by Musa Jaman | Feb 24, 2025 | General
Parking, especially in downtown Port Townsend, remains a contentious issue. The popularity of our quaint seaport community sees tourists flocking who, for better or worse, have become the main source of revenue for most of the businesses. But accommodating this near constant influx of visitors leaves locals, business owners and employees — as well as those who live downtown — scrambling to find a parking space.
Further exacerbating the issue is our public transit system which in some respects remains a frustration for its lack of adequately frequent service downtown. Averaging about once every hour, its operating schedule is also not conducive to those whose jobs require hours past 8 pm.
Adding to this dilemma is the city’s recent action to do away with off-street parking requirements for new developments. An example of this can be found in the new hotel planned between Ichikawa and the Pizza Factory. This Motel 6-looking box will have a 50-room occupancy, but only 11 off-street parking spaces.
The City’s $20,000 Proposal: Parking Fee Pilot Program
The city is now considering a paid parking pilot program. If pursued, it would run for 18 months and cost taxpayers approximately $20,000 to implement. At the February 10th city council meeting, Police Chief Tom Olson presented the details of this initiative.
Originally, what the council approved was a small scale pilot program that was only one block long. However, Olson’s presentation showed a much larger, full scale “parking plan” (see illustration at top) because, Olson relayed, the meter company couldn’t accommodate the “smaller” pilot plan.
Large or small, the plan appeared to lack some important considerations. For instance, it relies heavily on the assumption that everyone has access to a smartphone in order to use the parking software being considered. One must, at the very least, have access to a phone of some sort to enter a code and payment details in order to park.
In addition, while the current cost of a parking infraction is $15, this program would see it increased to $65. It was implied that the projected revenue generated by the increased fines would fund a parking enforcement position.
Finally, there is no provision that makes exceptions for those who work or reside downtown to have free parking. (Further details on this proposal can be found here.)
Council member Ben Thomas was concerned about the significant increase in the scope of the project — that it now appeared to be more than a pilot and could have broader overall impacts. Council member Libby Wennstrom commented that if all parking spaces were 24-hour, people would just keep feeding the meter (a figure of speech — no meters are involved) and not move their cars, thereby defeating one of the objectives to have more traffic/visitor circulation.
Mayor David Faber seemed disappointed that the pilot area wasn’t larger and didn’t cover all of downtown, adding that he definitely wanted Madison Street added to the pilot area. A public comment from Scott Walker, a long time Transportation Lab member, suggested that the hours of paid parking should be increased to run from 10 am to 7 pm thereby capturing more revenue from people going out for dinner or a movie.
Social Media Erupts
On February 12th, The Leader reported on the parking pilot. I also posted the details of this plan on February 14th to a couple of social media platforms including NextDoor. The response was immediate and robust (4,200 views on one site), with most people strongly against the idea for obvious reasons. Comments focused strongly on the adverse effects of the pilot program, but also included mention of collateral issues that have become a familiar refrain over the last couple of years.
One comment included the relationship of budget deficits and the city manager’s salary in a reply:
“I read the Leader article and noted that all that was discussed was the financial benefits to the city. Now we find that the city is budgeting for a $1.8 million deficit, while they have a city manager that gets paid more than the governor. No mention of the chilling effect on downtown business which is commonly the result of paid parking.”
Another included the lack of adequate public transit considerations in relation to the paid parking idea:
“The paid parking ‘pilot’ program will adversely affect those who work and live downtown. These fees have a minimal impact on tourists but will have a profound impact on residents and workers. We live downtown and are not wealthy. We do drive neighbors, who are in need, to appointments, grocery stores, etc whenever possible. These people have difficulties navigating the public bus system (which has not been expanded to meet the needs of this endeavor). I would like to see the environmental impact assessment of this pilot. As you know EIAs include the potential impact on members of the community. I cannot imagine that anyone would implement this system without regard for workers, business owners or residents.”
Still another noted that many are not so much attached to their cars as dependent on them, and that the cost of living in PT has a substantial impact on most households:
“Some of us would love to be biking and walking around a lot more. I know I used to. Ah how I remember it, having time, because I had more money and didn’t have to spend all my time working carrying tools around to pay for the high cost of living here. I don’t see any large tool carting racks on buses, I can’t get to my jobs by bus on time. I’m not car loving, I am car dependent, and yes gas costs but I try to plan my trips carefully. I can’t afford an electric vehicle. And, having been a caregiver as well for years, there are lots of mobility issues which affect what kind of transport and what kind of disability placard you can get. The issue isn’t really are we so much in love with our cars as what kind of transport those of us who work trade jobs here but can barely afford to be here need. I can’t see paid parking helping me with any of that. It certainly won’t help downtown.”
Some expressed concerns about the smartphone app required:
“What about the people who do not have a smart phone? Are they just not going to be able to park?”
“…or left it at home, or let the battery run out, or lost it, or dropped and broke it getting it out to scan the damn QR code…”
And a few which considered specific businesses that would be adversely impacted also spilled over into comments in a Feb. 22nd NextDoor post:
“Off-street parking appears ‘not’ to be in the plan, so the Quimper Merc plaza and other publicly available lot parking will be jammed by fee avoiders. ‘Customers Only’ signs will need to be enforced to be effective, a new cost for businesses who are already paying a premium to have convenient customer parking.”
“If most downtown parking is paid, it will push people into private parking lots behind downtown buildings (a headache for downtown businesses) and fill up the spaces outside the Mercantile and Don’s Pharmacy, making it harder for local shoppers to dash downtown for a few necessary items. Tourists will happily pay for a spot for a few hours and be unfazed. Locals who work, live and shop downtown will not be happy.”
“I think we have to acknowledge that paid parking will overload the private parking lots behind the Kuhn Building, the Palace Hotel, The Bishop Hotel, and other places, and that will create problems for managers of those lots. People will not pay. They will do almost anything to avoid it.”
Others took a more neutral or supportive tone:
“I’ve used an app for parking in other small towns, it’s pretty easy. Trying to figure out if you’re going to be 2 or 4 hours is usually the hardest. I personally will most time park over in the park and ride or take a bus or just visit more businesses in Uptown.”
“The city/county needs to monetize more of their assets. Property taxes should not be the only avenue for revenue. For those seeking more $ for roads this seems a reasonable first step.”
“I see nothing wrong with this as long as the $$ goes to road improvement. Parking at Haines place is free – so is shuttle. Make it mandatory for city workers/federal/state workers to use it, after all isn’t the current city plan to be more green?! What a shining example this would be!”
Mayor Faber Responds
Many wrote to the mayor and council members directly, expressing their concern for the negative impacts this pilot program would likely cause. In fact, there was so much pushback on this idea, Mayor Faber posted a long-winded response on Facebook which some likened to “word salad.” He also read it in its entirety for the record at the February 18th city council meeting (posted on NextDoor in full, and now close to 200 comments).
To much amazement, the last paragraph of that word salad produced this jewel:
“My question to our community is ‘do you consider the downtown parking problem to be serious enough to warrant the type of solution the city can actually implement (paid parking)?’ It’s okay to say ‘no’, and if that’s the general community sentiment, I would rather council and staff not spend any more effort trying to solve a problem for which no reasonable solution is sufficiently popular to enact. Please reach out to me and/or the rest of council by email at citycouncil@cityofpt.us.“
Mayor Faber’s words give the impression that he is willing to yield on the implementation of a paid parking program if he determines that the general community sentiment is opposed to the plan. In that case, it seems a simple tally of comments received by the city, perhaps including comments from the main social media platforms (NextDoor and Facebook), which are also a collection point for many voices, would provide the clear answer.
A completely transparent process for determining the actual community sentiment would have to occur, of course. And, if indeed the mayor acts with integrity on his words, it would demonstrate a necessary course correction by our electeds for the inclusion of this community’s collective voice as part of implementing sound policies.
In conclusion, while I believe the city’s intent behind the paid parking pilot — to reduce the number of cars on the road — is a positive vision, the comprehensive rollout of this strategy still has a number of “potholes” that need to be addressed.
————————-
Mayor Faber’s missive creatively transformed by ChatGPT into a Haiku format:
Port Townsend’s Parking Dilemma: A Haiku Series
The Problem
Lines of cars wait still,
each space a battleground fought,
who deserves to stay?
Footsteps echo past,
shoppers lost in fleeting time,
while wheels never move.
Conflicting Views
Workers curse the crowds,
tourists linger far too long,
businesses despair.
“Build more space!” they cry,
but steel and stone bring a cost,
one too steep to pay.
“Enforce the old rules!”
but hands to mark time are few,
and fines change nothing.
“Clear the streets of cars!”
but the old and frail still need
paths to walk with ease.
The Proposed Solution
A coin for your stay,
turn the wheel, free up the space,
fairness in motion.
Not a fortress built,
not a rule left unenforced,
but balance through time.
A choice in your hands—
park, or let another claim
the waiting moment.
The Call for Voices
Speak now, shape the streets,
is this change a needed path,
or wind in closed doors?
Tell the council now,
should the meters rise or fall?
Only you can say.
by Mark Grant | Feb 14, 2025 | General
I would like to take this opportunity to review for the citizens of Jefferson County the processes thus far associated with addressing our community-based aquatic facility desires, and to re-evaluate the current plan for the development of a mid-county aquatic facility. I will also consider the options for the decommissioning of the Mountain View Pool, and look at the future and ongoing use of Mountain View Campus as a whole.
The Process Thus Far:
Some Steps Forward, Many Steps Back
There have been many efforts, both performed by the private sector citizenry and public sector elected officials and staff, to maintain and enhance the aquatic opportunities for our community. For the most part, these efforts have been centered on the Mountain View Pool facility in association with the Mountain View Campus.
Through the mostly philanthropic efforts associated with Make Waves, and through the public-private efforts with earlier and current iterations of the Jefferson Aquatic Coalition (JAC) in partnership with the inter-local public agencies (i.e. the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County, the Port Townsend and Chimacum School Districts, the Port of Port Townsend, the Jefferson County Hospital District, East Jefferson Fire and Rescue), there have been some steps forward.
Unfortunately, many steps backward have mostly neutralized and/or stymied the advancement of bonafide opportunities to develop a reliable community-based aquatic center/pool with its associated programs at the Mountain View Pool facility.
One such effort, performed by the Healthier Together Steering Committee (HTSC), as represented by a mostly inter-local government agency group and with an affiliation with the JAC, was to essentially rebuild the Mountain View Pool facility at a cost to taxpayers of $40-$50 million. This exorbitant project concept was described by many in our community as the “Taj Mahal” version. Due to an apparent lack of public support related to excessive costs and a lack of transparency, this concept fortunately failed, paving the way for more practical and county-wide representative options to be reviewed.
It is important that we, as taxpayers, consider the fiscal impact, let alone the time spent through human effort, that has been invested in the various aquatic facility concepts thus far — especially as it relates to the plans that are currently in motion for the mid-county aquatic facility option. Based on public records made available to me and through my continued involvement with the processes thus far, I have surmised that somewhere in excess of $1 million of taxpayer funding has been invested towards consultants, studies, and overhead (staff time and resources) in pursuit of these concepts.
It is likely that these efforts actually cost the taxpayers quite a bit more than one million dollars, especially if you consider monies that were spent with the earlier iteration of the JAC in association with public agencies during the attempts to locate an aquatic facility on property near the Kah Tai Lagoon. It is my understanding that most of the Make Waves organizational efforts and costs that were associated with refurbishing/rebuilding/improving the existing Mountain View Pool were mostly philanthropic in nature.
The Proposed Port Hadlock Aquatic Facility:
Up a Creek with No Buildable Plans
With the current mid-county aquatic facility plan, through an Inter-Local Agreement (ILA) between Jefferson County and the Chimacum School District, there will likely be an attempt to secure more funding in the form of a state grant (taxpayer money) for approximately $250,000 to be used for pre-design architectural and engineering plans in order to develop and understand the potential true costs for building the currently proposed mid-county aquatic facility. I must emphasize that these will not be buildable plans, and only informative in nature for a potential sales tax increase initiative.
This facility is proposed to be located at the Chimacum Creek Elementary School property, which is owned by the Chimacum School District. This will push the speculative taxpayers’ monies spent thus far to the $1.5 million plus range.
The current project funding methodology being considered is for bond acquisition for construction and for ongoing operations and maintenance funding. This would be facilitated by a potential newly-formed Public Facilities District (PFD) taxing district.
New Public Taxing District Pushes Increase in Sales Tax
The PFD will be the responsible agency for all things related to the new mid-county pool facility, and will draw its funding resources from a potentially voter-approved 0.2% increase to our county sales tax — going up from 9.1% currently to 9.3%.
I have been very vocal in my opinion that I do not believe that raising the sales tax for the construction of a new aquatic facility is the correct mechanism for funding any new development. Sales taxes, by their nature, are a very regressive form of taxation, hurting those who can least afford it.
The last question in the current JAC survey that is circulating asks the survey takers the following question: “Would you support a small 0.2% (20 cents per $100), county-wide sales tax (excluding groceries and prescriptions) that would fund a portion of the cost of constructing a new aquatic and recreation facility in Port Hadlock?”
The JAC survey, found here, minimizes the potential impact of a county-wide increase in sales tax.
Aside from the fact that this is the only question that addresses the fiscal impact that a new mid-county aquatic facility might have on our community, I found the use of the word “small” to be insensitive, disconnected, and manipulative.
Why? For many in our community, there is nothing “small” about a 0.2% increase in local sales taxes. For those who struggle to maintain housing, put food on the table, etc., a 0.2% sales tax increase adds up, and puts family budgets that are already strained closer to a breaking point.
Given that another new taxing district was recently formed, the Transportation Benefit District (TBD), it, too could generate an increase in county sales tax — to 9.4%. So with an allowable 0.2% add by the PFD in the future, the potential net increase could bring Jefferson County-based sales tax to 9.6%. Port Townsend city sales tax would essentially look the same for various and similar reasons.
Neglected Private Option Could Save
Half the Costs with No New Taxes
I have mostly been a proponent of a private/philanthropic funding mechanism for building a new pool and for utilizing a public-private partnership, with a long-term land lease arrangement for land procurement, and for ongoing facility operations and maintenance.
If a practical and functional multi-tank design for the potential new mid-county pool is considered — utilizing, as much as possible, existing technology and modular building systems designs — it would be very reasonable to consider that a new, turn-key, approximately 24,000 square foot pool facility could be constructed for around $10 to $15 million, using private/philanthropic funding for construction.
Aquatic facilities historically operate with a funding/budget deficit, so future annual fundraising along with other forms of municipal support will be required to fill the funding gaps for this important public asset. Using private/philanthropic funding as the basis for the construction, a public-private partnership could then be established for the ongoing operation and maintenance between the JAC and the public entities that benefit from the new facility.
A partnership between the JAC and Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Department could share some of the operations and maintenance costs, and also include other public agencies such as the City of Port Townsend, the Port Townsend and Chimacum School Districts, and potentially even Jefferson Healthcare and East Jefferson Fire and Rescue. All of the agencies would benefit by participating with the JAC and would be doing their part to support this community-based asset.
This privately funded option would also eliminate the need for the formation of the PFD, removing the need for yet another taxing district in our county.
This option is, however, in jeopardy of not being considered as a viable solution for building the facility. With the potential acquisition of state grant/public monies, the new construction of the project would have to be considered as a publicly-funded, public works project. Such a designation would increase the cost to build the new facility by approximately 30% to 40% — even as much as 50%, adding the potential for public works project-related inflated soft costs (A&E design services, project management, etc.) including municipal overhead.
The initial 30-40% upcharge would primarily be based on increased labor expenses as the labor rate for public works/taxpayer-funded projects are required to be set at the current prevailing wage rate. All told, an additional $4 to $7.5 million of public/taxpayer money would be needed for the construction of the new facility.
Port Townsend Aero Museum
Demonstrates Benefits of Private Funding
To put this in a frame of reference to make it easier to understand and to demonstrate the local real world applications that privately funding a project can have in our community, I would like to draw your attention to the Port Townsend Aero Museum (PTAM) facility located at the Jefferson County International Airport.
Beginning in 2003 with final completion of facilities expansions in 2023, my company, along with other local contractors, built for the PTAM approximately 32,000 square feet of new buildings. This activity included A&E design, permitting, project management, site work, infrastructure expansion, new buildings, testing, and occupancy approvals, all for just under $7 million (including Washington State Sales Tax) without one dime of taxpayers’ money.
The scope of work for the campus has a 24,000 sf main museum building, a 6,000 sf aircraft maintenance hangar, a 2,016 sf wing and fuselage painting and fabric restoration building, stormwater system with filtration vault, parking, 3 phase power, etc. The Port Townsend Aero Museum built this, again, without taxpayer money and without incurring any debt. They are also operationally sustainable through ongoing donations and through their youth mentorship program related aircraft restorations activities. The PTAM has a long-term lease arrangement for their ground with the Port of Port Townsend.
The PTAM facility and program represents a shining example of how a privately funded option for an amazing community asset can happen for our community when you are completely dedicated to the process.
When the founding directors of the Port Townsend Aero Museum were told by many, back in 2003 when their project was first conceived, that “it will never happen,” they took that as a challenge. Look where they are today.
Comparing Pool Funding Options:
Private, Sales Tax, or Property Tax
One other choice for a publicly-funded option is through the formation of a Municipal Parks District (MPD). An MPD can utilize, as its funding source, an increase in countywide property tax. While still a regressive tax, this is considered by some to be a less onerous approach to representative taxation, as those who have more typically pay more, and those who have less typically pay less.
The idea of an MPD was tabled by the Healthier Together Steering Committee due to pushback from various other taxing districts who stated that diluting the tax base potentially jeopardized their needs to raise our taxes in the future. I have a hard time with this concept as the community asset value of a new aquatic facility is considered by many to be an important addition for our community’s health, safety, and well-being.
Teaching our children how to swim, providing other after-school youth-related aquatic activities/sports activities/competitions, providing general public at-large aquatic physical health activities, providing a source of exercise and rehabilitation for our elders, etc., can be perceived as just as essential as some of the services provided by these other taxing districts.
The school districts would use the pool for sports and other youth programs, the hospital district would use the pool for therapy and rehabilitation services, the fire district would use the pool for training and other public safety activities.
All things considered, I would prefer no new taxes of any kind, whether through a sales tax increase (PFD) or property tax increase (MPD). With the philanthropic wealth that our community holds, there is no reason that any new pool can’t be privately built and funded into the future.
Here is my question about funding a new aquatic facility as we near the edge of point-of-no-return decisions:
Shouldn’t we be sure that we have considered, vetted, honestly and transparently evaluated, and educated the public towards what makes the most sense for our community — allowing them to be well informed in clarifying whether the new mid-county aquatic facility should be privately funded, PFD funded, or funded by an MPD?
What About the Mountain View Pool?
Throughout this new aquatic facility review process, the elephant in the room has always been the ongoing operation and maintenance and reliability of the Mountain View Pool. Based on the need for utmost clarity, transparency, and operation in good faith, going forward I have urged the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that states if and when the new mid-county pool facility becomes a reality, that the Mountain View Pool facility be immediately closed and decommissioned.
I firmly believe that our community is not capable of supporting two potentially competing community-based aquatic facilities. I believe that it is fair to ask for this MOU due to the previous lack of transparency that has occurred though other aspects of this community pool facility engagement process with the public. This MOU should be entered into between Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend, the Port Townsend School District, and any other private or public agencies that might see some kind of value in continuing the operations of the Mountain View Pool facility.
Finally, I have been portrayed by some as being “anti-pool” based on my involvement and process recommendations in the past. I find this characterization to be unfair and farthest from the truth.
This characterization may have come based on my comments regarding where I feel a new publicly owned pool currently fits into our community responsibilities and priorities. I do believe that an aquatic facility for our community is an important and essential asset, especially given our aquatic geography.
However, especially on these cold winter days as I hunt-and-peck my way through this writing in my warm home/office, I also think about those who, for whatever reason, have been displaced and struggle with housing.
If we prioritize responsibly and efficiently and think outside of the box, there is no reason that our community can’t accomplish two things at once here — i.e. the building of a new mid-county aquatic facility, and coming up with creative and humane ways of taking care of those who are marginalized in our community.
One possible solution could be right under our noses, that being repurposing of some elements of the Mountain View Campus. Not as market-rate housing as has been suggested in the past, but as a housing and campus facility to provide affordable housing and transitional housing for those in need.
The Mountain View Campus has many amenities already in place, i.e. the food bank, cafeteria, classrooms, bathrooms, showers, public services and security through the resources at the police department, developable infrastructure opportunities for potential new affordable housing construction, easy access to public transportation, the hospital, grocery shopping, etc.
We have an opportunity as a community to fulfill important responsibilities here, if we briefly step back, re-evaluate, and reconsider all of the options that could be on the table.
Rush to Tax Disrespects Taxpayers,
Could Mean Another Failed Attempt at Public Buy-in
We should not rush to a solution of our community-based issues just because we think there is some tool available to move in a direction that is not completely thought through. We need to ask what the primary objectives are of our community as a whole, and develop a practical, fiscally responsible, and sustainable path towards accomplishing those objectives.
The BOCC will be given a staff workshop presentation by the Jefferson County Administrator regarding the possibility of forming a PFD at the regularly scheduled BOCC meeting on February 18th (slated for the afternoon session). I do not believe that action will be taken at this meeting, and subsequent meetings and hearings will be held leading up to a meeting on Monday, March 10th. Please make your concerns about this issue known to the commissioners through public comment either in writing (get written comments in a day or two before any given meeting), or by attending one of the meetings in-person or virtually online.
I encourage you as the citizenry of Jefferson County to urge our elected leaders and officials to make sure we have all of these issues well thought out and resolved before taking any further actions related to aquatic facility development… and before it is too late to turn back.
Most importantly, if we think all of this through, publicly and privately together, coming up with the most optimal plan, our community will undoubtedly respond by supporting the decisions that are made in the future on how to move forward with these objectives, and with everyone’s best interests in mind.
I cannot figure out why there is such a concerted effort to ram the current mid-county aquatic facility concept through on the back of the taxpayers. The reluctance to listen to sound advice regarding the thoughtful and thorough considerations of all funding mechanism options — especially the private option — shows a level of arrogance by those who are facilitating the process, and disrespect towards the taxpayers as well.
The dissemination of any new information that has been presented by the JAC and the BOCC for this current mid-county facility direction, has only trickled out at best, and in forums more representative of those who would unconditionally show their support. In my travels through different parts of Jefferson County, if I bring up anything related to the new aquatic facility, most of the time the reaction is that people don’t know anything about it, and that they thought the pool issue was dead.
If the BOCC, the JAC, and other associated community leaders remain blind to the concerns expressed here, I am afraid that this newly-directed effort will result in yet another failed attempt at public buy-in. That failure will have long-lasting consequences, making it even more difficult in the future to provide a new aquatic facility for our community.
by Ana Wolpin and Stephen Schumacher | Feb 3, 2025 | General
On July 29, 2024, The Food Co-op Board of Directors removed a BLM activist from its ranks in response to his threatening conduct toward the board’s direct employee, its general manager. The board’s self-policing took place in executive session to protect confidentiality of all parties concerned. In later communications, the board emphasized that the removal was:
because of his conduct, not his ideas about equity, belonging, and inclusion. Board members must follow our policies and our Code of Conduct, which all board members agree to abide-by when they join the board. If we do not hold ourselves accountable to our Code of Conduct, we cannot lead the Co-op or fulfill our responsibility to our member-owners. This decision was not made lightly, nor without effort to rectify the problems.
This core issue — that the board was responding to a conduct violation resulting in a hostile work environment — has been obscured in the fog of a harassment campaign, now a half-year in duration. Threatened and delivered by the ex-board member and his allies, the campaign has been waged at Co-op board meetings but mostly whipped up publicly for the past six months through relentless attacks in The Leader.
BLM Retaliation
Black Lives Matter of Jefferson County (BLM-JC) retaliated on August 8 with a long letter to the board packed with ideology, accusations, and demands. “Removing Cameron Jones as a Board Member, ” they wrote, demonstrated the “systemic oppression” of “those who have identities beyond the patriarchal ableist heteronormative parameters of white-bodied supremacy.” Among the demands made by Black Lives Matter “Program Director” Jones and five other BLM directors was the removal of the general manager and board president and a requirement that the Co-op issue public apologies:
1) Replace the general manager and board president as soon as possible.
2) Publicly apologize to all employees, member-owners and board members who have been harmed.
3) Complete an overhaul of their policies and procedures through an equity lens that reflects their published values and operating principles with the guidance of an outside facilitator steeped in equity theory and praxis.
4) Provide ongoing training for employees and board members on matters related to equity and inclusion.
5) Conduct a series of listening sessions with target group members among constituent groups to identity relevant issues and actionable outcomes that will be reviewed quarterly until completed.
The letter closed with the threat that if the board did not agree to these demands within one week, they would “be forced to launch a campaign in response.”
Joining BLM-JC’s campaign were both Usawa consultants, one of whom is also a BLM-JC Director.
We’ve Seen This Playbook Before
Cameron Jones launched a similar campaign under the BLM-JC banner in 2022. A self-proclaimed BLM organizer, Jones had a history of run-ins with law enforcement. Documented incidents include being arrested for attempted residential burglary after trying to force his way into a private home, crashing into the closed Fort Worden gate on his bicycle when drunk, and conduct outside the Bishop Hotel which led to an employee calling police. (See “Black Lives Matter Leaders Generated Police Calls for Help, Investigation and Arrests.”)
These and other incidents culminated in Jones going on the offensive. On July 10, 2022, Jones sent an email purporting to represent BLM-JC to Jefferson County Sheriff Joe Nole and Port Townsend Acting Police Chief Troy Surber. His letter demanded that they pledge to realize a series of “intentions” which included disarming police officers and deputies. An email exchange with Sheriff Nole led to Jones taking his campaign to local radio station KPTZ to levy accusations of racism at Nole on a program called “The Reckoning.”
On July 30th:
“Nole endured Jones throwing at him wild, unsupported accusations such as Nole permitting White supremacy and vigilante groups to operate in the county, five Black men being lynched, and Nole imprisoning 30% of Jefferson County’s Black residents.”
An attempt to set up a Zoom meeting between BLM-JC, Sheriff Nole, Police Chief Surber, elected officials and others was cancelled by Jones, who upped his rhetoric instead. (See “Black Lives Matter Sought to Humiliate Sheriff, Police Chief.”) Jones now demanded that Nole and Surber take out a newspaper ad confessing to racism in “a direct and PUBLIC apology.” It was a classic oppressor/oppressed re-direct, trying to reframe the perpetrator as being the victim, in this case the victim of systemic racism. This saga was reported in the Port Townsend Free Press, but otherwise received little press coverage.
Jones’ attempted smear campaign fell flat when Nole and Surber refused to issue public confessions that they and their departments were racist. They also drew a line over disarming their officers.
The Food Co-op was much easier pickings. This time around, Jones and his BLM posse were abetted in spades by The Leader.
Leader Provides Unlimited Free Coverage for BLM’s Smear Campaign
August 7: The first peep appeared immediately after Jones’ removal in an unattributed 5-paragraph news brief composed entirely of quotes from Jones dissing the Co-op and saying he’d been “unexpectedly removed… without proper notice, documentation, or evidence… my removal seemed premeditated to silence dissent.”
August 14: The Leader followed up with two responses from Co-op Directors. Board President Owen Rowe explained that:
A Board member, Cameron Jones, jeopardized the working Board/GM relationship through his words and actions. From April through June, I and other Board members tried to work with Cameron. He would not acknowledge the damage his actions had done and he rejected repeated requests to repair the relationship. Instead, he continued to undermine every attempt of the Board to hold itself accountable.
By July, with the elected terms of several Board members who had witnessed Cameron’s actions coming to an end, I had determined to ask Cameron to resign from the Board — or ask those same Board members to vote to remove him…
I scheduled an executive session of the Board, giving the advance notice required by our Bylaws. Although some Board members raised schedule concerns, in the end every single Board member attended and participated in the meeting as originally scheduled. The required two-thirds of Board members approved the removal of Cameron Jones.
The lone dissenter Juri Jennings wrote that she resigned from the board afterwards because she disagreed with the decision and process, felt rushed, and wasn’t clear about the grounds for removal, saying “Cameron was a great board member” and listing several good “reasons I asked Cameron to be on the board in the first place.”
August 21: A letter to the editor (LTE) opined, with no evidence, that Owen Rowe’s recounting was “an obvious white-washing of what really happened… the GM convinced four Board members that she no longer wanted to deal with Mr. Jones and he needed to go.” The writer Denis Stearns failed to disclose his role as Registered Agent for BLM-JC, elsewhere suggesting the motive for Jones’ removal was racism: “The board lost two people of color… based on votes of people not of color.”
August 28: The lead LTE alleged that “the only Board Member of African descent was removed because he was supporting a trans person.” The writer said he’s “collaborated with Cameron on multiple projects and he sits on my board… dedicated to racial healing.”
September 11: Two new Leader trends emerged this issue: (1) front-page coverage and teasers promoting the “Turmoil at Co-op” narrative; and (2) lengthy opinion pieces reiterating BLM-JC campaign talking points about “The Co-op debacle” penned by The Leader’s regular “As I See It” columnist Jason Serinus.
The news story summarized Rowe and Jennings’ earlier pieces with commentary from Jones, adding from Co-op Secretary Lisa Barclay that:
“It was Cameron Jones who mistreated an employee, breaking the board’s Code of Conduct. … He was removed for his conduct, not for any other reason.”
Most of this news article presented the point of view of BLM advocates. In mentioning BLM-JC’s August 8 “letter to the board with grievances,” it tried to frame the list of demands as “requests, not demands,” neglecting to report the concluding ultimatum that they would “be forced to launch a campaign in response… if these requests are not agreed to by August 15.” And indeed, eight days later on August 16, BLM-JC “launched a boycott and a petition for member-owners to sign.”
Serinus’ column described the pressure campaign’s progress, including “Multiple organizations have called for a boycott of the Co-op and demanded the resignations… at least four informational meeting have occurred… and many Co-op members have aired their grievances at Sept. 4’s monthly Co-op board meeting.” He quoted Co-op GM Kenna Eaton describing Jones’ actions toward her as “threatening”:
“I felt I had to go to my boss, the Co-op board, and say I don’t feel safe in my workplace. His actions negatively impacted my ability to feel safe…
I know my board tried to work with Cameron. He would not accept that. He didn’t want to acknowledge it. And ultimately, I think that the board felt they had a fiduciary responsibility to make the decision they did. I didn’t ask them to do it. That was their decision.”
Serinus ignored workplace safety and fiduciary concerns, concluding “the Co-op erred grievously in removing Jones, one of its most forward-looking and proactive members. A small group of white people ousted the only Black director on the board… I urge the cisgendered straight white folk who govern the Co-op to understand that when oppressed people channel frustration into anger, it’s appropriate for its recipients to pause, breathe through fear, and accept that righting many centuries of harm is a messy but nonetheless essential affair.”
It is important to note that by Sep. 11 everyone involved either knew or should have known that there existed a credible allegation of threatening workplace behavior, which the Co-op staff and board were legally obliged to handle as they did. By all accounts, the Co-op bent over backwards to work things out with Jones… the grievance against the Co-op is that they didn’t bend far enough.
In the view of BLM-JC sympathizers — including the dissenting board member and Leader writers like Serinus — whatever Jones did or might have done doesn’t matter given “hundreds of years of oppression,” while the victimized employee and board members doing their jobs should be disbelieved, blamed, and relentlessly attacked until they bow to BLM.
September 18: In an open-minded LTE, the writer confessed that he came away from Serinus’ column “feeling that I still don’t know what happened… I say this with a great amount of respect: Maybe everyone needs to step back, and avoid suggesting the board is racist or transphobic, or even merely grossly insensitive, until we know everything that happened.”
September 25: A positive “We are listening” update LTE appeared from the Co-op President and GM, along with another blast from Serinus criticizing the board for “jettisoning a Person of Color for sharing ideas in tones that express the very marginalization you pledge to end.”
Regarding the question of “threatening” behavior, Serinus talked “to Jones at length to get his side of events,” eliciting a series of recollections that didn’t directly address the issue. At no point does Jones specifically deny threatening the GM; instead he described his efforts to avoid confrontation at a board meeting and a subsequent interaction where he claimed to apologize to the GM (who doesn’t recall any apology ever being offered).
October 2: The lead LTE identifies several ways Serinus’ last column “skews the narrative, devaluing the Co-op board… The narrative focuses on Cameron Jones’ perspective, portraying him as a victim. There is no room in this rhetoric for repair or redemption, only demands and accusations.”
November 20: BLM-JC continued its campaign by packing board meetings with antagonistic public comments and picketing the store, but The Leader took an election-focused break until Serinus’ column reported that “the ongoing campaign to achieve accountability and redress wrongs” was bearing fruit: Co-op President Rowe said he, “as an individual, will be meeting privately with Black Lives Matter… that will perhaps open the door to a conversation with the Board.”
December 4: An LTE replied to Serinus that “Cameron Jones was removed for hate speech, a code of conduct violation. Period. End of story. Racial politics have no place in a community food co-op… The only thing BLM achieved was burning down black neighborhoods in major cities enticing a self proclaimed race war… Gas-lighting people for having morals and standards is shameful no matter what your political bent may be.”
December 18: The Leader ran a trifecta of opinion pieces critical of the Co-op. Angela Gyurko welcomed that “the Dec. 4 meeting’s 90 minutes of public comment… gave board members and member-owners a chance to talk to each other.” She asked for a board statement along these lines: “We understand now that People of the Global Majority and folks with differing gender expressions in the county have had more negative experiences at the Co-op than we realized… We understand now that we must change our way of doing business, and move away from the rigid bylaws that have bound us… We therefore pledge to reform our bylaws so that they can never again be used to silence dissent.”
Five folks co-signed an LTE to publicly commend Serinus’ Co-op coverage and call the Dec. 4 LTE-writer critical of BLM racial politics a racist, suggesting he be censored and undergo re-education.
Serinus’ “ongoing saga of dismissal and injustice” asked a board member about her resignation, then berated the remaining board for “the potential harm of calling the actions of a BIPOC man in our community less than civil… Are not board members aware that their action, for some, has reinforced images of the big Black boogieman intimidating a poor innocent white woman? Are they not aware that expelling what was then their only Black member has, for some Black people, invoked the trauma of thousands upon thousands of heinous murders and lynchings for perceived offenses?… It is their duty… to set things right by meeting with Jones and BLMJC/WO, making amends…”
January 1, 2025: An LTE (from this article’s co-author, Stephen Schumacher), was “grieved by the continuing series of antagonistic opinion pieces run in The Leader“, where an “internal Co-op personnel matter has been latched onto in order to create a phony scandal via flimsy charges of systemic racism, etc., against the woke Co-op, which The Leader has been credulously channeling… Is it any wonder when confusion, suffering, and resignations result from these dispiriting harassment campaigns? The Food Co-op was founded in an era when color-blindness was the ideal, per Rev. Martin Luther King saying ‘I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.’ BLM activists criticize the Co-op and others for doing just that.”
January 8: Former Co-op President Rowe wrote an opinion piece explaining his end-of-year resignation, recanting his past statements including that he was the decider who “had determined to ask Cameron to resign from the Board — or ask those same Board members to vote to remove him.” His new story was that “I was pressured to protect the staff and board from the community… now is the appropriate time to make way for a new general manager… Senior board members should follow my example and clear the way… I apologize for the harm my past actions and statements caused to Cameron Jones, Juri Jennings, Black Lives Matter Jefferson County/Well Organized, and Usawa Consulting.”
Two LTEs defended the Co-op. One praised staff and particularly GM Kenna Eaton for all the improvements and remodeling seen over the past 10 years, saying, “It is easy for all of us who shop there to take for granted our amazing selection of goods available in this small store but it requires outstanding leadership and a dedicated staff working daily.”
The other LTE likewise praised the store for “good food… support to farms and to the Food Bank… courteous, even friendly to all customers… no hate talk or political insults stain their business space.” It asked why The Leader gave Gyurko a featured opinion column pretending to speak for the “community” making demands over undefined “issues”.
A third LTE by Serinus attacked Schumacher’s Jan. 1 letter, misquoting it as having claimed Jones’ alleged abuse of staff happened “repeatedly”, when that word was not in the letter. He also attempted to discredit Schumacher’s perspective with the charge that he “failed to disclose his status as a former Co-op ‘officer'” (thirty years ago).
January 15: GM Kenna Eaton strongly disagreed with Rowe’s “misguided characterization of the Co-op’s, and in particular the board’s actions… Board members represent the interest of all our member-owners, not just a particular subset… no individual board member can act, make promises or speak for the board unless given the responsibility to do so by the board… While the board has been struggling with the criticism of some of our members (most of which has been based on rumor), things are going great at the store: We had record sales last year, gave a bonus to our team members and have $79,000 in our Farmers Fund… to help local farmers.”
She outlined steps the Co-op is taking this year for “creating a culture of diversity, inclusion and justice”:
- “Working with… a DEI consultant… on teaching effective engagement with diverse communities, creating empathy in the workplace, preventing burnout and communication strategies for difficult conversations”;
- “Working with local equity expert Beau Ohlgren, who will help us develop new training programs to make our store more welcoming and engaging for everyone”;
- “A six-session ‘Inclusion Inspiration Lab’ crafted for co-op grocery operations, looking for practical applications of inclusion in the Co-op”;
- “New staff groups for LGBTQIA+ team members… to promote belonging”;
- “Make our product selection more reflective of the changing diversity of our members… that fit our high product standards and are also more culturally rich.”
January 22: Cameron Jones’ guest column asserted “changes at Co-op don’t go far enough to address systemic change,” complained that two women “remain in their leadership roles,” and mentioned he is also part of the ItsMyCoopToo social media campaign.
An LTE expressed that “Co-op boycott ‘activists’ look… performative. There have been multiple articles by a former Co-op board member and other guests who have seemed to delight in the fact that their professional headshot and brooding language has been plastered all over The Leader for months. I attended a board meeting and witnessed white or white-passing individuals berating a board that contains two BIPOC board members… This activist group exists in an echo chamber and refuses to acknowledge the tangible work the Co-op has done in this community… Your activism clearly comes from a place of ignorance and privilege.”
Transparency Over BLM and the Removed Board Member
While the newspaper ran sometimes-weekly attack pieces, there has been NO examination of the attackers and their motives.
Black Lives Matter of JC’s initial threat to “launch a campaign” if their demands weren’t agreed to within a week was never even mentioned. What about this group that issued the August 8 ultimatum — and even attempted a boycott that could have put the store out of business — if the Co-op didn’t immediately kowtow to all their demands?
BLM is not a justice league of do-gooders immune from investigation or criticism, but a “fuzzily applied label used to describe a wide range of protests … or a loose confederation of groups advocating for racial justice” per Wikipedia. The national Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation was founded by self-described “trained Marxists” and evolved into what CharityWatch describes as “a giant ghost ship full of treasure drifting” with no financial transparency and no documented board meetings. Its Wikipedia page details its long tangled history of fraud, scandal, and grift, partially recounted by New York Magazine in “The BLM Mystery: Where Did the Money Go?”
The local Black Lives Matter of Jefferson County describes itself as “a collectively run 501(c)3 organization which seeks to eradicate white supremacy, and ableist hetero-patriarchy. BLM-JC formed in 2020 in the aftermath of continued police brutality towards Black people in the United States and a recognition that white supremacist doctrine also manifests in a myriad of other institutions and systems which prevent economic, social, and political liberation for BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, People of Color].“
Among feel-good bullet points like “Invest in Community” and “Economic Justice,” BLM-JC’s website promotes the 2022 campaign Cameron Jones initiated to “Divest From The Police.” That divestment continues to call for disarming the police as well as reducing the size of the police force. While the Port Townsend Police Department did not succumb to pressure to disarm its officers, its force reduced to half size in 2020 (see “PT Police Struggling Below Half Strength and Costing ‘A Lot More’“) as a result of actions by the Port Townsend City Council. The consequence was a department so understaffed, the city has had to pay the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department to cover shifts.
While demanding transparency from the Co-op, BLM communications and Leader columns have danced around the core conduct issues underlying this contretemps, being very careful to shield the person at the center from any criticism or scrutiny.
The Power of a Sensationalizing
Press to Do Harm
It is not to say there are no legitimate issues with how The Food Co-op Board of Directors handled Cameron Jones’ removal. There may well have been improprieties in the process, as alleged.
But early on, The Leader’s story ceased being about the board’s July 29 self-policing incident. Instead it became a relentless campaign to further an activist group’s ideological agenda (see “Culture Wars Besiege The Food Co-op“).
Removing a member from the board who violated its code of conduct — who happens to be a black man — was twisted to redefine the story as one of racial discrimination, once again reframing the perpetrator as being the victim. With The Leader unquestioningly supporting the ongoing attacks — and in the case of their regular columnist Serinus, even escalating them — Jones and his allies’ pressure and smears have had their intended effect.
The board president has resigned, with his requisite public apology issued in a Leader guest column. The general manager has not yet been replaced. But her obligatory newspaper apologia was full of conciliatory BLM jargon, listing all the steps the Co-op would be taking to offer more DEI training and facilitation.
And the latest news, reported in the Peninsula Daily News, is that a group of Co-op employees is attempting to unionize. Claims among disgruntled workers include a lack of workplace safety, wage inequality, and “mistreatment”. An example given was that a manager “shouted at” a worker who “said harsh words” to a customer who had “touched her without her permission.” Given such horrific mistreatment, the worker left not only the Co-op’s employ, but Jefferson County. This is the state of labor/management relations being reported.
Unionizing may be a positive step for the Co-op. Still, what role has The Leader played in fomenting staff unrest and division through its over-the-top publicity of BLM-JC’s ongoing assault? How much goodwill has been lost in our community in the process? And what has this harassment campaign cost the Co-op in real terms?
Operating on the slimmest of margins, a cooperative “Grocery & Deli” is now forced to divert precious resources to high-priced DEI consultants and legal counsel. That means less capital available for store operations.
Beyond financial consequences are impacts that can’t be quantified. For six months now, The Leader has fanned the flames of escalating factions at this small-town community grocery store.
The result? Harm against the Co-op. Distraction from pursuing the store’s actual food-oriented mission: “working together to nourish our community.” Focus redirected toward the BLM agenda. And resignations as the unending harassment takes its toll.
[Disclosure: Ana Wolpin was the first manager of The Food Co-op in the 1970s, and served on its board of directors in the late ‘90s during a period of internal upheaval that involved replacing the general manager. Stephen Schumacher was Co-op president in the early ’90s involved in reforming board/management roles confused by conflicts of interest. Neither have had any role since then except as member shoppers.]
Please make your concerns about this issue known to the commissioners through public comment either in writing
