Olympia Time

History, politics, people of Oly WA

Smith Troy, Trump and Telling the Truth

We’ve all heard President Donald Trump call the press “the enemy of the people.” Over the course of his terms, he repeatedly attacked news organizations as “fake,” “corrupt,” and even suggested some were engaged in illegal activity.

Beyond insults, he openly questioned the constitutional protections that shield journalists, including the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan precedent, and proposed “opening up our libel laws” so politicians could sue and “win lots of money.”

His rhetoric and actions exemplify a long-standing tension in American democracy: the fragile balance between government power and press freedom. Yet this struggle is far from new, and it is not new here at home. Nearly a century ago, in Thurston County, local politics intersected with criminal libel laws in a way that foreshadows today’s conflicts.

The story begins in November 1938, when Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney Smith Troy filed criminal charges against three men: Ray Gruhlke, Lester Main, and George Johnson. He accused the defendants of distributing handbills that allegedly defamed Troy and his brother Harold, who was an assistant county prosecutor. The charges contended that the statements were malicious and intended to expose the Troys to “hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy,” depriving them of public confidence, consistent with the criminal libel statutes of the time.

Almost immediately, questions arose about the integrity and motives of the public officials involved. The circumstances of the arrests suggested potential overreach, and critics argued that the case may have been politically motivated to protect the interests of Smith Troy while undermining his opponents. Affidavits from law enforcement contained conflicting accounts of the arrests, raising doubts about the accuracy and impartiality of the official record. The court initially denied motions to appoint independent attorneys to investigate the charges, further highlighting the potential for bias. The case only began to take a more credible direction once a Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Harry Ellsworth Foster, was appointed to replace Smith Troy, whose personal involvement as the alleged victim created an obvious conflict of interest.

Over the next several months, the Special Prosecutor’s investigation revealed that the alleged libel stemmed largely from confusion over incomplete court records. The handbills pointed to cases that the Troys were apparently prosecuting improperly, but the cases referenced in the pamphlets had been transferred, and the inconsistencies were clerical rather than malicious.

The defendants admitted their errors, tendered apologies, and Troy accepted them. By May 27, 1939, the court dismissed the case, noting that the controversy had prompted reforms to ensure future records were clearer and less prone to misinterpretation.

The Thurston County case cannot be fully understood without situating it within the broader legal context. Smith Troy would not have been able to pursue charges without statutes defining libel broadly as any malicious publication exposing living or deceased persons to hatred or contempt, or injuring any person in business or occupation. A person could be prosecuted even if the statements were true, unless published with “good motives” and “for justifiable ends.”

By the 1930s, criminal libel prosecutions had become rare, yet the statutes remained on the books through 2009, offering public officials like Troy a tool—however rarely used, to protect reputations through criminal law.

The law’s overreach and constitutional vulnerabilities became clear in 2008, when the Washington Court of Appeals struck down the criminal libel statute as facially unconstitutional. The court held that it violated the First Amendment because it punished false statements without requiring proof of actual malice and, paradoxically, could punish true statements lacking “good motives.” The legislature formally repealed the law in 2009. Modern statutes surrounding protection orders have partially revived criminalized libel in limited circumstances, primarily to address harassment and repeated false statements made with malice.

The Smith Troy case illustrates how criminal libel statutes historically empowered officials to suppress criticism, a temptation not lost on modern politicians. Trump’s attacks on the press echo the same impulse: using legal threats, regulatory power, and public shaming to undermine journalists and chill reporting. Unlike Thurston County in 1938, Trump operates on a national stage, with the ability to influence federal agencies, control access to government events, and challenge the judiciary’s interpretation of defamation law.

Yet the comparison also highlights both the fragility and resilience of press freedom. In Thurston County, the appointment of an unbiased Special Prosecutor and the eventual dismissal showed that legal checks, due process, and transparency can constrain abuses of power. Today, protections like New York Times v. Sullivan perform a similar role, ensuring that even powerful political actors cannot easily weaponize libel law against the press. Without these safeguards, the line between legitimate critique and suppression of dissent blurs, leaving citizens less informed and democracy weaker.

The trajectory from Smith Troy to Trump underscores that the press is both a target and a guardian in any democracy. Laws may criminalize speech, but misuse or selective enforcement erodes trust in both institutions and government itself. Meanwhile, as local news declines and national outlets consolidate, the onus falls more heavily on government to act transparently. A free press alone cannot ensure accountability; officials must make accurate information accessible, clear, and timely, or risk leaving the public in the dark.

History reminds us that power will always test the boundaries of scrutiny. The Thurston County libel case offers a microcosmic lesson: fair process, independent oversight, and transparent government are essential to maintaining the balance between authority and the public’s right to know. Today, as political leaders attack media and propose changes to defamation law, the stakes have moved from local to national. The core principle remains unchanged: the press must remain free to speak, investigate, and hold power accountable, and government must meet its own obligation to be transparent in a media environment that can no longer do it alone.

Hush Season 1 Review: the story-telling of our particular racist past and present

Hush Season 2 Premieres on October 8. It will focus on the mysterious death of a 19-year-old in rural western Oregon, in a community very much like the ones you’ll find all along our thin coastal region if you drive out of town for more than half an hour.

According to its co-creator, the amazing Leah Sottile, the new season will use the murder case as a way to explore the decline of local journalism, citizen investigations, and law enforcement. These are nearly universal issues that affect our communities and governments as we struggle to address the most pressing problems we face today.

I have high hopes for this season, largely because I’ve never been disappointed by the work Sottile has been involved in.

But today, I want to focus on Season 1 of the podcast, which centered on the wrongful conviction of Jesse Lee Johnson for the 1998 murder of Harriet Thompson in Salem, Oregon. Hush Season 1 is very much worth the listen. Would recommend.

Salem is a city very much like Olympia. Both are state capitals. While Salem is larger population-wise, Thurston and Marion counties are roughly the same size. You could imagine Salem as a version of Olympia that never spawned Lacey and more aggressively sprawled into the rural suburbs.

Throughout the first season of Hush, you can’t help but hear echoes of the Northwest’s racial past humming beneath it all. The story isn’t just about one man’s decades-long fight against a bad conviction, it’s about how the Northwest’s “white utopia” project still shows up today.

A White Utopia, By Design

Oregon’s founding dream was simple and brutal: keep the state white. The exclusion laws written into the constitution in 1859 made that official. And while the words were eventually removed, the impact never really went away. By 2000, Salem was only 1 percent Black. In fact, the percentage of Black residents had dropped between 1990 and 2000. Johnson himself noted how much he stood out as a Black man in town. That’s not an accident of demographics, it’s the result of generations of deliberate policy.

The podcast frames Johnson’s case as part of the “old plot”: Oregon has a history of turning Black men into villains, whether it was Joe Drake in 1902 or Robert Folks in 1944. Johnson’s trial was just the modern version of the same story. The details change, but the system doesn’t.

Policing to Protect Whiteness

What really sticks out is how quickly police locked onto Johnson—not because the evidence pointed to him (it didn’t), but because in a nearly all-white city, he was the “easy” suspect. One detective even admitted he couldn’t investigate white men the same way, because there were too many of them in the system. Black men? Just a thousand or so.

And when witnesses came forward saying they saw a white man fleeing the murder scene, police shrugged it off. One witness was told flat-out: “A Black person had been murdered, and a Black person was going to pay.” Add in accusations of witness coercion, bribes, and detectives with documented histories of racist remarks, and it becomes clear: bias isn’t just background noise—it’s the whole song.

The Death Penalty as Modern Lynching

Even after all this, Oregon still tried to execute Johnson. Hush doesn’t pull any punches: the death penalty here looks like an evolved form of racial violence. Lynching became the death chamber: different tools, same purpose.

When Johnson’s conviction was overturned in 2023, prosecutors didn’t say he was innocent. Just “not guilty.” That’s a legal technicality, not an apology. Johnson is currently suing the State of Oregon, so he may get a measure of justice under state law. Meanwhile, DNA evidence pointing to other suspects was ignored for years. The state clung to its mistake as if admitting the truth would unravel too much.

The Real Cost

Johnson spent 25 years locked up, most of them on death row. That’s not just time lost—that’s a state deciding the terms of your life, day after day. Oregon has been taking Black lives like this for a long time: sometimes by rope, sometimes by gurney, sometimes just by grinding someone down slowly.

Hush and the Myth of the Northwest

When I first wrote about the claim that the Northwest doesn’t harbor the same racial past or animus as the Dixie South, it struck me how perfectly the name of this podcast captured it: Hush. We don’t talk about this. Whether it’s because of the region’s cultural politeness or something much darker, we get away with acts of racism by staying quiet.

One thing I keep coming back to is the idea that we’ve somehow “moved beyond race.” You hear it in the colorblind rhetoric that took hold about 30 years ago, just before Johnson was convicted, the insistence that if we stop talking about race, the problems will disappear. The trouble is, that story works best for the people it was designed to protect.

The Pacific Northwest wasn’t built on neutrality, it was built on exclusion. Its economy was structured to serve white settlers, and that design still shows up in who holds wealth and power today. When we talk about “moving beyond race,” what we’re really talking about is maintaining the same system, just without having to say the quiet part out loud.

The Northwest likes to describe itself as tolerant, progressive, even enlightened. But that “colorblind” framing is its own kind of blindness. It hides how whiteness has been normalized and protected from the very beginning. If we’re serious about addressing racial inequality, we have to stop pretending we’re beyond it, and start asking who benefits from keeping that myth alive.

Not Hush: Storytelling and Reporting

In her preview of Hush Season 2, Sottile writes painfully about the decline of investigative journalism in the region, citing the demise of Cascade PBS’ long-form and investigative teams. We’ve certainly seen the value of this reporting in Olympia this week.

There’s a lot to say about the decline of newsrooms across the country. It’s a foundational issue for our democracy, and serious people need to start thinking about it soon. Yes, the conviction of Jesse Johnson and much of our regional history happened when reporters were more plentiful. But the question isn’t whether reporters were doing a good job back then. The question is: how do we confront injustice now, in a fractured and undersized media environment?

Why the Myth of Tumwater and Interstate 5 Matters

David Scherer Water is a treasure; there is no question about that.

But I take exception to his recent piece on Interstate 5 and our community, specifically how he frames the highway’s impact on Tumwater. David leans on the familiar “Interstate 5 destroyed Tumwater’s downtown” narrative.

David and I both explore the highway’s impact on Tumwater and Olympia, but our conclusions diverge sharply. Where David frames I-5 as a transformative and destructive force, I argue that Tumwater’s decline predates the interstate, shaped by earlier infrastructure decisions and geographic shifts.

David portrays I-5 as the villain: a “highway that destroyed Tumwater” and created Lacey, altering traffic patterns and dooming downtown Olympia. He emphasizes the dramatic, almost cinematic effect of concrete and asphalt cutting through established communities.

In contrast, my analysis situates I-5 as one of many forces affecting Tumwater. The town’s commercial decline had already begun with the construction of Capitol Way in 1938, which bypassed the original downtown area and redirected commercial activity to new locations. By the time I-5 arrived, the downtown core was largely abandoned, not obliterated by the highway. In my view, I-5 is less a destroyer than a marker of trends already in motion.

These distinctions matter. Before diving deeper, it’s worth noting that David and I already plan to take a walk together to discuss our differing approaches. We’ll record the conversation, which will appear in a future episode of The Olympia Standard podcast.

So why does this myth endure? Why does it matter to understand what really happened?

1. Understanding the impact of car culture on Thurston County

Interstate 5 was hugely significant. Aside from the 1950s Lemon case, which forced the state to relocate offices back to Olympia, I-5 was probably the most consequential development in our community since colonization. Lacey likely wouldn’t exist as a city, and Tumwater may not have grown as large without it. More broadly, the question of how car culture shaped our cities remains unresolved. A nuanced understanding of I-5’s impact is crucial for comprehending the complete story of regional development.

2. Robert Moses vs. Jane Jacobs

Urban planning scholars often frame debates through the Jacobs-versus-Moses lens. David casts the highway as a transformative, almost destructive force, emphasizing the top-down power of planners and officials to remake (or bury) downtowns, much like Robert Moses reshaped New York at the expense of neighborhoods.

Even though no Robert Moses operated in Thurston County, our debate mirrors this classic frame. David emphasizes centralized, dramatic change; I emphasize organic, context-driven shifts. The contrast highlights the tension between imposing grand designs and respecting the lived realities of communities.

3. Misunderstanding Tumwater in 1950

Tumwater did double in population between 1940 and 1950, but context is key. The town had fewer than 1,000 residents in 1940, roughly comparable to Rainier in 1990. By 1950, it had over 2,000 residents, more than doubling in size. This wasn’t due to increased density; Tumwater grew by sprawl, much like Rainier today. During the 1940s, the town was engaged in annexation disputes with Olympia over the Carlyon neighborhood and was building its first subdivisions south of Trosper Road.

4. Imagining what could have been

Tumwater today is spread across multiple nodes, with disconnected districts, much of its footprint suburban and car-centered. Unlike Olympia, Elma, or Shelton, it lacks a traditional “town” feel. Yet the idea that Tumwater once had a central, walkable downtown lingers in our imaginations.

We think of Issaquah and its salmon hatchery integrated into the civic landscape. Or we think of Steilacoom’s hillside rooftop dining, or Shelton’s cozy, somewhat forward-moving downtown. These towns were all bypassed by highways, but most had significant downtown cores before the interstates arrived. Lacey, by contrast, may have had a small commercial strip before I-5, but no one ever called that “downtown Lacey.”

The myth that I-5 single-handedly destroyed Tumwater obscures these deeper structural and historical realities. Understanding the nuances doesn’t diminish the highway’s significance; it helps us appreciate how communities evolve and the choices that shape them.

What happened to school vaccination rates in Olympia since COVID?

I wanted to examine school vaccination rates from just before the pandemic through the most recent data available. I chose September 2019 as the starting point, representing the cohort that began the school year ending with the onset of the pandemic. It is also convenient, since it was the first year of the current vaccine exemption landscape (where there is no personal exemption for MMR). The endpoint is roughly a year ago, corresponding to the 2024–25 kindergarten cohort (the most recent data available).

To keep the comparison consistent, I focused solely on kindergarten rates. Including overall or seventh-grade data would have made the trends harder to interpret.

Here is the source data, available from the state Department of Health.

Here is the data I used for my analysis.

Between 2019 and 2024, there were some notable shifts in compliance across both private and public schools. Private schools, on average, saw a substantial 20% drop in “Out of Compliance” rates, while public schools experienced a more modest 2.3% decrease. This indicates that, overall, fewer parents were not getting vaccination paperwork turned in.

At the same time, private schools experienced an increase in exemptions. The percentage of students listed as “Exempt” rose by 6.8%, including a 2.5% increase in religious exemptions. This change was driven entirely by the Olympia Community School. Their overall exemption rate went up 33%.

Interestingly, Olympia Community is the only non-religious private school in this group. By contrast, St. Michael’s and Evergreen Christian School both saw significant decreases in overall exemptions and religious exemptions since 2019. Evergreen Christian, however, remains second only to Olympia Community in total exemptions. Outside of these, only Boston Harbor and LP Brown reported increases in religious exemptions.

Public schools, meanwhile, showed an overall decline in exemptions. Total “Exempt” status dropped by 4.7%, accompanied by a 2.3% decrease in religious exemptions and a 1.2% decrease in medical exemptions. Lincoln and ORLA, which had the highest exemption rates in 2019, both experienced significant reductions, moving down several ranks over this period.

Looking more closely at exemption types, a few schools saw small increases in medical exemptions, McKenny and McClane, for example, while (again) religious exemptions rose slightly at LP Brown and Boston Harbor.

Overall, these trends suggest that while most schools have become more compliant, a few individual schools, particularly Olympia Community, have driven increases in exemptions, highlighting the ongoing variation across the district.

Several factors may help explain these shifts. The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed the conversation around vaccines. Being vaccinated became a social norm in Olympia. Increased awareness of infectious diseases, widespread messaging about vaccine safety, and the public prominence of vaccination as a socially responsible behavior likely contributed to higher compliance. Parents’ personal experiences during the pandemic, seeing the consequences of illness, navigating hybrid schooling, and engaging with public health campaigns, may have reshaped attitudes toward standard childhood immunizations as well.

These changes may also be influencing parental school choices. Religious schools, which historically allowed higher exemption rates, appear to have tightened compliance, reflecting both internal policy decisions and the broader cultural emphasis on vaccination. Meanwhile, parents who remain hesitant about vaccines may be opting for non-religious private schools, like Olympia Community, that more closely reflect their preferences. In this way, the post-pandemic landscape may be producing a subtle form of “sorting,” where schools increasingly reflect the vaccine beliefs of the families who choose them.

Overall, while most schools have become more compliant, the variation across individual schools suggests that parental preferences, school policies, and broader social trends are interacting in complex ways, shaping both vaccination rates and the composition of student populations.

Centralias Cannot Hold

A couple of notes before we get to the actual blog post:

  1. One of the first times I realized history wasn’t fixed came when I was a reporter at the Montesano Vidette. I was in my early 20s, still taking weekend classes at Evergreen. The Vidette was caught between eras—part hands-on production, part digital. We’d print our computer-written stories in column width, then cut and paste them onto pages before sending them off to the printer in Shelton. Just a few feet from our front door sat a century of bound newspaper editions. Every week, a handful of historians, history buffs, and family genealogists came by with spiral-bound notebooks and pencils to take notes from those oversized volumes.

One afternoon, an older woman arrived with an overstuffed backpack. She’d taken the bus up from Lewis County, connecting through Olympia. I was killing time before heading to the Elma City Council meeting when I noticed she had several volumes open, covering 1918 through 1923. She was searching for traces of a relative involved in the Centralia Massacre, back when Wobblies clashed with the American Legion.

What stuck with me most, though, was seeing her again later that night in Elma. Before the council meeting began, she approached the city clerk to ask if she could examine city records. She was catching the last bus out of Grays Harbor but had seen the city hall lights on and decided to stop. The clerk said no, and the police chief—who always attended council meetings, handed her a coupon for a hotel room and the bus out in the morning.

Here was someone, retired, without the money to drive, so convinced the official story of American Legionnaires bravely fending off Wobbly attackers was wrong that she hiked and bused her way to dig through the record. The Centralia Massacre is still debated today. If you don’t know the ins and outs, you can still follow along here. You don’t need to be a historian. But the story is fascinating. And, much like the legend of Marcus Whitman, the “official” tale is a heroic cover over a much deeper, messier truth about our region.

  1. For obvious reasons, I’ve also been thinking about the opening stanza of Yeats’ The Second Coming:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

There are endless reflections to draw from this poem, most circling back to the idea that history doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. Yeats had just witnessed the devastation of the Great War and the collapse of centuries of British rule in Ireland. An old order (unjust though it was) was giving way to violent disorder. His imagery: paths spinning away from the center, blood in the water, a beast slouching toward Bethlehem, captures both dread and inevitability. History was turning, but not toward salvation.

Centralias

There are a lot of Centralias in the United States. Twelve, as best I can tell. Fargo, North Dakota, used to be a Centralia, but changed its name. If you trace five of these Centralias (Missouri, Oklahoma, Washington, Illinois, and Pennsylvania), you can run a bloody finger across American history since the Civil War.

1864: Centralia, Missouri

Not at the forefront of the campaigns in Virginia or the Mississippi Delta, Centralia, Missouri, was caught in the deeper, revenge-fueled violence that marked the darker history of the Civil War. On September 27, 1864, Confederate guerrillas led by William “Bloody Bill” Anderson (joined by a young Jesse James) launched the Centralia Massacre. They boarded a train, separated 24 Union soldiers on leave, and executed them. It did not stop there. The guerrillas looted the town, torched the train, and set fire to the depot.

The Missouri front of the war was an irregular backwater, but it carried the legacy of Bleeding Kansas, and its violence was no less savage.

Later that same day, a Union force of 146 inexperienced mounted infantry was sent to intercept Anderson’s men. The clash became the Battle of Centralia. But if not for the earlier massacre, this too might have been called a massacre. The Union troops were severely outmatched and overrun. Anderson’s fighters killed 123 soldiers, nearly annihilating the detachment. By the end of the day, 147 Union casualties had marked Centralia as a site of wartime horror. Observers at the time called it an “inhuman slaughter” and one of the “chief barbarisms of the war.”

The massacre was not an isolated event but part of the escalating cycle of frontier violence that began with Bleeding Kansas in the 1850s. Confederate guerrillas sought revenge against federal forces who had occupied the Missouri-Kansas borderlands. Union responses were just as brutal: Brigadier General Clinton B. Fisk suggested “depopulation and devastation” in retribution, citing earlier expulsions of border residents under General Ewing’s orders. The violence was reciprocal, entrenched, and unrelenting.

1901: Centralia, Oklahoma

After the Civil War came emancipation, Reconstruction, and then its collapse. Jim Crow laws and sundown towns spread across the nation, systems of racial control maintained by violence, and sometimes resisted by violence.

That resistance flared in Centralia, Oklahoma, in October 1901.

White residents tried to drive Black families out of town one night. A group of white men attacked the home of a Black resident, Whitmitre, firing into the roof and forcing his family to flee into the dark.

In response, Black townspeople armed themselves. Shots rang out along the streets, and white residents barricaded themselves inside their homes. In the chaos, a white woman was shot. The Black residents’ message was clear: they would not be driven out. Federal authorities later arrived and suppressed the uprising, arresting one Black man for shooting the woman.

Centralia was not the only place where white people forcibly removed residents based on race. But it is one of the few where people of color stood up and fought back.

1919: Centralia, Washington

This is the one most people around here know.

On November 11, 1919, a parade to celebrate the end of World War I, a year before, erupted into bloodshed. The Centralia Massacre (sometimes called the Centralia Conspiracy, Riot, or Tragedy) pitted the American Legion against the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, or “Wobblies”).

The massacre grew out of long-standing tensions between the Wobblies and a coalition of local business owners, the American Legion, and government officials. The IWW pushed for all workers to unite as a class, take control of production, and challenge the capitalist system. They often used “direct action” tactics like strikes and public speeches to make their point. Their anti-war stance during World War I only made matters worse. Many locals saw them as unpatriotic, even traitorous.

The 1919 killings were an escalation of years of attacks by the anti-IWW coalition. In 1914, IWW members looking for food were marched out of town. In 1917, they were evicted from their union hall. And in 1918, a group of businessmen raided the hall during a Red Cross parade, beating members and dumping them outside town.

When the shooting ended, six were dead: four Legionnaires, one Wobbly, and a deputy sheriff. The Wobbly, Wesley Everest, was captured, jailed, and later lynched by a vigilante mob. Some IWW members were convicted in the aftermath, but no one was charged in Everest’s killing or for the assault on the union hall.

1947: Centralia, Illinois

The bosses had been warned, but the mine blew up anyway.

On March 25, 1947, an explosion tore through Centralia Mine Number 5. Coal dust ignited, killing 111 miners.

The hazards were known long before. State and federal inspectors, union officials, and safety officers had warned of the coal dust buildup and unsafe blasting practices. Management ignored the warnings. At one point, they even admitted to unsafe practices. Still, nothing changed. The result was a catastrophe.

Whenever you hear about regulation, safety rules, and the economy, you should think back to Centralia, Illinois. This was a time when labor unions wielded more power than today, yet workplace safety rules were ignored enough that killing 111 men barely registered beyond becoming the fifth-worst workplace catastrophe since 1940.

1962: Centralia, Pennsylvania

Rather than destroying 100 miners in an instant, this Centralia has been erased slowly, in smoke and fire.

At least, because authorities could foresee the danger, they eventually stepped in, after allowing the even bigger wrong to happen.

Since 1962, an underground coal seam fire has burned beneath Centralia, Pennsylvania. Most believe it started when a landfill fire spread into abandoned mines. The consequences have been terrifying.

In 1979, a gas station owner discovered his underground fuel tanks had reached 172°F. In 1981, a 12-year-old boy fell into a 150-foot sinkhole in his backyard—saved only by clutching a tree root. Carbon monoxide seeped through the ground.

The fire led to a slow evacuation. In 1983, Congress gave $42 million for relocation. More than 500 buildings were demolished. In 1992, the state seized remaining properties through eminent domain. The town lost its ZIP code in 2002. By 2020, only five residents remained, having won the right to stay for life. Today, Centralia is little more than cracked roads, weeds, and warning signs of fire and poison gas.

Centralias

The center did not hold in Missouri, where border wars became slaughter in the Civil War. It did not hold in Oklahoma, where white supremacy cracked and Black resistance burned. It did not hold in Illinois, where profit outweighed miners’ lives. It did not hold in Pennsylvania, where the earth itself betrayed its settlers, burning from below.

And so it goes: America is a lone Douglas fir in a wind storm, fragile and furious. Stability is never given; it is enforced, at someone else’s expense, until it snaps.

Order, a center, is forced by guerrillas, mobs, bosses, and bureaucrats. All tools of power that maintain control until they go too far, and tragedy ensues.

The Centralias are not exceptions. You could grab more city names out of a bag and find a host of similar sundown town violence, industrial accidents, and labor wars. Centralias are warnings.

Things fall apart. The Centralias cannot hold. And the little anarchies are loosed.

But in the end, most of these Centralias still exist. Missouri is still on the map. Washington and Illinois are scarred by history, but still there. Even the Centralia that was wiped off the face of Pennsylvania was not erased by indifference but met, however imperfectly, with responsibility and relocation. Yeats’ Ireland, torn by violence, moved on, even now edging toward reunification. And Europe, as it leans towards continental war again, has also seen long stretches of peace and reunification. History is not only a blood-dimmed tide. It carries moments of rebuilding, of reconciliation, of quiet endurance. The fire does not burn forever, and the center, however fragile, can be rebuilt.

The City of Puget and how we build cities

There’s something about a neighboring city moving into nearby unincorporated neighborhoods that always gets people excited and wanting a city of their own. At least around here.

That’s exactly what happened in the 1960s when Lacey became a city.

The Birth of Lacey: A Rivalry with Olympia

Lacey’s path to cityhood was shaped by a rivalry with Olympia over annexation and control of fast-growing suburbs.

After World War II, Lacey shifted from farmland to a booming suburb, helped by projects like South Sound Mall. By the early 1960s, Olympia began pushing east, annexing land along Martin Way and Pacific Avenue up to Lilly Road. This sparked a “border war” as Lacey moved to incorporate and protect its own boundaries.

Lacey’s first incorporation vote in 1964 failed, but a second vote in November 1966 narrowly passed by about 200 votes. Almost immediately, conflict reignited. Residents of Lacey’s western “Olympia fringe area,” who had opposed incorporation, voted to leave and join Olympia in early 1967. Lacey sued to block the move, but courts upheld Olympia’s annexation under an old 1890 law (later changed in 1969).

That same year, voters in both cities considered merging into one. Supporters said it would cut costs, improve planning, and solve Lacey’s sewage problems by tapping Olympia’s system. The proposal failed, badly in Lacey, where residents strongly opposed merging.

The 1980s: Lacey Looks North to Puget

In the ’70s and ’80s, Lacey tried to annex eastward but hit resistance from established neighborhoods like Tanglewilde and Thompson Place. Much like Lacey in the ’60s, these neighborhoods didn’t want to join a bigger city, or form their own. They already had regional fire services, and Tanglewilde even formed its own park district, building the county’s only public pool.

So Lacey looked north, toward undeveloped land between those neighborhoods and Hawks Prairie.

During the 1980s, Lacey took an aggressive annexation strategy, focusing on big undeveloped areas with huge growth potential, like Hawks Prairie. This land promised billions in development and tens of thousands of jobs over two decades. Lacey wanted to bring in sewer, water, and other urban services while avoiding the political headaches of older neighborhoods.

At the same time, Lacey played defense. It annexed strategically to stop the proposed City of Puget, an effort by rural residents to block Lacey’s expansion. Just like Lacey vs. Olympia before it, the Lacey vs. Puget City battle took on the same tenor of trying to keep the neighboring big brother from taking over.

The proposed City of Puget was named after an unrealized metropolis on Johnson Point. Puget City was platted in 1870 (and promptly un-platted three years later) as a possible terminus for the railroad. There are actually a handful of homes that sit on “Puget City” parcels in the area, but obviously, the rail road city was never built. As Lacey started their march to the inland sea in the 1980s, rural residents staked their own claim and petitioned the boundary review board for the creation of the 3,000 person City of Puget.

The new city idea died after the Boundary Review Board voted it down 3-2. The board leaned on a rift between residents of the rural areas and developers and residents of larger planned neighborhoods that wanted Lacey’s services.

One big difference between the 1960s and the 1980s? The Boundary Review Board. Created in 1967, these boards added consistency to city formations and annexations. You can’t rewrite history with “what ifs,” but it’s interesting to imagine what Lacey’s future would’ve looked like if it had been blocked like Puget.

Ultimately, Lacey annexed thousands of acres, leapfrogging older neighborhoods to build new subdivisions and warehouses. Those skipped-over neighborhoods fought off annexation attempts for decades, and now, in 2025, Lacey is looking back at them again.

But first: How Cities Grow

This brings me back to my favorite academic paper I’ve read this year, The Neutral Criteria Myth. In a discussion about legislative redistricting, it points out that histories like Lacey’s show how city boundaries might look like simple lines on a map, but they are anything but neutral. These boundaries have long been used to shape communities, deciding who holds power and who gets resources.

Historically, these lines were often drawn with racial and economic bias. Redlining is a clear example, where minority neighborhoods were confined to underfunded areas. At the same time, wealthy, mostly white suburbs drew boundaries to separate themselves from urban centers, creating large gaps in wealth, schools, and public services. The truth is, there is no such thing as a neutral city boundary. These lines have always been about more than geography, they shape opportunity and segregation in ways that last for generations.

City lines affect property values, school funding, and even political representation. Local gerrymandering (redrawing district maps to favor one group) can tilt power and weaken others’ votes. Annexation decisions also play a role: cities often target areas that bring in tax revenue while avoiding neighborhoods that may be costly to serve.

This is exactly the situation Lacey faces today. Decades after growth management laws placed the old Tanglewilde and Thompson Place neighborhoods in Lacey’s Urban Growth Area, the city is now looking back at the areas it skipped over. They have studied what annexing these unincorporated neighborhoods would mean. Their new financial analysis offers a clear answer: annexation would likely cost more than it brings in, at least in the near term. The study examined three growth scenarios, and in every case, the city would face a financial hit. Even after 20 years, the costs of police, fire, and utilities outweigh the tax revenue these areas would generate.

So, annexations have biases towards the needs of the current city residents. Systems like boundary review boards can help short-circuit these biases and bring more rational decision-making, but I think there is a broader model.

One idea I’ve been thinking about is to take city boundary decisions out of the hands of cities themselves. Currently, cities often push annexations for more tax revenue or strategic growth. But what if an independent board handled it instead, similar to the commissions used for legislative redistricting?

This board wouldn’t have a stake in politics or money. Its sole goal would be ensuring that services, water, sewer, police, fire, are delivered efficiently. It would focus on creating logical city limits that make sense for residents and future growth, not just for city budgets. The concept is simple: draw boundaries based on what works best for communities.

In many places, higher levels of government already step in to manage city boundaries rather than leaving decisions to individual cities. They do this because it can bring major public benefits, better planning, stronger services, and less wasteful competition between municipalities. Sometimes this happens through state or provincial laws. Other times, independent boards (like Boundary Review Commissions in the U.S. or Municipal Demarcation Boards in South Africa) take the lead. Their role is to look at the bigger picture: how to manage growth, avoid urban sprawl, and ensure communities are connected logically.

Why does this matter? When cities compete over territory for tax dollars, services suffer and local governments end up fighting instead of cooperating. Provincial or national intervention can fix that. In Canada, provinces sometimes merge or reorganize municipalities so services align and resources are shared fairly. In South Africa, national boards bring diverse communities together under one system, promoting equity and social cohesion.

The goal is simple: instead of a patchwork of self-interested annexations, create a more thoughtful, planned approach to city boundaries, one that serves people.

Digging Deeper Into the August Primary Results

After posting my first results map for the August Primary and releasing a discussion episode on The Olympia Standard, I wanted to take a closer look at a few things that stood out to me.

1. Lacey’s Parks Proposition: Where Did It Win?

I don’t talk about Lacey all that often, but the failure of the parks proposition caught my attention. The geography of support was interesting.

  • Panorama City, the retirement community that once dominated city politics, was very pro-parks.
  • Precincts around Wonderwood Park were also supportive, which makes sense—it’s a walkable neighborhood park that feels embedded in the community.
  • But near Rainier Vista Park, support wasn’t as strong. That also tracks. I can see how a park like that could feel like a nuisance to neighbors. My most vivid experience there? Having a neighbor yell at me for driving around the block looking for parking.
  • And then there’s the weird belt of pro-park precincts hugging I-5. These are newer neighborhoods. Maybe those residents are hoping for more parks to be built, like the Greg Cuoio Community Park, which is still undeveloped.

2. Simplifying the Results Maps – The “Left Lane” Candidates

While looking back at the maps I made earlier, I realized I could simplify things by categorizing results based on how many “left lane” candidates won in each precinct. These were the easiest to group together, Vanderpool, Gilman, and Geiger.

When you do that, some interesting patterns jump out:

  • The Southeast bubble is still very clear.
  • You can see far Westside outliers too that consistently lean conservative.
  • But Olympia 31, near LBA Park and deep inside the SE, voted for two left-side candidates. That suggests the SE line might now run along Henderson Road, rather than everything south of I-5. If so, that could mean the older neighborhoods west of the high school are shifting politically.
  • And then there’s Olympia 45 (around Lilly Road and Martin Way). It only voted for one left-side candidate. Why? If anyone has theories, I’d love to hear them.

3. Krag Unsoeld vs. the Countywide Map

On this week’s Olympia Standard podcast, Rob Richards explained why he doesn’t think Krag Unsoeld is likely to win in November, even though he had a strong August showing. The reasoning: Port Commission races are district-based in the primary but countywide in the general. Krag didn’t dominate enough in his left-leaning district to make up for the more centrist countywide electorate.

That’s a theory, but does the math back it up?

I went back to the 2023 Port races and built a precinct-by-precinct extrapolation, comparing left-leaning general election results with Krag’s 2025 in-district primary numbers. Even though left-side candidates swept the table in 2023, Krag’s numbers don’t project well.

By my estimate, he’d lose the general by about 8,000 votes, 42,000 to 34,000.

We lost our neighborhoods, we lost our unions

Ironically, it was called the People’s Store.

People’s opened in spring 1966 to a large gala, just as the South Sound Center in what is now Lacey was welcoming its first tenants. Outside the Ernst store next door stood Dale Parsons, ruining the festive mood. He was a lone union picketer. He carried a sign pointing out that Ernst was non-union. The twist? Parsons wasn’t a union member himself, he had been hired by the Olympia Retail Union to advertise that Ernst hadn’t signed a contract.

The 1960s marked a turning point for Olympia’s retail unions, which had been part of the city’s commercial fabric since 1903. Historic places like The Spar, a gathering spot for workers since 1935, still stand as reminders of this legacy. But like many cities across America, Olympia’s labor movement has faced a long, slow squeeze driven by suburban sprawl. Since the end of World War II, outward growth has reshaped communities, economies, and, critically, unions.

By the late 1960s, the impact of suburbanization was already clear. The lone protester outside the new mall was a visual symbol of a shifting retail landscape. As businesses moved from downtown into suburban shopping centers, the local clerks’ union faced new challenges. A more dispersed workforce made organizing harder, eroding both membership and bargaining power.

The challenge became even more obvious two years later, during a 1968 retail strike in neighboring Grays Harbor. The new highway from Elma to West Olympia gave shoppers a simple way to bypass picket lines, by driving to Thurston County to do their shopping. That convenience undermined the strike and foreshadowed how suburbanization would continue to weaken union efforts.

The suburban boom wasn’t just about housing. It brought a new model of shopping. Downtown business districts gave way to malls in Lacey and, later, on Olympia’s Westside. Big-box stores like Kmart, Target, and Walmart (with their sprawling footprints, parking lots, and all-in-one convenience) pulled shoppers further from city centers and unionized workplaces.

For employers, this shift was no accident. Moving jobs out of dense urban cores allowed companies to tap into cheaper, less unionized labor markets. This geographic dispersion deliberately weakened what one scholar called the “natural solidarities of work and neighborhood,” long the foundation of urban unions. Union leaders themselves have noted that big-box development often displaces union jobs, and that union density falls the farther you get from the city’s core.

The obstacles weren’t only geographic; they were political. While private-sector union membership collapsed after the 1970s, automation and globalization weren’t the main drivers. The bigger factor was employer resistance. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 had already weakened unions, and in the decades that followed, employers increasingly fought organizing efforts with tactics like threats of store closures and mandatory “captive audience” meetings. Courts often sided with management, making it harder for workers to organize and sustain unions.

Despite these national headwinds, Olympia’s main retail clerks’ union (now UFCW Local 367) has survived and adapted. Founded in 1934 as Retail Clerks Local 367, it now represents thousands of workers across Thurston, Pierce, and Grays Harbor counties.

A major milestone came in 1979, when the Retail Clerks International Union merged with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters to form the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) International Union. While UFCW 367 remained a distinct local, it has often joined with neighboring unions for major contract negotiations. In 2013, for example, coordinated bargaining across locals narrowly averted a grocery strike.

As cars reshaped our communities, we lost walkable, “people-oriented” spaces. At the same time, we lost people-oriented institutions: retail unions, which all but disappeared from the suburban landscape. On a recent episode of The Olympia Standard podcast, it seems very on point that we discussed how the drive-through model at Starbucks can feel dehumanizing and why unions remain essential in retail work.

Today, we’re rethinking our communities, emphasizing denser neighborhoods where services are closer to the people who need them. But as we rebuild our physical landscape, we also need to rebuild our labor landscape. Union density still matters. Wherever people work, they deserve a voice on the job.

Five initial lessons from the August 2025 Primary

The Friday after Election Day is a pretty big day for me. That’s when the first round of precinct-level data is released. Using that data, I dive into the maps to see if there are any lessons to be learned.

Until I get to a couple of Olympia School District (OSD) races, I colored the maps in this post all the same way: for any candidate, blue indicates where they did better, and red shows where they did worse.

  1. Paul Berendt is probably fine.

I don’t expect his campaign to ease up, but the big risk he faced in how this election was set up didn’t materialize. Berendt definitely isn’t a right-leaning candidate in any broader sense beyond being an Olympian, but running against a DSA-endorsed progressive puts him on the right side of the scale here. Also, in my part of town, his signs have consistently been paired with candidates who would be classified as right-leaning, no matter how you slice it. The Maria Flores vs. Taluana Reed race shows how traditional left candidates, when paired against far-left candidates, can produce a map that highlights a base of support in more traditionally right-leaning areas of Olympia.

The risk is that the neighborhoods that show up in August don’t necessarily match those that turn out in November. A strong showing in August, generally in SE Olympia, can box a candidate in come November when other neighborhoods show up. So, what Berendt needed was support from a diverse range of neighborhoods, which, as we can see below, he achieved.

  1. Winning maps look similar.

Robert Vanderpool had a winning map very similar to Berendt’s, though arguably he was running in the same lane as Berendt’s opponent, Caleb Geiger. Is this the advantage of being on the council right now? There’s a slight west-side shift in Vanderpool’s map, likely reflecting the different lanes, but I want to chalk this up to how people in Olympia vote, which isn’t always the laundry list of issues campaigns highlight.

  1. Wendy Carlson’s long road to November.

The key to winning from the right or moderate side is to dominate the areas where you’ll be safe in November (SE Olympia and some far west-side precincts) and be competitive everywhere else. This was not the case for Carlson (or Justin Stang, for that matter). I’ve included Carlson’s map here to illustrate. While she did produce lighter reds throughout SE Olympia, these are places she would have wanted to lock down now so she could expand her support in November.

To be completely fair to Carlson, mapping the winning and losing precincts in a multi-candidate primary using this system isn’t super helpful if the candidate wasn’t in first. What I should do is just map where she got a plurality of the vote and go from there.

  1. Winning maps look the same Part 2: Renee Fullerton dominated, only losing in Rhyan Smith’s SE Olympia stronghold.

What was actually surprising in these races was that Jeremy Ruse also failed to advance out of the primary, but the map doesn’t help clarify why. Fullerton’s map is a classic August winner, taking nearly everything except SE Olympia—ironically where her district is centered. For some, this could be an argument in favor of district elections in school boards.

  1. The interesting race now shifts to the Olympia School District’s west-side contest, where Emily Leddige and Gil Lamont bested right-leaning candidate Ruse.

I did something different with their maps, shading for overall support instead of simply above or below 50 percent. The basic story is that Leddige seems to have a west-side shift compared to Lamont. I’m not sure what this means for electoral strategy, but Lamont is slightly ahead, so he might be better positioned to pick up whatever votes remain from Ruse.

Here is Leddige’s map:

And Lamont’s:

There are a few more things I want to do with this election’s precinct data. In addition to remapping Carlson’s race, I’m going to stretch out to Lacey and look at their Prop 1 parks vote that failed, and extrapolate the port data to see what I find there.

They Used the Profits to Replace Us

In 1986, thousands of timber workers along the Washington coast went on strike. In the middle of the walkout, seven workers (occasionally joined by their union brothers and families) walked more than a hundred miles to Olympia.

They marched to demand that Governor Booth Gardner, scion of the very timber corporation they were striking against, intervene on their behalf.

The “Save Our Communities March” culminated in a noon rally on the Capitol Campus on Friday, July 25, 1986, attended by roughly 1,500 striking Weyerhaeuser workers and their supporters.

Gardner didn’t intervene. And the workers eventually had to surrender. During a short speech at the rally, the governor was booed and heckled as he urged workers to accept change in the industry if they wanted it to survive.

Gardner talked in the same language as timber company bosses: that competition from the American Sound and Canadian mills made the heavily union communities in the Pacific Northwest hard to pay for.

Weyerhaeuser was demanding a $6 per hour average wage and benefit concession. In return, the company offered a profit-sharing plan. They promised workers a share of the profits, but only if their specific mill performed well. The problem with that was that you needed a job to share in the profits.

Union members suspected the company was trying to claw back hard-won gains, especially given that some mills had remained profitable. A week before the rally, the strike had spread to 6,200 Weyerhaeuser workers across the Northwest.

But, the march on Olympia happened against a backdrop of unraveling solidarity, as the company began reopening mills using salaried employees and union workers who crossed picket lines. This led to scattered confrontations: rock-throwing, damaged vehicles, but the incidents were isolated.

So by that Friday, 1,000 had crossed the line, and 1,500 were shouting at the governor.

And three days later, 11 Weyerhaeuser plants were back in operation with a combined workforce of 1,600 union and non-union employees. The unions lost.

They had initially sought a wage increase and better benefits. But when the 52-day strike ended on August 18, 1986 when union members ratified a new contract that included both wage and benefit reductions and a profit-sharing plan to partially offset the losses.

Looming over the entire strike was Weyerhaeuser’s ongoing push to replace human labor with automation. In the seven years leading up to the strike, timber jobs in Oregon dropped 15 percent, even though lumber output increased. The workers knew what was coming. The spotted owl hadn’t even entered the conversation yet. It was always automation.

The workers in Aberdeen and Raymond went back to smaller paychecks and to jobs that were increasingly being done by machines. But at least they had profit-sharing.

Just weeks before the strike, a millworker named Ivan Breider told the Seattle P-I exactly what was going on: “If they got too much profit, they’ll put in new machines… or robots to do more of the jobs. That’s what they’re going to use it for—to eliminate jobs with. The men will never see it.”

He was right.

Ten years after the strike, Weyerhaeuser had cut 10,000 jobs worldwide, 1,400 in Washington alone, without cutting output.

And eight years after the strike, the Northwest Forest Plan was adopted, changing the mix of wood supply to protect endangered species like the spotted owl. But while automation had been erasing jobs steadily for years and unions had slowly capitulated, the dominant narrative became all about the owl.

Automation wasn’t unique to Weyerhaeuser. It was reshaping the entire wood products industry. Labor economists summed it up clearly: “Automation has affected us all.”

But we’ve forgotten the 1986 strike, the “March to Save Our Communities,” and the workers who saw corporate greed and automation as the real threat. We’ve replaced it with a story about a battle between environmentalists and loggers.

That shift in narrative was missed by KUOW in a recent piece about tariffs and the possibility of re-opening Northwest forests for harvest:

“So, why has the timber industry here declined so much?”

Mill manager Aaron Poquette had some answers: increased difficulty harvesting from public lands, the timber wars of the 1980s and ’90s, and wildlife protections like the spotted owl.

“The harvest volumes that come off the national forest right in our backyard are nowhere near what they were in the ’80s and early ’90s,” Poquette said. “We have this huge timber base… but we’re just not taking the harvest.”

He also cited rising labor costs, industry consolidation, and changes in forestland ownership.

What’s missing? The jobs lost to automation.

The story almost gets there:

“Barnes’ career path illustrates how, over time, mill jobs are becoming more highly skilled and valuable. Now, with AI technologies entering the mill, doing things like visually grading the quality of each board, that transition continues.”

But even then, it pivots back to supply.

Why does it matter whether the problem is supply or automation? The slow disappearance of human labor in the timber industry is part of a much larger story. The story of people vs. machines. John Henry vs. the steam drill.

This was the last-gasp strike before automation eliminated jobs, and we blamed it on an owl.

But it’s not just a story about timber workers. It’s also a story about software engineers and artificial intelligence. Microsoft is laying off thousands while leaning into AI. There’s a bone-deep fear that these high-paid, high-skill jobs will go the way of the timber mill, gone in a generation.

A few years after Zoom school hit and laptops became required, kids are now burning their school-issued Chromebooks. And I know Zoom school was the right call at the time. But something is unnerving about requiring a computer to attend school, even as we rip phones from students’ hands in the name of technophobia.

This is also a lesson about our humanity. No matter how far we go, we are still us.

In the same way, we now call for walkable neighborhoods because we’ve realized that building around cars took something from us.

Technology isn’t the enemy. Humanity is the friend.

The Luddites didn’t smash looms because they hated machines; they did it because they hated the bosses who used those machines to devalue their labor. They weren’t anti-tech; they were pro-dignity. The looms were cheaper than people, and the bosses did the math.

The same math has come for loggers. It’s coming for coders.

In a sweeping essay on AI policy, Matt Stoller points to this exact dynamic.

There is in fact a common habit of powerful monopolists choosing to point out a supposedly neutral larger-than-life force, such as ‘technology’ or ‘the future’ or ‘disruption’ or ‘globalization’ to argue that they are not responsible for the anti-social policies enabling their market power. For instance, in 2013, there were a lot of complaints about Amazon avoiding sales taxes and engaging in predatory behavior around book pricing. How did Jeff Bezos answer this charge? “Amazon is not happening to book selling,” he said, “the future is happening to book selling.” I see a lot of similarities between that political language and the AI discourse.

That language of inevitability, of shrugging responsibility that timber companies used against unions as competition from the south, from Canada, from overseas mills, is the same language we now hear in AI discourse.

And it’s why the marchers who reached Olympia 39 years ago still matter. They stood on the Capitol steps shouting for union support, even as scabs crossed picket lines and machines took their jobs. They came to save their communities.

But you can’t drive through Aberdeen today and say their community was saved.

Wendell Berry, in his essay “Conserving Forest Communities,” lays it out in practical terms. Two draft loggers, using horses and old-style skidders, logged a section of forest over two months. A single man in a modern tractor could have done it in a day. Both methods were profitable. But only one employed more people, caused less environmental damage, and strengthened the community.

The timber company and the manufacturer would answer on the basis of purely economic efficiency: the need to produce the greatest volume… in the shortest time. The community, on the contrary and just as much as a matter of self-interest might reasonably prefer the way of working that employed the most people for the longest time and did the least damage to the forest and the soil… From the point of view of the community, it is not an improvement when the number of employed workers is reduced by the introduction of labor-saving machinery.

Stoller points to an essay by Bharat Ramamurti, Zoe Jacobs, and Diego Haro, who argue that our future lies in the power of those people on the Capitol steps in 1986.

AI shouldn’t mean handing over our livelihoods to algorithms or letting billion-dollar corporations decide, unchecked, whose jobs survive. They’ve already been doing that for decades.

We need policies that give workers a voice, not after the layoffs, but before a single AI system is installed. From stronger unions to new models of industry-wide bargaining, we must make sure that the people who do the work get to help decide how the work is done.

Empowering workers to shape the future isn’t just fair. It’s the only way this leap forward becomes something that serves the many, not the few.

« Older posts

© 2025 Olympia Time

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑