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?
Out of 39 Washington counties, Jefferson County rang in the new year with the dubious distinction of being the only “red alert” spot for Covid cases in the state.
We’ve reported extensively on the disinformation from Public Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry, our health department, and the Board of Health — all parroting a thoroughly discredited global narrative — and on the damage that has wrought on our community. This article will take a look at how our county is currently faring in the wake of nearly three years of a massive propaganda campaign to keep residents in a state of fear and anxiety, a campaign that shows no sign of easing up.
And we’ll compare two other counties that help flesh out the picture: neighboring Clallam County, also under the direction of health officer Berry; and Adams County, at the other end of the spectrum. Where Jefferson has the highest numbers for the case and booster metrics being tracked, Adams reports the lowest figures in the state.
The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) posted the maps shown here on their COVID-19 Data Dashboard on January 11. Data is updated weekly. Numbers of Covid cases are converted to rates per 100,000 so that there is equivalence between counties.
The map above, for the period between December 26, 2022 and January 2, 2023, shows the 7-day Covid case rate in Jefferson County at the start of the new year — 127 cases per 100,000 (41 reported cases in a population of 32,190).
Contrast this with the lowest case rate in the state: Adams County. The Eastern Washington county shown in blue reported only 2 Covid cases in a population of 20,450 or 10 per 100,000 during the same week. The third comparative, Clallam County, shows a case rate of 46 per 100,000 (35 people out of 76,770).
The colors on the map’s 39 counties vary from week to week as new data is reported. But it is not unusual for Jefferson County to be a red standout and for Adams County to have the lowest Covid cases, represented in blue. Clallam County typically is yellow or orange.
Which brings us to the second of Jefferson County’s “bests”:
JeffCo’s booster rates are also highest in the state
The charts below depict the dozen counties with the highest Covid bivalent (Omicron) booster uptake followed by the dozen lowest as of 1/9/2023. (The fifteen counties in the middle are not shown.) Jefferson County again tops the list of 39 counties, with the highest jab uptake in the state for bivalent boosters. The percentage of uptake is based on county residents eligible for the booster, defined as people aged 5 and above.
Below is the state map from the DOH dashboard showing the levels of uptake throughout Washington as of January 9 by color coding.
The increasing awareness that after a brief antibody response the shots soon offer no benefit and only cause harm has led to a national uptake rate of only 11% for the Omicron bivalent boosters. Adams County, with the lowest uptake in Washington’s 39 counties at 11.1%, reflects that national figure. But again we see that Jefferson County leads the state with a whopping 47.3% — nearly half of those eligible — receiving the shot. Clallam is third highest in the state at 36.5%.
More boosters —> worse outcomes
By now everyone should know that the mRNA injections do not prevent anyone from contracting Covid. But higher numbers of infections among the vaxxed than those who declined the shot? Is there a connection between high jab rates and high case numbers?
The phenomenon of seeing more cases among the jabbed is playing out globally. Not just in more Covid infections, but greater illness in general. Reports indicate that as strains have become less virulent hospitals are treating few Covid patients, but those who do seek medical care are people who got the shots. Especially those with multiple boosters.
One recent survey of hospital workers, conducted by Vaccine Safety Research Foundation founder Steve Kirsch, asked “What is REALLY going on in hospitals?” Kirsch summarized five key results (emphasis his):
Hospital COVID wards are empty
Emergency is not justified
The only patients with COVID are the vaccinated
Vaxxed doing worse than unvaxxed (< 10% disagree)
More boosters —> worse outcomes (only 1% disagree)
“Experts” continue to make excuses for negative outcomes. However the public can see that they have been lied to, and their increasing rejection of the shots reflects the crumbling narrative. Less and less people are opting for boosters.
But not in Jefferson County. According to the state dashboard, uptake of the latest bivalent booster rises here with each passing week (now at 47.3%, it was 32.1% at our last reporting). All local health messaging continues to push the jabs:
“Get up to date with your COVID-19 vaccinations,” says Jefferson County Public Health (JCPH) on its website.
Health Officer Berry also urges more shots at every opportunity, spouting demonstrable falsehoods:
“Thankfully we have a good vaccine… to reduce one’s likelihood of contracting the virus and passing it on to others,” Berry told the Peninsula Daily News in a story about winter cases on the rise. “The bivalent booster is still holding up strong against these variants,” she continued to misinform, “so if you have gotten yours, you are well protected.”
A study just published in December 2022 evaluating the bivalent shot in over 51,000 Cleveland Clinic employees found the opposite:
“The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19 (Figure 2).”
Cleveland Clinic Figure 2: Risk of COVID-19 infections increases with number of doses. Black = 0 doses, Red = 1 dose, Green = 2 doses, Purple = 3 doses, Orange = >3 doses
As we have documented in previous articles, the boosters not only are failing to protect — let alone protect well as Berry concocts — they create negative efficacy. The more boosters, the more likely you will elevate the risks of hospitalization and severe diseases rather than reducing them. ‘Negative Efficacy’ Should Have Stopped COVID Vaccine Recommendations in Their Tracks wrote The Epoch Times in November 2022.
Since we first reported on it more than a year ago, data has been pouring in confirming negative vaccine efficacy around the world — from Denmark, Iceland and other northern European nations to Britain, Scotland, Canada, and most recently South Africa. And with new variant XBB.1.5 (ominously dubbed Kraken) quickly overcoming Omicron as the dominant strain, any possible benefit of the bivalent Omicron booster even in the short term is completely negated.
But Berry continues to peddle the failed shot with the absurd assurance that “if you have gotten yours, you are well protected.” So well protected that our heavily-jabbed populace has the highest case rate in the state. Still, nearly half of Jefferson County’s population appears to believe her dangerous disinformation.
Is JCPH just exaggerating its numbers?
We’ve seen that Berry and our health department have ramped up fear over Covid cases at every opportunity. Is the high JeffCo case rate because our health department is over-reporting?
JCPH claims that the opposite is true — that the number of Covid cases is significantly under-reported. From their website:
“Jefferson County Public Health staff estimate that 1 in 12 COVID-19 cases in Jefferson County were reported to public health last week.”
Those reporting their Covid infections to the health department do not even come close to the actual number of cases, JCPH says. A previous estimate of under-reports was even higher: 1 in 15. From the cases that were reported, according to the JCPH website, the two-week case rate — the metric that they use for their visual risk meter — is 252 cases per 100,000 people (last updated 1/9/23).
The department’s website continues the local fear messaging it has been engaging in for nearly three years with this red alert:
Reinforcing that fear porn in JeffCo is our Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), a trio who also comprise nearly half of the county Board of Health (3 out of 7 BOH members). In October 2022, all but fawning over Berry’s autocratic pronouncements, they led the state in another dubious distinction. As Covid restrictions were dropped statewide and nationally — with Covid acknowledged as endemic and relegated to flu status — Jefferson’s BOCC was the only board in Washington state to officially extend its State of Emergency. We remain perpetually in official crisis mode, in an “Emergency Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic.”
How does Jefferson County’s messaging compare to Berry’s other jurisdiction, Clallam County, with the third highest booster uptake in the state?
And what about distant Adams County where the bivalent shot uptake is dead last, faring as poorly as the national average?
Clallam County: Notable Differences
To start with, Clallam’s commissioners reasonably discarded their emergency declarations as of October 31, 2022 — along with Washington State and every county board statewide except Jefferson.
The spell that Jefferson BOCC still appear to be under was not successfully cast over Clallam’s commissioners. While our BOCC gave Berry a bully pulpit for Covid “briefings” at every commission meeting — providing relentless bombardment of her fear narrative — Clallam’s electeds did not. Periodic “coronavirus briefings” were held in Clallam, but they were not weekly.
And the Clallam briefings were not amplified, as they were in Jefferson County, through a radio show. Not only was our young health officer’s rhetoric a constant feature at Jefferson BOCC weekly meetings, Port Townsend radio station KPTZ first elevated former health officer Tom Locke’s reports, then Berry’s, to a weekly community broadcast over the local airwaves. (The station did not air the county’s full meetings, only the Covid briefing segment.) True “programming” of the masses.
Clallam’s Health and Human Services “Coronavirus Information” webpage is far less bombastic than Jefferson’s. It offers a state hotline, a sidebar saying “Covid Cases Are Back Up!” with a link to order free at-home Covid tests, and a link to a separate Clallam County COVID-19 Dashboard.
The dashboard is also less aggressive than Jefferson’s Covid page. It provides the stats below and a couple of charts, directing people to the state DOH website for all other statistics.
A sidebar there has the standard Mask Up! and Get Vaccinated! messages. But significantly, there is no risk meter, no tally of weekly cases to generate anxiety.
With Berry overseeing both counties, Clallam endured the same damaging Covid orders as Jefferson, the most draconian in the state. Her two-county mandate requiring people to be vaccinated before being allowed to dine or drink indoors at restaurants and bars not only set a precedent for the state, it was the first in the nation. In Jefferson County, the BOCC embraced it with enthusiasm, and traumatized residents accepted it compliantly. But in Clallam, so many showed up to protest outside the commissioners hearing room at the courthouse, it took three hours to hear all the public testimony.
“More than 50 were against the mandate, called for Berry’s resignation or insisted she be fired by the county board of health,” according to a September 8, 2021 PDNarticle. And while there was no pushback from Jefferson County businesses, Clallam restaurants initiated a lawsuit, forcing the Proof of Vaccination Order to be rescinded.
The main platform in Clallam for Berry’s rhetoric was and continues to be the Peninsula Daily News, that county’s newspaper of record. Both the PDN and Jefferson County’s Leader have given her their full support, censoring letters and even paid ads that challenge the official narrative. Berry’s domination of the media and her ongoing disinformation, as quoted earlier, is surely a factor in the high booster rate in our neighboring county.
However we see less masking, lower jab uptake and fewer Covid cases in Clallam County. There are clearly more people in Clallam than in Jefferson paying attention to the actual data, rejecting our joint health officer’s fear messaging and thinking for themselves.
Adams County: Another World
As everyone who has traveled east of the mountains has noted, eastern Washington exhibited far less Covid hysteria than our side of the state.
According to the Washington DOH Covid dashboard, 68.7% of Adams County’s population had an initial jab and just 61.6% completed their primary series. While 42.3% received “any booster,” as described earlier only 11.1% have gone for the bivalent shot. Comparing those numbers to our two western counties:
Adams County – 68.7% / 61.6% / 42.3% / 11.1%
Clallam County – 77.7% / 71.6% / 65.2% / 36.5%
Jefferson County – 86.4% / 80.4% / 74.8% / 47.3%
With less initial primary series injections, and only a fraction of our booster uptake, Adams’ case numbers are also significantly lower, the correlation we are seeing worldwide. Their weekly cases are now in the single digits, two people out of a population of 20,450 at last report.
What kind of messaging about a continuing threat from Covid are Adams’ residents getting? In looking for information on the Adams County Health Department website, Covid is not even listed under their Public Health headings. You have to enter COVID-19 in the search bar to tease out three related links:
The Resources page doesn’t contain any information; it is comprised entirely of links to Washington state websites. The only local link is to the Adams County Facebook page. That page stopped reporting on Covid last summer, as is described below.
The Covid-19 Graphs page looks like this:
Nothing to see here. Literally a blank page. The yellow band at left accesses archived documents from early in the pandemic — a March 16, 2020 emergency declaration; a May 4, 2020 letter to the Governor stating the county’s compliance with state guidelines; a May 26, 2020 media release; a November 2021 press release about free Covid tests, an old booklet for phased re-opening of businesses.
The Covid-19 Update page does not have any Covid-related information.
In a general web search for “Adams County WA COVID-19” the only media coverage that comes up is a story about 43 cases tied to a wedding more than two years ago (November 2020). The county’s Facebook page mentioned above does show some case information, but it is five months old, last updated the week of August 8-12, 2022.
Since last August’s case numbers, there is nothing on any of Adams County’s websites about Covid. No graphs, no charts, no alerts. No statistics of any kind. No Mask Up or Get Your Vax messages.
Might there be a semblance of normalcy in Adams County? Based on what can be found online and what the Washington DOH Covid-19 dashboard shows, as far as Adams County is concerned, Covid is a non-issue.
As well it should be here, too, three years in. But still the hype, the alerts, the “emergency” persist.
The only statement coming out of Berry and our health department that may bear a kernel of truth is that just one in 12 or 15 people are reporting their cases. It wouldn’t be surprising if that ratio was even higher.
Why should we participate in the health department’s fear-mongering?
My household and numerous friends had bouts with respiratory illnesses in the last month. None of us tested, reported, or sought medical care. Was it Covid — Omicron, BA.2, BA.5, BF.7, BQ.1, BQ.1.1 or Kraken? Or some common cold or flu? What does it matter? The symptoms and severity are similar, sometimes identical, the treatments are the same. We all recouped at home as one would with any respiratory virus. As people everywhere have been doing for millennia.
The real illness in this community now is the relentless fear and anxiety that persists over normal health challenges that have been with us forever. Adams County got it right. Respiratory viruses have always been endemic and will continue to be with us in the future.
All the masking and injections in the world will not eliminate risk to the elderly, immune-compromised, and those with multiple co-morbidities. Conversely, overwhelming evidence shows these interventions are damaging immune systems and increasing risks. Having admitted a link from the shots to myocarditis in 2021, just days ago the CDC also finally acknowledged that Covid boosters are “possibly” causing strokes in people over 65.
Continuing to terrorize the public with risk meters and red alerts, telling us to test every time we have a sniffle, to mask up and get dangerous shots, is itself a sickness. What will it take to undo the brainwashing and trauma we still see all around us — most especially here in Jefferson County?
Public Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry dispensing fear
December 31st is the deadline for removal of all streateries remaining in Port Townsend.
As year-end approaches for the expiration of the streatery temporary use permits — which despite public outcry, the City Council extended yet again last May — five rarely-used eyesores remain. Our last article focused on Alchemy’s ripped, moldy and potentially hazardous gutter tent next to Haller Fountain. This roundup will provide an update on that situation and take a look at the four other streateries which have continued to eliminate precious downtown parking during the peak holiday shopping season despite disuse and disgruntled neighbors.
The most visibly obtrusive and un-neighborly of those remaining four is The Old Whiskey Mill tent on Water Street, pictured at top and below. Not only does it front a portion of Kris Nelson’s restaurant (the windows at far right), it obscures Quimper Sound Records’ storefront (center portion of photo) as we have previously reported.
Quimper Sound owner James Schultz wrote the City Council last spring about the damage this unfair taking of his street frontage was causing his business. His letter was apparently ignored, with council extending the injury — blocking visibility to his business and removing the parking in front of his shop for Nelson’s profit for another eight months. His story is perhaps most instructive regarding the harm this experiment has caused, benefiting a few select restaurants to the detriment of other businesses.
In a comment to the Free Press on December 1st, Schultz once again described his frustration:
“As the Covid restrictions were brought down upon us by the state my business was shuttered leaving no foreseeable future. My neighbors as well felt the effects. We began to see the hope of being allowed to reopen by the state and this came with heavy restrictions. I was asked if I would allow the space in front of my shop on Water St to be part of a temporary tent structure to be used during the time these occupancy restrictions were in place. I gave up valuable street frontage to help because I was raised to believe we are all in this together. That time has passed. The occupancy restrictions were lifted. Then the vaccine mandate went into effect. I bit my tongue as the tent covered my storefront because I understood telling 30pct of potential customers and their parties to not come in is fiscally deadly to a service business. I pitched in to help. Our county finally removed that last restriction.
I read the tea leaves after meeting our City Manager at a public meeting. His only objective was to make streateries permanent. Appointed officials are like Gods and he will get his way so I asked that the council and his office make their rules that we build nice, fitting structures that only sit in front of the place served but noted I prefer no streateries. Well they could have done something and I would have spent a summer season in sight but they kicked the can down the road leaving the ugly tent in front of my shop. Frankly I am just disgusted by our City Council and our Manager. My business has suffered. The last few years has been horrid anyhow but getting calls from professional delivery drivers and customers saying they cannot find my storefront even with an address….”
Schultz’s comment is more than a tale of personal difficulty; it provides a glimpse into the bait and switch by the City, and the fast-track process engineered to achieve a predetermined outcome. Other business owners like Gail Boulter, a downtown merchant with multiple shops over a 40-year span, also described initially being assured by City Manager John Mauro that the streatery scheme would only be temporary — just to help restaurant owners out during the pandemic — only to learn after that emergency passed that a process to codify a permanent program was underway.
Mauro had called her, Boulter told council in an April public comment, when Covid restrictions first began affecting restaurants:
“[He] wanted our impression about how we felt about the streateries… I said we would be happy to do anything we can to help our restaurants. However, under no circumstances would any of us merchants downtown want to see this to be a permanent situation. He assured me at that time Oh, no no no, this is a temporary fix.”
The month before Boulter’s comment, one week after a survey designed to support the City’s intended outcome was released (a survey that was never publicized and most of the public never saw), Manager Mauro held an Open House about making streateries permanent — the public meeting Schultz references. We heard from numerous people who went to that Open House, ostensibly held to gather feedback from the business community and other members of the public about making the program long-term. The story from those in attendance was consistent. A couple of dozen business owners attended, gave overwhelmingly negative feedback, and were not listened to. “His only objective was to make streateries permanent,” as Schultz said of Mauro. This was not a good-faith gathering of input, it was a box to be checked fulfilling “public process” so that the City could say in its justifications for a permanent program, We held a Public Open House.
Over multiple City Council meetings that followed, Whiskey Mill owner and streateries beneficiary Kris Nelson was the only businessperson to speak or write in favor of the permanent program. In the face of widespread opposition to allowing streateries to remain any longer, the council nonetheless continued the temporary program — through the extension of Streatery Special Event Temporary Use permits — with the rationale that we needed extra outdoor dining over the summer for those still fearing Covid. Summer somehow stretched out to January.
A couple of new streateries sprang up following approval of that May extension — seating in the street outside the Silverwater Cafe on Taylor which took out their handicapped parking spot, and a new installation at PT Anchor on Water Street near City Hall. The Silverwater removed their outdoor tables after the summer season, while Anchor’s streatery is still in place.
All the photos in this article were taken over the months of November and December, most of them during the lunch hour. No diners were ever seen using any of the streateries over that span, yet restaurant owners like Nelson have continued to take up valuable parking to the detriment of the business community as a whole. It would appear that all are waiting until the last possible moment to give up their free street space, the year-end deadline.
The Old Whiskey Mill
Nelson claims she asked the City if she could shift her 48-foot tent so that it did not block Quimper Sound’s storefront, so that more of the tent was in front of her own restaurant, and she says that the City said no. Yet she chose to keep the nearly-always-empty visual blight in the street through this prime shopping season, knowing it was taking up valuable parking and hurting her neighbor. All except the snow shot are lunch hour photos taken during November/December:
Three More Unused Streateries
Tommyknockers:
Also on Water Street, Tommyknockers has maintained its long-standing installation of picnic tables and a picket fence, even though it has outdoor seating in the back of the restaurant. It replaced three of its four umbrellas with infrared heaters that put propane bottles at diners’ feet — and in the street.
Cellar Door:
Nearly two years ago, in February 2021, City Manager Mauro signed off on a no-fee agreement for the Cellar Door (off Tyler Street behind the Mount Baker Block building) of three city-owned public parking spaces to be used “during COVID-19 Restricted Dining.” While Mauro was assuring downtown merchants that this “temporary fix” would never be made permanent, the Cellar Door owner was led to believe their street use would be a permanent gift, and as a result invested in infrastructure work unlike the temporary tents and tables that other restaurants put in the streets. They graded the area and built high-walled structures. The end result created problems for delivery vehicles that frequent the alleyway, some near-accidents, and on at least one occasion led to an altercation that resulted in police intervention.
PT Anchor:
As described earlier, Anchor was the last restaurant to join in the streatery free-for-all, after the council extended the temporary use permit last May. As the newest and simplest streatery on the block, It is the freshest looking today. No tent, umbrellas, propane tanks or lighting, just a picket fence with wooden picnic tables in the gutter. Has this empty streatery across from City Hall also remained in place during the winter just because it can?
The Icing on the Bad-Neighbor Cake: Alchemy
Our November 30 article focused on the ugly mess in front of Alchemy just days before Main Street’s annual Christmas tree lighting at Haller Fountain. It described the upset among neighboring businesses and wondered why the City was allowing it to remain. The tent was not removed before the event, continued to deteriorate (shown below on Dec. 3), and is still in place.
I suggested that any coverage of Santa arriving at the fountain on December 4th would pretend the tent wasn’t there. As it turns out, the Peninsula Daily News did just that, cropping their photo to avoid the embarrassing tattered elephant in the room entirely. The Leader didn’t even cover the annual event. Here is what “JOY IN PT” actually looked like in our famously picturesque seaport on December 4th, as families awaited Santa’s arrival, and after the traditional community tree lighting:
Following the festivities, Alchemy added insult to injury by stringing the dilapidated picket fence surrounding the disgusting tent with multi-colored lights, drawing even more attention to it. It now consists of a moldy mess at one end, with the other half a rickety, stained skeletal frame.
Lipstick on a pig? Or a grotesque joke from Alchemy owner Adam Levin, further thumbing his nose at the outpouring of complaints?
In an email exchange with Public Works Director Steve King, I asked him why he had only sent inquiries to Levin about the state of the tent (inquiries which he previously told me had been ignored). Why was the City not taking action to remove this dangerous eyesore? Was it because the temporary use permit which had been extended — and then extended again — had no teeth for preventing this kind of abuse?
“Yes,” King replied. “All of the tents downtown were part of the special events temporary permit and not subject to the ordinance.”
The ordinance he refers to is one allowing for permanent streateries in the future, which prohibits the degradation we were all witnessing with the tents and tables in the streets. But even though council had already seen problems last winter with this program — using phrases like “ugly tents” and “unsightly weathering” — rather than adding safeguards, they simply extended the already problematic special events temporary permit for another eight months, preventing the City from removing messes like Alchemy’s tent.
Community Feedback
How has all this sat with the people of P.T.?
Following the publication of our November 30 article, a Free Press reader alerted us to a question posed to a large local Facebook group called Port Townsend Community. A member of the group asked “What do you think of this?” and gave a link to our article about the Alchemy tent.
Sixty-six comments followed, nearly all of them opposing the streateries.
“Ugh, I’d never eat in one of those filthy virus incubators.”
——————————
“Street dining needs removed imo. It’s unsanitary as shown, unsafe having people in the street. Additionally simply giving restaurants those boosts while taking away from other downtown businesses is ridiculous.”
——————————
“Take ’em all down, I say. They were necessary last year during COVID restrictions on indoor dining, but they are not now. They represent a free giveaway of public space to private businesses, and a reduction of precious downtown parking spaces.
I got a little chuckle about the opposition to taking them down from the owner of the Old Whiskey Mill. Last year in the winter, my wife and I dined in the tent outside that establishment a couple of times. Both times, it was a miserable experience, with cold winds and rain, and ineffective heaters connected to the indoors by extension cords strung across the sidewalk.”
Some pointed out the irony of the City’s recent demand that uptown’s popular, artistically-crafted tree sculpture called Raccoon Lodge be removed:
“And yet the raccoon lodge has to go, lmao… I just don’t get it.”
“So these are ok but the Raccoon lodge needs to go???”
The same week, a NextDoor poll asked “Who supports onstreet restaurant tents sacrificing parking spaces?”
The poll generated 35 comments, offering a broad range of views through its small sample. Some people wanted to see Port Townsend be “car free” — the primary rationale behind the streateries push by City Manager Mauro, Mayor David Faber and some of the council members. A few folks paranoid about respiratory viruses, still afraid of indoor dining, also supported the streateries.
But one comment stood out for the person who first alerted me to this poll. He sent me a screen shot of the response from Brent Shirley, former mayor of Port Townsend, who was at the City’s helm when Port Townsend Main Street first came into existence:
“Port Townsend Main Street Program was founded in 1985 by the Mayor & City Council and was the first in Washington State,” Shirley wrote.
“Our mission is to preserve, promote and enhance our historic business district. As Mayor at the time, I don’t believe what’s going on today meets these goals at all. We’ve spent millions of dollars over the last 40 years, rebuilding the docks on the waterfront & replaced a contaminated bulk oil plant with the Northwest Maritime Center. This was all accomplished by locals and I don’t believe City Hall is even aware of this or they wouldn’t trash it up by keeping shelters, on the streets in use for Covid19 that are passed their useful life, no longer in use and are, in my opinion, a blight.”
The fact that today’s city government is pushing this agenda and that Main Street simply looks the other way when a business in downtown’s historic district trashes its traditional community tree-lighting at Haller Fountain is testament to the truth of Shirley’s criticism.
What about future streateries?
Council’s deadline to remove the existing streateries by year’s end does not mean we’ve seen the last of them. The limit on further temporary extensions was simply a pause on developing a permanent program downtown until parking issues are addressed that have plagued downtown for decades.
Nearly all council members have expressed their enthusiasm for creating permanent streateries downtown once a new parking plan is in place. The quiet deal first offered to the Cellar Door exemplifies the widespread parking giveaway that they envision, replacing it with street dining. Faber is especially emphatic about his agenda to eliminate vehicular traffic and prioritize private use of public streets for business owners. He has called it “the storage of personal property on the street.”
In conjunction with extending the temporary use permit, council unanimously approved an ordinance (the one referenced by Public Works Director King) allowing a limited number of permanent streateries Uptown and in all other commercial districts except for downtown. The streateries displayed here that had temporary status have to come down by December 31st, but restaurants outside of downtown can apply for permanent ones at any time in the future.
The permanent streateries program operates on a lottery system. I asked Steve King to clarify how it works:
“The lottery system is based on preliminary screening to make sure the applicant knows what is required and then application. If there are more applications then allowed spaces in Uptown, then there is a drawing.”
Whether it’s because of resounding public sentiment opposed to this agenda or lessons learned over the last few years, to date no businesses have applied. There had been one streatery Uptown, outside the Seal Dog Coffee Bar on Lawrence Street (see “Uptown Streateries: A Reality Check“), and they removed their tables and fence after the summer season. They have not applied for a permanent streatery.
Applications are due by July 1st of each year. Since no one applied before last summer’s deadline, no new streateries will be possible until the next round. Time will tell if we will be subjected to this scheme again.
The good news is that the current blight on our historic Victorian streetscape must be cleared out before the new year. I asked King if there was any grace period for removal and if a streatery owner does not comply, what penalties and/or action(s) the City would take.
“We have notified all the streatery owners that their streateries will need to be removed by the end of day on 12/31. If the streateries aren’t removed, then the City will have the right to remove them.”
King’s answer only raises more questions.
Will the City’s “right to remove” translate to actual action and oversight, something we’ve not seen demonstrated to date? Alchemy’s owner has ignored concerns from its neighbors, the community at large and even the City. Will businesses who have shown blatant disregard for others now do the right thing? ARE there any penalties for restaurant owners who do not comply?
Removing a flimsy picket fence and a few picnic tables is one thing, but what will it take for the Cellar Door to restore three parking spaces by Dec. 31? If the City is forced to invoke its “right to remove” any streateries, who pays for that? Does the City — meaning the taxpayers — pick up the tab?
————————————
Streatery photos by Stephen Schumacher, Harvey Windle and Ana Wolpin.
————————————
UPDATE 1
A note from Harvey Windle just prior to publishing informs that the Old Whiskey Mill tent is in the process of being removed:
“The Whiskey Mill mess tent is in parts and taken down. The massive multi-ton concrete blocks bookend the parts. A crane truck would be needed to move those.”
There’s no arguing with Mother Nature. Snow prevails.
————————————
UPDATE 2: The Old Whiskey Mill Tent Comes Down
As noted above, there is still debris to be cleared off the street. The large concrete blocks (one of them visible inside the corner of the fence above) were a safety measure at either end of the tent to protect the structure and diners in the street from parking cars. Here they are, following the tent’s removal:
Why is the removal of these streateries such a big deal?
The real revelation comes in seeing the difference in the streetscape without that tent blocking the storefronts. Even with the slushy snow, with concrete blocks and other debris remaining in the street, the contrast between the visual blight we have been enduring and what we see now is startling. Compare the aesthetics of these two images:
The loss over the last two-plus years to our town’s special character has been significant — an aesthetic so important to PT’s identity that even paint on these buildings is restricted to colors approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Details like the arched entryway between Quimper Sound Records and The Old Whiskey Mill are what gives our downtown a rich ambience and celebrated appeal.
The grandeur of Port Townsend’s classic historic buildings is a legacy that secured our downtown and uptown commercial districts a place on the National Historic Register. The stunning Victorian architecture is what inspired the city to establish the first Main Street program in the country, as former mayor Brent Shirley describes above.
This special frontage is why commercial space downtown is so expensive. Stores like Quimper Sound pay a premium for the visual draw it offers. Well-designed window displays are critical for attracting shoppers into these establishments. Allowing restaurants to obscure other businesses’ prime frontage to boost their own profits is not only visually degrading to PT’s entire commercial district, the negative impact to the bottom line for the shops being blocked is incalculable.
Parking has not been restored yet and a bit of a mess remains. But Quimper Sound’s creative and inviting storefront is able see daylight again.
“After” photos taken by Stephen Schumacher on Dec. 22 (with snow and slush) and Dec. 25 (snow melted). By Christmas Day, Anchor’s streatery had also been removed.
The photo above shows the skeletal remains of a streatery tent in front of Alchemy Steak & Seafood (aka Alchemy Bistro and Wine Bar), where according to their website “A New Culinary Adventure Begins.” The photograph accompanied an email to the Port Townsend City Council from Harvey Windle on November 25th.
Windle is not the only one raising concerns about the shredded — and on closer inspection, mold-ridden — structure, he is just the most vocal among neighboring businesses. Numerous people had commented to us about the trashed and unused eyesore fronting prime real estate, a blight in our historic downtown.
This filthy and tattered mess is the legacy of a policy that, despite near-unanimous opposition from business owners and residents alike, continues to scar Port Townsend’s commercial landscape.
The Road Getting Here
To help out restaurant owners during the pandemic — while assuring the rest of the business community that it would only be a temporary measure — the city created an emergency program allowing outdoor dining to be set up in parking spaces edging downtown and uptown commercial streets. As the emergency wound down, prior to any public process, it was announced that an ordinance to make the program permanent was in the works.
The public backlash over this bait-and-switch was immediate and intense. Over the months we covered this controversy (see our extensive coverage below), it became clear that both staff who had developed the policy and a majority of the council were loathe to give up their pet project: tables and tents sitting in high-traffic streets, with vehicles driving next to them and diners breathing in exhaust fumes, for the stated purpose of adding “vitality” to shopping areas. Statements from our mayor and other city councilors revealed that the intended permanent streateries program was driven by an agenda inching towards eliminating vehicles from our commercial districts.
Unable to ignore the overwhelming resistance from downtown businesses to a scheme that offered a giveaway of precious public parking spaces for the benefit of a few select restaurateurs, the City Council grudgingly rejected establishing permanent streateries downtown in May of this year. But despite an unambiguous public directive to remove what residents had begun calling gutter dining — and get rid of it now — our electeds nonetheless unanimously approved extending the downtown streateries for nearly eight months, until the end of 2022.
As we reported, public sentiment couldn’t have been clearer. Over the course of several meetings, hours of public testimony amassed. All of it was in opposition except one notable proponent: restaurateur Kris Nelson.
Nelson, whose streatery at The Old Whiskey Mill was benefitting from usurping not only all the parking in front of her restaurant on Water Street, but obstructing the frontage of Quimper Sound and another adjacent business, explained that she had a vision to create a “special and magical” space. And despite fellow business owners’ objections, including a letter to the city from Quimper Sound’s owner upset over harm the tent blocking his storefront was causing his business, Nelson maintained that she knew what was best to improve downtown. Every other public commenter at the city council meetings and all but a single two-sentence note (“Hooray for the streeteries”) among many dozens of sometimes deeply-researched and often passionate letters submitted to council opposed the scheme.
But public be damned. Initially Libby Wennstrom tried to persuade fellow councilors that, like Nelson, she possessed insight — that the community at large lacked — into what was best for this town. Her former hometown of Ithaca, New York had eliminated street parking in three blocks of a shopping district despite a similar outcry fifty years ago, she said, and it turned out to be a rousing success. There had been “huge screaming from all the surrounding businesses” with similar objections to those “we’ve heard here tonight… but in that case it didn’t pan out,” she asserted. A Free Press contributor then discovered that three parking garages had been developed to offset those losses, one garage for each lost block of street parking.
When that misdirect was revealed, Wennstrom asked with exasperation, “Can’t we just try something different?” And countering criticism from many business owners that a giveaway of public parking space for the benefit of select restaurants was unfair, she then proposed a free-for-all lottery: allow ALL businesses who wanted to put their wares in the streets to participate. As it turned out, it wasn’t so much about creating streateries, it was about eliminating vehicles in our commercial cores.
At another meeting Wennstrom resorted to an emotional plea for her elderly mother. If immediate removal of the five existing streateries were to be enacted per public request, she complained, “We are essentially telling residents and visitors that you are not welcome to eat in Port Townsend. As someone with an 82-year-old mother, I’m disappointed because I was hoping this summer she’d be allowed to eat outside.”
The absurdity of these five sites being the salvation for people still afraid of dining indoors was belied by a list from one citizen who had catalogued all the outdoor dining options in Port Townsend — al fresco settings that were not in the city streets, did not encroach on other businesses, and did not eliminate parking spaces. There were already more than forty such places, including sidewalk tables at The Old Whiskey Mill. The few streateries that did eliminate parking to the detriment of surrounding businesses that Wennstrom and her colleagues appeared so anxious to preserve were irrelevant in providing outdoor dining given the dozens of options already existing.
When a motion from Ben Thomas to table the policy nearly found purchase at one meeting, the distress from Aislinn Diamenti was palpable. Thomas walked back the motion, causing Wennstrom to lean over to Diamenti with comforting words: “The bad thing didn’t happen,” she said.
At the final meeting on May 16 council was tasked to approve an ordinance bundling an extension of downtown streatery use until 2023 with a program to allow permanent streateries in uptown and other business districts. Again public feedback was entirely negative.
Mayor David Faber had earlier pressured his fellow councillors to move forward with the program because “it’s frustrating when… we task staff with something and then we pull back.” Before the final vote, the mix of statements from councilors revealed the pressure they felt to affirm all of staff’s hard work, as well as their misgivings about faulty public process and concerns over future problems that an extension would cause.
Deputy Mayor Amy Howard stressed she supported a long-term streatery plan, but registered opposition to the extension of the temporary use permits. She didn’t want to “leave the ugly tents up longer.” She was surprised to learn that the decision to extend had already been made at the previous meeting. Generally when staff is directed to prepare legislation for approval at the next meeting, revisions can still be made before a vote. The date for the extension was in the ordinance. Couldn’t that be changed?, Howard asked. No, it was too late, she was told: “the temporary use permit was already extended.”
Howard’s frustration was echoed by Ben Thomas:
“We end up with a pretty imperfect position right now. We wouldn’t have created this particular thing from scratch, I don’t think. It feels kinda weird to be charging forward with this… [but] we’ve already done all this work…”
In his final statement before the vote, Faber explained why — contrary to public sentiment — he thought public parking should be given away for street dining, but sidewalk cafes should not be encouraged. He summarized his underlying ideology with this word salad:
“Preferring to use sidewalk space for other use than a right-of-way instead of a parking space is prioritizing disrupting the flow of pedestrian traffic in favor of allowing the storage of personal property on the street. It’s a car-centric model that I don’t think makes much sense.”
“December is gonna be here before we know it,” councilor Monica MickHager said cheerfully just before making the motion which passed unanimously.
After joining in the vote to approve the ordinance, Thomas later said he didn’t realize the vote had included the permanent policy. The confusion among council members about what had transpired and where they’d ended up was striking.
Chickens Come Home to Roost
Why was the extension for the downtown streateries such a big deal?
Among the many objections citizens brought to council last spring was degrading aesthetics. Even then, the existing installations were raising significant concerns about being a visual blight. Uptown and downtown commercial areas are, after all, on the National Historic Register, our picturesque Victorian seaport the bread and butter of Port Townsend’s appeal.
Which brings us back to Alchemy.
Along with Amy Howard repeatedly voicing her worry that the “ugly tents” would sour the public on future support of streateries, Monica MickHager noted the even-then-tatty Alchemy tent was not being used. She asked for confirmation that if a streatery had been abandoned for 60 days, the city could ask for removal. At that point, according to neighboring businesses, Alchemy’s street tent had been mostly abandoned for five months.
Public Works Director Steve King answered her: “I’ve already contacted the new owner of the Alchemy and he’s gonna re-apply.” Whatever that meant. Nobody asked further questions.
In Faber’s comments prior to the vote, he agreed that “the other major concern I heard repeatedly is that they [current streateries] were dilapidated.” He, too, noted the “unsightly weathering” of the Alchemy tent, saying the ordinance they were passing with “this code does not allow that level of dilapidation to even exist in the streateries.”
The discussion about dilapidation, “unsightly weathering” and abandonment took place seven months ago regarding the Alchemy tent. At that time it looked like this:
That is what council members called dilapidated last spring. A tacky assembly detracting from a handsome downtown building. But at least it was intact. Here is what it looks like now:
Black mold grows on what remaining material hasn’t been wrecked by the elements. Does the Health Department consider it safe to eat in this environment?
This frankly disgusting ruin has removed 3-5 parking spaces from service for more than a year now in a downtown plagued by parking shortages. It has created bad blood between one business and many others.
In his November 25 letter to the city, Harvey Windle, just down the block from Alchemy, wrote:
“A neighboring business my manager spoke with is very irate over the Alchemy tent as most all who see it are. The pissed off neighboring business folk park all day in public space damaging all business access as so many do. Seems they only see what they want to as does the Council of Shame.
They spoke to Mari Mullen of City controlled Main Street Association that assisted in tweaking negative public input. She said something to the effect that it was allowed until January, and that would be here before you know it. Sounds like what Monica MickHager said when community input pushed back against the special interest parking losses…
I did have black spray paint in hand at one point and was going to call the police and notify them I was going to tag the structure with warnings about the toxic mold. I chose this course instead.”
This structure sits right at the entry to one of our most photographed city landmarks, Haller Fountain Plaza, a stone’s throw from the iconic fountain, the historic stairs to Uptown, and the site of the annual Christmas Treelighting Celebration. This photo is from Port Townsend Main Street Program’s “Holidays in Port Townsend” page on their website, announcing this year’s tree lighting on December 3rd.
The scene below, in the process of being festooned in Christmas finery on November 30, shows the proximity of the Alchemy tent to the fountain (just left of the pole):
Alchemy’s building flanks the fountain plaza. City Hall is just down Washington Street, three blocks east.
Again, from Main Street’s website for this year’s tree lighting, here is their photo featuring the entrance to Alchemy during the holiday season:
Here, this year, is the reality:
Larger Questions Loom
What happened to the 60-day rule that MickHager asked about that the city was supposed to enforce? Why no enforcement action for seven months? The unacceptable state of Alchemy’s tent had already been roundly noted before the May vote to extend the downtown streateries. How could the city then turn a blind eye?
On November 28, I emailed city Public Works Director Steve King that we were publishing an update on the streateries story and asked him what was going on:
“Why hasn’t the city required removal of this downtown eyesore which has been unused for the better part of a year, continues to degrade, and eliminates valuable parking spaces?”
King responded:
“I’ve reached out several times to Alchemy asking their intent for removal. I haven’t heard back. All streateries are to be removed by the end of the year. We plan on issuing a reminder notice.”
That any business would show this level of disregard for its neighbors is alarming. But most disturbing is why the city is not able to take decisive action given the concerns City Council expressed back in May about disallowing this kind of degradation. How can a business owner repeatedly ignoring inquiries be allowed continuance of this level of violation?
Where is our Historic Preservation Committee?
How is Main Street — the organization’s purpose being “Enhancing the Historic Districts,” “committed to protecting our small town charm” — able to ignore this? Their enthusiastic tree-lighting promotion tells us that on December 3rd:
“Santa is coming to town!… At 4:30pm, Santa will leave the Flagship Landing area on the Kiwanis Choo Choo and head over to the Haller Fountain to light the Community Tree.”
Perhaps it will be dark enough that no one will notice the alchemy brewing in plain sight. Or just crop the scene tightly and maybe it will disappear…
———————————
All photos of the Alchemy tent in its current condition taken during the lunch hour by Harvey Windle on Nov. 27 and Nov. 30, 2022.
A future article will cover the other streateries remaining since the extension was granted (including additional questions posed to Steve King and his responses).
“Jefferson doesn’t have the level of population immunity that others do, because it did such a good job controlling the virus before.” — Dr. Allison Berry
_______________________________
Public Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry has presided over a pandemic response that boasts the most draconian mandates in the state. Primary series vaccination uptake is reported to be 80% in Jefferson County, the third highest statewide. And at 32.1%, uptake of the bivalent booster is double the state average.
The result is that JeffCo is currently identified as one of the highest-risk counties in Washington, often with some of the worst case numbers and surely the greatest ongoing fear quotient.
Wrap your head around the bizarre non-sequitur (above) of why we have the worst level of immunity statewide. It is precisely because her destructive mandates and high vax uptake were so successful, she explains, that we are now the most vulnerable.
It is absurd pronouncements like this, delivered with impunity, that make it so difficult to narrow down Berry’s disinformation statements to a short list.
Despite her mantra that the shot will protect you, we need only look at all the double-vaxxed and boosted public figures championing these leaky injections who have succumbed to the virus. Often more than once. Dr. Anthony Fauci and President Biden top that list nationally, and locally are County Commissioners, Port Townsend’s City Manager, most of the City Council, and members of the Board of Health.
Nonetheless, embracing Einstein’s definition of insanity, Berry’s response is that more of the toxic mRNA spike protein brew will fix that. Even as the two-year fear narrative dissolves in admission after admission after admission of false information perpetrated on a traumatized public, Berry still continues to push for more dangerous shots in arms and for useless masking that destroys our human connections.
As with our year-end TOP TEN 2021 Spin Doctor Disinformation Statements, four of us have contributed to this series — the editorial team (Annette Huenke, Stephen Schumacher and Ana Wolpin), plus Free Press contributor Kincaid Gould.
Part One begins with a fact-check of Berry’s inconsistent claims about v-safe.
_______________________________
BERRY on the CDC’s cover-up of v-safe data:
“V-safe [is] actually publicly available datasets.
Nobody had to be sued to release them because
they’re already publicly available.” (10-20-22 BOH meeting)
FACT CHECK:
The above two assertions about v-safe are outright lies. Curiously, on October 10 Berry told the county commissioners a different story: “There is an anti-vaccine group that has been suing the CDC to get access to this raw data.”
Spinning the story one way for the commissioners, then doing a complete about-face for the Board of Health (BOH) ten days later, she lied that “nobody had to be sued.”
“I think it’s important to kind of review that for folks,” Berry riffed. At that Oct. 20 meeting she insisted that v-safe data had always been publicly available. “They are public access datasets,” she assured the BOH. “You can go in right now and track your side effects related to getting vaccines.”
What is v-safe and why has the CDC avoided transparency?
V-safe is a phone app developed to “tell CDC about any side effects after getting the COVID-19 vaccine.” It was designed to monitor adverse reactions, to capture problems following the experimental shots initially identified in pharma’s trials. The American public was told that v-safe would detect safety signals more rapidly and reliably than VAERS and that all v-safe data collected would be transparent.
Not only has the CDC hidden v-safe data for most of the past two years, the agency spent a year playing legal games — dodging FOIA requests and multiple lawsuits — to keep the data under wraps.
As reported in my March 2021 Free Pressarticle, information from the V-safe Active Surveillance system was publicly disclosed for the first five days of America’s Covid vaccine rollout, December 14-18, 2020:
“Over those five days, more than 5,000 “Health Impact Events” immediately following injections were identified. On December 18 alone, 2.79% of people who received first dose shots—3,150 out of 112,807—used this smartphone app to report reactions so severe that they were ‘unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, [and/or] required care from a doctor or other health professional.’”
When initial v-safe reporting undermined pharma’s Safe and Effective narrative that the federal government had committed over a billion dollars to promote, the data went dark. Only one other snapshot from v-safe — titled “First Month of Covid-19 Vaccine Safety Monitoring” — can be found in CDC materials. In a 2021 “Safety Update” justifying the shots, the CDC included this table below. It showed high percentages of “local and systemic reactions” like headaches, fatigue, fever, myalgia and joint pain, the reactions health officials spin as “proof the vaccines are working.”
Those signals alone were significant enough to raise red flags. More important is what the CDC avoided disclosing. What this first-month report didn’t show were severe adverse events, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and other serious outcomes which, as revealed below, were formidable. Following that incomplete cherry-picked snapshot, for nearly two years all v-safe information was then covered up.
In June 2021 Aaron Siri, lead counsel for the nonprofit Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for release of the CDC’s V-safe data.
6/24/21 FOIA request for “All de-identified data submitted to v-safe since January 1, 2020.”
“Mandating that millions of Americans inject a product for which they cannot hold the manufacturer liable if the product injures them demands complete transparency, especially when it comes to releasing the data underlying the product’s safety. FOIA exists precisely so that Americans can obtain transparency, and, in this case, obtain the data which supports the CDC’s claims to intensive safety monitoring.”
After a response from the CDC that the data requested “could not be located,” an appeal was filed in August 2021. A second, reworded FOIA request was submitted on behalf of ICAN in September.
When that request was also sidestepped, a lawsuit was filed in December.
Page 1 of first lawsuit from ICAN petitioning for release of the CDC’s v-safe data.
The CDC continued their attempts to hide the data. A third FOIA request was submitted in April 2022, and in May another lawsuit was filed. It had been almost one year since the first FOIA request was submitted.
The second lawsuit declared that ICAN “intends to make all v-safe data immediately available to the public so that independent scientists can immediately analyze that data.” It referenced the need “to address serious and ongoing issues with the vaccine program, including waning immunity [and] adverse reactions.” Preventing independent scientists from reviewing this data, the suit argued, was “at best, irresponsible and unethical.”
CDC Ordered to Release Data
Fifteen months from the initial FOIA request and twenty-one months after the vaccine rollout, a court order required the CDC to provide the v-safe data on or before September 30, 2022.
When forced to comply with the court order, the CDC said the v-safe files would be released to ICAN, but claimed they lacked the ability to post the information on their own website. After a year of maneuvering to hide this data, the agency disingenuously wrote that they had planned to post the data on their website, but had “not yet completed the technical and administrative processes required to post data.”
V-safe files were sent to ICAN just one month ago, at 6 pm on September 30. What the CDC claimed they lacked in “technical and administrative” proficiency to do for 21 months, ICAN’s modest staff accomplished over a weekend. On October 3, three days after the grassroots nonprofit obtained five digital files comprised of initial data from more than ten million users, ICAN launched a user-friendly web dashboard allowing the international science community and other members of the public to view the data themselves and perform interactive searches on that data.
ICAN, not the CDC, is responsible for making this information accessible, nearly all of it (86% as shown above) reported to v-safe in the first six months of the rollout. The multi-billion dollar public agency charged with safeguarding our health instead used its formidable resources to block release of v-safe reports.
What did the CDC not want us to see?
Unsurprisingly, signals of damage from these shots — which public health officials like local mouthpiece Dr. Allison Berry continue to deny — are alarming. The percentage of adverse health impacts following Covid vaccination reported to v-safe over 21 months is more than ten times the 2.79% seen in the December 18, 2020 snapshot, on day five of the rollout.
Of the 10 million+ individual users who participated in v-safe after their shots:
71.3 million symptoms were entered, an average of 7 symptoms per user
6.4 million adverse health impacts were reported
33% (3.35 million) were unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, and/or required care from a doctor or other health professional
7.7% (782,913) had a health event so severe it required medical attention, emergency room intervention, and/or hospitalization, most of those events requiring multiple visits
Contrary to Berry’s lies, the CDC not only had to be sued for access to this critical data, they spent more than a year fighting to prevent its release. Had this data seen daylight, as fanfare leading up to the rollout had promised (“this information helps CDC monitor the safety of Covid-19 vaccines in near real time“), Emergency Use Authorization of the shots could never have remained justified.
V-safe data is still not available on the CDC’s website. It can only be accessed through ICAN’s interactive dashboard.
This is not the end of the story.
While incriminating enough on their own, the five files a court order forced the CDC to release one month ago were incomplete. ICAN discovered through further litigation that an important category of the reports was not included in the files they received. The agency continues to stonewall on disclosing all v-safe records. More lawsuits are pending.
The v-safe app provides simple checkboxes for symptoms experienced following vaccination, like the local and systemic reactions shown in the CDC’s first month Safety Update (12/14/20 – 1/13/21) — headaches, chills, joint pains and other symptoms that are said to be proof the shot is “working”.
The app also includes check-the-box fields for users to report if they required medical attention, emergency room intervention, and/or hospitalizations following the shots, as revealed on ICAN’s dashboard.
V-safe does not provide checkboxes for “Adverse Events of Special Interest,” issues the CDC knew from early trials were much more serious concerns. These “Prespecified Medical Conditions” are shown in the v-safe protocol attachment below, but omitted from the app.
The sometimes deadly medical issues we have been seeing in unprecedented numbers — like acute myocardial infarctions (heart attacks), anaphylaxis, seizures, Guillain-Barre syndrome (paralysis), strokes, pregnancy problems and myocarditis/pericarditis — were known to be caused by the mRNA injections when v-safe was developed. But the CDC avoided delineating them on the app.
Instead, the only way to capture reports of those issues was in “open fields” — empty boxes where users could type in additional details. Anything other than check-the-box local and systemic reactions which generally did not result in medical intervention had to be reported by the user as supplementary information.
Despite the extra effort it took, of the ten million registered users in the v-safe database, over six million open field entries were submitted. These open field reports were not included in the data the CDC turned over to ICAN and are yet to be revealed. The further lawsuits in progress expect to obtain that information.
Berry’s tangled web of disinformation
The CDC designed the v-safe app to make it easy to report symptoms people were told to expect from the shots, but obscure the devastating outcomes that would undermine the public’s confidence in their Safe and Effective narrative. This obfuscation has supported their lie about the incidence of severe adverse events, and provided cover for health officers like Berry to parrot that disinformation:
“Severe side effects from these vaccines are incredibly incredibly rare,” she told the Board of Health during her v-safe review, “on the order of less than 10 per million doses delivered.”
After falsely assuring the BOH that v-safe data has always been publicly available, and lying that no one had to sue to get it, Berry lamented that “unfortunately, anti-vaccine groups have now gotten access to those datasets and are now using them and twisting the numbers in them to spread misinformation about the vaccines to suggest or argue that they are less safe than they actually are.”
In her erratic, loquacious web of disinformation — yes, there was a lawsuit / no, no one had to sue — she insists that there wasn’t a lack of transparency, just that the data had fallen into the wrong hands. She provides no proof that numbers were “twisted”, just blithely makes unsubstantiated pronouncements that anti-vaxxers are spreading misinformation.
Anyone can now review and analyze the CDC data for themselves through ICAN’s online portal.
And Berry’s claim that severe side effects are less than ten per million — incredibly incredibly rare — is belied by 7.7% of v-safe users reporting they required medical attention, emergency room intervention, and/or hospitalization after their shots. That translates to 77,000 — not 10 — per million serious adverse reactions following the experimental injections.
It is the CDC and spin doctor Berry doing the number twisting. And with six million open field v-safe data entries still to come — information that shot recipients had to be motivated to report in their own words — our glib, dismissive health officer has a whole lotta twisting ahead to maintain her crumbling disinformation narrative.
y between Quimper Sound Records and The Old Whiskey Mill are what gives our downtown a rich ambience and celebrated appeal.
