by Craig Durgan | Oct 28, 2021 | General
After declaring a housing emergency in Jefferson County, public officials have now taken action to make the situation worse. On October 4 the Board of County Commissioners declared a new emergency establishing a moratorium on processing housing applications, then on October 11 repealed and replaced it. What’s up with all that?
Our county was already under a housing emergency declared by the BoCC on July 31, 2017 under Resolution 35-17. It has been over 4 years since this declaration, and we still have a dire lack of housing. Even as the BoCC empaneled a task force to “look into it,” we are still lacking housing for both the well-off and those needing affordable housing.
We certainly do not have a lack of land. We do not have a lack of talk. But we do have a lack of action. Let’s look at the talk:
OlyCap talks about constructing an apartment building in Port Townsend next to the Permit center, on land basically donated by Jefferson County. That property acquisition was more than two years ago (September 9, 2019). They even had a ground-breaking ceremony. However, nothing has happened there as yet.
The Legislature allowed some religious organization to install temporary housing on their property. So some “wooden tents” were built. They provide temporary housing to a few.
The County and City engineered the tent camp on the Fairgrounds. That turned out to be a debacle. Now, they have built another tent city on Mill Road.
But aside from these baby steps, the reality has amounted to just talk.
Now the County has declared another housing emergency under Moratorium Ordinance No. 06-1011-21… not to allow more housing, but to prohibit more housing!
That’s right, the County has acted to prohibit housing at the same time as they have a declared housing emergency.
Why have they done this? According to the BoCC’s proclamation, they “enacted a moratorium for one year to pause on certain types of development that could result in densities incompatible with zoning in rural areas.”
But what is meant by incompatible? The minimum lot size in Jefferson County is 5 acres per the zoning regulations. If a lot was in existence prior to the county adopting the Growth Management Act (GMA) it is a legal lot. But now it appears the county might try and make any lot created prior to 1971 unbuildable if it is less than 5 acres.
So the question has to be asked; why is there a 5 acre standard? In the zoning and legal industries it is called a 5 acre bright-line standard.
Under a court case called Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 80115-1, the State Supreme Court ruled that there is no 5 acre minimum “bright-line” standard under the GMA. This was remanded down to the Western Washington Growth Management Board and under Case No. 05-2-0002 Order On Remand Finding Compliance (Rural Lands) stated that:
|
In the Final Decision and Order of July 20, 2005 the Board observed that densities that are no more than one dwelling unit per 5 acres “are generally considered ‘rural’ under the GMA”, and that “Densities that are not urban but are greater than one dwelling unit per 5 acres are generally deemed to promote sprawl in violation of goal 2 of the GMA”, citing numerous prior Board decisions to that effect. In the appeal of this case, the Supreme Court found the application of an urban/rural five acre bright-line exceeded the Board’s jurisdiction. The Board has since followed that Supreme Court directive and will continue to do so.
|
|
In addition, they stated that:
|
The GMA does not define what constitutes “rural densities”; rather, rural densities are “not characterized by urban growth” and are “consistent with rural character.” “Whether a particular density is rural in nature is a question of fact based on the specific circumstances of each case.” Nor does the GMA dictate a specific manner of achieving a variety of rural densities. “Local conditions may be considered and innovative zoning techniques employed to achieve a variety of rural densities.”
|
|
This leaves open the question: What is the minimum lot size in rural lands? To answer this question you need to look at the Growth Management Act:
- Under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(b) it states that: “The rural element shall provide for a variety of rural densities…”
- Under RCW 36.70A.030(17) it states that: “Rural development can consist of a variety of uses and residential densities…”
- Under RCW 36.70A.030(18) it states that: “Rural services do not include storm or sanitary sewers…”
- Under RCW 36.70A.030(20) it states that: “Urban governmental services” or “urban services” include those public services and public facilities at an intensity historically and typically provided in cities, specifically including storm and sanitary sewer systems…”
In other words, the difference between rural and urban is whether there is sewer available or not.
Under WAC 246-272A-0320 Table X the minimum lot size depends on the type of soils and whether there is public water available. The minimum lot size ranges from 12,500 square feet to 2.5 acres.
In considering all the above it is clear that retaining a 5 acre minimum lot size is not consistent with the GMA. In fact, the minimum lot size could be 12,500 square feet (0.2869 acres). It is clearly up to the county to have a range of rural residential densities. Currently the County has not provided a range of rural densities.
Now we get to the crux of this new Emergency Moratorium. There are over 900 subdivisions in Jefferson County. Most of these subdivisions were created prior to 1971. Most of the lots created were less than 12,500 square feet in area.
So some people are trying to use the Boundary Line Adjustment to reconfigure existing lots that are less than 12,500 square feet. Most of the substandard lots (substandard because sewers are not available) are 5,000 to 7,000 square feet.
There are many of these lots in Jefferson County. Once they are reconfigured they can meet the 12,500 square foot minimum to build on septic.
Why should we care? The answer is simple: Under basic economics of supply and demand, as the supply decreases and the demand increase, the price will go up. That is why homes and land are being bid up.
Our supply of homes and land to build on is in short supply, thus the price is going up. This is not a problem for people with the money to bid a home up in value, but it is quite a problem for those of lesser means.
In time this may contribute to areas like Irondale being gentrified… but then where can poorer people there afford to live?
There are many deeply concerned citizens currently working on solutions to our housing crisis. A more democratic approach might have been a concerted effort by county authorities to solicit input from the public prior to instituting a stop-gap measure which, in the near term, is certain to compound the problem.
by Kincaid Gould | Oct 24, 2021 | General
When officials urge the public to “follow the science,” one would think that the appropriate data would be supplied. One would think that asking questions would be allowed. Regrettably, this is far from the case in Jefferson County.
Jefferson County Public Health (JCPH), the Leader and the Peninsula Daily News are the main print sources disseminating COVID-19 information for our county. While the data they publish can provide limited insight into the local COVID situation, there are many aspects of their reporting that are questionable, either because they don’t publish certain data or because they publish misleading data.
For example, data from the Leader indicate that more than half of Jefferson County “COVID deaths” have been in fully vaccinated individuals. That number may be as high as 71%. JCPH’s data also suggests cases among not fully vaccinated individuals outnumber those among fully vaccinated individuals three-to-one. However, this claim relies on misleading data. On the contrary, since early August, more than 40% of Jefferson County cases have been in fully vaccinated individuals. When data is muddled, irrelevant or misrepresented, it is impossible to make sound public health decisions— which, unfortunately, is exactly what Jefferson County Health Officer Allison Berry claims to be doing.
JCPH publishes a daily report with COVID-19 statistics for the county. Recently, I took a look at their data and was struck by the realization that some meaningful data can be extrapolated from some of the misleading statistics they’ve posted. That data, along with some other observations, is presented in the remainder of the article. All data is accurate as of 10/22/2021.
“Fully vaccinated” designation is misleading
The main source of my frustration within JCPH’s data is a pair of statistics (found in the third and fourth rows of the right-most data table): “Percent of cases among (not) fully vaccinated individuals since 2/1/2021.” At first glance, this might seem like an important and informative statistic. After all, this is the clearest data we have locally that informs on whether or not the vaccine actually prevents infection, right? As it turns out, this data is very misleading.
One important aspect to consider is the dichotomy between “fully vaccinated” and “not fully vaccinated”. What exactly do these terms mean? According to the CDC, one isn’t considered “fully vaccinated” until 14 days after they’ve received their last COVID-19 shot — either the single J&J, or the second of the two-dose mRNA jabs. Everybody else is considered “not fully vaccinated,” even if they’ve been “partially vaccinated.”
If all of the shots in a series (and the boosters) are the same, then one would think that being even partially vaccinated would confer some immunity. If being partially vaccinated provides any increase in immunity, there is absolutely no reason why those cases should be included in the same category as individuals who have received no shots.
These two groups seem to be incorrectly interpreted as vaccinated vs unvaccinated by some people—in fact, JCPH was guilty of doing so on 08/04/2021 (see the screenshot). The Peninsula Daily News has run articles that reference these statistics and call the “not fully vaccinated” group “unvaccinated”. While there may be some unvaccinated individuals in the group, it is disingenuous to assume that all of them are. The data provided by JCPH leaves us guessing—it could be a 20-80 split among partially vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals for all we know!
Jefferson County Public Health 8/4/2021 Facebook post
Another problem is that these percentages are measured since 02/01/2021. At this early date, the vast majority of people were not vaccinated, nor were they eligible for vaccination. Most Washington state adults weren’t able to get vaccinated until April 15th, some two and a half months later. Furthermore, if somebody got vaccinated on April 15th and got all of their shots as soon as possible, they wouldn’t be considered “fully vaccinated” until late April (if they chose the J&J shot) or late May (if they received one of the two-dose vaccines).
Why does this matter? Measuring this data from a time when hardly anybody was or could be vaccinated against COVID-19 artificially inflates the number of cases among the “not fully vaccinated’ while decreasing the number among the fully vaccinated. Think about it this way — 0% of COVID-19 cases were found in vaccinated individuals in March 2020. Does this mean that the vaccines are effective? Of course not: the vaccines weren’t available then! Measuring since February 2021 is much better than March 2020, of course, but vaccines were still virtually inaccessible at the start of February.
Speaking of vaccine unavailability, children under the age of 12 are still ineligible for these experimental shots. If the statistics showing the percentage of cases among fully vaccinated and not fully vaccinated individuals is meant to show the vaccine’s efficacy at preventing infection, positive tests among those ineligible for vaccination shouldn’t be included. (I’ll come back to this point later.) Nevertheless, positive tests in this age group are still figured into the data. JCPH lists 151 positive tests among children aged 0-11 since they started collecting data in March 2020. That’s more than one tenth of local cases!
How could this data be improved?
For one, split the data into three categories: fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated.
Second, children aged 0-11 should be removed from this specific statistic, as positive tests within this population can’t possibly show the efficacy of the vaccines. This statistic should only include people who are eligible for vaccination at the time when they contract COVID-19. (Previous data should be adjusted to reflect this as well.)
Third, the start date of the data collection should be changed, measuring from May 1st at the very earliest. Better yet, JCPH could publish the percentage of cases among the three groups over a moving time frame. (For example, JCPH publishes a “two-week COVID-19 case rate per 100,000” containing data from the latest two-week period.)
JCPH first published the breakdown of the percentage of positive tests by vaccination status on 08/04/2021 and has updated the statistic at fairly regular intervals ever since. (This data can be found on JCPH’s Facebook page.) Because the percentages among fully vaccinated and not fully vaccinated populations are periodically updated (as is the total number of positive tests), the number of cases among these two populations since 08/04/2021 can be calculated by noting the change in percentages. This data provides a picture of the situation in Jefferson County during just the two-month period from August to October.
I have created two data tables from JCPH’s updates. The first displays the raw data reported by JCPH, and the total number of cases among the two populations during the period. The second table uses the same information, but removes any cases from before 08/04/2021. Additionally, it presents the percentage of cases added each week in the two groups.
TABLE 1 – Cases Among Not Fully Versus Fully Vaccinated
TABLE 2 – New Cases Among Not Fully Versus Fully Vaccinated
There is a clear trend in the percentage share of cases among the two groups since 02/01/2021. As Table 1 shows, the percentage of cases among the not fully vaccinated decreased from 92.1% to 73.82% over the time period, while the percentage among fully vaccinated individuals rose from 7.9% to 26.18%. One possible explanation for this trend is that the data is greatly skewed by the odd start date; this argument is further supported by the fact that even during weeks where there were more cases among not fully vaccinated individuals than among fully vaccinated individuals, the percentage of cases among fully vaccinated individuals increased (for example, during the week of 10/08/2021).
Table 2 makes the data much more clear. Over the period from 08/04/2021 until 10/22/2021, 42.4% of positive tests were among fully vaccinated individuals while 57.6% were from individuals who were either unvaccinated or partially vaccinated. These two percentages are worlds away from the 92.1% and 7.9% rates reported in August. They’re even considerably different from the percentages reported on 10/22/2021 (73.82% vs 26.18%). A 47.64 percentage point difference between 73.82% and 26.18% is more than three times greater than the 15.2 percentage point difference between 57.6% and 42.4%. The differences between these statistics evidently varies greatly with the time frame.
Let’s also consider improper inclusion of ineligible age groups.
On 08/18/2021, JCPH started reporting positive tests with an age band of 0-11-year-olds (replacing an earlier 0-19 age band). As of 8/18/2021, there were 62 individuals in the 0-11 category. By 10/22/2021, there were 151 cases in 0-11-year-olds. Subtracting 62 children from 151, at least 89 individuals aged 0-11 were diagnosed with COVID-19 in the larger period between 08/04/2021 and 10/22/2021. These cases shouldn’t be used to give an idea of vaccine efficacy, as the individuals couldn’t be vaccinated.
Subtracting 89 cases from the “not fully vaccinated” category for the data from 08/04/2021 until 10/22/2021, there are then only 508 total cases, among them 255 cases among the not fully vaccinated population and 253 among the fully vaccinated population. The percentages are virtually identical, with only two more cases found in not fully vaccinated individuals. (Remember that this is a conservative estimate, as there were very likely cases in 0-11-year-olds during the two-week window from 08/04/2021 to 08/18/2021.)
Saying that the vaccine prevents you from catching the virus is misinformation.
The vaccine companies only claim that the vaccine can reduce symptoms, hospitalizations and deaths. Unfortunately, JCPH doesn’t publish the data that could be used to support those claims. The number of asymptomatic and symptomatic cases is not shared (and possibly unknown). The number of fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated hospitalizations is not reported. Information (e.g., comorbidities, vaccination status, age, date of death, etc.) surrounding alleged COVID-19 deaths is similarly unavailable.
Death data can be extrapolated from articles in the Leader, however, which show that 10 out of 17 ‘COVID’ deaths have been among the fully vaccinated. (Two deaths among the unvaccinated occurred in 2020 and should be discounted when considering vaccine efficacy; a third death reported in mid-April didn’t specify vaccination status. A more accurate number would thus be 10/15 deaths among the fully vaccinated (66.67%), or even 10/14 (71.43%)). It is unclear if the Leader uses the same definition of “unvaccinated” as the Peninsula Daily News (i.e., “not fully vaccinated”) or if it actually means unvaccinated. It is also unclear whether these individuals died of COVID-19 or simply with COVID-19.
If anything, I feel like the points raised above and the data provided by JCPH raise many more questions than they answer. If we are truly in the middle of a dangerous pandemic, shouldn’t the local health department be providing as much relevant and up-to-date information as possible? Are statistics showing the share of males and females who have contracted the virus (which have been divided at around 50-50 since March 2020) really more important than the percentage of deaths and hospitalizations that were among the unvaccinated, partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated?
Keeping information from the public prevents us from “following the science,” and sharing misleading information/pro-vaccine propaganda prevents us from seeing what’s really going on.
by Brett Nunn | Oct 20, 2021 | General
On Thursday, October 7th, I attended the Port Townsend High School board meeting. Earlier in the week the Governor of California proclaimed that his state will require children to get the Covid-19 shot to attend school in person. I believe a similar mandate for Washington state cannot far behind.
The following are my comments from the two minutes of allotted time:
| |
I am your ally, not the opposition.
Eighteen months ago the governor told us who was essential and who wasn’t. We didn’t say no.
Then the governor told us to isolate at home, no church, no funerals, no gatherings. We didn’t say no.
Then they told us to put fabric across our face and stay six feet distant. We didn’t say no.
They told us to cancel school and send the children home. We didn’t say no.
They told us to cancel the holidays, don’t gather with family, grandma or grandpa have to die alone in a locked-down care facility. We didn’t say no.
At the start of this year they told us the only way out was an injection into the bodies of all adults. They said, “If you do that everything goes back to normal.” We didn’t say no.
Many got the shots. Nothing went back to normal.
A few weeks ago they said, no matter whether you are healthy or not, if you don’t show a vaccine card, you can’t go to restaurant or the theater. We didn’t say no.
Now they are saying if you work for or contract with the government, healthcare, or a school, you have to get the shot or you no longer have a job. We aren’t saying no.
Has any of this made a whit of difference?
Our community is being torn apart. We have to start saying no.
We all see what is coming next, a mandate that all children must take the shot if they want to attend school in person.
You have been elected to represent the parents of this community. We did not put you here to be a rubber stamp.
You must put aside personal opinions and say no to this mandate, not for me, but for the good of the community, for all the children of this community. Keep the schools open to everyone. If parents want the shot for their child they have every right to get it. If they don’t want their child injected, no entity should be allowed to use, and I quote from the Nuremburg Code, “any kind of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion” to convince them otherwise. We have to have that choice.
The Federal government is not listening. State government is not listening. We need to start right here in our own town. You have been given political power. It is time to exercise that power and say no.
If we don’t start saying no, this will never stop.
Thank You.
|
|
Additional materials provided to each board member —
- October 4th letter from the Attorney General of the Unites States to the Director of the FBI requesting coordination with local law enforcement to intimidate parents who disagree with the local school board.
- Obituary for Jessica Berg Wilson a healthy and vibrant 37 year-old mother of two from Seattle. Did not want the vaccine, broke with principle because it was more important to be in the classroom with her daughter. She died on September 7th from a well-known side effect of the J&J shot.
- The Nuremburg Codes with special attention to number one, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”
We can all agree that a divide has been created by the Covid-19 panic. We can most likely all agree that we have little control over what happens nationally, or at the state level. Those of us who feel compelled to bring this community back from the brink should focus our efforts right here where we live.
I have started with the school board. Beyond my concern with the schools being segregated again, the main reason for my comments is in regard to the mandates. Mandates are not laws. They are the dictates of one man. Through his self-proclaimed emergency powers, Jay Inslee has subverted the political process while Washington State’s legislative branch of government has literally and figuratively looked the other way.
When the federal government actively opposes our rights, and when state government does the same, no matter what our political beliefs, we need to urge our local elected officials to stand against these mandates, if not for anything but to preserve our choice over what happens in this community.
For example, right now our elected officials in the county, city, port, PUD and school board are in the midst of a process that will likely mean they can no longer independently choose who to hire or who to contract with. Mandates from the governor will require all employees and contractors to have the Covid-19 shot. In this way, our local representatives have been, and will probably continue to, willfully give away the political power we have entrusted them with to manage what happens in our county. They should stop.
I will be following up, in a kind and respectful manner, with the Port Townsend school board members until they understand the real impacts to the community of the choices they are making. All of us need to act together, in a kind and respectful manner, to help our local elected officials find the courage to tell the state to back off until the mandates cease. If we don’t start saying no, this will never stop.
Addendum
As an update to the preceding report involving my comments to the Port Townsend School board on October 7th, I came across this interview with the Washington State Schools Superintendent Chris Reykdal from the October 14th broadcast of the Gee and Ursula Show on Kiro Radio. I think it speaks for itself.
| |
Ursula: Welcome back to the Gee and Ursula Show. As we have been reporting, there have been Covid outbreaks in schools and that has led to hundreds of students across the state to quarantine. It has also forced some school closures. We saw a quote from State School Superintendent Chris Reykdal saying that all parents should be preparing for more closures this year, but he didn’t anticipate a complete shutdown of all schools. So we wanted to invite the State Superintendent to join us to talk about that a little bit more and Chris Reykdal is on the line right now. Good Morning Chris.
Superintendent Reykdal: Good Morning.
Ursula: So talk to us about that. I feel like we are paving the way to get parents prepared for the idea that we could be talking about vaccine mandates for students. Is that the direction we are going?
Superintendent Reykdal: What we’ve been trying to say to folks is we’re still in the middle of a pandemic and people need to be prepared for all the twists and turns we’ve already experienced. We’ve got a million plus kids back in school. It’s going really well, but it’s super hard. A lot of contact tracing, exhausted staff with teaching, and they’re going through all these public health metrics. There are some places where local health jurisdictions have said we’ve got too many cases in the classroom and maybe they’ve shut the classroom down for seven days, or ten days, or fourteen days.
Our message is we don’t expect any of that stuff, but everyone should be prepared in case there is something in your classroom that would cause your student to be out for a week or two, but so far it’s going pretty darn well.
The question of student vaccines is a very different question if that is what you are connecting.
Ursula: Yes, absolutely. So where are you on that front? I know the Seattle School District has raised the idea that once it has been approved for the younger ages or given emergency approval that it could be a requirement at least in that district.
Superintendent Reykdal: Yeah, we are going to take a statewide approach on this. It is not going to be a district-by-district decision. What I have continued to tell the governor and public health officials and I have been very public about it, is, this needs to go through the process that it would go through for any kid vaccine requirement, and we have lots of vaccines that are required of our students in this state, and we have been doing it for decades with really high compliance by parents, or they have an exemption process, and that means it is full federal approval, not just emergency. It goes through a federal panel, and our local, and when I say local, I mean our state board of health, and each of the fifty states, goes through a process. My message is, get on with it, expedite that, still go through it so it is medical professionals, and doctors, and it is public health experts ultimately recommending this, and it is not an executive order. That’s where I am at and I think they will do that and I think that will take quite a bit of time. So, I still do not anticipate a student vaccine requirement this year. I do think people should be prepared for that next year, that it will be on the list for the other vaccine requirements that our students comply with.
|
|
So now we know, and can plan accordingly. I am curious why our state officials have decided to follow the law for this portion of Washington state’s Covid-19 emergency response. It makes me wonder why the same caution hasn’t been used for adult vaccines. Regardless, I will believe what I am told by our state officials when I see it.
by Jim Scarantino | Oct 15, 2021 | General
Local laws can no longer stop religious organizations from hosting the homeless on their property. Tent encampments, tiny homes, safe parking programs, RV living and church buildings used as dormitories and apartments cannot be prohibited by municipal codes or county ordinances.
In 2019 the Washington Legislature enacted a set of laws that explicitly authorize religious organizations to “host the homeless” anywhere on their property, inside or outside buildings. Cities and counties are prohibited from imposing conditions other than those necessary to protect public health and safety. “Necessary” means no less restrictive alternative can be found. Even if “necessary” to serve those goals, the conditions imposed by a city or county may not “substantially burden” the decision of the religious organization regarding the location of a temporary tent encampment, tiny homes village, safe parking program or use of buildings to host the homeless.
The laws are dense, packed with a litany of restrictions on the powers of local government. RCW 35.21.915 applies to most cities and towns. RCW 36.01.290 applies to counties.
This is true separation of church and state. The sovereignty of churches was recognized in medieval times—or so Hollywood tells us in films where the king’s pursuit ends at cathedral doors. Here, in the real world, the legislature has recognized a limited, but still robust sovereignty for church properties.
These laws remain untried and untested in Jefferson County. Earlier in the year the Housing Solutions Network began meeting with churches to encourage hosting programs. Now two churches are going to put the new laws to use. New Life Church Assembly of God in Port Townsend has announced a safe parking program—allowing people to sleep in their cars and RVs. The church already has an RV on its property. The full program, which will accept up to five vehicles to start, is expected to launch mid-November. Another religious organization is on the brink of initiating a safe parking program and I will leave that announcement to them.
These programs would otherwise be illegal under Port Townsend’s prohibition against tent and RV camping. All zoning restrictions are likewise unenforceable against church programs to shelter the homeless.
The tiny home village at the Port Hadlock Community United Methodist Church is not an exercise of that church’s authority to override county ordinances. The quaint village of attractive shelters sits on church property covered by a long-term lease with OlyCap. The project was done in compliance with the county’s regulations, not despite them. That project has motivated other religious organizations to step up and pitch in. I write this article in the hope that it motivates someone to approach their church leadership to consider their own homeless hosting program, be it as modest as providing refuge to just one fellow human being.
In this article I use “churches” and “religious organizations” interchangeably, though the latter term is far broader. The latter term would apply, of course, to a mosque or temple. It also applies to a Unitarian fellowship or Quaker meeting. It would also apply to the home churches scattered around our area, each of which, conceivably, could undertake their own hosting program on residential properties.
This is huge in a small way.
Churches do not need to exhaust the process and bear the cost of obtaining a conditional use permit. All that is required is for the church to hold a public meeting where concerns of neighbors and others may be aired. Then the project may proceed without further ado, even over strenuous objection from neighbors and city officials. (More on that below, under the heading, “Grace.”)
The law, incredibly, puts the burden for providing public notice for the meeting on local government. The religious organization can act quickly, giving the city just 96 hours notice. Then it is up to the city to put out word in newspapers, on its website or via street signs near the meeting place.
The city or county can’t stop the project. It is exempt from all the laws used to delay and frustrate housing development and efforts to shelter the unhoused. There are only a few narrow exceptions, none of which would apply to a safe parking program or tiny home village. Port Townsend’s pre-existing emergency tent encampment rules might apply to a tent encampment, but would not govern RVs on a church property. I also conclude that a church could place mobile homes on its property despite any contrary local regulations.
In the case of a response to a declared emergency, the church can accept homeless on its property without any notice to government or public meeting. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners declared a housing emergency in 2017, and reaffirmed that declaration in 2019. That is a sufficient emergency declaration to obviate the legal necessity of scheduling and holding a public meeting. Any church in Jefferson County that takes in someone washed up at their door in need of shelter is on solid footing in immediately letting them pitch a tent, park an RV, move into the church or an outbuilding, or occupy a tiny home.
I think every church should have a foldable cot and inflatable mattress ready in a closet, and, if they have the space, an RV, mobile home and/or tiny home available for such emergencies. “Anyone who sets himself up as ‘religious’ by talking a good game is self-deceived. This is the kind of religion that is hot air, and only hot air. Real religion, the kind that passes muster before God the Father, is this: reach out to the homeless and loveless in their plight, and guard against corruption from a godless world.” 1 James 26-27 (The Message translation).
Constitutional Foundations
This extraordinary development of legislatively carving out refuges from local laws—laws that have contributed greatly to the affordable housing and homelessness crises—is the result of courts’ recognition that serving the homeless is an expression and practice of religious beliefs. The protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section II of the Washington State Constitution operated long before the legislature acted. The right of religious organizations to use their property is actually broader than the statutes in question, which, as the Municipal Research Service Center of Washington has stated, merely attempted to codify and recognize judicial rulings.
The First Amendment right of a church to use its property to care for the homeless was recognized by Congress in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIP). This law applies the same prohibition against substantially burdening the use of church property. What constitutes “substantial burden”? As explained by the Seattle University School of Law Homeless Rights Advocacy Project: “A substantial burden exists if the religious organization would have to endure additional delay, uncertainty and expense….” Faith is the First Step: Faith-Based Solutions to Homelessness, Means & Rankin (2018).
The rights of a religious organization are even greater under the Washington State Constitution. Washington’s constitution guarantees, “absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship” so long as the practices are not “inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.” In 2009, in City of Woodinville v. North Shore United Church of Christ, the Washington Supreme Court held that a temporary moratorium on homeless encampments constituted a substantial burden on the church’s religious beliefs and practices and therefore violated the state constitution. The Washington Supreme Court has employed the same “no less restrictive alternative” and “substantial burden” analysis found in the new statutes.
Either We Have An Emergency, or We Don’t
The legislature recognized that we have a dire homelessness crisis, and did not hem or haw about turning religious organizations loose to do something about it.
Churches had encountered one regulatory obstacle after another in seeking to use their property to help the homeless. Winning a lawsuit years down the road was a hollow victory to a church that could barely meet its own overhead, let alone pay for lawyers and legal costs. Very few churches can shoulder the costs of fighting government. And as the cases worked their way through the courts, people in need were denied help.
The legislature disarmed local government, nearly completely.
Zoning and building codes, and enforcement discretion and abuses, are sometimes used to stop projects incrementally instead of issuing an outright permit denial. No more death by a thousand cuts. A city can’t wear down a religious organization by requiring costly insurance. It can’t impose hope-killing time limits or permit fees. It cannot limit the number of homeless being helped, or restrict shelter to only tents, or only RVs or only cars or only tiny homes and then regulate those units to death.
Religious organizations must reasonably comply with fire codes. They must provide portable toilets and wash stations if there is no access to bathrooms. Electrical wiring must, of course, be inspected for safety. The law says that a local government can enact an ordinance requiring a memorandum of understanding (MOU). But the local government can demand very little in the MOU. Mostly it can make recommendations for the religious organization to accept or reject.
Local code enforcement officers and community development directors may not like seeing their powers and discretion nearly cancelled on properties under their jurisdiction. The legislature heard from churches and homeless service agencies about how those powers were being abused to kill their programs. Even if the obstruction was unintentional, merely a routine enforcement of local regulations, the legislature said, “Enough. We have a real emergency. Get out of the way and let religious organizations do what they can to help.”
Grace
Religious organizations would be well advised to show neighbors and city officials the same love and grace they want to show the homeless. Port Townsend residents near churches no doubt fear the prospect of another Fairgrounds encampment disaster. The Fairgrounds tragedy was an example of government neglect and incompetence. Ironically, it was government insistence on onerous, counter-productive regulations that exacerbated the problems. By the city insisting its unrealistically burdensome and costly regulations be enforced, OlyCap, the only agency with the resources to have competently managed the Fairgrounds as an emergency shelter, had to stand back. The Fairgrounds became a Wild West complete with violence, criminality, disease (addiction the most prevalent) and the loss of life.
Religious organizations need to dispel those fears and work closely with local government, service providers and law enforcement to show how to care properly for the homeless. They are not likely to start with the hard cases—the seriously mentally ill and drug addicted. They just don’t have the resources and skills. They are likely going to start with the “easy yesses.” These programs require background checks and are closely coordinated with law enforcement. Social service agencies are engaged to help the churches and the guests. These programs have been very successful elsewhere for many years, with no reports of harm to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Overlake Christian Church in Redmond, for instance, has been hosting young men in its safe parking program. These are individuals early in their working lives who don’t have the cash for “first, last and damage deposit.” By saving up money while they are holding an entry-level job, many have been able to stand on their own feet and move into their first apartment. OCC’s parking program keeps the temporarily homeless from becoming the chronically homeless.
However a church chooses to proceed, it must have a heart for everyone impacted. It is not easy. I have been the point of contact for a campaign by a neighbor of my church who wants a homeless couple moved from where they have set up a stable, healthy home. Their nice RV is separated from the neighbor’s house by a tall, solid fence, and is well over 100 feet from the property line and mostly obscured by an outbuilding. The couple is quiet, tidy and considerate. I find the repeated complaints incomprehensible. I try to see it from the neighbor’s eyes, but can’t. Maybe that comes from growing up in a city of row houses and twins. I just don’t get it.
I strive to respond with courtesy. I pray for compassion and a softening of hearts. I pray for myself that I don’t pridefully stand on the law. But I realize that the law that allows churches to help the homeless is the product of a considered democratic and thorough legislative process. Those bills passed overwhelmingly. Because the homeless may live on church property under the clear terms of the law, they have as much right to eat and sleep where they are as anyone else. I cannot surrender their rights. They would be devastated by the message that they count less than others merely because they have less than others, and that all those professions of love were unreliable. Defending their rights under the law—gracefully—is doing justice.
One Life At A Time Does It
Forget about “ending homelessness.” It’s not going to happen, and there’s nothing a religious organization can do to make it happen. There have always been homeless in this nation. The recent epidemic is, however, truly unprecedented. It has been caused, we are finally learning, not by “the failures of capitalism.” It was capitalism that built apartments and starter homes for generations (and all those affordable row houses in my home town). Exclusionary, aka “snob” zoning and building codes endlessly ratcheting up the cost of construction are the antithesis of free enterprise, by the way.
We have learned that our epidemic of homelessness is caused by the “catastrophic and profound loss of community.” That is the on-the-streets, in-the-trenches observation of the Mobile Loaves and Fishes Ministry of Austin, Texas, the organization behind the ground-breaking and successful Community First! housing development for the chronically homeless.
It is also the conclusion of scholars not beholden to the homelessness-industrial complex, that too often has leveraged the homelessness epidemic for political power and lucrative grants that continue and increase regardless of results. “Homelessness is a condition of disengagement from society–from family, neighborhood, friends, church, and community,” Alice Baum and Donald Burnes wrote in perhaps the definitive book on homelessness. Christopher Rufo, who has produced some excellent documentaries in addition to his scholarly writings, reached the same conclusion, but calls this societal disintegration “disaffiliation.” See my April 20, 2021 article, “Our Fifth Column in the Fight Against Homelessness: Churches.”
This is an opportunity to connect with people who have lost meaningful connection and the sense that they are loved. The genuinely friendly smile delivering a cup of hot coffee to someone who has spent the night in a cold car… you’ve just shown them Jesus without saying a word beyond, “Good morning.”
With the legislature making it clear that little stands in the way of churches employing their resources to shelter the homeless, churches are without excuse in failing to act. It need not be an involved program serving dozens of people, requiring huge expenditures of volunteer time and resources churches may never have unless they accept government funds—a very unwise course for any church. Instead of a grandiose War on Homelessness, it could be as simple as letting a veteran pitch a tent below the stained glass, or a family who have seen their rental sold out from under them using a classroom to keep warm and stay together until they find a new home.
We tend to think in macro terms and set ourselves up for failure and self-recrimination. What difference will it make? The problem is so huge. It is beyond us. We are helpless against such odds.
“There are no great things, only small things done with great love.” That is my favorite quote from Mother Teresa. There is also the starfish story. It has been told many ways. I know this one:
One night a storm washed upon the beach thousands and thousands of starfish. They lay gasping for life on the sand as two men walked along the shore. One started tossing the starfish back into the water, a single dying starfish at a time, He was making no noticeable dent in turning the situation around. “Why bother?” the other man said. “What difference does it make?” His companion bent down to reach a struggling starfish and tossed it back into the sea. “It makes a difference to that one.”
Note to self: Pay attention to the bending down part of the story. That’s important, too.
by Stephen Schumacher | Oct 12, 2021 | General
Prompted by concerns about Jefferson PUD moving last week toward firing uninjected workers, I made the following public comment to the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners at their October 11 meeting:
|
News roundup:
The Seattle Times reports “a chronic crew shortage at Washington State Ferries suddenly became a transportation debacle [forcing reduced] service on seven of its 10 routes. [Rep. Barkis said] ‘ferry cancellations are the bow wave of crises to come in government services as … workers recoil against mandates. … The governor has created a state of emergency, within a state of emergency.'”
This is personal to me. A friend working for the ferries successfully filed for and received a religious exemption, then was summarily fired with no benefits because his services were no longer required. His family is now selling their home and moving to another state.
In Seattle, while “already facing a staffing crisis, the Seattle Police Department is bracing … for mass firing of officers as hundreds have yet to show proof of vaccination.”
In New York, its deranged new governor stood up in church and proclaimed God wants her to fire doctors and nurses – previously named heroes for risking their lives during the initial Covid crisis – because in their considered medical judgment the experimental injections are too dangerous to risk taking. She then awarded herself new emergency powers – justified by the medical staffing emergency she herself created – to replace these healthcare workers with unvaccinated National Guard. Incredible!
In Los Angeles, one in four firefighters are filing a lawsuit against the city for their vaccine mandate. Of the 871 city firefighters asking for $2 million each in damages, some say they already had Covid and have immunity, others do not want the risk of adverse reactions from the shot. A loss of these personnel will mean the “entire firefighting system would collapse; there just wouldn’t be enough to protect the City of L.A.”
Last Monday two-thirds of our own county PUD commissioners voted to risk infrastructure disruption and electrical outages by firing employees who won’t risk these Emergency Use Authorization injections.
Your choice to participate in this push can only lead to chaos, loss of essential services, human rights violations, wrongful terminations, and (I’m afraid) wrongful deaths – all of which you may find yourself in court defending, as L.A. now faces from 1 in 4 firefighters suing for $2 million each. Kiss your federal Covid relief windfall goodbye!
These emergencies being created are self-inflicted. Please take charge, cease taking bad advice, and back off from the cliff of these illegal EAU injection mandates before it is too late for you and our county. |
Annette Huenke likewise commented:
| On the ferry system: HR Department is struggling to count all the people who got fired before October 1. … Lawsuits are dropping around the country regarding this EUA situation. Comirnaty is not available; it is the only product that’s been approved, and the EUA still applies to everything you are considering requiring in this community. |
Commissioner Kate Dean responded:
| As I said last week, I’m getting tired of falling into the usual debate about vaccination and mandates. We know that the vaccinations are really effective. We know that they’re not perfect, as anticipated.
The crew shortages that we are experiencing on the ferries are worse right now certainly, but they were really bad before because a lot of ferry crew members were getting Covid and getting quarantined. We can’t have folks who could potentially be carriers working with the public, and I do see this as a fitness-for-duty issue. The tricky part of this virus is that it spreads largely before it becomes symptomatic.
And so, while we are not considering a mandate for our employees at this time, awaiting word whether the federal mandate will apply to us or not, I do feel that for many working with the public – and especially those who work in public safety and first responders – that it is a fitness-for-duty issue.
Just like knowing that you are not going to catch TB and hepatitis, there are other conditions for employment related to fitness for duty when it comes to health and safety. |
Regarding the federal Covid relief windfall I mentioned, Beth O’Neal asked:
| Kate Dean said last time how the Feds have been pouring money into the economy due to Covid, and also into the direct coffers of the county. I’d love to know how much that is, and does it come with any strings attached to having certain kinds of mandates? |
In response, Administrator Mark McCauley detailed that the county received $3,129,000 in CARES funds in May and will receive another $3,129,000 next May. Additionally $1.5 billion has been appropriated for revenue sharing in counties, from which McCauley anticipates our county will receive $2 million by September 30, 2022 and another $2 million the following year. He concluded:
|
So total ARPA anticipated will be $10 million, maybe more. … the $6 million does have conditions. The revenue sharing money has no conditions except you can’t use that money for lobbying.
|
This may sound like a chunk of change, but it pales compared to the costs of emergencies that state and county officials may be creating by their new wave of mandates. Loss of essential services, loss of tourism as ferries become undependable, expensive wrongful termination lawsuits… the list goes on.
Have PUD and county commissioners calculated the financial risk to the county that they as public officials are creating? Do they expect to win all the lawsuits that will inevitably come?
by Ana Wolpin | Oct 8, 2021 | General
“To be told the DOT requires us to be
vaccinated was a huge, confusing shock.
By what authority does DOT dictate our medical policy?”
– Randy Calkins, PUD Water Distribution Manager, Sewer Manager
A letter to Jefferson Public Utility District employees from General Manager (GM) Kevin Streett has sparked controversy within the utility and among the public it serves. On September 24 Streett held a meeting with PUD staff, followed by an email stating:
“In accordance with the [governor’s] proclamation… the PUD will
be instating a Covid-19 vaccination requirement… The policy will
apply to all employees regardless of their work setting.”
I was among PUD customer-owners who wrote to our three commissioners in reference to the item “Vaccine Requirement – For Discussion Only” on their October 4 agenda. My letter expressed two concerns:
1) Given the well-documented viral spread by those fully vaccinated for Covid, why are the unvaxxed being singled out as potential health threats? On its face, these mandates are simply a way to stigmatize those who are refusing experimental shots. There is a growing body of evidence that the mandates are political, not valid health measures.
2) Our PUD cannot afford to lose more staff. Attracting qualified employees has been a challenge for Jefferson PUD without this added restriction. Loss of staff if a mandate were to be enacted could potentially cripple our utility’s ability to function.
The October 4th meeting
Click above for archived recording of October 4, 2021 PUD meeting. Agenda item Vaccine Requirement takes place from
1:56:08 to 2:54:50
It appears from the “Vaccine Requirement” discussion at the October 4 BOC meeting that my letter to the commissioners might have been misdirected. It turned out that a larger question loomed:
Who is making this decision — the Board of Commissioners who are our elected representatives? Or PUD General Manager Kevin Streett?
District 3 Commissioner Dan Toepper opened the discussion with that inquiry.
Toepper: “Question, can the GM make a policy like this?”
Streett: “When we talked to the unions, they wanted everyone painted with the same brush, both unions wanted, ‘okay, if you’re going to do it for one you have to do it for all.’ So we took that as part of our process-making. And then we also said, ‘okay, if we’re going to do it for two thirds of our employees, the last one third is the management side.’ And I struggled with this. It’s do we need to make a separate rule, a standalone rule that says, ‘okay, because you’re not going to go out there, you don’t have to be in consideration for vaccination.’ If we believe that we paint everyone with the same brush, then in this case I applied it to the management team… There is a lot of questions whether I can make a policy like this or not. I think I can, but it’s up for discussion tonight… I can take direction from the board and If the board says no, there will be some relief by a few, but they’ll also be some anxiety by some who really support the mandate… I struggled with this policy… but I think it’s the thing we should do at this time.”
Toepper: “I think this lies with the board as electeds… I am not in support of a vaccine mandate as a condition of employment at this utility.”
Ken Collins, District 2 Commissioner: “The position I take is to support the General Manager, and to follow the legal advice of our counsel, and to do what we think is going to keep our employees safe.”
Jeff Randall, District 1 Commissioner: “I do believe the GM has the authority… my personal view is that we are in a public health emergency… my personal view is that the sooner we all get vaccinated, the sooner we can get back to life as normal.”
Toepper: “We are being coerced, extorted, boxed in by the state to do something that ordinarily we would not be doing…. If a neighboring utility takes a different stance on this and they do not use this as a condition for employment, we could have people… working for us right now that could cross a county line and go to work somewhere else, and what did we solve with that?… All we did is shoot ourself in the foot… I believe this is the board’s decision, and WE own it at the end of the day, not the manager, or any of the people above us who are trying to push it down on us.”
When discussion opened for public comments, eight people of the three dozen on the zoom call asked to speak. All were in opposition to a vaccine mandate for employees. They included Craig Durgan, a PUD Citizen Advisory Board (CAB) member:
“One of the things you need to consider is it puts the liability onto the PUD… Drug manufacturers do not have any liability, but if you force people to take a vaccine that they do not want, and you use coercion of taking their job away… it opens the PUD up for liability for a wrongful death.”
Another CAB member, Sebastian Eggert, reinforced Durgan’s concern:
“Are you willing to accept the responsibility for a policy that may result in the loss of employees or god forbid a serious adverse reaction to the shot? If you lose employees to another utility, how many employees can you comfortably lose and still have a functional PUD?… We don’t have a full contingent of employees as it is.”
PUD employee of eight years Randy Calkins noted that this directive went far beyond Governor Inslee’s mandate which allows for weekly testing. He also observed that the Washington PUD Association had issued a notice (page 127 of agenda packet) that unless an employee has to work in close proximity to state employees or state contractors, the vaccine policy does not apply. “To be told the DOT [Department of Transportation] requires us to be vaccinated was a huge, confusing shock. By what authority does DOT dictate our medical policy?”
Calkins asked the commissioners to “please… put the representation in the hands of the PUD employees.”
Several customer-owners urged taking a pause, to avoid a rushed policy decision on something this important. Annette Huenke commented: “It was just reported by local health authorities that there’s a 46% vaccine failure [rate]… they’re blaming that on many more vaccinations…. The safety issues are immense… all of the heart conditions—myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks, strokes—they are real. If you get a man up in a bucket and he has a heart attack and he falls on a line and he dies and his family sues you, who is responsible for that?… Are the ratepayers going to pay that?”
Following public comments, none of these concerns were addressed. After Streett said there was pressure of an October 18th state deadline, Commissioner Collins immediately moved to end the discussion by putting the decision for a vaccine mandate back into the manager’s hands:
“I think we’re facing a deadline. I’m concerned about being out of compliance. I will make a motion that the Board of Commissioners support the General Manager in his decision about the best way to handle the safety issues raised by the Covid-19 virus.”
Randall seconded the motion.
Toepper objected. “This was a discussion-only item on the agenda,” not intended to generate that kind of action, he said. He asked for clarification of whether the motion was intended to remove the Board of Commissioners from this decision.
Collins: “The motion is intended to signify that the manager has, according to the Board of Commissioners, the authority to make a decision on how to handle this situation. So it is an endorsement of the manager’s authority.”
Collins then abruptly called for the vote. The motion passed 2 to 1, with Collins and Randall in favor, Toepper opposing.
Who should be responsible for an unprecedented policy of this magnitude?
Our public utility is owned by Jefferson County ratepayers, referred to as customer-owners. We elect commissioners to make policy. Our PUD commissioners need to have confidence in the General Manager, however all significant policy decisions are their responsibility. The manager may have legal authority to make a decision of this magnitude, but should he? In a two-to-one vote, our PUD commissioners have sidestepped a major policy decision that could have serious ramifications for our utility.
As a small community-owned entity, we value our county-centric, independent choices. It’s why we voted to take on over $100 million in debt by purchasing the electric utility from Puget Sound Energy—to have local control of our power. These mandates are not directed by any community need; pressure is being applied top-down. The unions are dictating Jefferson PUD policy while our commissioners abrogate responsibility for the consequences?
Who is NOT being mandated?
It’s curious to consider which segments of society are being threatened with loss of livelihood, coerced to comply with vaccine mandates, versus those being exempted. If achieving vaccine compliance is critical for the US to “get back to life as normal,” why are the following groups excluded from these mandates?
EXEMPT:
- White House officials and employees
- All House and Senate members and their staff
- All who work for the federal court system
- 2 million undocumented immigrants
- 500,000 homeless
If every person on the planet must be vaccinated in order to deal with Covid, how do the above exemptions further public health objectives? Why are Congressional elites, White House bureaucrats and staff, federal court employees, all of our homeless and millions of undocumented immigrants, not dangerous virus spreaders? How is it that they are not threatening our safety, but the unvaxxed electrical lineman in the bucket—who may already have natural immunity and risks blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, or even death from these shots—is a danger to society?
According to Streett, some portion of PUD employees are vaccinated, but “we don’t know the exact percentages.” Surely anyone who has not taken the shots by now does not think they are safe or effective. Or they are among the hundred million Americans who already had Covid and have far more robust and durable immunity than someone who has been vaccinated. If this mandate is enforced, how many will choose to leave our PUD rather than submit to this experimental medical procedure? Streett has acknowledged that staff loss is likely.
Like some of the commenters above, I attended PUD meetings for years, observing the formidable challenges our commissioners had to manage in order to keep the lights on and utility rates in check. A consistent challenge was staffing. Key positions sometimes went unfilled for years because qualified staff could not be found. Jefferson PUD hired five different Finance Directors, a position that requires expertise specific to utilities, in about as many years. When none of them worked out and a professional head-hunter was unable to attract a suitable replacement, financial services were contracted out with a high-priced firm for more than a year. Our previous General Manager ended up being an expensive mistake when it became clear within the first year of his contract that he did not fit our PUD. Top utility personnel are in high demand and have their pick of employers.
As customer-owner Jennefer Wood commented: “You provide basic services that could be disrupted depending on the response of your employees.” How many more losses can our utility sustain?
