Author: Emmett O'Connell (Page 36 of 177)

Four answers to what makes Olympia different (Olyblogosphere for January 27, 2013)

January 27, 2014 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

1. Over at Olyblog, we have the question: What is there about Olympia that makes it different than any other city?

2. Answer one: A refreshingly honest blog and a great idea (Olympia as a place to call home on vacation as you explore western Washington).

3. Answer two: Have you ever met Berd? Interesting fellow. If you don’t appreciate his time lapse of lower Budd Inlet, there’s something wrong with you.

4. Answer three: People make things in Olympia, and sometimes they make a Queen Bee Scarf. I can’t really appreciate it, but I can see how people would.

5. Answer four: Jim Anderson is blogging again. Enough said.

Of
course this site is primarily here to help drive bookings to our
Olympia B&B. – See more at:
http://basecampolympia.com/updating-basecamp-olympia-yet-again/#sthash.4lOLVWTR.dpuf

What I got wrong with the history of the Deschutes Estuary

January 23, 2014 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

When I wrote up a longish history of the Deschutes River estuary, I summarized the late 1920s like this:

In the late 20s, Wilder and White and the Olmsted firm participated in a back and forth over the landscaping plan, with the state capitol committee in the middle. In one telling, the result was that all waterfront improvements (including Capitol Lake) were written out of the landscaping plan (Johnston, 91).

According to another Capitol Campus historian, Mark Epstein, Capitol Lake was retained in the 1920s landscaping plan, but in the form of Olmsted’s modest saltwater tidal pond rather than an aggressively dammed estuary (Epstein, 67).

Also, ten years after he first proposed it, damming the Deschutes apparently was not in the front of Carlyon’s mind. As Wilder, White and the Olmsted firm debated landscaping plans that could have included a lake, Carlyon wrote an essay about the vision and construction of the capitol group. Lacking from the essay is a single mention of a lake (Carylon, 1928).

Even though it was rejected in 1916 and was an afterthought in Carlyon’s mind by 1928, the lake project did not go away.

The late 1920s was an interesting time in the creation of Capitol Lake. The central part of the current campus was coming into form. And, the final push for the lake was about five or six years away from starting.

So, in the three versions I could find at the time, the lake was either totally gone from the plans, changed into a saltwater lagoon or just an afterthought.

But, I recently came across a piece in the Seattle Times that contradicts this. There was still some discussion in 1929 of a possible lake.

From April, 1929 in the Seattle Times about the need for plants for capitol landscaping:

It will be almost impossible to get too many plants, flowers and shrubs, for when the land strictly within the Capitol grounds is improved, there will remain the long stretch of shore land and overhanging cliff that some day will be included when the proposed fresh water lake is created by damming the waters of the Des Chutes River at the head of Budd Inlet.

To me, this is a small corner of the lake and estuary history. The idea of the lake was already rejected in 1915. Tumwater wouldn’t agree to damming the river’s mouth and it wasn’t until 1941 that Tumwater citizens changed their minds. And, it wasn’t until the Little Hollywood shantytown took over underneath the capitol that Olympia residents seriously made a push for the lake.

But, still, I was wrong about 1929, so I thought I’d correct the record.

Your “Thurston County wasn’t always a liberal haven” reminder for Martin Luther King Day 2014

January 20, 2014 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

Update 8/22/2021: Given a few years learning more about Olympia’s past in this era, I am less surprised that Olympia was pretty racist in the 1960s or that Mike Layton himself was even more racist. Thanks to Robin in the comment below for spurring this update.

I’m going to leave this post in place, but I want to add a few thoughts up on the top to sand off the edges a bit. Specifically, the word “ghetto” is used in a way that may have had more nuance for Layton that I realized. Now I have come to understand that it was meant to imply the negative economic result of segregation. That if kept separate, one race would economically suffer, creating a housing ghetto of less desirable neighborhoods. The “happy situation” he was referring to could have meant integrated neighborhoods. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt there.

That said, the implication that black residents would be happier if they didn’t advocate for change is heavy in this piece. I’m not sure if Layton is writing for himself or pointing out the obviously wrong white point of view here. But that part still troubles me.

Read this crap (full size version here):

Let it soak over you.

Present happy situation could deteriorate into ghetto

Think about it.

…Negroes here are well educated, affluent and aware of their rights without being what whites think is “uppity” about insisting upon them.

This was published in the Seattle Argus in April 12, 1968. Martin Luther King had literally just been assassinated the week before. I have no idea about the weekly Argus‘ news cycle, but it seems at least in bad taste to publish something like this a week after the civil right’s leaders death.

At worst, the Argus editors and Mike Layton deliberately chose the week after King’s death for this. “Hey Layton! King’s death sure is leading the news, let’s do up a piece about how Olympia is being ruined by his sort!”

And, let’s get this straight. This was main stream thinking for our community. The Argus, while not a major daily like the Times or PI, was a serious Seattle newspaper. From what I’ve read about it, it would be close to what we’d consider the Weekly to be. Old time and storied reporters like Shelby Scates and Mike Layton passed through the Argus at different points.

And, let’s get back to Layton, who wrote this piece. When he passed away in 2011, there was a lot of good things said about him. “He bluntly spoke truth to power,” “a fierce reporter” and “could spot B.S. at a hundred paces.”

Well, that’s a funny way to put it, because the level of bull shit in Layton’s Argus piece the week after King’s death is amazing.

Olympia has obviously changed. Thurston County used to vote for Republicans (and Reagan specifically) and used to put up with this kind of racist crap. I’m not saying we should go back and absolutely revise Layton’s reputation, but we need to remember that this used to happen. And, we weren’t always nice, friendly liberal people.

How much does the Thurston County economy benefit from the legislative session

January 16, 2014 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

I suppose the best I can say is that it seems to take the edge off.

What I wanted to find out was what kind of impact the legislative session (hundreds of lawmakers, staffers and policy wonks coming to Olympia and Thurston County for at least two months every year) has on our economy. You could easily assume that it has some.

When people are in town for session, they have to eat, pay rent, entertain themselves and (I suppose) shop. Even just the work of lobbying, taking lawmakers out to eat, has to produce some economic benefit.

So, the best indicator I could find for economic activity by date was retail sales tax paid in each quarter. You can find the data I used here. Here are the spreadsheets I used.

First, I took all retail sales tax paid in the four quarters between 2005 and 2012 averaged out. I compared Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater with Bellingham. I used Bellingham as a stand in for a similar community to Olympia that doesn’t have a seasonal political population.

You can see a similar curve across both communities. Economic activity rises through the year, dropping back down each first quarter.

The curve from low activity first quarter to higher activity through the fourth seems to indicate that in terms of the broader economy, the legislative session doesn’t have much impact in Olympia. Despite the people visiting and temporarily living here for a few months, the economy here (which is still supported by the broader government) is too large to really for use to really see the impact of session.

But, if you take a closer look at just one aspect of the economy here, say food and lodging, you start to see some sort of impact. The chart below shows just the sales taxable activity in places like restaurants and hotels.

Again, you see a similar curve in both urban Thurston and Whatcom counties. But, the Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater curve is less pronounced, especially in terms of the first quarter. You could almost say the session (which would increase spending in the first quarter) takes the edge off lower first quarter spending on food and overnight rooms in Olympia.

Still though, even this kind of spending in the average first quarter isn’t as high as the third quarter. So, while there’s some benefit, it still seems smaller than what people often imply it to be.

The state of the amazing hills and the blogs in them (Olyblogosphere for January 13, 2013)

January 13, 2014 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

1. I’ve been up to this spot before. I wish I’d had thought to take a picture like this one. Amazing.

2. Good idea:

I am planning to make my windows less reflective so other birds don’t attempt to fly through them. It
doesn’t make sense to create an environment that enhances our
bird-watching pleasure if it is fatal to the birds we are attempting to
attract.

3. There’s a lot to be said about the King Tides this last week. Here’s Mojourner up at Mission Creek.

4. And, here’s the state of some wonderful blog up there in McCleary looking down upon us from the hills. Here’s to you Steve.

Welcome to Olympia 2014!

January 9, 2014 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

Full size here.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4WwL2mxZ2tw/Us15qzOvAVI/AAAAAAAABd8/ctudOn8PDzg/s1600/Welcome+to+Olympia.png

Reagan won both Thurston and King counties in 1980 and 1984. Why is that?

January 6, 2014 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

1984 presidential results in Washington State.

The 1980 and 1984 elections in western Washington baffle me a little bit. The Reagan Revolution was strong throughout the entire Cascadian coast, except for a few counties at the mouth of the Columbia River.

Both Thurston and King counties (among other Puget Sound counties) are traditionally Democratic now. But, just about 30 years ago, they were heavily in Reagan’s camp. I’m trying to figure out why this is. But, I’d appreciate anyone that has a more precise explanation.

So, working down from the things I know:

1. Dan Evans, John Spellman (and other moderate Republicans like Slade Gorton) that started their careers in the 1950s and 60s came from out of King County. Both Gorton and Spellman were elected in 1980, so (even though Spellman lost in 1984 to Booth Gardner) its likely that the “main stream” Republican mojo in Puget Sound was strong in the early 1980s. From what I’ve read, Spellman’s loss to Gardner had more to do with Spellman being a bad manager than party identification.

2. Republicans (even Reagan) weren’t attached to social politics like abortion) in 1980 and 1984. I-471, which would have prevented public funding for abortion, failed statewide in 1984, with major losses in both Thurston and King counties. Reagan won in counties that voted against an anti-abortion initiative. Not what you’d really consider possible now 30 years on.

3. The social conservative wave didn’t seem to crash in Washington State until the 1988 Republican presidential caucuses. That year, conservative Christians took over the party caucuses and threw off the moderate business friendly brand, voting for Pat Robertson. Eight years later, Ellen Craswell repeated history, taking the Republican nomination for governor (but getting beat by a lot by Gary Locke).

So, to me, the two statewide elections in the early 80s seems like the lag time between the Evans revolution in the 1960s and the Christian social conservatives catching up in the late 80s. The memory of Reagan’s is of a stalwart social conservative. But, at least in Washington, it seems like the momentum of more moderate Republicans carried him through two elections.

Does that make sense?

Olympia Time in 2013, so what did you think of the new way of blogging here?

January 2, 2014 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

So, this time of year seems a good a time as any to ask, but what did you think of Olympia Time this year? I’m not sure how many noticed, but I started on a regular schedule of blogging about April or May this last year. Two posts a week, which turns out to be eight or nine posts a month.

I’ve kept to a handful of topics, mostly local history and blogs. But, I’ve stretched out to include Cascadia Exists too. These posts explore the political or social patterns that already exist in our region.

I also dribbled out much longer written pieces that didn’t really have a home on the blog. I finally polished them up and put them together in a free (or pay what you want) book.

For the time being I’m going to keep up this pattern, two posts a week and every other Monday an Olyblogosphere. The posts under the Cascadia Exists header are getting long and numerous enough that I might try stitching them together into something more coherent (another book!) by fall.

I hope your 2013 went well, and I hope all the best for you this year. And, I know your dying to know, so here are my favorite posts I wrote since I started the new regime:

1. Better Bob Bunting

2. The long history of the Seattle Freeze

3. Thoughts about loss and oysters

4. Why won’t those damn kids just obey the will of our Grecian columns?

5. The time when the King County Arts Commission complained about the cultural insensitivty of the Seahawks logo

6. Sue Gunn reconnected the ends of the Cascadian political spectrum

Bright lights, bad advice and things about the muck (Olyblogosphere for December 30, 2013)

December 30, 2013 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

1. Dig through the muck, find the history (from ArchaeOlygy):

Rip into it with heavy machinery, as happened when Mission Creek was
restored this Fall, and the stratigraphy makes the depositional history
that much clearer. The modern beach has been accumulating atop the
slumping clay fill of the road that dammed the creek a couple or three
generations ago. The yellow clay beneath the asphalt calved off and
melted away over the years after the road was built, spreading itself
thinner down the beach, taken by the very tides and waves that bring the
gift of gravel, sand, and shell from the north (including quit a few
Olympia Oyster shells, which probably died decades ago in polluted Budd
Inlet).

2. The Yodelling Lama wonders about freshwater otters and shellfish. Maybe they’re freshwater shellfish.

3. Holy cats. Ask on r/olympia what you should know before moving to Olympia? Brace yourself.

You will have a tough time making friends because it’s a college town
with a transient population. Locals figure you’re going to split in a
year or two so they don’t bother trying to get to know you. #1 rule:
stay out of the drug culture. Heroin is huge here. It is everywhere. You
may out of loneliness and desperation for interaction be drawn in.
Every year some Greener freshman turns on and falls in and the army of
undead living in the woods grows. On every corner holding a piece of
cardboard is some asshole that I can say “Damn, I remember when she was
new and cute.” It’s really sad.

4. Marcus and family heads over to the Lights at Ken Lake. Hey, by the way, thank the sponsors this year (Eastside Big Tom and A+ Services). Another awesome Olympia light display is Olympialightstravaganza!

Cascadian politics and how we vote in a primary around here

December 26, 2013 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

What I can point to is a point when political parties in Washington
tried to force greater political allegiance and were bucked by the
voters. About 15 years ago the Republican and Democratic parties sued
and were able to get Washington’s old open primary law tossed by the
courts. In the old version, Washington voters did not register by party
and were able to vote for any candidate in a primary. The top vote
getter from each party would advance.

After the courts
threw out that version (because the parties said that by not controlling
who voted in their primaries violated their rights to association) the
state instituted a more closed primary. Each voter would get a series
ballots with only a certain party’s candidates on each. You’d turn in
one ballot, forcing you to participate in only one primary.

This was similar to Oregon’s current primary law in which parties have the ability to open their primaries to non-registered voters.

The
Washington voters quickly rejected the more closed primary system,
opting instead for a Top Two primary, which actually just works as a
qualifying election. Instead of the original primary system that sought
to break down the walls that guarded parties by opening up their
nomination processes to the general public, the Top Two makes that
meaningless. The Top Two passes along the top vote getters, even if both
say they’re Democrats or Republicans.

A similar
election system was rejected by more than a 10 percent margin in Oregon,
giving argument to the point that maybe Oregon and Washington aren’t
that alike in political cultures. But, an analysis after Measure 65 went down in flames said the loss had more to do with the explanation of the measure than anything else.

That
Oregon voters were used to their current system and Washington voters
had a new system foisted on them by the courts and the parties was
probably the best way to explain the difference in the two initiative
results.

The most important thing to think about in
terms of the possibility of a Top Two system in Oregon is that the idea
itself in 2008 came from the political center of the state political
culture. Rather than some quixotic political dreamer, Measure 65 was
proposed by two former Oregon secretaries of state and supported by a
popular former (and now again current) governor. And, now its coming back again.

So, the idea of voting systems that ignore the institutional power of parties likely have some home in the Cascadian
political culture. Rather than a large group or band centered politics,
like religion, politics are grown from much smaller groups and from the
person themselves. It is important to participate, the civic good is
worth promoting. But, no large organization or institution is going to
tell the average Cascadian voter what to do.