The Letter
What a surprise to find the Letter to the Editor written by me in the Daily Astorian today. I did write it -- as a personal email to Steve Forrester, not addressed to the Editor, with a personal introductory paragraph.
My reputation in business and on non-profit boards is generally one of a mediator who uses a combination of a good working knowledge of the business and some creative thinking- outside- the- box skills to find workable solutions that pare the budgets and fulfill the needs of the organization. I've brought that way of being into the campaign and have for the most part been very positive despite many pressures to Get Tough Now.
My public response to the Editor -- "What is this election all about?" -- was posted here and emailed to all media and a number of other people on May 3. It's also on the sidebar of this page. It's the flip side of the Letter published today: the same message but in the tone of "Here's what I will or won't do" rather than "Here's what my opponent has or hasn't done." It's a tone I prefer and try to stick with.
I stand by the Letter, word for word, allegation for allegation. Here it is, for those who don't read the Daily A.
Letter: Working for county
Friday, May 05, 2006
Needless to say, I am very disappointed that the editor chose to endorse my opponent, whom he lauds for being elected chairman twice, for his role in a “striking reclamation” of a downtown building and for the successful transfer of Sunset Beach to public ownership (“Richard Lee for county commission,” The Daily Astorian, May 1).
We are apparently not to consider that the “striking reclamation” has cost the taxpayers $1,130,838 so far, all to keep a ballot box safe. That my opponent opposed the Sunset Beach transfer and delayed it for at least a year, preferring instead a golf course or housing development, until finally being persuaded to vote with the rest of the board. That Helen Westbrook was first choice for this year’s chair but declined.
Nor should we consider these other factors: That my opponent is a man who has spent the last four years representing his own interests and, incidentally, the county’s; rarely engages in discussion and often falls asleep during board meetings and work sessions; does not attend the committees to which he is supposed to be liaison; has contempt for public safety officials and mid-20th century notions of the role of women.
My opponent likewise shows contempt for the rules and regulations that govern business development, costing the county hundreds of man-hours trying to keep him within code compliance. He is currently under investigation for that as well as for his role in the resignation of the chief building inspector.
My opponent has never held a public forum or asked for public input on any issue; has never put out a public call to action, news release or informational piece on any issue other than his own election; has allowed the fairgrounds to go nearly belly up; and has failed his neighbors in Miles Crossing by providing them with little or no assistance for their sewer district.
My opponent has misrepresented the sentiments of the majority of Clatsop County residents and the direction of the board regarding management of state forests, stating at a recent Council of Forest Trust Lands meeting that the lands should be turned over to private industry for maximum economic advantage.
My opponent has no vision of or plan for exploiting the synergies between the county, the port, the cities and the college; hasn’t the foggiest notion of the impact of the arts and culture and their unique ability to transcend the north-south county divide; and has yet to put together a coherent and correct sentence either about economic development, the role of the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) or the county’s budget.
My own candidacy is about a striking reclamation as well: of integrity to the leadership of District 3, of openness, and of government for the people. If you believe, like the editor, that the board has done a good job in the past four years, imagine what we could do with a commissioner who works hard with her colleagues and for her constituency. I ask you to consider your choice more carefully than has the editor.
CINDY PRICE
Astoria
24 Comments:
My wise Mother told me Put NOTHING in writing. "Unless you want it printed in the front page of a newspaper"
From what I can tell that is EXACTLY what Price wanted and a whole of people are glad someone finally stood up and said what we've all been thinking about why the power structure seems so terified of Price.
First it was a supposed conflict of interest with her husband, now he hear that doesn't exists...Now it's that he dares to speak some uncomfortable truths.
Cindy, I have a question for you. Did you support measure 37 or oppose it? Why or why not? What do you think it will do for the quality of life we enjoy in Clatsop County now that it has passed? What will you do at the County level to implement these changes that are now occuring?
What does it matter, Johnson, what Price thinks of 37, it's law and until it's changed she will be, like every other commissioner, required to comply with it and iterpret it in the best interest of all.
You make it sound like something new and just happened last week.
Guess the impact of quality of life will be where, individually, a person stands on Measure 37.
How does measure 37 affect you?
Maybe you ought to direct your question to our local state legislators.
Do you know who they are?
You might have to wait, though, for some kind of ribbon cutting or some inane declaration of some sort or a huge dinner event to get an answer.
Anon said:
"What does it matter, Johnson, what Price thinks of 37, it's law and until it's changed she will be, like every other commissioner, required to comply with it and iterpret it in the best interest of all."
That's just it anonymous.
She has everything to do with it if she gets elected. You mentioned it. The word "interpret".
Why won't Cyndi answer the questions?
I'm still waiting for Cyndi to back up the accusations or Mr. Lee she made in her letter to the editor.
Anon,
Recently there was a 37 claim that went before the commissioners. Lee and Patrick supported its approval, but sadly it failed. Now this claim will go to the courts. It is a valid question to ask someone who will be involved in these decisions where she stands. It is true that measure 37 didnt pass last week, but we are yet to see the direct effects of it here in Clatsop County, other than the processing of claims.
I would like to know where she stand individually. Did Cindy or did Cindy not support measure 37. She is not running for judge and she can answer this question.
Anon, you asked a few questions of me.
Measure 37 effects me on many levels. One reason is that my family owns property that could be subject to a 37 claim. Also I build homes for a living. I have seen what the short supply of land has done to home prices. It is quickly pricing our local people right out of home ownership opportunities. I cannot build affordable housing on high dollar property. I also believe that it is wrong for the government to take away the use of peoples private land to provide public benefits without paying for it.
Also you can be sure that before I vote for any of my local state legislators, I will know where they stand on this issue. And yes, I know who they are. Measure 37 claims are handled on a case by case basis that involves our County Commissioners and not our
State legislators.
Lee has a record of supporting private property rights and I know he will tell you that he did support measure 37. Can I get the same straight answer out of Cindy Price??
Anon, no need to hide your name, this is a legit conversation. I will not attack you.
I'm going to repeat this Johnson.
If Lee was stupid enough to make a public statement of his personal opinion on Measure 37, for or against, a smart appellant, any appellant for that matter, the next time a Measure 37 issue comes before County Commission can politely ask Lee and/or any other Commissioner that has done the same to recuse themselves from the discussion, deliberation or vote as he/she has prejudiced themselves on the issue because of that position and he/they must step down and remove themselves.
So continue to embarrass yourself and Lee if you wish but Price would be a fool to fall for this bait.
Did you think this up all by yourself or were you assigned this duty?
The proper name is "Anonymous' and I am very proud to be called that but, if you must use a name use Patrick McGee, he won't mind.
I think I will refer to Anon as "Son of Patrick" from now on. I like that one better. He won't mind.
I would suggest you leave me out of this completely.
Once again, I am fully capable of making my own statements and have absolutely no fear of using my own name.
Why would I treat this site any differently than my own.
Tried that anonymous crap, got nailed.
You guys go ahead, back at it but, leave my name to me would you and by the way, Cindy would truly be making a huge mistake setting a personal position on Measure 37 because it will come back to haunt her after she takes her seat on Commission and now that you've spilled the beans on Lee's personal position on Measure 37 you've left him wide open to be neutered on any Measure 37 deliberation.
Patrick, Ok I will not drag you into the middle of this nonsense.
I think the mistake would be not coming out as saying it is a good thing for our county. Your opinion doesnt mean you dont have to follow the rules when making decisions. I was not asking for Cindy to answer questions about a specific claim. I just want to know if she supports private property rights.
Lee has nothing to worry about if he were to publicly support Measure 37, remember 68% supported it in District 3. He owns property, so of course he would and should support its passing.
Cindy Price has claimed that she has no businesses or land ownings within the county to protect or expand. That statement concerns me. I have both a business and land within the county to both protect and expand. I hope to elect someone who wants to do what they can as a commissioner to help me expand my business and protect my property rights. Not help put up road blocks and red tape.
Thank you posting your name Patrick. I respect that.
cary said...
Patrick, Ok I will not drag you into the middle of this nonsense.
"I think the mistake would be not coming out as saying it is a good thing for our county. Your opinion doesnt mean you dont have to follow the rules when making decisions. I was not asking for Cindy to answer questions about a specific claim. I just want to know if she supports private property rights."
What's your definition on "Private Property Rights" Cary
What's your definition on "Private Property Rights" Cary
Are you going to answer the man or what?
Cary, of course I'll do everything I can to help expand your business and protect your property rights. I'm an early and vocal advocate of the Rural Economies Strategy of economic development. I support the thorough, assistive and timely process of all Measure 37 claims. I want permitting and inspections to apply equally to all citizens. I want a full-time staff person who can react flexibly and nimbly to the needs of businesses (this may not require an extra person, but reassigning the duties of a person), and not make them wait for the next meeting of some committee, which may be too late for their needs. I want an unpaid volunteer expert review of the permitting and inspections process, to determine whether there is unnecessary "red tape" and make recommendations for streamlining the process for individuals and businesses. There are two horrendous examples in Astoria of what can happen if projects go ahead too quickly, without following the recommended process, so we must be very careful when cutting red tape that we don't cut the lives out from under people. And I'm advocating for additional resources to Public Safety and Community Corrections so that property crimes will continue to be prosecuted and that at least some minor sanctions will exist.
As County Commissioner I will begin from the standpoint of working for the people, not for myself. When I help Clatsop County, I help myself. My opponent works for himself, and that occasionally helps the County. That's backwards. I'm going to turn that around.
Patrick must be Price's campaign manager????
Patrick,
Definition of private property rights:
The right to own and use ones property. A basic personal and human right included in 5th amendment.
Maybe the label "property rights" is misleading. Property does'nt have rights. People have rights.
Without protection for our right to property, our other precious rights (such as freedom of speech, press, religion) are in danger. The basic strategy of communistic systems such as in the former Soviet Union and China was to eliminate property rights as a way to impose rigid controls on their people, and take away their rights and freedom. Without property rights, other rights are meaningless.
"Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race."
Former President and United States Supreme Court Cheif Justice, William Howard Taft
Thank you Cary.
Do you believe that government should be allowed to condemn and take private property for the benefit of another private entity or buiness?
Since Cary isn't running for office, I'd like to know how Cyndi feels about government condemnation.
This is her blog after all.
Glenn said...
Since Cary isn't running for office, I'd like to know how Cyndi feels about government condemnation.
This is her blog after all.
So, you in charge of what Cary says now Glenn?
You the new Government "Blog Monitor"?
I think he's fully capable of speaking for himself but since you deem it necessary to come to his defense, I will pose the same question to you and that is; Do you feel government should be able to condemn private property to the benefit of another private entity or business?
I don't Cindy is so careless that she would actually stand still for you two to try to "Sucker Punch" her on this.
Doesn't that piss you off?
Keep trying, maybe she will slip-up and fall for this BS.
I mean, Geez!!!, she's only given you guys, what, about a million different answers to this same question in response and just plain voluntarily?
I'm still waiting for information from you on whether "Your Port" actually does or does not do "Due Diligence" on any Port Project whatsoever.
Still nothing.
Not one iota of one "Due Diligence Study Report".
I'd like also for you to tell us exactly how "The Port" Design Review process works.
I'd like also to know what the current disposition of "The Red Lion", at "The Port" is and what's in its future.
Patrick asked Cary,
"Do you believe that government should be allowed to condemn and take private property for the benefit of another private entity or buiness?"
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!
I am not trying to "sucker punch" Cindy on any issue. I ask my questions independantly and for my own benefit. I simply feel that it is my responsibilty as a citizen to question my leaders or those who intend to serve as my leaders.
I asked her the question about measure 37 and it opened it up for discussion. I hope Cindy appreciates my question. I now have a better feeling of where she stands.
I did not however get the straight answer I was looking for, but I will let it go.
I will quote you Patrick , "I mean, Geez!!!, she's only given you guys, what, ABOUT A MILLION DIFFERENT ANSWERS TO THE SAME QUESTION in response and just plain voluntarily?"
That is the problem I have with her answers. The only thing I get is a feeling about where she stands.
I hope I was clear with my answer to your question Patrick and I hope you, Cindy, Richard, Glenn, Anon and everyone else agrees with me on this. Why are you asking me, If I may ask??
P.S. Patrick, Your question will be seen on the ballot in the near future.
Cary Said;I will quote you Patrick , "I mean, Geez!!!, she's only given you guys, what, ABOUT A MILLION DIFFERENT ANSWERS TO THE SAME QUESTION in response and just plain voluntarily?"
That is the problem I have with her answers. The only thing I get is a feeling about where she stands.
Now Cary, I think you know how I meant this in proper context and I think she has been very consistent in her answers on the subject and I would venture in your on run for office you might be a bit wary yourself about how you say things that may come back to bite you on the ass and I could pretty much bet a bit more scrutiny will be paid to some of Lee's position statements on issues from here on out.
Don't tell me you were playing this in hopes of using that miriad of answers thing to get leverage?
Why do I ask this?
To get a clearer picture of where you and Glenn are coming from.
I think I have that picture now.
Fair enough.
Cary, I believe I've answered all of your questions -- and more -- with one exception. You want me to answer the question: "Did you vote for Measure 37?" The question has no more relevance to my actions as County Commissioner than my answer to the question: "Did you vote for Ronald Reagan?" The real question is: "What will do you now that Measure 37 is law?" -- and I've answered that in great detail.
I'm going to insist that even a public official has the right to make personal decisions when she goes into the voting booth (so to speak). Public votes and decisions may or may not be entirely different. I'm going to insist that -- in my view, of course -- what really matters is how a public official carries out the wishes of her constituency; and whether that official is honest when her moral or other values are in direct conflict with that constituency.
Best I can do, Cary.
I wrote: >>>Public votes and decisions may or may not be entirely different.<<< And I meant that votes on matters that come to the Commission may or may not be entirely different from votes made privately in the voting booth. In the former I'd have an obligation fully to consider the constituency; in the voting booth I am a constituency of one.
Cindy, I thank you for your responding to my questions and giving me the forum to ask. I didnt quite ask you how you voted but close enough, my question was poorly worded, however it did open it up for discussion. You are correct in saying "in the voting booth I am a constituency of one."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home