Re: MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple” (plus "mean-spirited opposition")
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:57 pm
Ken Malloch has apologized.
Freedom for all voices of the Methow Valley...
https://pasayten.com/bb/
Don Nelson
From:
editor@methowvalleynews.com
To:
Ray Peterson
Wed, Jan 10 at 2:52 PM
Ray … I’m not going to name names or call anyone out, and I would not include you in any event … but suffice to say, I heard enough from opponents, and from Friends of the Pool Supporters, to know that there was commentary attributing bad motives and dishonesty to the pool’s advocates. I still believe that was unwarranted.
Don
My response to her was...Sarah Schrock
You're not friends on Facebook
11/7/23, 10:57 PM
Sarah
Sarah Schrock
Ray, we’ve been listening all along. In fact, we’ve been listening and learning for years about how communities like ours fund pools and what challenges we face with the Wagner Pool as it decays before our eyes. My question to the voters who voted NO is, will you listen to the years of groundwork we’ve done to plan for a new pool, or will you waste time answering questions we’ve already answered and risk years without one? You’ve sure set yourself up for that risk, which was the main thing we tried to avoid. Good luck on your plan, you’ve succeeded in intimidating the populace into fear of nothing.
You led a misguided campaign with an ever changing message of what your plan actually was. You stated half truths and never divulged and discussed all the pros and cons of a metropolitan park district and what it's impacts could be. You didn't trust the voting community on a 6 year levy renewal cycle. You didn't trust the voting community for an elected governing Board. You only wanted the voters to trust you that a Metropolitan Park District was the only answer for yes or no for a pool. You basically defeated Proposition 1 by not trusting the voters.
I have written a letter to Don to explain his statement “Much of the opposition to the aquatics district was more shrill and mean-spirited than needed to be, attacking without suggesting other approaches.” in more detail. I was just verbally confronted by FOTP member Ken Malloch that this editorial was directed at me and that I "hurt" many members of the community with "my" mean-spirited campaign.dhop wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:20 pm Don Nelson (I’m guessing, there is no by-line) wrote a very unflattering portrait of those that opposed the Aquatic District in his 12-20-23 editorial “Barely a Ripple”: “Much of the opposition to the aquatics district was more shrill and mean-spirited than needed to be, attacking without suggesting other approaches.” Does he not read his own paper, where numerous suggestions to fund a pool were not only offered, but likely would have succeeded in bringing a new pool to the community. It is maddening to me how he views the opponents. I don’t know of any pro district signs that were stolen and all the letters to the editor were not only respectful to FOP, they offered good ideas.
didn't you attack the FOP as not acting like adults and often attack Trump supporters and desire to inflict authoritarian measures on them while accusing them of that same thing?mister_coffee wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 7:24 pm Also, just because the one side is doing it doesn't make it okay for "both sides" to do it.
I think it fair to concede that on that particular point neither side covered themselves in glory. I do agree that it wasn't most of the people advocating against the Proposition who were behaving poorly.
That may have happened with an individual, but certainly not the majority of folks lobbying against the Proposition. And I have examples of it going on with both sides.Past that things quickly went downhill. When it came down to personal attacks on individuals advocating for the pool and attacking their motivations and even if they were "legitimate" members of the community it went way over the bounds of decency.
Thanks for posting that link.
Ray Peterson, a Winthrop resident, led the opposition through a website and social media, and yard signs that urged voters to vote no on the metropolitan park district. Peterson and others argued that this type of taxing district would not be accountable to voters because the board is not directly elected, and district tax levies would not need voter approval every six years, as required in other types of park and recreation districts.
Peterson advocated for finding another way to fund a swimming facility, such as sales taxes. Two days after the election, he sent an email to the mayors of Twisp and Winthrop, urging them to explore the idea of a “public facilities district.”
“RCW 35.57 allows towns to create their own public facilities districts and initiate a 0.2% sales tax add-on to support projects. Pasco recently did this to build a pool facility,” Peterson said in his email, which he shared with the Methow Valley News.
He suggested that the towns could each create a public facilities district and combine the sales tax funds through an interlocal agreement to support a pool, and perhaps other valley facilities like the skating rink and library.
Peterson has also pointed to the town of Tonasket as an example for funding a new pool. Community members there formed a nonprofit organization that raised money for construction of a $1 million seasonal pool that opened in 2017, and voters subsequently approved a parks and recreation district to fund maintenance of the pool and city parks.
The Methow Aquatics District proposition became contentious, much like a similar proposal to create a metropolitan park district in 2014. That proposition, which would have supported the swimming pool, trails and other facilities, was defeated by an even larger margin of 78% “no” to 22% “yes.”
Discussions about funding for recreation lost momentum after that election, until about four years ago when Friends of the Pool began holding community meetings about a new pool.