Readers Roundtable with Candidates:
For this year’s primary races, our readers are invited to ask candidates questions and add comments in an interactive exchange below. Here’s your chance to probe local office-seekers in a relaxed public forum where you’ll even get the chance for a couple rounds of follow-up questions!
Participating candidates have agreed to engage with commenters for at least three days following publication. Candidates can expand upon and clarify their views; voters can get a deeper look into what they have to offer. The candidate will reply daily to each posted comment during the 3-day period. Candidates can reply as expansively or as briefly as they want, optionally writing collective replies to multiple similar comments or commenters who post multiple times during the same day. Comments that violate PTFP commenting policy will be blocked or removed by moderators so won’t qualify for candidate replies.
All contenders in local primary races with at least three candidates were invited to participate in these roundtables —
Jefferson County Commissioner:
Jon Cooke, Greg Brotherton, Marcia Kelbon
WA State Representative, District 24, Position 1:
Sue Forde, Mike Chapman, Matthew Rainwater
WA State Representative, District 24, Position 2:
Steve Tharinger, Darren Corcoran, Brian Pruiett
———————————
M A R C I A K E L B O N
I am running for Jefferson County Commissioner, District 3. I am a mother, grandmother, engineer, attorney, and recently retired biotech executive. I have lived with my husband in the West sound and canal area since 1981 and love this community. I am an independent thinker and a moderate Republican but firmly believe people must be put over politics. My objective is to provide a balanced voice for Jefferson County.
Why I am running
For the last few decades, I commuted into Seattle for work. In recent years I watched that once proud city decay due to its well-intended but ineffective policies concerning the homeless, defunding and disrespecting of law enforcement, decriminalization of drugs, and punishment of job creators. I have been concerned to see some of those same policies being employed in Jefferson County.
Three years ago I retired at age 60 and moved full-time to Quilcene. I have always been actively involved in community service where I live or work. As I became more involved locally, I realized just how difficult it was for working-age people to make a go of it here. The national and state shortage of housing has been exacerbated in Jefferson County by decades of local policies and regulations creating barriers to reasonably-priced housing. The growth of businesses providing true living wages has also been severely restricted. Those factors make it incredibly difficult for working-age adults and families to independently make their way here, reduce service providers for retirees, and burden all, including those on fixed incomes, with a growing tax burden.
It is also concerning that our county commissioners take or endorse actions that do not adequately respect individual and constitutional rights — rights that cut across party lines. Our elected officials should protect those rights irrespective of their personal opinions.
My background
I am running to address all of the above issues using my business, legal, and technical skills as well as my passion for this community. After completing my Master of Science in chemical engineering at the University of Washington, I worked for the U.S. Navy as a civilian engineer for four years. I then went back to UW to complete my law degree, and began practice as a patent attorney, protecting intellectual property and helping businesses start and grow. Twelve years later, I went in-house to join a start-up biotech company. Over the span of 19 years as a senior executive and General Counsel, I guided that company to being publicly traded, creating approximately 250 jobs along the way. I have experience and skill in prioritizing limited resources, budgeting, policymaking, shareholder accountability, operating in regulated environments, grants administration, job creation, hiring and supervision, team building, dispute resolution and technology. Skills that the Board of County Commissioners could well use.
My community involvement includes current service as a Quilcene Fire Commissioner and volunteering for East Jefferson Habitat for Humanity, the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group, and other organizations. I previously served on a regional board of Catholic Community Services, provided pro bono legal services to the Make-A-Wish Foundation of America, and volunteered as a Girl Scout troop leader and with Babe Ruth baseball. In my role at my biotech company, I worked to enable our company to provide medicine on a no-cost basis to people in need throughout the world.
Two of my adult children and a dear granddaughter live in Jefferson County. I want this area to be safe and prosperous for those generations as well as older individuals. Like most of us in our community, I highly value nature and enjoy hiking and biking in our amazing environment.
Leadership solutions
Housing
To address our housing shortage, we need to start permitting rental, multi-family, and starter homes in our urban growth areas. We need to amend our comprehensive plan, using the annual or an emergency review process, to create smaller buildable lots near our village centers. These steps will increase the supply of reasonably-priced housing without harming the environment or losing our rural character. We should curtail septic regulations where cost is added without a commensurate benefit to the environment. We need to reduce permit fees and greenlight less expensive construction techniques. Building moratoriums such as the one currently in place in Jefferson County are counter-productive and must be avoided. The county should negotiate with developers for density bonuses in return for the inclusion of affordable units. All of these steps would move us toward restoring the ability of hard-working people to build, buy, or rent homes of their own.
Business Development
We need to embrace business. This includes permitting the growth of our existing, small-scale technology, manufacturing, and retail businesses. We also need to support our few existing large businesses, rather than constraining or shutting them down. The skills, energy, and funds of a generation of telecommuters that have moved into our area should be welcomed. When those individuals are ready to start environmentally-friendly technology and light manufacturing businesses, we should be sure that we can incubate their ideas here. We can partner with our local community colleges to train our residents to supply a pipeline of workers in diverse fields that pay well. These may include, for example, welding, computer programming, CNC machining, healthcare, and the manufacture of cross-laminated timber modules. The goal is to nurture the creation of true living-wage jobs. Green tourism is important, particularly in the South and West ends of the county, and should be encouraged, but it is not sufficient. A true economic development effort is required.
An end result of housing and business development will also be the growth of our tax base. The escalation of the tax burden on property owners can finally be curtailed so that those on fixed incomes are not at risk of being taxed out of their homes. And a more secure income stream will be available for full funding of public safety, including law enforcement and emergency responders, roads, and infrastructure.
Homeless
Some of our unsheltered individuals simply need a greater supply of housing and better-paying jobs, which the above efforts will alleviate with time. But a majority of homeless are truly sick – addicted to substances, mentally ill, or both. We currently warehouse these individuals in encampments, where they can reside for up to three years. And at the end of that time, they will be just as sick as when they went in. Based on history to date, some will likely die during that period of time, including our youth. We are simply hiding the problem rather than treating people with true compassion and the dignity of accountability. Instead of enabling continued substance abuse, we should insist on screening and then provide the services needed to become healthy and actually move forward in life.
Individual Rights
Regardless of any personal preferences, I will respect individual rights including those enshrined in the U.S. and Washington constitutions. Local ordinances and policy may impact, for example, property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religious expression and from government establishment of religion, second amendment rights, the right to work to better and house oneself, the right to medical and health autonomy, and anti-discrimination rights.
More information
Please keep an eye out for me as I motorcycle through the community campaigning – I love to connect with people. I can be contacted at 360.774.0150 or by e-mail at electmarciakelbon@gmail.com. Please follow me on Facebook or Instagram @ Elect Marcia Kelbon to learn more about my take on local events and issues. Anyone wishing to assist my campaign can do so at www.electmarciakelbon.com.
All photos provided by Marcia Kelbon.
Top photo: Marcia and her husband biking the San Juans.
As I read Marcia’s bio above I am again so impressed with her qualifications. She is what Jefferson County needs….. Our County is a rural County with one and only one City. Other than Port Townsend Jefferson County is rural with farmers, home and land owners, renters and retired people. I count myself as a Jefferson County native. My family homesteaded in the 1850’s in Chimacum Valley. I have many friends and relatives here and I care about all of them. So many of our fellow Jefferson County residents want to remain here after graduating High School but the well paying jobs are not here. Nor are rentals available for many. We need more and better jobs as well as homes and apartments available for our people. Marcia has the ability and knowledge to help Jefferson County and we desperately need her as our Jefferson County Commissioner.
Thank you for your faith and support John. I believe it is not too late to turn things around here.
In seven decades I have never put a political sign in my yard…until now. I attended a town hall with Marcia and found her to be honest, engaging and most of all very grounded. She knows what needs to be done, and seems willing to take the heat. I hope she can build the coalitions necessary to advance the community.
Thank you, Michael, much appreciated. I believe the strong majority of our constituents have more in common than different, and I do have the ability to see multiple sides to issues.
One question….
Will you/can you clean up the “mess” in Seattle (or anywhere else in your district) and make that city beautiful again?
We need our police… bring them back!!
Sincerely,
A Concerned Baby Boomer
Hello Lynn, I do not have an ability to effectuate change in Seattle and assume you may be referring to Port Townsend? I would like to see us adopt policies that start to reduce official and unofficial encampments. Key to this would be to move people forward in life so that the unsheltered population reduces rather than continuing to expand. For some this will occur by enabling better-paying jobs and an increased supply of reasonably-priced housing. For those suffering from substance abuse disorders and/or mental illness, conditioning shelter access to rules including participation in screening and in appropriate treatment offers a path forward. With discipline and treating people with respect as adults, compassionately holding them accountable, the goal would be to help people live more productively, which would also reduce the population of unsheltered. A fringe benefit would be rendering our county, including the city, safer and cleaner.
Anyone but Brotherton, but having met and questioned Marcia, she would, in my humble opinion, be a positive force in a county commission that has forgotten how to think and act coherently. She also has the temperament to work with folks with differing opinions. Even though she admits to taking the jab, she is for personal freedom and against intimidation by non elected “health officials”. Let’s stop the neo-liberal virtue signalling steady drift of our county and look for some coherent balance. Having just one political party representing our community means tyranny not equitable balance. It is differing points of view that allows critical thinking.
Thank you, Il Corvo. You are correct, I do support and did partake of the COVID vaccine but also believe that this is a matter of bodily autonomy rights. I used to draft informed consent documents for clinical trials and we could pay clinical trial participants only a small stipend to cover their time and expenses. Anything beyond that was considered unethical. I thus found it troubling to require people to take a vaccine that they did not wish to do so in order to earn a living or run a business. This is particularly so given that the use of a good quality mask offers protection for others.
Thanks for your response, Marcia. What I would like to see is a public debate between you and Brotherton. With the each dictatorial edict over the last 2 years from our commissioners, there was never a direct debate with community members and our policy making health officials.
This is even more apparent on the national level, even though many doctors and scientists have asked the NIH and the CDC to engage in an informational public debate. It is just more rules and infringements on our constitutional rights without public and private input. This is how democracy can either starve or flourish. Politicians can either serve the people that elect them or serve their own political and financial interests.
When we spoke at a local gathering, you mentioned that your reason for running, at this point in your life, was to serve your community rather than any form of personal gain or ambition. If this is still true, would you be willing to call for a series of debates? Thank you for your time.
II Corvo, that remains the case. I have no need for this role, and frankly if it were monetary compensation in which I was interested I could be making more from other professional work I cut off once I started campaigning. I also have stated on the public record that I will push for a rollback of the extra raise that the commissioners gave their positions in December 2021, for myself and the other commissioners. I welcome all opportunities to face off with the other candidates, have signed up for each event that has been announced, and have already been working with others to see if another can be scheduled before the general election.
Thanks Marcia and it would be great if you could post at the PTFP when and where any debates might be scheduled.
Thanks, Marcia, for your evident commitment to bodily autonomy rights, especially since County Commisioners serve on the Board of Health in charge of its Health Officer!! But please reconsider your statement about how “the use of a good quality mask offers protection for others.” Can you cite any randomized controlled studies concluding that even “good quality” N95 masks (which are difficult to fit properly and unhealthy to wear for extended periods) provide significant viral protection for self or others? Note among other things that “Filtration efficiency of an N95 mask can also be compromised by even small amounts of facial hair in the area of the seal.” Seeing only one other unmasked face at recent PT city council meetings, I gave public comment summarizing how much-cited CDC mask effectiveness claims are based on cherry-picked data, exposed by a new Lancet review of the full data set showing masks actually increased cases, echoing randomized controlled trials finding masks provide no significant protection from viral infection. Lying with statistics undergirds masking propaganda, obfuscating the fact that viruses freely flow through and around conventional face coverings.
I also reviewed latest findings from The New York Times and elsewhere about masks having infinitesimal effect on Covid spread, their unfitness for purpose since designed for bacteria not aerobic virus transmission, and their many psychological and physical harms especially for kids, so I encouraged council to stop modeling and promoting their misuse. Please take a look at my linked sources above and let me know what you think!
Hello Stephen, thank you for the useful links. I am glad to see that you focus on peer-reviewed articles. As you likely know, double-blind controlled studies are few and far between in this area, because of ethical concerns in running such studies in these circumstances. And the data is indeed mixed. But there are studies showing that masks can help reduce spread, e.g., Association Between Universal Masking in a Health Care System and SARS-CoV-2 Positivity Among Health Care Workers – PMC (nih.gov) [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7362190/%5D. Just as there are studies showing the opposite. I believe the main problem is the empirical nature of the data.
Personally, I do not mask routinely at this stage and I do not miss them as a part of my daily routine. But for most adults, with some exceptions, mask-wearing is a small burden. And I see it as differing from an interventional medical step such as vaccination. So personally, I never hesitate to wear a mask when requested or expected, as there is some support for the practice and if it keeps anyone safe, it is worthwhile. I also want others with whom I interact to feel comfortable, as a simple matter of respect.
Marcia, thanks for your respectful and intelligent reply! As you say, studies can be educed showing both sides, but I feel there are real differences between randomized controlled studies (that all show no significant virus protection) and the flood of low-quality uncontrolled studies staged by partisans cherry-picking data promoted since 2020. The one you cite mandating masks in a Massachusetts healthcare system is better than most of these, but is non-randomized, based on discredited PCR testing, and admits to being “confounded by other interventions inside and outside of the health care system, such as restrictions on elective procedures, social distancing measures, and increased masking in public space”.
The trouble is that intelligent people staring at statistical studies can lose touch with the core reality that it is physically impossible for conventional masking to protect against viruses, since the pores in masks are much bigger than the viruses, and exhaled air follows the path of least resistance through the ill-fitting gaps on sides and top of masks that are even bigger than the pores.
And this physical impossibility is borne out by the universal failure of randomized controlled trials to find any statistically significant virus protection, which was commonplace epidemiological knowledge prior to 2020. Masking against viruses is no more effective than wearing a dunce cap on one’s face or head, but much more unhealthy and harmful to physical and psychological and societal well-being, with most damage wrought on young children’s mental and emotional development as they are deprived of facial cues with nothing but hostile-looking uncommunicative masks all about them… meanwhile being assaulted with sustained CO2 levels far in excess of OSHA limits for full-grown adults.
And the hits just keep on coming… just 2 days ago Nature published “Bacterial And Fungal Isolation From Face Masks Under the COVID-19 Pandemic“, finding bacteria growing on 99% of the samples inside masks and 94% outside, along with fungal colonies growing on 79% of the samples inside and 95% outside and getting worse the longer masks were worn… a very unhealthy situation especially for kids and the immunocompromised.
I agree with you about being considerate and respectful of each others’ choices (especially regarding bodily autonomy!!), but I feel this ethical attitude should be conjoined with clear understanding that “mandates never work or demonstrate any significant benefits because they’re forcing compliance with a useless facial decoration.”
We need housing and good jobs. True! How do we get there by reducing regulation of septic systems in the county. We already have an abundance of bad septic systems polluting the Hood Canal and Puget Sound . Many businesses would not exist if these bodies of water became unusable, not to mention our higher obligation to protect the environment.
What’s your position on the Master Plan Resort at Pleasant Harbor?
Thank you, Steve. My point on septic regulation is not to cause or tolerate failed septic systems. Failed systems need to be repaired ir replaced. I very much believe that we need to protect our waterways and marine environment. But we have some local ordinances that, I believe, increase the costs of housing without a concomitant environmental gain. As one example, we have aging mobile homes in the county that owners would like to upgrade. If they were to do so under current code, they would be required to upgrade their existing septic system even if it is still functioning well. So those homes remain decaying, in some cases unoccupied. There is also a push in the county to add ADUs for additional housing, The same county ordinance, as I understand it, would require the septic for the main house to be upgraded when an ADU is added – even if it had not failed and had adequate capacity. And modern pressurized septic systems can cost $30K or more. What are we gaining from this ordinance that burdens property owners, with lost opportunities for additional housing without a resulting environmental gain? As another example, we require an engineered septic plan for all new construction. I have had two of these prepared, at a cost of $5K+ each, and they are virtually identical. This is a state requirement with which we must comply. But I do not see why we could not have pre-approved engineered septic systems on the shelf at the county for given soil types and number of bedrooms, reducing that barrier. These are the sorts of discrete adjustments I have in mind.
Apologies Steve, I missed your last question. I do support the Master Plan Resort at Pleasant Harbor. This is based in part on representations made to me about it being an environmentally closed system (it does appear to be very well engineered) and educational opportunities at the MPR that will be provided for community youth and for community access to the medical clinic there. I do see a downside in additional traffic, but I believe that will be outweighed by the benefit of additional jobs and a “ripple” economic effect. It is tempting to say shouldn’t the area just be left natural? But a lot of South County folk are suffering financially – relief is needed. Some growth is inevitable, and a lot of thought and negotiation has gone into this project. We could do far worse and I believe it will be a net positive for the community.
Marcia, Thank you for your thoughtful response to both questions. I’m sure there are many areas local and regional governments could improve regulations that aid housing costs with out sacrificing the beloved land we all share, Steve.
Moderate republican looking for some balance….with detailed, thoughtful, and pragmatic, solutions ….got my vote.
Thank you, Brad, that is my aim and I appreciate the vote of confidence.
Many communities have been destroyed by unhoused drug addicts and mentally ill persons. Governments and non-profits enabled this destruction based on obvious mis-interpretation of the 9th Circuit Martin vs. Boise decision. This decision requires jurisdictions to allow a place to sleep. There is no legal requirement to surrender parks and neighborhoods to transients.
Have you read the actual Martin vs. Boise decision? What are your plans for preventing our working class neighborhoods in Jefferson County from devolving into dystopian hell-holes? I read your statement above on accountability, etc. Not enough. Working people need protection from people who are NOT accountable to anyone. That means protecting the integrity of our neighborhoods. The police couldn’t help if they wanted to because most crime is essentially “legal” in Washington State.
homelessquandary.wordpress.com/2018/11/16/martin-vs-boise-no-it-does-not-prohibit-cities-from-removing-illegal-camps/
Hello Marie. I have indeed read Martin v. City of Boise. And you are correct regarding the holding, or as Judge Berzon noted, “only . . . municipal ordinances that criminalize sleeping, sitting, or lying in all public spaces, when no alternative sleeping space is available, violate the Eighth Amendment.” This decision was interpreted more broadly by many municipalities, and I have heard it characterized similarly in Jefferson County public meetings as essentially requiring facilities that meet unsheltered individual preferences for who they might have to room with, pets, etc. Other jurisdictions that tried the wide-open approach and failed, such as Seattle and Kitsap County, are now imposing rules that are in fact not prohibited by the Boise decision (or the Homestead Act, also often cited). And the problems appear to be worse in states, such as WA, that were the leaders in decriminalizing drugs. The solution is, I believe, to impose rules at our existing shelters. Not just rules set by the folks living in the shelters, but rules set by surrounding neighbors as well. (Currently input must be sought but then the shelter sponsors make the decision.) These rules should include, at a minimum, no drug dealing, participating in behavioral help screening, and then actively partaking of mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment where warranted. Ill people who are willing to get better will be on track to have a shot to do so. And people who do not want to follow these rules to get better would ultimately be trespassed and then hopefully through participation in drug court or behavioral health court move forward. And some who simply like the unsheltered lifestyle and no-cost benefits, without any desire to get better, may grow frustrated and move along. (Of course, there will also be some who are gravely mentally ill that may need help for life. I hope that the State steps up its game there.) These are not easy issues and I cannot claim to have all of the answers. But my hope is that this approach will put an end to the construction of new encampments and hopefully eventually permit the closing of some existing encampments.
My goodness!
A candidate with viable solutions, and she even publishes them prior to the election!
Most Excellent!
Thank you.
I sent my ballot in yesterday. It’s time to clean the barn out.
Hello Marcia-
It is easily illustrated that key players in the City of Port Townsend have left a legacy of failure. Fort Worden (new faces same power core), Cherry Street with 2 million dollars lost and counting reported, spending 1.2 million dollars on the concrete-based visitor center plaza with no public input, and roads that are beyond being in bad shape.
Most recently the City Council including new arrivals favored restaurant use of very limited public parking that benefits a political insider. this engineered a class system and drove a wedge Council ignores in the community or what is left of it. But only through the end of the year! Faber claims they listened to public input.
Parking itself for 8 years, or business access, has been purposefully turned into a wild west no rules quagmire that benefited real estate interests in the mayor’s position for 3 terms and on council for 20 years. The last City Manager had his positon for 20 years as well and is now Executive Director at Fort Worden.
Then there is the compromised unqualified City Manager that arrived with an agenda that seems to mirror UN agenda 21.
It is also reported that a commissioner you would be working with is part of that.
You will of course answer that you as a County Commissioner would have no power over this corrupted City system. However, the County Courthouse and County seat are in Port Townsend. Hard to separate the influence in some minds.
You don’t have to answer any of that if you wish. But…….
A new project near the paper mill that will most likely have issues and lawsuits regarding air quality for residents is proposed that is a joint venture with the City and County.
How will you as one individual, if elected, make sure yet another grand failure in the making is not allowed to take the failed course of nearly every other project or responsibility of “The City”. Or should that project move forward as so far planned by the very people who have done so much damage and double down as a matter of course. Air quality will be a lingering issue even if a sensible and cost-effective plan is made.
Do you believe that Cherry Street should be completed or at least demolished before moving on to a much more complicated project?
Marcia–
First, a special thank you to your guardian angels. Well done, angels, well done!
Next, the situation with traffic is one which is worsening in Port Townsend and surrounding areas. We have a mixture of lost and amazed tourists, mixed with elderly drivers mixed with brand new just got their drivers license drivers, mixed with people who are late to work, mixed with people who love to drive really really fast, mixed with… A city council who wants to turn all of our roads into ones which physically create a system which places bicycles at the top of a hierarchy of “preferred transportation”.
Allegedly, we must all adapt to these dangerous new roads because there isn’t money for us to have roads with lanes for each car direction, plus bike lanes, plus sidewalks. Somehow suddenly we don’t have money for roads based on common sense and safety. Yet we are surrounded by evidence of money poorly spent on empty apartment buildings, painted chunks of wood we are told our art, and myriad other indecencies.
You already have our vote and our support, but we are curious what your thoughts are on how we might get some money put into actual common sense infrastructure, instead of belligerent willful wastefulness.
Thank You! Mend strong!!!
Steve, agreed, thank you.
Thank you Boatfix.
Thanks. As someone well acquainted with the working end of a manure fork, I love the analogy.
Hello Harvey, you are prescient in anticipating a reply that, as a County Commissioner, I will not be able to control the Port Townsend City Council. That does not mean that I won’t voice my thoughts to any joint committees on which I may serve. It seems to me that many of these issues could be avoided by following a more regimented development of a scope of work, bidding, contract award, and contract enforcement. A process with which I am well familiar.
I do not know but suspect that the City may have tried to be cost efficient by doing some of these projects themselves rather than contracting with the necessary expertise – but that is pure hypothecation on my part.
With respect to Cherry Street, I would recommend to the city that it seek three types of bid proposals: (1) scope and cost to bring the building to code, including asbestos and mold remediation and rewiring, (2) cost for tear down and disposal of the existing building, and (3) cost of building a new structure with a similar livable square footage. If (1) [cost of repair and upgrade] is greater than (3) + (2) [costs of a new building after first removing old], then proceed instead with (2) [removal of old].
Concerning the joint county/city project near the paper mill, can you please reply with more information on exactly what this is? Thanks
The project is explained here. https://www.porttownsendfreepress.com/2022/01/06/incredibly-expensive-affordable-housing-project-follows-cherry-street-debacle/
Re reading it states funds came from the state for purchase of the property by the paper mill. I believe it is in the area near the camp set up for those with no place to live. I do think I had read that the County would be involved at some point. I stand to be corrected. It was reported that the County and City were working together on the nearby camp that replaced the live in drug market that County and City allowed to exist at the fairgrounds and where people died. I have spoken to many neighbors who regularly heard screaming at night with no police response when they called for it.
Both current projects are in an area that is often permeated by the mill odor. Investing tens of millions of dollars in an area no one else has wanted to live or develop seems as questionable as building in the Chimacum Valley flood plain and being surprised when it floods.
With any project it seems one would be wise to avoid any partnership or dealings with the City of Port Townsend as it is now controlled and (mis) managed.
If the county is not to be involved in this stinky plan, are you aware of or do you favor any similar but better administrated projects in the County near Port Hadlock?
Fully on board with your assessment of septic system overkill. Have been aware of it and the broad-brush permitting is painted with for a very long time. Speaking with designers and installers for years they say that septic design overkill is not necessary in many if not most cases.
It can slow down building in the County if that is the agenda. I have always been about mitigation. Leave protected open spaces and do minimal impact development.
Quick numbers….Speaking with a well company employee last week I was told a PUD water hook up is now around $40 K and wells can be more if allowed. I stand to be corrected. Add a $30K or more septic and affordable is not happening for most even with a basic mobile home at minimum of $100K. That puts us at $170K. Add land minimum $60K and likely much more and other costs at $50k for electric hook up, driveway, foundation slab etc. Is $280K or rounded up to $300K. Is that affordable these days with interest rates going up?
It would seem that well planned and run mobile home parks are the only real option for affordable housing. Without subsidies.
Did research your reference to cross-laminated timber modules. Interesting. Affordable with other building costs?
Ah, thanks Harvey, you are referring to the Evans Vista project by the first traffic circle on the way into PT. I am familiar with that, but I did not associate that with the mill, though I suppose in reality it is close. I am not aware of the county having a role in that project.
The other project of which I am aware is in Hadlock, where a 17-acre airstrip behind the library was recently purchased by Habitat for Humanity, with the County kicking in $500K of ARPA funds. The plan is to build “permanently affordable”, mixed-income (most below mean but some above) housing. I am a supporter of H4H and its customary approach of building single-unit, modest homes to which residents add some sweat equity and have some ability to gain equity, and I volunteer on builds (or at least I did until my recent motorcycle wreck). This project is a new venture for H4H locally, includes an aspect of housing management by H4H and another foundation, and resident lease payments made for the land on which the housing sits. I hope they do it well with this alternate model, but that remains to be seen.
In general, I am not a huge fan of subsidized housing projects, with some exceptions such as for disabled or elderly and infirm. I have seen subsidized housing projects in Seattle that became crime centers and that were not well kept up. I would prefer to work on ways to reduce the cost of privately developed housing, though as you note this is becoming a higher and higher financial bar. Owners and residents of what I call “reasonably priced housing”, to distinguish from that which is subsidized, have the pride of supporting themselves, are on a path to prosper independently of the government, and, where units are owner-occupied, can build equity. This is also sometimes referred to as the missing “middle housing”. Traditionally here I am thinking of starter homes (like H4H builds), multi-family homes (which can be quite attractive when done right), and rental stock.
I would like to focus on how we can get private developers to include some less-costly housing units, such as in exchange for a density increase.
I also believe it is important for us to explore ways to enable individuals and families to build less expensively. You are correct that mobile homes are one solution, and that should not be dismissed. I lived in one with my husband during college and it was safe and affordable. But I would like to see if we can also get the county DCD to green light some additional building techniques. Modular homes, container homes, 3D printed homes, etc. could provide some additional, less-costly choices. If DCD reviewed these options for construction in advance, the burden would not be so high on individuals looking to break the mold.
We also need to create some smaller buildable lots, such as at our historic village centers and crossroads, through amendment of our comprehensive plan, to lower that aspect of cost.
Thank you Anon, and mending is in process, in some ways quickly and in other ways at a slower pace. But I continue to move forward.
For the funding we provide them, County Public Works does a really good job maintaining County roads. They are incredible at securing matching grant funds, sometimes leverage funding we provide by 10X. There is more to do though, and I would like to see us stop diverting road funds to the general fund (historically $720K/year, now $670K/year). There are road maintenance and repair projects in the queue that never make the funding list. I would like to see us get to those. Note that diverted road funds are used for the Sheriff’s office. I am in no way suggesting we reduce funding to the Sheriff – that should be an independent priority and not rely on diverted road funds.
In contrast to the county, it is painfully obvious that the city does not do as good a job on its streets. That is unfortunate but clearly the city council has other priorities.
Note that federal infrastructure funding should soon be flowing in. More opportunities to do things right or wrong.
Il Corvo, I invite you to follow my Facebook page, Elect Marcia Kelbon, to learn of upcoming events and other developments. I will try to do so here as well but the FB page for certain. The next forum scheduled for county commissioner candidates is being put on by the Port Townsend Rotary at noon-1:15 pm at Fort Worden Commons 12 on Tuesday, July 26.
The Evans project is very near the mill. And smell.
Several H4H homes near me and they are well maintained with good neighbors. Sweat equity makes sense. The project in Hadlock seems one of the best ideas recently. Time will tell. Some will surely know a downside.
A little more density with mitigation of open space leaving natural trees and surroundings beats clear cuts with one home on a parcel in most minds. Not all.
I could put up several ADU’s on parcels I have that have neat and affordable mobile homes but the requirement of an owner-occupied main home was the case years ago, and septic regulations are costly. All can be worked on at the county level to thoughtfully add some housing that is needed with mitigation for the addition of another home on someone’s land.
Credit to Greg Brotherton who did wade into the septic issue, but it raised a stink.
Cost comparisons per sq ft are needed for alternative building types. You would find today’s mobile homes are nothing like those from decades ago in materials and look. Bottom line is being affordable and settings well managed.
Harvey, I agree that modern mobiles, or manufactured homes, have improved greatly since I lived in one in the early 80’s. I would like to provide as many non-exorbitant options for people to choose from as possible. And yes, I agree that H4H has traditionally been a wonderful program. I hope that continues to be the case for this new venture – it should. ADUs sound like a great solution until septic is factored in, which eliminates many situations where an ADU would otherwise make good sense. Thanks for caring and thinking about this topic, it is important.
Given your responses to Il Corvo and Stephen above, what are your thoughts on mask mandates?
Hello Anonymous. Mask mandates do not, in my mind, raise the same concerns as vaccine mandates. I was fine with earlier mask mandates and would support them if warranted in the future. But I would not go there lightly given that we are now in an endemic phase where most have immunized or natural antibodies, those at elevated risk can always voluntarily mask, and I m concerned about the effect of facial distortion on the emotional development of small children.
I should also add that, if we ever get there again, a mask requirement would be far preferable to closing businesses, schools, etc. That I would avoid if at all possible – we are still dealing with societal fall out from our forced closures.
Apologies, that was a bad auto-correct. I attempted to refer to a “mask requirement”, not a “max requirement”, as being preferable to business and school closures.
Hi, Marcia – I appreciate you “would not go there lightly” especially in this “endemic phase”, but as Sue Forde replied in her roundtable, “I’ve spoken to individuals who ‘cannot’ wear a mask for health or other reasons.” I am one of those individuals, so have endured varying levels of discrimination over the past two years to this day – for no good reason. Likewise are children excluded from school by the imminent reinstatement of L.A. mask mandates, which Jefferson County hopefully will not emulate.
It may be true that “a mask requirement would be far preferable to closing businesses, schools, etc.,” but both are great evils, and the fools or knaves who have pushed the one are the same evil-doers who have pushed the other, for the same vacuous reasons and with similar disastrous results.
The right to breathe freely is a core component of bodily autonomy rights. If it could be proven in a court of law that I as a perfectly healthy individual am somehow a threat to others around me just by my very natural existence (as the court ruled in the singular case of Typhoid Mary), perhaps it could be justified to force an unhealthy gag over my face (if proven to make any difference), but forcing this population-wide without due process by lawless administrative fiat during an indefinitely-prolonged bogus “state of emergency” is an assault not only against bodily autonomy rights but also against the rule of law and good government in our state.
Today we may be in an “endemic”, tomorrow the same lawless autocrats may decree we are again in a “pandemic”, but the core principle of bodily autonomy rights needs to be maintained at all times – most especially when it is under assault. Do you believe in bodily autonomy rights and freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of assembly always, or only when there’s no “emergency”?
Remember that the Supreme Court determined during the Depression that, “Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.”
Hello Stephen, I am a firm supporter of constitutional and other unalienable individual rights, and that is not dependent on the absence of an “emergency” status. As noted, I see masks as different than vaccines for most people. But there are medical exceptions and it sounds like you have one. I would hope that our local government would respect that.
Hi Marcia,
Not to belabor this point, but as you (and Stephen) have noted previously, there is a considerable body of evidence (including flawed studies) both for and against masking. If you were commissioner and a new mask mandate were to be put on the table, would you be willing to revisit this topic and the studies surrounding it? Perhaps try to convene some type of meeting where direct interaction (i.e., questions, answers and most importantly follow-up questions and answers) between members of the public and policymakers would be possible? The Board of Health and Health Officer have not seemed at all interested in entertaining any evidence that masking is not as effective as the prevailing narrative claims it to be, adopting what has come off as an “If it doesn’t agree with me, it’s not science” attitude.
Public Health recently posted a link to their Facebook page with a list of CDC studies showing the benefits of masking. The first study listed is the infamous Bangladesh Study, which showed that symptomatic seroprevalence was lower in people living in villages where masking was encouraged than in villages where masking was not encouraged–NOT that symptomatic seroprevalence was lower in people who wore masks. (And even the claim of reduced symptomatic seroprevalence is on unstable ground.) It is absolutely maddening that this kind of study is revered as “good quality” evidence for mask mandates.
I would also like to note that there are, in my opinion, enough differences between a healthcare and non-healthcare setting that the results from a study in one domain should not necessarily be assumed true in the other.
Also, despite your (current) stance on masks, I want to say that I was impressed with your performance at the recent debate and that I think you’re the best candidate in the race by a long shot; too bad I don’t live in District 3.
Good luck in the primary!