the picture, those votes were up for grabs, and, guess what, they probably were mostly older voters.

Never once made this assumption. Hoped, but never assumed. I knew every vote for her was up for grabs.


I could go on with several other lesser observations. Where Aberdeen chooses to go from here will be dictated by the public discussion. Those of us who want change need to take control of the discussion.

I guess one final observation would be the area I was completely destroyed in, precint by votes, was the Bel Aire/Herbig Heights area. No real answer for it other than to say the one part of town who wanted change the least was on the hill. Haven’t figured that one out completely.

In the end the important part for me was could I look myslef in the mirror after the election no matter the result? The answer is yes. I had told my wife in the beginning I would not change what I say or do just to get elected. I managed to stick to that. To many people even here locally including my previous opponent say only what they think people want to hear and are afraid to rock the boat or take chances so they can get elected. Maybe in the end this is who the electorate will always pick but if I stooped to that I don't think I could ever live with it.

I look forward to working with you on future campaigns, including council size reduction. It seems to me a charter change to allow a city manager would also be a good move.

In any event, congrats on a noble try.

With the exception of council size reduction, you're on target. Smaller is not better... look at Ocean Shores... or the County... or...?

I've asked Simpson & Yonich about this. Not sure what else I was supposed to do. Ideas welcome.

Do you think that Aberdeen or Hoquiam would be worse off if there were only 7 council positions?

To me, with Aberdeen and Hoquiam being the only two cities in the state with a 12 member council, it just appears that we have people in this area that are against change.

I believe MWMI wrote in an earlier post that very few of these council members are actually bringing new ideas or proposals to the council, and some rarely even speak at the meetings. They rarely run opposed. They seem to be there just for the "prestige" of being a council person. If this is true, which I believe it is, I think it is time to look at reducing the council size.

What was their response?

Who is putting up the banners? If it's city employees is he paying for their time or are we?

lol...who cares? Does it bring people and money into downtown for an event, or doesn't it?

Seriously?

I'd start by pinning Mr. Bill down on what exactly he meant when he has repeatedly said he has 'season tickets.' And, pin the D&R down on the fact that 'season tickets' do not exist. (Hint, see their Facebook page for confirmation that there is no such animal.)

Then, make a list of the numerous special favors the D&R has obtained from the city the last 2-3 years. Make some public records requests of the inspection and permit records regarding the D&R. find out about those banners Stash has mentioned--permit records, who installs them, why no other groups have been allowed one in recent years. Do a PDC search on any gifts Mr. Bill (and councilmembers) have reported. Do a little research on how much tickets would have cost for all of the shows to date.

Situational ethics?

No...just not willing to be penny wise and pound foolish.

How much money was spent in the community refurbishing the D & R? How much money does the D & R bring into the community? Would Aberdeen be better off with or without the D & R? Does Aberdeen desire to do everything it can to support the D & R, or does Aberdeen desire to see it to go the way of so many other Harbor enterprises?

The proper question is not whether the D&R is good for Aberdeen, but whether the mayor is conducting city business in a transparent and ethical fashion.

It's perfectly fine for a business to give away its product (i.e., comp tickets), but it's not fine for an elected official to accept that recurring gift, and not disclose it, particularly when the business appears to be receiving special favors from the city.

Because if the city employees are putting the banners up and the city (we) are paying for it, it's WORNG. The D and R should be footing the bill, not us.

I kind of agree with you except does the city hang banners for 5Star or WalMart who bring lots of money into the city coffers? Where do you draw the line? Does anyone know whether we did not receive something for doing this?

BTW a certain amount of "horse trading" has always gone on between businesses and government entities. You have to allow some latitude to those administrators to do things like this.

WORNG?

Oh for pity sake...I thought progressives were all for sharing resources. Heaven forbid Aberdeen do a business a favor by hanging a street banner. I mean...just look at downtown Aberdeen...what a flourishing metropolis of wealth and sophistication! Who needs a cooperative and supportive city-business environment when you have a list of big investors begging to locate in beautiful downtown Aberdeen, Washington! Let the city boys get paid for hanging out in the shop an extra half-hour instead. lol. Whatever...thank goodness I bought in Monte.

I thought you Christians were all about following the law.



Couldn't agree more.

Does Aberdeen have a law that says the City cannot hang a street banner for a business?




In what way couldn't you agree more?

The state has a law that gifts of public funds to private enterprises are wrong.

Would that be considered a gift to a tax paying entity?

I was told that Yonich pays a fee to have the banner put up. The source did not know how much is paid. But, I was told by another source, the Mayor said it was only for non-profits. This could make some sense as it goes across a State Highway and requiring DOT approval.

The State Constitution does allow a gift of funds for the benefit of "the poor and the infirmed". So, having it available for non-profits at no or little charge in order to help the poor and infirmed makes some sense. However, if that is the party line they want to use, there should be easily understandabl policies and procedures other non-profits could use. Plus, neither the D and R Theater nor Jon Yonich is a non-profit entity.

I haven't found anything in the Municipal Code about it...yet.

It's in the State Constitution.

If you're looking for something permitting banners across the roadway, you will not find anything in the Aberdeen Municipal Code.

AMC 15.40 defines permanent signage. AMC 15.44 defines temporary signage. There is provision for permitting of signs over public rights-of-way, and there is provision for canvas-type temporary signs, but absolutely nothing (in my supposedly up-to-date hard copy of the code) allowing for any banners of a customary size. In addition to the special permit for signage in the public right-of-way, you would need a city council resolution authorizing a variance or conditional use. And probably some sort of approval from DOT.

I am aware of one business owner who followed all the directions he was given or at least of which he was aware. He went so far as to have his sign made. When it was presented for placement, he was told it would not pass DOT standards because of a particular sponsor on the sign. So, there is at least lip service to DOT's approval or disapproval.

Thereby depriving a sign company of business?

Something does not smell right in this statement. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/653A31E9-ADE7-42CA-854E-8A2350338C20/0/AdSignFolio.pdf

Was one of the "sponsors" a cigarette or liquor company?
http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/dbhr/focus/Spring-Summer_FOCUS_2010.pdf

Or the Boy Scouts.

I don't care if the City of Aberdeen or Montesano hangs a thousand banners. My problem is if the CITY is footing the bill for a private enterprise to earn profits.
If a business or a person wants to hang a banner fine, let them pay for it.
I guess you don't have a problem with cities using your tax money, when it could be better spent elsewhere such as for core services.

Anything non-offensive and benign to distract from the usual street view is of great benefit to the community, imo.