Mayor David Faber’s Social Media Round-up:  The Joke’s On Who?

Mayor David Faber’s Social Media Round-up:
The Joke’s On Who?

In August 2022, incendiary events in Port Townsend brought social media posts by then 39-year-old Mayor David Faber to national attention. Internet writers began discussing tweets like this:

And this one, publicizing his ultra-low Rice Purity Test score (17/100) to demonstrate that, as “legally-required,” he is a “pervert and deviant”:

The Rice Purity Test is a 100-question survey that asks about a person’s experiences with potentially “risky” behaviors such as drugs, alcohol, sex, crime, deceit, and other deeds considered immoral or non-virtuous. Scored out of 100 possible points, the lower the score, the less virtuous. The average score is 60-75.

 

Another, about having sex with dead chickens:

At the October 17, 2022 Port Townsend City Council meeting, Port Townsend Free Press founder and ongoing contributor Jim Scarantino read some of the above tweets into the public record. While those social media posts may be old news to some, the story isn’t over.

Nearly a year later Scarantino was back with an update at the September 11, 2023 city council workshop. There were new tweets to be added to the record.

Following the workshop, Scarantino recounted on the Free Press‘s Facebook page:

“He makes such comments on a Twitter account that right up front identifies him as Mayor of Port Townsend. And he holds himself out as the Mayor while discussing city business on the same account where he also writes about masturbation. Not nice stuff to read, but this is the Mayor’s behavior in a public forum where he is representing the city of Port Townsend.”

Faber’s Twitter/X banner today is pictured below. The “cold feet” handle and licking dog are gone, replaced by a new photo, his political yard sign, and “Mayor of Port Townsend, WA” identifier.

Should we care about the tweets of David J. Faber, Mayor of Port Townsend? Why continue to bring them up? How did we get here?

The Backstory

The dive into Faber’s online persona began after the Free Press broke the story in August 2022 of 80-year-old Julie Jaman’s expulsion by the YMCA from our community swimming pool. That’s old news, too, but revisiting what unfolded provides important context for the mayor’s social media conduct.

Naked in the women’s showers after a swim, Jaman was shocked to hear a male voice. She became more upset when she looked past the flimsy shower curtain and saw a teenage boy in a woman’s bathing suit “helping” little girls with their swimsuits.

She didn’t know that Clementine Adams was a Y employee, a quite-obviously biological male who just months earlier had announced a new identity as a transgender woman. Jaman asked “Do you have a penis?” and demanded that Adams get out of the locker room. When management intervened, rather than de-escalate the situation, naked Jaman, dripping wet, was told that her reaction had been “discriminatory”. On the spot, she was banned for life from the pool she had been swimming in for 35 years.

The story went internationally viral, putting a magnifying glass on our little town. As the saga unfolded, Faber’s response as Port Townsend’s mayor brought him under intense scrutiny.

Less than a week after Jaman’s ouster, dozens of citizens showed up to give public comment at the next city council meeting. Two distinct groups spoke.

Those upset about Jaman’s treatment voiced discomfort over allowing biological men in women’s spaces. They requested that the city honor traditional safeguards for women and girls and work to develop a solution to meet all pool users’ needs. Some asked, why not allow for privacy and designate an all-gender space?

The second group attacked the first. Those asking to be safeguarded, they said, were “transphobes” and “haters”. “Trans women ARE women,” they chanted.

None of the concerns over Jaman’s abrupt lifetime ban or requests for privacy solutions at the city pool were addressed by the council. Instead, at the conclusion of public comments, Mayor Faber lectured that Port Townsend was a welcoming community, sternly rebuking those requesting consideration for private spaces as hateful and discriminatory. (Mayor Deflects Backlash Over Men in Women’s Showers at YMCA, Virtue Signals About Trans Rights Instead)

The only discussion among the council was a proposal to develop a statement “to formally support the Y and its staff.” In the days that followed, that “statement” was elevated to a Transgender Proclamation.

Local women’s rights advocate Amy Sousa tweeted the proposed proclamation out to her national audience and attempted to have an exchange with Mayor Faber. He responded with juvenile taunts and name-calling. Rather than discussing Sousa’s concerns, much like the group chanting at city council, Port Townsend’s mayor called her a transphobe.

“The transphobes have found me,” he tweeted out in response to her post. “Fuuuuuun”.

That wasn’t enough, there was more to say. Five minutes later he re-posted Sousa’s tweet that shared the proclamation, and responded with the nonsensical dismissal “Zoopity boop.”

“The mayor of Port Townsend doesn’t seem to think my concerns deserve respectful consideration,” Sousa wrote. “I think women/girls deserve the sex based provisions that our foremothers battled for centuries to attain, privacy, safety, & dignity for our BODIES.”

She later told media, “This is a little ridiculous to me that this is how the mayor is choosing to respond to women and girls who have legitimate concerns… he’s not taking these concerns with seriousness and the gravity that I think we are due.”

Sousa then organized a press conference to be held prior to the next City Council meeting, when the proclamation would be up for public comment. That event across from City Hall (covered in multiple Free Press articles – 1, 2, 3) brought yet more national attention after trans activists violently attacked the predominantly elderly women speaking, while Port Townsend Police watched passively from across the street. Citizens begging for help were told orders had come “from above” not to intervene.

Those who participated in the event were intimidated and assaulted; some were injured. They were locked out of the council meeting as well, unable to give public comment. Meanwhile inside City Hall, Mayor Faber descended from his dais and took off his mask to ceremoniously read the “welcoming” proclamation to a local trans “leader”.

Following the mob attacks and proclamation reading, a later tweet by Faber further inflamed the situation: “What an incredible night. The Port Townsend community showed up in beautiful fashion,” he wrote. “Tonight reminded me of why Port Townsend is home.”

While the police stood guard outside City Hall under orders “from above” to protect the mayor and council — not the citizens — during their special proclamation, below is what “home” had become for people speaking across the street that evening. “The Port Townsend community that showed up in beautiful fashion” looked like this:

How the Mayor Has His “fuuuuuun” on Social Media

This series of explosive events reverberated far and wide. Writers covering women’s issues took notice. After his puerile responses to Sousa and his “beautiful community” tweet the night of the assaults, they wondered what else Mayor Faber was broadcasting online.

Former New York Magazine and Penthouse contributor Mandy Stadtmiller was among the national writers to bring attention to Faber’s social media posts. The day after the city-permitted women’s rights press conference drew violent assaults from trans activists while police stood watching with detachment under orders not to protect them, she asked:

But first out of the gate was Substack writer Mattie Watkins. “This was supposed to be fun and snarky,” she wrote, “but as I researched David J. Faber things got progressively weirder and more serious.”

Watkins was the first to republish the tweets at the top of this article. Along with his sex with dogs and dead chickens comments, and the post that mayors are required to be filthy and deviant, she discovered Faber defending actor Paul Reuben, aka PeeWee Herman. Reuben had been arrested for masturbating in public and charged with misdemeanor possession of child pornography in 2002.

Faber’s tweet responding to someone claiming that Reuben had been targeted as part of a sting operation was that “PeeWee did nothing wrong.”

Yet in addition to masturbating in public, Reubens had confessed to possessing 170 images of children in sexual acts and positions.

Watkins also tagged this post:

In a follow-up article she asked “What does that mean?”

Social media influencer Vaush describes himself as a “dirtbag leftist” with an online presence geared predominantly to radicalizing young people. Watkins documents his insulting, aggressive and misogynistic attitude toward women.

Typifying that attitude, she says, are statements like, “I wish this dumb bitch wasn’t in high school so I could fully go off on her.”

And demeaning tweets like:

While degrading women is a common theme in “Vaush politics,” he is equally “notorious” for comments advocating pedophilia and lowering the age of consent, Watkins said. He influences his mostly young audience with messages that endorse the legalization of child pornography.

“What does this mean for Mayor David J. Faber? Well, he isn’t a complete idiot and is not on record agreeing with these specific ideas from Vaush,” she wrote. “However, he also hasn’t condemned them and continues to align himself with Vaush as a whole.”

Faber Looks Amused

At the October 3, 2022 Port Townsend City Council meeting, Rebel News reporter Katie Daviscourt posed some of these same questions during public comments.

Daviscourt quoted Faber’s tweets about bestiality and asked him if his alignment with Vaush reflected his moral views. She asked if “his history of inappropriate and controversial tweets are a good representation of an elected official.” The mayor did not answer her queries. The video of the meeting reveals only a grainy flash of Faber grinning as she quotes his tweet, “As mayor, I am legally required to be a pervert and deviant.”

She asked, does the City Council stand by his comments or denounce his behavior?

The only councilor to offer a public response to citizens’ call for the city council to censure the mayor — and in some social media discussions, to remove Faber from office — has been Owen Rowe.

“I fully support our Mayor David Faber,” Rowe said. “I am entertained by his Twitter account, and do not understand that as in any way representing the city organization.”

Watkins notes that Vaush and his supporters “love to hide behind the ‘it’s a joke’ excuse.”

The File Grows

More of Faber’s online “humor” soon surfaced.

His post of a selfie wearing eye liner and mugging inside what appears to be a public toilet stall:

Delight over wasting a church’s money on prayer card mailings to his deceased mother:

And new tweets defending PeeWee Herman’s possession of child pornography and public masturbation. “I’ll say it again,” he wrote, “Pee-Wee Herman did nothing wrong.”

“In another tweet,” Scarantino informed council, “he said he adored this pedophile [PeeWee] for never losing his childlike innocence and joy.”

And “earlier in the summer,” Scarantino added, “between discussing housing policy and promoting one of the Financial Sustainability videos done by the city,” Faber was inspired to re-post someone else’s musings about masturbation:

“[I’m] thinking about that guy who died beating off at Pompeii” the post said.  To which Faber commented, “Every day. Sometimes twice.”

“I don’t know what it says about the city that for over a year the council has known about this conduct and has not said one word about it,” Scarantino told council. “And as I pointed out over a year ago, were any other city employee to engage in such conduct, you’d have a very hard time disciplining them with your mayor doing things like this.”

“This is the mayor. The mayor,” Scarantino later emphasized. Not only does Faber use his Twitter account to discuss city business, “he even communicated with at least one state legislator.”

“Seriously, imagine if a police officer—make it the police chief—identified himself by his public position, then said that stuff. But apparently they approve of his conduct enough to let it go, even when reminded that he was still at it a year later.”

“What does that say for Port Townsend and the government of this city?” Scarantino asked the council.

Are all of our elected officials who chose to place young Faber in the mayor’s chair entertained by his mix of city business with tweets about bestiality, perversion, deviance, and the joy of masturbation? Do all of them find his public defense of pedophilia funny?

 

 

REALITY CHECK:  PT Aquatic Center Grossly Underestimates Operating Costs

REALITY CHECK:
PT Aquatic Center
Grossly Underestimates Operating Costs

Lowballing costs. The feasibility study for the proposed Port Townsend aquatic center appears to grossly underestimate likely operating costs. Annual deficits may be far worse than being reported to the public. Even greater subsidies — and higher taxes — may be required.

The flawed feasibility study prepared for the city and the PT aquatic center task force relies exclusively on hypothetical numbers.

No on-the-ground research in and around Port Townsend was conducted.

In every scenario, a future PT aquatic center (architect’s conception featured above) would run deficits of around $400,000. And that’s being treated as good news.

We have a comparable facility nearby that could serve as a yardstick in accurately estimating costs for a future PT aquatic center. The William A. Shore Aquatic Center in Port Angeles has real-world data collected from real-world experience of its operations over time.

The consultants chose not to consider the Shore center’s real-world experience on the Olympic Peninsula. We will do it for them — and for the benefit of taxpayers who are being asked to foot the bill.

The William A. Shore Aquatic Center

The Shore aquatic center was built in 1961, two years before the construction of Port Townsend’s Mountain View pool.  It has undergone many upgrades and renovations and is now a modern, attractive 30,000 square foot natatorium. It had been owned by the city of Port Angeles until 2009 when voters approved creation of the Shore Metropolitan Park District, which now owns and operates the facility.

The expansion of the facility to twice its original size was completed in 2020. In addition to the original competition pool and diving tank, it now offers a spa, a wellness pool, and an activity pool that includes a “lazy river” and vortex ring. All pools are heated. Other additions include a multipurpose space, universal changing hall and locker rooms, and support spaces for staff and patrons. The enlarged building has a dedicated space for the Splash, Play and Active Recreation for Kids after-school program for children, and an outdoor playground with multiple features above a synthetic turf.

In 2017 voters increased the park district’s debt capacity from $6.5 to $10 million. The $20 million renovation was funded with bonds, state and federal grants and cash reserves.

Here is a video tour of the completed facility:

 

PT Aquatic Center Feasibility Mixed Up
With Upper Macungie, Pennsylvania

The feasibility study for a new PT aquatic center was prepared by the consulting firm Ballard*King & Associates from Highland Park, Colorado. I have written two articles (here and here) examining flaws and red flags in their report. One of the red flags was that these consultants compared PT’s cost of living and housing expenses to those in Pennsylvania. This, combined with other absurd extrapolations (such as concluding we likely had 1,305 adults playing basketball), led me to wonder if they had mixed up their report for PT with work for another community.

It appears that hunch was correct. The Ballard*King report is now posted on the city’s website. There is no title page. It is entitled “Upper Macungie Report 3.22.23” according to the tab that appears on the search bar when the link is clicked.

Upper Macungie is a rapidly growing township in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. That township had been doing work on a community center. It appears that the report for Port Townsend was cut-and-pasted, commingled and confused with work for a very different community on the other side of the continent.

Here is that curious page from the study comparing PT’s cost of living to its counterpart in… Pennsylvania:

 

Now add to these reasons to question the validity of the Ballard*King report indications that their operating expense projections appear to be way off. Shore’s real-world experience shows that running an aquatic center costs a lot more than these consultants are revealing.

We have obtained Shore’s recent financial data from Steve Burke, who has been with the Shore Metro Park District since before the facility underwent its expansion and remodeling. You may study that information at this link: 2018-2023 Shore Aquatic Center Financials.

Lowballing the Likely Costs
of a PT Aquatic/Fitness Center

Three versions of a possible new PT aquatic/fitness center have been under consideration. Ballard*King purported to project operating costs for each of them. The three versions are described in their report as follows:

The future PT aquatic center “base” model would be similar in size and offerings to Shore Aquatic Center in Port Angeles. Ballard*King estimated the annual operating costs for Port Townsend’s base model at $1,268,557. This doesn’t square with real-world expenses projected by the already-running equivalent nearby facility. Shore anticipates significantly higher operating costs in 2023.

According to its latest financial data, Shore expects expenditures this year to be close to two million dollars — $1,932,770.

The Ballard*King estimated annual operating cost of $1,268,557 is for a period of time in the future, no sooner than 2026, the year upon which they base their hourly wage predictions. If that figure were adjusted to 2023 dollars, it would be even lower, by a factor that backs out the cumulative effects of inflation.

The current annualized rate of inflation is 3.2%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  If we applied this rate of inflation to adjust the Ballard*King operating prediction figure to 2023 dollars, it would be about $1,191,106 or $741,664 lower than the Shore center’s experience this year. (You can verify this and the following present value calculations using this handy present value calculator.)

How could a similar facility hope to operate in Port Townsend for almost 40% less?

The projected base model is the least expensive version of a proposed new PT aquatic center. At their most recent meeting on August 25, 2023, the steering committee focused on the larger and costlier base-plus-gym and the full build out versions.

The base-plus-gym is projected to cost $37.1 million to build, nearly twice the Shore center’s $20 million expansion and upgrades. Port Townsend, with half of Port Angeles’ population, could thus be building a pool twice as expensive as the one that serves the much larger city. The full build out is projected to cost $45.9 million.

From somewhere, the steering committee believes it will obtain $15 million in grants, gifts or other support for each version, leaving $22.1 million for local taxpayers to shoulder for the base-plus-gym version, and $33.9 million for the full build out.

Ballard*King’s hypothetical annual operating costs for the two larger versions appear to be seriously off when compared to the Shore center’s experience just 45 miles away.

The base-plus-gym version would require, according to Ballard*King, operating expenditures in 2026 dollars of $1,617,810. That is $1,519,036 in current 2023 dollars, compared to the Shore center’s 2023 expenditures of $1,932,770.

How could a larger facility requiring more upkeep and staff incur such significantly lower operating expenses?

The projected operating costs for the massive full build out version — more than a third larger than Shore, with a gymnasium, weight/cardio space and a larger staff — are somehow almost exactly the same in 2023 dollars as the much smaller and simpler Shore aquatic center at $1,957,076 versus $1,932,770.

How could that be possible?

Doesn’t Pencil Out

At the most recent town hall presentation, July 13, 2023 at Fort Worden, the public was shown the slide copied above acknowledging that this project can’t “pencil out.” All three versions are projected to run deficits of $352,000 to $434,000, requiring an annual subsidy paid by city taxpayers on top of any property and/or sales taxes they would be paying just for the pool.

Those subsidy estimates may be another instance of lowballing what this project is likely to cost taxpayers.

At a July 2, 2023 workshop — as opposed to a public town hall meeting — the steering committee was provided a much grimmer projection, showing a subsidy of $1.6 million, four times what was presented at the public meetings. Unlike the slides shown the public, this one included the annual financing cost for a new aquatic center:

We’ve Seen This Before:
The Cherry Street Project

“I wouldn’t change a single thing about what we did,” Mayor David Faber has said about the failed Cherry Street Project. The city is now seeking bids to demolish that “affordable” housing project that has taxpayers on the hook for $1.4 million in bond principal and interest. Over $100,000 more in other outlays has been poured into the century-old derelict building barged here from Victoria, B.C. in 2017.

As we’ve reported, city council had in hand the equivalent of a feasibility study — a pro forma — that showed the project would default within two years of securing financing. The project’s cost estimates had been derided as “bogus” by the president of Homeward Bound, the organization that was going to complete the project. Costs were lowballed in repeated efforts to hook the city and taxpayers, and then extract more from them as the project demanded more and more investment… until the costs of finishing it became utterly prohibitive and the project was abandoned.

In its push for a new pool, the city is again being offered a questionable feasibility study. The consultant leading the effort, Opsis Architecture of Portland, Oregon, stands to secure a lucrative contract if the project moves forward.

Every member of the steering committee wants to see a new pool built. There is no one outside the loop providing critical, objective analysis. There is no “red team/blue team” constructive give-and-take to drag into the open all the possible weaknesses and flaws in the work being done by Opsis and Ballard*King. The city and the aquatic center steering committee are going with only one estimate, the estimate that suits their agenda.

The flawed feasibility study comparing Port Townsend’s cost of living to Pennsylvania and reaching absurd extrapolations from statistical data, while also missing the Cape George pool and placing Port Ludlow’s pools in Kitsap County — that study has been in the steering committee’s hands for months. Apparently no one read beyond the numbers they selected to pitch to the public to see how the study may be seriously flawed. They have no reason to critique the feasibility study on which they are building their case for higher taxes.

No one on the steering committee apparently was troubled by the fact that the feasibility study relies only on hypothetical numbers and did not bother to consider the real-world costs of the nearby Shore aquatic center. The Olympic YMCA holds a seat on the steering committee. They could provide real-world data from the Sequim YMCA to show how much it costs to run a larger facility. That does not seem to have been done.

Taxpayers are being asked to buy into a massively expensive-to-build, expensive-to-operate amenity solely on the basis of hypothetical numbers.

Ballard*King has already given itself an out. They do not guarantee that they got any of their cost estimates right. Proceed at your own risk, they say.

Ballard*King disclaimer of responsibility for any inaccuracies or omissions in their cost projections

 

Taxpayers won’t have such an easy out. Once they bite, there’s no getting off the hook.

 

Letters Forum: Off Topic!    – SEPTEMBER 2023 –

Letters Forum: Off Topic!
– SEPTEMBER 2023 –

In the spirit of offering Letters to the Editor as a traditional platform for lively, wide-ranging conversations in the public square, we invite you to write about whatever is on your mind.

Because we require comments under articles to be “on topic”, we found that readers who want to speak to other important issues, events and concerns that our small crew can’t cover don’t have a place for that. This Off Topic! feature allows readers to bring up other subjects, post news flashes, announce community events, or express concerns outside of the selected topics we write about.

A new Off Topic! forum is posted monthly. The post is open throughout the month for new letters and your responses.

How this works:

Submit your letter in the white box below Comment Guidelines at the bottom of the page containing the muted prompt “Enter your comment here…”

Either provide your own title to the letter as a top line or we will title it for you.

To respond to someone else’s post, hit the REPLY button under that specific letter or comment you wish to respond to.