MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple” (plus "mean-spirited opposition")

Post Reply
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple” (plus "mean-spirited opposition")

Post by pasayten »

Ken Malloch has apologized.
pasayten
Ray Peterson
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple” (plus "mean-spirited opposition")

Post by pasayten »

Don 's reply to my email... Evidently FOTP member Ken Malloch needed to do more homework before confronting and telling me falsehoods that Don pointed the editorial parts about "shrill and mean-spirited" towards my campaign efforts.

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
pasayten
Ray Peterson
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple”

Post by pasayten »

Some further background info on being "mean-spirited"???

I was banned/blocked from asking any questions on the FOTP Facebook site... Was even blocked from viewing it to see what it said! That kind of told me the FOTP did not want to discuss any of the issues with Proposition 1 in the public forum.

After the election, I got this facebook message from Sarah Schrock...
Sarah Schrock
Facebook
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.
My response to her was...
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.
pasayten
Ray Peterson
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple”

Post by pasayten »

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.
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.
pasayten
Ray Peterson
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple”

Post by Fun CH »

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.
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?
pasayten wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 7:16 pm 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

Like this opinion, Quote "He has a great heart for the community... Can't say that about some of the other FOTP folks." And this quote:

"They are desperate and childish"

Imo, In politics, the facts of past or present behavior of anyone likely to be involved in any proposed political measure is fair game, especially when they want to take money from those who can't afford it.

Imo, Avoid attacking with derogatory language which for some reason is acceptable behavior on this forum. Facts matter, opinions not based on facts and derogatory attacks, not so much.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
User avatar
mister_coffee
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
Location: Winthrop, WA
Contact:

Re: MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple”

Post by mister_coffee »

pasayten wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 7:16 pm ...
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.
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.

Also, just because the one side is doing it doesn't make it okay for "both sides" to do it.
:arrow: David Bonn :idea:
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple”

Post by pasayten »

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.
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.
pasayten
Ray Peterson
User avatar
mister_coffee
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
Location: Winthrop, WA
Contact:

Re: MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple”

Post by mister_coffee »

I think the argument that the Pool proposal, such as it was, was an unrealistic ask for a community hit with substantial cost of living increases and property tax increases in the last few years was a good one. Probably the best argument overall and bluntly the only one that needed to be made.

The lack of a realistic and specific proposal with a coherent business plan that needed to be put before the voters was also a legitimate point against the proposal.

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.
Last edited by mister_coffee on Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
:arrow: David Bonn :idea:
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple”

Post by Fun CH »

pasayten wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:26 pm Time for more letters to the editor... Even Ann's article mentioned some alternatives from us... Good grief...\
Thanks for posting that link.

Contrary to what Don seems to believe, the voters knew exactly what was being proposed, how our tax money was to be used and what the Metropolitan Park District governance structure was.

All that was laid out on the ballot measure.

That editorial seems to be laid out too garner support for the next pool proposal. He's using that same derogatory tone that he did when he called us "paranoid" the first time and yet states:

"Much of the opposition to the aquatics district was more shrill and mean-spirited than it needed to be, attacking without suggesting other approaches."

Pot calling kettle black.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple”

Post by Fun CH »

Don set the tone of the debate when he in his editorial called all voters who defeated a similar Metropolitan Park District proposal in 2014 "paranoid", and two other choice derogatory comments.

I haven't read that editorial (edit just read it) but lack of respect for the rural culture that was here before you arrived creates unnecessary divisiveness in the community that you sought to join. Or did you come here for the change?

Fortunately most come here to give, not take.
Last edited by Fun CH on Thu Dec 21, 2023 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple”

Post by pasayten »

Time for more letters to the editor... Even Ann's article mentioned some alternatives from us... Good grief...\

https://methowvalleynews.com/2023/11/16 ... -proposal/
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.


Don't see the article/editorial on the website in the editorial section?

Finally found it by search...

https://methowvalleynews.com/2023/12/21 ... -a-ripple/
pasayten
Ray Peterson
dhop
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2023 6:47 pm
Contact:

MVN editorial “Barely a Ripple” (plus "mean-spirited opposition")

Post by dhop »

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.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests