SCHOOL BOARD
Voting for Angela Marshall
This past year, after many years of inactivity on my part, I have re-engaged with the Vashon School Board. I have been drawn in by the questionable practices, reported extensively in The Beachcomber, of two Vashon high school teachers.
While the investigations into the behavior of these teachers resulted in their eventual resignations, the questions that arose, why it took so long for the district to deal with them, and the assurance such behavior will not be tolerated in Vashon schools were never truly resolved.
What is clear is that the only way grooming and the violation of teacher/student boundaries will be resolved and the children of this island will remain safe in our schools is by electing school board members who are not only intelligent but are willing to do the difficult work of asking the hard questions, setting policy and leading the way for the school superintendent to follow.
While there seem to be four intelligent candidates running for School Board Director Position No. 3, if you have not made up your mind yet about who you wish to vote for, please consider voting for Angela Marshall.
I agree 100 percent with what she has written in the Official Local Voter’s Pamphlet, her comments in the most recent Beachcomber, and the statements she made at the recent forum held at Voice of Vashon. (If you did not tune into that forum on Thursday evening, I highly recommend listening to it at voiceofvashon.org.)
Here is what Marshall wrote in the Voter’s Pamphlet:
“Leadership requires difficult decisions. Vashon needs its school board directors to lead with principled and defensible decisions. I will do that.”
As the deputy director of the King County Office of Labor Relations, Marshall is an experienced manager and labor relations public servant. She is also the parent of two children in the district. She states she is someone “willing to be accountable and transparent in her actions, to represent the interests of and commitment to, educators, students, and families.”
Martin Koenig
LEVY
A firefighter’s perspective
It is very easy, from the outside looking in, to suggest how VIFR’s dollars should be spent and operations should be run.
But you don’t have to be a fire service expert to know a few things.
For instance, if you or a loved one has ever been transferred on the Fauntleroy ferry dock from a VIFR aid rig to a private ambulance — with walk-on passengers and everyone in cars watching it happen — you can understand why our district wants to do everything in its power to provide continuity of care for island residents who must be medically transported.
We’re in the business of compassion and caring, and trying to deliver the service that Vashon residents deserve.
Voting Yes on Prop 1 is a vital investment for the well-being and long-term safety of the island because the levy is a crucial component in ensuring adequate funding to maintain and enhance the capabilities of the fire district.
The levy’s failure would compromise the fire department’s ability to respond effectively to emergencies and protect Vashon in times of need. Mutual aid from neighboring fire departments is not an option when you consider the time it takes them to travel to Vashon.
Furthermore, the proposed levy allocates funds to key areas such as equipment upgrades, infrastructure improvements, and training programs. These investments are needed to keep pace with evolving safety standards and ensure that the fire department has the necessary resources and personnel to meet future challenges.
By voting Yes, you are demonstrating a commitment to creating a safe and secure environment for all residents.
Critics of the levy may argue that the financial burden on the taxpayers is too high; however, it is crucial to consider the potential consequences of not passing the levy.
Inadequate funding could lead to reduced services, longer response times, and compromised emergency preparedness. These outcomes could have far-reaching effects on property values, and insurance rates.
It is wiser to invest in prevention and preparedness now, rather than dealing with the aftermath of underfunded emergency services. Vote Yes to secure a safer, stronger future.
Brodie Smith, Firefighter and president of Vashon Firefighters Local 4189
LEVY
Response to letter
As the most vocal opponent to Proposition 1, this letter is written in response to the ad hominem attack on me in last week’s Beachcomber. Since the authors could not contradict the facts in my many Beachcomber letters, which were mostly vetted by the editor, they attacked me.
They would have you believe I am not qualified to question the VIFR Strategic Plan because I don’t go to meetings or fight fires.
Let’s look at that argument:
So, if I did not serve in the military, I am not qualified to call out the Defense Department for wasting billions.
So, if I never was a police officer, I am not qualified to call out police brutality.
So, if I never was a teacher or school administrator, I am not qualified to call out a school district for budgeting more than it could expect to receive.
Just because you dislike someone, doesn’t mean their facts are wrong. At the same time, just because you like and admire someone doesn’t make their facts right.
Check my facts; check their facts. Decide for yourself.
Scott Harvey
LEVY
Vote yes for adequate staffing
My cellphone read 3 a.m. one Saturday when a strong thirst woke me.
I got up to get a glass of water, but I must have risen too quickly. I regained consciousness twenty minutes later, sprawled on the floor near the front door — I had fainted and fallen down two flights of stairs. My forehead had collided with a steel recycling bin, leaving a diagonal gash.
I was too nauseous and dizzy to stand, so I sat up with my back against the wall and tried to think things through. From first aid training, I remembered that unconsciousness and a head wound could be serious, so I should get an expert opinion. I called 911, unlocked the front door, and waited.
I live four miles from the main fire station, but it seemed like quite a while before anyone from VIFR showed up.
First to arrive was volunteer EMT Mike Kirk, on his own. He was well along in his assessment before an aid car pulled up to the house with a paramedic and another EMT. They called WSF to hold the boat, then transported me to an emergency room for stitches and observation.
From something Mike said, I learned that my call had been the third simultaneous 911 call on Vashon during that hour.
With four on-duty crew already responding to calls, I was lucky to be attended by a volunteer. Otherwise, I would have had to wait until the crew already on duty had completed their responses to other calls.
If they had needed to transport patients from those calls, I might have waited for hours before being seen at the ER.
Here on Vashon, we can’t get speedy help from other fire districts. What if my issue had been more urgent? For a heart attack or stroke patient, or a car accident victim, a long wait could mean permanent disability or death. That’s why I’ll be voting yes on Prop 1, the fire levy lid lift on the August 1 ballot.
I’m encouraging my fellow Vashon voters to do the same.
Vicky de Monterey Richoux
LEVY
Response to editorial, letter to the editor
This letter responds to the Beachcombers editorial of July 13 and the Kirk and Brown letter printed July 20. (The Beachcomber’s word count restrictions curtailed and oversimplified this letter; specifics are deleted and the voice changed.) We are disappointed to see the statements in support of the Fire District levy put forward with accusations, ridicule, and dismissal of opponents. We’ve seen too much of that style of political discourse since 2016. We are more impressed by facts and well-reasoned arguments, such as presented in the July 13 article coauthored by Scott Harvey, Hilary Emmer and Steve Nourse, and Alice Larson’s July 20 article. These pieces present specific, well-reasoned arguments that should be considered by voters.
The editorial characterization of Harvey et al. as “naysayers” who are engaging in “gotcha” calculations and “cherry-picking” is neither fair nor accurate. Jeremy served with Scott Harvey for six years on the Westside Water District Board and has the highest regard for his financial analytical skills. Harvey et al. present some strong financial analyses which are not “gotchas.” By contrast, the editorial makes a rambling, emotional appeal, as do Kirk and Brown. Implicit in their reasoning, only those who have experienced their list of issues, which are unsupported by data, would be qualified to vote – all others should stand down. That would leave a small population of voters indeed. We do not endorse the notion that only those who “step up and [volunteer]” should have a voice. The logic that no one else is qualified to judge the need for a levy is fundamentally flawed.
The Seattle Times reported (April 29, 2017) that “property-tax bills in King County are among the nation’s highest.” Taxes may increase by 1% each year, a limit that does not constrain voter-approved levies. In 2017 our tax bill was under $6,000; it now runs nearly $10,000 per year. That’s a 67% increase in 6 years. On a retirement budget that’s becoming unaffordable. Few localities around this country make that kind of demand. This levy request is gilding the lily. We don’t need this one, and it should not be approved.
Jeremy, Jennifer and Joseph Pratt
LEVY
Pro-levy camp caused fear
I find it interesting that the pro-Prop 1 camp went to such great lengths and expense to defend their cause. This included one full-page color ad and two half-page, color ads for a total of approximately $3,000. And are those single-use signs all about the island made of plastic?
Apparently, the pro-Prop 1 folks felt threatened enough by those opposing the levy that they needed to do this. In contrast, those opposing the levy spent a total of $50 thinking that exposing the truth would be enough.
Prop 1 will undoubtedly pass but at least VIFR had to work for all their pork. Unfortunately, the play for excessive amounts of money will take a toll on those on fixed incomes, low income and other vulnerable portions of our population and if you think this is the end to the money grab, think again.
Usually, the need to spend large amounts of money on campaigns is viewed as suspicious. In this case, the rhetoric put forth caused fear among the residents. This is the only explanation I see for the fact so many are blindly consenting to a significant rise in taxes over the years in exchange for no real benefits.
Sadly, The Beachcomber has been complicit in this. Unbiased ideas and feelings seeped into the pages of the paper which should have been impartial. This included things such as larger, more prominent pro commentaries and subjecting opposing commentary writers to more scrutiny than the pro writers. Those of you who have not yet voted still have a chance to look over the facts and vote intelligently, not just out of fear.
Michelle Harvey
REGRETS
Toby and Zabette served Vashon well
In my letter in the June 8 Beachcomber, I intended to show respect and appreciation for school board members Zabette Macomber and Toby Holmes. They served our community with dignity and focus.
I want to publicly apologize for my poor wording and clarify; I thank them for their service and would vote to re-elect them. I did not mean to dis them, but intended to thank them and support them for fulfilling their terms.
My sincerest apologies to them both.
Candy McCullough
LAWN CARE
There are reasons to mow
I agree with most of Scott Durkee’s commentaries, but not the latest one (“The loveliness of tall grass…” (June 20, Beachcomber) 6/20/2023). Among other things, the commentary discusses the environmental impacts of mowing grass.
It begins by contending that mowing alongside roadways is wasteful. As a former road engineer, I can assure everyone that safety and preservation are the main reasons this is done. Tall grass and brush limit sight distance and eventually makes shoulders unwalkable. It also impedes drainage by blocking ditches and culverts.
Ponding water can cause vehicles to lose control, and thin layers of water can freeze forming black ice. Ponding water can also seep under the road, weakening the base and eventually causing potholes, cracks and pavement failures. Mowing is an inexpensive way to increase safety and reduce repairs.
The commentary also implies the transfer station is mowed “because it looks nice”. I’m not sure why they mow it, but it could be to preserve a landfill cap, leachate collection system, and/or methane collection system. Or it might be to control invasive species such as scotch broom and Himalayan blackberries.
There usually is a reason — I’m sure they’ll tell you if you ask.
I do agree that many people mow their lawns more than they really need to, certainly, it is good to suggest that they consider the impact of doing that. That said, we should acknowledge that there are very good reasons to regularly mow your lawn.
First and foremost is fire hazard — tall grass increases this hazard during the hot dry summers we are now experiencing. Second is the aforementioned blackberries and scotch broom — these will take over your entire property if you let them. The Beall greenhouses are an extreme example of what can happen.
Scott suggests replacing lawn space with gravel or similar materials, a practice frequently referred to as hardscaping. This is certainly a good idea, insurance companies and fire departments generally recommend it close to your house. However, it takes time and costs money both to install and maintain.
I will end this letter with the good news- affordable, reliable electric weed whackers and push mowers are already available, and I expect that riding mowers will be coming soon. Solar power has also become much cheaper and can pay for itself in about 15 years. Any homeowner with a sunny location can have solar panels installed, eliminating air pollution as well as their electric bill. This won’t completely solve the problems Scott brings up, but it’s a good start!
Henry Perrin
