Disqus - Latest Comments for jeffrhodes

Re: Don’t diss the moms who speak up

jeffrhodes — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:59:57 -0000

Kathryn --

None of the examples you cite in any way invalidate the concept of free enterprise even by the standard of the most dogmatic libertarian (i.e., one should be able to to engage in any commercial transaction he pleases so long as no one else is injured or obligated by it.)

In the case of the strip joint with the plate glass window, the business isn't simply offering a service to paying customers. It's exposing everyone to the product whether they wish to be or not. That isn't free enterprise from the standpoint of the unwilling consumer.

Moreover, the idea is specious to begin with because if titillation is the product being sold, the business wouldn't be giving it away for free.

With respect to the unsafe vehicle on the freeway, you're confusing commerce with usage. There's no reason a car in any state of disrepair can't be sold, but that doesn't mean its owner has a right to drive in on a publicly financed street, putting other motorists at risk.

Lastly, I agree that marketing cigarettes to children is reprehensible, but I would argue there's little enough evidence that was the intent of the Joe Camel campaign and even less that it actually succeeded to any appreciable extent. In any case, public outcry over the ads did far more to kill the ads than an arbitrary and loosely applied federal regulation ever could -- which is the whole point of free markets.

Re: Only a week on the job and I’m feeling at home here already

jeffrhodes — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:33:38 -0000

You can walk your comments back all you want now, but the fact is that your original post mentioned Tim Kelly's name exactly once, while the rest of it was devoted entirely to trashing me based on the fact that I wouldn't allow you to defame one of our columnists five years ago and innuendo you allegedly heard about me from a former employee of mine.

I've spent too many years working in this community not to be offended by that kind of a smear, and life is never too short to stand up to those who try to spread crap like that.

Re: Only a week on the job and I’m feeling at home here already

jeffrhodes — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:48:05 -0000

So I gather you were the writer in question? That's enlightening, but it changes nothing. The fact remains that I spent several days haggling over wording we could both live with that would express your feelings about Adele in a non-libelous way. I didn't have to do that; I could have deleted your comments with no explanation at all.

Serves me right for trying, I guess.

And no, I didn't remember it was you. Believe it or not, everyone's life isn't defined by their encounters with you.

In any case, I'm gone and I'd like nothing better than to move on. But that doesn't mean I'm going to sit still while someone tells bold-faced lies about me to the community and readership I served for 16 years.

I'll be watching, James, and when you try that I going to call you on it.

Re: Only a week on the job and I’m feeling at home here already

jeffrhodes — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:38:38 -0000

Quite frankly, I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Nor do you.

I recall deleting a coment about Adele in the very early years of our online comment section, and my recollection is that we did so because someone called her a racist without offering much in the way of proof to back it up. One of the website's fundamental rules is that participants have to be civil, and calling people names without any sort of justification would seem to violate that rule.

It's been so long now that I don't even remember who the writer was (you maybe?), but one thing I recall vividly is that I exchanged several e-mails back and forth with him negotiating appropriate wording so that his opinion could be expressed in a responsible way. Rather than being dictatorial and simply killing the comment, I bent over backward to accomodate the writer.

Ultimately, our website administrator took note of how I handled that situation and recommended it to other editors as a model for resolving these sorts of conflicts. So if you're going to cite that as an example of my being unreasonable, I'm certainly going to disagree with you -- as would any rational person.

Your vague references to Fred Chang and people "cut from the same cloth" I don't understand at all, but I'd be very interested in hearing what you think a disgruntled former employee knows about me that I don't.

Re: Only a week on the job and I’m feeling at home here already

jeffrhodes — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 09:49:43 -0000

As usual, James isn't letting the facts stand in the way of his having a good cry.

Most dishonestly, he claims I censored people's opinions when they didn't conform to mine, yet he fails to cite a single example of that happening. Because it never ever did.

If that were my policy, why did I never censor his many submissions -- not a single one of which I ever agreed with?

In point of fact, the Port Orchard Independent has been recognized for the past two years (and I expect will be again this year) as having by far the best opinion section of any community newspaper in the state. And the judges consistently cited the diversity of points of view represented as a prime reason for that honor.

And while they were at it, they also commended us for taking bold editorial stands when it came to people and issues with which we disagreed. What you apparently consider cruel and mean is regarded by objective observers as principled and courageous. Perhaps it wasn't I after all who let his emotions impair his judgment.

Lastly, on the subject of bias, you'll not find a trace of it in any news story I ever wrote or edited because fairness was an obsession with me -- as any reporter who ever worked under my supervision will attest. Editorials and blogs? That's a different story because they're supposed to express opinions. But I wouldn't expect you to appreciate that subtle distinction.

At the end of the day, my conscience is totally clear with respect to every decision I made and the opinions I expressed during my 11 years as editor of the Port Orchard Independent. You, by contrast, seem pleased I'm gone because it keeps you from having to confront opinions with which you disagree.

Which makes you guilty of the very offense you accuse me of, I'd say.

Have a nice day, James.

Jeff Rhodes,
former editor
Port Orchard Independent

Re: Longtime bridge critic plans suit to stop photo-tolling - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:01:52 -0000

Editor's Note: Two things. First, deliberation is sometimes a good thing, but not in this case. If we discover WSDOT has seriously underestimated the cost to operate photo-tolling after the program has already been adopted, it will be too late. They won't come back and kill it at that point -- all they can do is raise tolls.

Secondly, you're entitled to your opinion about the benefits of the second bridge. But when the state ran an advisory election in 1998, something like 65 percent of those living in the 26th District -- those who use the bridge the most -- said they'd rather continue to deal with the traffic jams than build a billion-dollar bridge we'd be paying for the rest of our lives. -- jr

Re: Longtime bridge critic plans suit to stop photo-tolling - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:19:24 -0000

Editor's Note: Photo-tolling might -- might -- make sense on the 520 Bridge. They have a lot more traffic there than the Tacoma Narrow does, and if every car that didn't have a Good to Go transponder had to stop at a tollbooth, the gridlock would be horrendous.

Even so, estimates are that 60,000 cars a day will use the photo-tolling option. That's a lot of transactions to keep track of, to say nothing of the impact it will have on the court system that has to track down and penalize everyone who doesn't pay up voluntarily.

In any case, as you point out, the current system works just fine on the Narrows Bridge, so why make the change? It can't possibly lower the current toll rate and, if Mr. Boss and other critics are correct that WSDOT has miscalculated the administrative costs of the program, it could increase them substantially.

The only thing more baffling to me than the state insisting on implementing photo-tolling is people taking pot shots at someone who points out the folly of it. -- jr

Re: Longtime bridge critic plans suit to stop photo-tolling - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:36:06 -0000

Editor's Note: Read the article. The state has set the photo-toll at $5.50, which was calculated by taking the normal $4 charge at the tollbooth and adding on $1.50 for administrative fees.

Mr. Boss makes the argument that $1.50 per transaction seems unrealistic when you add up the costs of photographing license plates, cross-referencing DMV records, generating a bill, addressing an envelope, stuffing the bill in an envelope and affixing postage tens of thousands of times every day. And based on the early experiences at the 520 Bridge, it appears as if he could be correct.

The point is, photo-tolling isn't going to lower tolls, but it could raise them significantly if the state underestimated its administrative costs because that's the only way to make up the difference.

Maybe you don't care if your Good to Go toll goes from $2.75 to $6 to pay for a system the region doesn't need and the Narrows Bridge Advisory Committee recommended we not adopt. But a lot of people do, and it's nice to know someone is out there doing the dirty work on our behalf. -- jr

Re: Longtime bridge critic plans suit to stop photo-tolling - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:29:05 -0000

Editor's Note: For the record, Mr. Boss's preferred alternative was not building a bridge in the first place — a sentiment shared by something like 65 percent of 26th District voters when the question was put to them in a special election back in 1998. When the state, in its infinite wisdom, opted to build the bridge anyway, he put his money where his mouth was and spent several years it in court — winning several important concessions along the way.

Having ultimately lost that battle, Mr. Boss made it his business to do everything in his power to keep tolls as low as they possibly can be. As someone who crosses that bridge regularly, I shudder to think what we'd be paying now if Randy Boss wasn't out there fighting WSDOT on our behalf. — jr

Re: Are the commissioners for farmers or just against ‘mega-corporations?‘

jeffrhodes — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:54:38 -0000

Editor's Note: What did I write that wasn't factual? I wrote that most people today are more worried about feeding their families as cheaply as possible than they are about who grew the food. The fact that the number of people who enjoy the novelty of occasionally shopping at a farmer's markets is 40 percent larger than before doesn't mean it isn't still infinitesimal compared with those who do the overwhelming majority of their shopping at a mega-retailer.

The numbers prove my point, not yours. -- jr

Re: Are the commissioners for farmers or just against ‘mega-corporations?‘

jeffrhodes — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 17:55:28 -0000

Editor's Note: I would argue it was Commissioner Garrido who injected the political jab by taking a gratuitous swipe at "mega-corporations." Which was the whole point of my blog..

Again, if the commissioners want to assist the local agricultural community by reducing or eliminating burdensome taxes and regulations, I'm all for it -- just as I would be if they got off the backs of industries with which they didn't sympathize.

Where I disagree vehemently is your assertion that people have a burning desire to buy local food products. Everything else being equal that might be their preference, but quite frankly, people these days just want to feed their families as cheaply as possible, and they couldn't care less where it's grown or raised.

As the previous poster pointed out, mega-stores perform their function very well, which is how they became mega-stores in the first place. If local producers aren't as cost-effective, that's their problem -- or the problem of a government bureaucracy that's imposed far too many restrictions on businesses of all kinds. --jr

Re: Bear keeps making appearances, but manages to elude captors - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:35:39 -0000

Editor's Note: Could you possibly email one or two photos to us at www.portorchardindependent,com? If we do any future stories, I'd love to have some art of the actual bear in question. We would, of course, credit you as the photographer. -- jr

Re: Two more Democrats leaving office early - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 05:35:51 -0000

Editor's Note: Quite frankly, as long as he raises a valid point, I'm no more concerned about Mr. Olsen's motives than I am yours in attacking him. And since I've written several editorials myself over the years arguing that politicians have an ethical obligation to serve out the terms to which they were elected, it follows that I would consider his point valid.

Which isn't to say we only run op-eds that reinforce my point of view. We've published countless opinions over the years with which I've disagreed and, to the best of my recollection, we've run only a handful of Olsen's submissions.

If you find that policy disheartening, I don't know what to tell you. For the past two years, the Independent has been judged as having the best opinion section of any community newspaper in the state of Washington -- and we earned that distinction by publishing provocative opinions regardless of the author's political affiliation or motivation. -- jr

Re: Port Orchard mulls suing county over property valuation - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:35:21 -0000

Editor's note -- I apologize for any confusion on my part. As I said, you seemed very anxious to get this information out and, since you've never been bashful about going on and off the record before, I took for granted everything was fair game unless you indicated otherwise. As you know, though, publishing information that was supposed to be "not for publication" is a huge ethical breach for a journalist and I didn't want anyone reading your post to come away with the impression I'd done so.

As for neglecting to mention that the city can't file a lawsuit solely on your say so, I guess that was an assumption on my part, too. I can't imagine anyone reading what was already a lengthy and involved story needed to be reminded of that point of organizational order, but if you think it's important I'll go ahead and add a sentence to that effect to the online version. -- jr

Re: Port Orchard mulls suing county over property valuation - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:18:42 -0000

Editor's Note: A couple of points warrant mention here regarding the story in question.

First, your belief that the issue was "blown way out of proportion" is entirely a matter of opinion. But I submit that if the city is considering filing a lawsuit against the county over a question of millions of dollars, it's a pretty significant story in a community of this size. And the fact that you and Bob Meadows have engaged in such a spirited discussion over it pretty much bears out my news judgment.

Secondly, I strongly disagree with your characterization that much of the story was based on background communication between you and I that wasn't meant for publication. In fact, the article was based almost entirely on an online response you yourself posted at the end of our story last week when Tim Matthes announced he would be running against you for mayor. Not only were your comments about a potential lawsuit and your unhappiness over the county's formula for calculating property taxes posted on our website, but you also requested they be published in the paper as a Guest Opinion.

To be precise, the only part of the story that didn't come directly from that post was the two-sentence quote: “What I suspect is both Tim and Avery’s biggest fear is that a lawsuit such as I mentioned, if successful, could possibly overturn all those outlandish assessments and open the door to anyone and everyone who ever filed a Board of Equalization appeal. Ask what that would do to the county’s already dismal revenue situation,” Coppola said, “and you can see why they’re both scared.”

That part, it's true, came from an email. But in the 23 years you and I have known one another, you've never -- ever -- hesitated to tell me what's off the record and what isn't. Given that nothing in your email was designated off the record, I made the obvious assumption that you'd have no problem with my using it to tell a story you seemed to be fairly itching to tell.

If you disagree with my conclusions or my style in telling the story, that's one thing. But I've been a reporter and editor for 31 years, and I'm not in the habit of betraying the confidences of my sources. So as long as we're clarifying what is and isn't accurate, I'd like it understood that you have no business being surprised or offended that a story I went out of my way to tell you ahead of time I was writing included exactly two sentences you wrote to someone you knew full well was a reporter but never bothered to identify as "not for publication." -- jr

Re: Could they keep the treehouse if the county could tax it?

jeffrhodes — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 09:37:54 -0000

We ran a letter to the editor this week from a neighbor who came up with a whole laundry list of reasons why the treehouse might be inappropriate, including:

* it was built in an easement between the two properties that had been negotiated by an arbitrator;

* it does impact the neighbor's view of the water;

* the treehouse hangs over the neighbor's property and the kids have been known to drop in to her yard -- where she keeps a dangerous dog; and,

* a fleeing criminal once took refuge in the treehouse, requiring police to flush him out,

All those reasons are interesting anecdotally, and any one by itself might be good enough to justify ordering the family to take down the structure. The problem is, they're all irrelevant to this particular discussion -- as is the question of permits -- because none of those reasons were cited by the county in justifying its actions.

At the end of the day, the county ordered the treehouse torn down because an inspector deemed it unsafe. And I'm not necessarily disputing that evaluation.

What I'm disputing is whether the county has any business applying the same rigid building standards to a treehouse that is does to a normal commercial or residential structure.

Re: It’s time the state paid the piper - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:31:54 -0000

Editor's note: For the same reason we provided a forum for your response. Because we value everyone's opinion on matters of local interest. -- jr

Re: No prosecution for deputy involved in Walmart Shooting - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:08:05 -0000

Editor's Note: An independent investigation was conducted. Rather than investigate itself, the Sheriff's Office turned the investigation over to the Washington State Patrol, which found:

1. Despite using identical weapons, McDonald and Martinez used different brands of ammunition that had different weights. By reconstructing the slugs, it's possible to state conclusively which was fired from what gun. And the bullets fired from McDonald's gun didn't create the fatal wounds in either Martinez or Valdivia.

2. The entry and exit wounds in Valdivia's body indicate the shots were fired at an upward trajectory and could only have come from Martinez's weapon, since he was laying on the ground.

3. Valdivia's body had powder burns on it, indicating she was shot at close range, not from 60 feet away, where McDonald was standing.

The investigation took just about the right amount of time to complete considering how much information had to be processed, and WSP produced a report that is supported in every way by the video, ballistics, forensic and other evidence.

It's time to take off the tinfoil hat and accept the obvious. -- jr

Re: WSP: Walmart shooting an ‘unbelievably tragic situation' - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:27:17 -0000

Editor's Note: The WSP spokesman quoted in the article declined to say how many shots Deputy McDonald fired because the Prosecutor's Office hasn't made an official determination on whether or not her actions were justified. That suggests caution, not conspiracy.

As for why the investigation took so long, the report consists of two huge binders full of information. Under the circumstances, six weeks seems perfectly appropriate to digest all that data and organize it into a report. — jr

Re: WSP to answer questions about Walmart shooting - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:31:46 -0000

Editor’s Note: That’s not entirely accurate. WSP actually had finished its report and was ready to release the results as soon as last week. But it was agreed by all interested parties (WSP, the Sheriff’s Office, the Prosecutor’s Office, etc.) that the report would be released by the Prosecutor’s Office in its entirety to the assembled media in a press conference in a couple of weeks. That way everyone got the story at the same time and there wouldn’t be as much risk of the inaccuracies that crop up when 20 different reporters write 20 different stories based on 20 different interviews with the same source.

It wasn’t that Hauge didn't have the right to release the details he did, or that he did so prematurely. It’s that he did so in a manner that contradicted the agreed-upon policy and left the other agencies in an extremely embarrassing position with the public and the media.

In that respect, yeah, an “F” in cooperation seems pretty fair. — jr

Re: WSP report should answer questions about shooting - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:01:37 -0000

Editor's Note: No offense to you. That's your job, and more power to you. I'm just pointing out there are a lot of angry people up here, both in the media and county government, that Hauge gave out ANY information after it had been agreed that the report wouldn't be made public.

Good work. -- jr

Re: WSP report should answer questions about shooting - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:12:01 -0000

Editor's Note: The Prosecutor's Office obtained the WSP report on Tuesday, and local media were assured -- by, among others, Sheriff Steve Boyer -- it would be disseminated in a couple of weeks to everyone at the same time.

Prosecutor Russ Hauge, however, subsequently leaked details of the report to the Salt Lake City Tribune, which posted its story at 8:30 Thursday night -- 12 hours after our paper had been published. We, like all the other Puget Sound media outlets, posted our story as soon as we became aware of the leak.

As for why Hauge decided to call Salt Lake City, that's something only he can answer. -- jr

Re: WSP report should answer questions about shooting - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:57:22 -0000

Editor's Note: Just to be clear, no one is suggesting there's a coverup here, or that the Prosecutor's Office improperly asserted control over the report once the investigation was completed. I just know from having stayed in contact with the State Patrol for the past few weeks that it was expecting to be the agency that released the information, and that it was ready to do so this week.

I have no idea why the Prosecutor's Office stepped in at this point. I only know that, because it did, we'll all be getting our questions answered a couple of weeks later than we might have. -- jr

Re: Boys soccer: Reigning state champs dump Wolves, 3-0 - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:28:02 -0000

Editor's Note: Chris was on vacation last week. Wasn't it diabolical of him to schedule one the same week SK won a soccer game just so he wouldn't have to write about it -- as he has countless other SK victories? -- jr

Re: WSP finishes report on Walmart shootings; Prosecutor’s Office will decide when to release findings to the public - Port Orchard Independent

jeffrhodes — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:48:59 -0000

Editor's Note: To date, the report hasn't been kept from the public at all. My understanding is that the investigation was only just completed, and I wouldn't say six weeks is an especially long time considering the number of witnesses to be interviewed, ballistics tests to conduct, etc. All things considered, I'd say this seems about right.

Now that the report is complete and the Prosecutor's Office has it, I'll be curious to see how long it takes before the results are made public. Given that nothing more needs to be added at this point, I can't think of any reason it should take more than a day or two, depending on how much of a production they want to make out of it. -- jr