An Independent Challenges Democrats On The Olympic Peninsula

Over coffee in Port Townsend, I met with Marcia Kelbon, the independent candidate for State House of Representatives in Washington’s 24th Legislative District. The district spans the liberal stronghold of Port Townsend, the retirement community of Sequim, blue-collar Port Angeles, multiple Tribal reservations, and the economically struggling region of Grays Harbor County. She arrived on her Harley, from her home in the small town of Quilcene along Hood Canal. The Harley is not the only unusual thing about Mrs. Kelbon. She is a former Republican who has left the party to challenge for a State House seat that has been solidly in Democratic control for a couple of decades.


Mrs. Kelbon has an extensive professional background which includes work as a civil engineer, senior executive for a biopharmaceutical company and as a patent attorney. Her law degree is from the University of Washington. She currently serves as Fire Commissioner in Quilcene. She describes her family home as a “tree farm” located next to Rayonier forests whose clear cutting has raised concerns from her about the herbicides used after harvest.


Kelbon left the Republican party over platform disagreements in order to launch an independent bid for the open seat vacated by retiring Representative Steve Tharinger. She won a spot on the November ballot primarily because the Democrats split their vote between three candidates and a Democratic Socialist of America.


Q: What caused your split from the Republican party”


MK: “Well, I always disagreed with a number of issues, including hard-right stances by some in the party on abortion and marriage, and the party’s enthusiasm for Donald Trump. Contrary to what some claim, I did not vote for Donald Trump as a candidate in the primaries of 2016, preferring instead John Kasich of Ohio. I am dissatisfied with party extremes on both sides. As an independent I aim to bring a moderate point of view to the race and the legislature.”


Q. I understand that you support abortion access and LGBTQ+ rights. Those are positions usually thought of as Democratic positions. Are there other issues related to this that are not aligned with the Democrats?”


MK: “I don’t support minors undergoing gender-affirmation surgeries. I believe children are too easily swayed into irreversible decisions before knowing who they truly are.”


Q. What is your position on immigration?


MK: “I support closing the borders to stop illegal drug and human trafficking. But I don’t support the deportation of immigrants who aren’t criminals – we should instead create paths to green cards. We need immigrants in many sectors.” She named high tech and medicine as areas needing more immigrants to fill roles.


Her position on healthcare comes from personal experience.
MK: “I raised three children, all of whom were adopted including one through the foster care system. Two of our adult children have used the Affordable Care Act.”


She advocates the idea of a base support of government provided healthcare without insurers making profit in the mix, allowing everyone to get some coverage. She believes that would save a huge amount of money while obtaining better outcomes by getting insurance companies out of the job of providing basic healthcare insurance. While a great goal, that has proven to be almost impossible for either party to get close to doing.


Q. “What new ideas would you bring to the issue of criminal justice and the linked issue of addiction?”


MK: “Some people on the streets, not all – truly have had a stroke of bad luck or bad experience. But for many, there are issues of addiction and mental illness. Our current approaches… don’t appear to be effective in stabilizing people and preventing them from getting worse. Sheriffs and police chiefs tell me that the current gross misdemeanor penalty is not enough. I would like to restore a felony penalty for knowing possession of hard drugs – not so we can lock people up and throw away the key, but so that we can convince people to get into drug court and treatment rather than jail. I would also like to fund adequate facilities for addiction and mental health treatment.”


Q. “We have a lot of people wanting solutions to entry level homes for lower income people. What concrete ideas do you have for helping get more homes built here on the Peninsula?”


MK: “My father-in-law was a union electrician, and we have completed several builds, including with solar, so I do understand the issues facing the building trades. I would support revising the latest energy code applying to residential construction based more on a cost/benefit analysis. We have to lower the cost of buying homes for young buyers. I would also like to modify the Growth Management Act to make it easier to build in village centers.”


Q. “Taxes are something that Republicans always are complaining about, wanting to drive down taxes. What’s your position on taxation. What makes you different?”


MK: “Our current tax structure is inequitable, but layering an income tax on top of the current regressive sales tax system is not the answer. While voters have time and again rejected an income tax, I suspect they might support a comprehensive restructuring of state taxes that does not increase the overall tax burden. I am willing to collaborate with either party on meaningful tax changes.”


Kelbon remains opposed to the proposed land transfer of Protection Island and Dungeness Spit to the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe.

Mk: “I am not in favor of that transfer at this time,” she explained. “I am concerned about commercial oyster farming and potential herbicide applications on Protection Island.” She also wondered about whether the Elwha and Port Gamble S’Klallam are supporting this land transfer.


Her path to victory is uncertain. She is banking on the fact that while Jefferson County remains solidly Democratic, Clallam and Grays Harbor counties are more conservative.

Even if she does win, it is unclear what she can accomplish in Olympia. Committee assignments are assigned by the two main parties. With the Democrats holding a large majority, it could be very hard to find an assignment. But that’s a long ways off. Until November, she needs to convince independents, disillusioned Republicans, as well as the people who never vote to turn out for her in this huge geographic district. She is trying to do that with a minimal campaign staff. That is not a small challenge. But if she can win and bring an ability to force the Democrats to modify positions to accommodate her vote, it could see some new policies that bring change to the Peninsula.

EVENT: Aberdeen hearing for proposed oil by rail terminals 

Thursday (10/8) – 

Aberdeen, WA – Hundreds of concerned Washington residents will gather at the official DEIS public hearing for two of the proposed crude oil by rail terminals in Grays Harbor, Washington. Local Tribal leaders, elected officials, business owners, faith leaders, and community members will voice concerns about the proposals, particularly on the risks from oil trains and spills from oil tankers.

Who:
Fawn Sharp, President, Quinault Indian Nation
Alan Richrod, Aberdeen City Council Member
Rev. Katherine Gardner, Hoquiam United Methodist Church
Dr. Bruce Amundson, family practice doctor and president of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility
Larry Thevik, WA Dungeness Crab Fisherman Association

With special performances by Quinault Indian Nation Drummers and Dusty Rhodes.

When/Where:
Thursday, October 8th; Press conference and rally at 5 pm
D & R Theater, 205 South I St, Aberdeen
Hearing from 1:30 to 4:30 pm (session 1) and 6 to 9 pm (session 2)

***ATTENTION ASSIGNMENT EDITORS: GREAT VISUALS!***
Large, diverse group wearing red; signs about oil trains and oil spills; musical performance

We will be live tweeting the hearing – follow along at @StandUpToOil, #AberdeenOilHearing and  #oiltrains.

The Aberdeen hearing is the second in a series of two hearings (the first was in Elma on October 1st) on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for two of the three proposed crude oil by rail terminals in Grays Harbor, Washington by the Westway and Imperium companies. There are currently five proposals for oil terminals in Washington, as well as a proposal by Shell Refinery in Anacortes to expand their operation to increase their oil by rail capacity.


###

STAND UP TO OIL is a growing coalition of groups opposed to new oil terminals and an increase in oil transport through the Northwest, while working to improve safety measures for oil currently traveling through the region. Learn more at Standuptooil.org.

Kerry McHugh | Communications Director

Washington Environmental Council
phone 206.631.2605| mobile 206.902.7555
email kerry@wecprotects.org | web www.wecprotects.org
office 1402 Third Avenue | Suite 1400 | Seattle, WA 98101

The Impacts of a Grays Harbor Oil Spill, in 13 Slides – Siteline

Huge money from Big Oil pollutes our political system in Washington State to gain access to exporting oil to China and Japan, a move that the Republican Congress is trying to get done, but can’t with Obama in power. The oil companies are trying to push through three large oil terminals for Grays Harbor. Here’s an overview, by Siteline of what that could mean. Want to take action on this? Contact our two state representatives for the Peninsula (or yours whereever you live) and our one State Senator (who is from the Aberdeen Hoquim area). There contact info is listed on the left side of my blog front page.

How Big Oil jeopardizes Washington coastal tourism and the Quinault Nation.

Three large oil terminals proposed for Grays Harbor could undermine the region’s economy and local culture. That’s the takeaway from two recent economic analyses: first, a study on coastal recreation in Washington from the Surfrider Foundation and marine technology firm Point 97; then, Economic Impacts of Crude Oil Transportation on the Quinault Indian Nation and the Local Economy, published by economic consulting firm Resource Dimensions.

A lot more on this at Siteline.

http://daily.sightline.org/2015/09/17/the-impacts-of-a-grays-harbor-oil-spill-in-13-slides/?utm_source=Sightline%20Institute&utm_medium=web-email&utm_campaign=Sightline%20News%20Selections

Siteline is one of my must read daily feeds. If you end up enjoying this article, join me in donating anything to their cause. Even $5 to $10.

Draft Environmental Review Released For Oil Terminals On Washington Coast – KUOW

Hoquim and Aberdeen ports are being slated for crude oil shipments by possible building of oil shipment facilities for trains coming from the Bakken fields in North Dakota. The plan is for 1178 more oil trains and 638 more oil tankers to be added to the Gray’s Harbor area a year. These trains would be carrying huge quantities of highly flammable crude, much the same as the oil that destroyed the Canadian town of Lac-Mégantic. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster for more on that). The plan is for up to 1188 oil trains per year coming into the area. Additionally, the Draft EIS talks about significant impact to the Quinault Tribal fisheries in the area, as the tribe will not be able to fish while boats are present, which essentially is all the time. As stated in the Draft EIS: “Tribal members would not be able to fish when ships or barges are moving through the area.” I guess it’s up to the Tribe to determine whether this particular fishery is worth fighting for, or whether there are other areas they can fish that are less impacted. It will be interesting to see what the Tribe has to say on this.

Also of interest is the trade off that the cities see in adding this highly polluting industry to their area. We all know that Hoquim and Aberdeen have been one of the poorest locations in the State, ever since the collapse of the logging industry due to the disastrous federal policies of allowing raw logs to be shipped to Japan in the 1980s. This  turned what had been an industry that was highly functioning with extraction and higher value processing jobs into a third world country where only cutting and transport of logs was done, wiping out mills across the area in short order. The Federal government green light to massive cutting with no concerns of market conditions or any need for local mills,  led to a short lived boom until the resources were gone. Meanwhile the industry blamed environmental organizations for suing to stop the destruction of all remaining forests to save what little habitat was being left due to a lack of oversight and planning by the Federal Government.

And so the proposal is to continue to eat away at locations where salmon can be fished and create a very large possible oil spill concern, one that not only would impact the Gray’s Harbor area but also the entire Washington and Oregon coast, if one of these vessels sank during a large storm due to mechanical failure. The trade off is to give much needed jobs to at least some of the people in the Gray’s Harbor area. How badly is this oil needed with the downturn in the Chinese economy, and other issues? Is the trade off of possible destruction of our recreational use of the Pacific Coast worth it to support the oil industry and it’s desire to sell their product to China and Japan? You can read and comment on the draft EIS if you wish at the link below.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/graysharbor/terminals.html

KUOW summary story:

The Washington State Department of Ecology has just released its draft environmental review of two proposed oil terminals on the Washington coast. A third proposed terminal has not yet begun the environmental review process. The terminals could be built in Grays Harbor, near Aberdeen, doubling current vessel and train traffic levels there. (KUOW)

http://kuow.org/post/draft-environmental-review-released-oil-terminals-washington-coast

Navy defends electronic warfare training project in Pacific Beach public meeting – PDN

Related news on the Navy’s expansion of electronic warfare testing.

The town with the most direct impact from the Navy’s proposal to expand electronic warfare training in Olympic National Forest had its first public meeting on the plan this week. More than 175 residents of Pacific Beach in Grays Harbor County attended the Wednesday night meeting, with many voicing opposition. A five-person team from the Navy — the U.S. Forest Service declined an invitation to attend — defended the military agency’s finding in August that the project would have no significant environmental impact. Angelo Bruscas reports. (North Coast News)

http://peninsuladailynews.com/article/20141121/NEWS/311219979/navy-defends-electronic-warfare-training-project-in-pacific-beach