By Sharon Kvisto, Editor, sanjuanislander.com
“Anonymous writing is an effective and societally beneficial form of dissent when a culture of fear pervades a society” writes the host – reportedly Ed Kilduff of Lopez Island – of a local blog. This culture of fear is so invasive in the county it is dangerous for the people commenting on his site to use their names.
The vitriolic, libelous catalog of cowardice on his site illustrates the level of accuracy and informed discourse achieved with anonymous commentary. The personal attacks, lies stated as facts do nothing but undermine the fabric of our community.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence put their lives and their signatures on the line. A 15-year-old girl, Malala Yousafzai, had the courage to speak out against the Taliban. And we are to believe, in San Juan County in the 21st century in the United States of America people are in danger if they own up to their opinions.
So what is the evidence? Writers on the blog say, people who speak out will find their property rights attacked by people filing complaints against them. The site points to Errol Speed, Charles Dalton, Nick Jones as examples. No nexus between complaints and any comments are supplied.
In these cases property rights apparently means – for Dalton – the ability to build a single-family residence without permits and violate state wetland regulations. In the case of Jones, the ability to sell food to the public in a structure which violated building and health and safety codes. And for Speed the ability to (allegedly — the case is in court) live in and not pay property taxes on a single-family residence built without permits.
Or another one of their examples – Helen King’s bed and breakfast. She built it in an area it wasn’t allowed. The other residents on the private road vehemently opposed it. The compromise was a conditional use permit (CUP) issued with the caveat it would be void when she sold the property.
Fifteen years later, she decides she wants to ignore what she signed. She wants to sell the property with the CUP. Kilduff’s blog spins the story as the case of a poor elderly woman who cannot sell her home because of the onerous government regulations which took away her property rights.
Apparently property rights as defined by the blog, don’t extend to the others on Hannah Heights road. The property owners who have put up with King’s business for 15 years and expect the rules to be followed don’t factor into the equation.
And apparently the rights of all county property owners who have to pay more when others avoid paying their share by lying to the assessor – apparently their rights don’t count either.
If you believe, the islands are a place where fear is rampant, opinions are dangerous and government is out to get us, at least you have a place to air your views. Kilduff’s blog has plenty of space.
The rest of us, who deal in facts, who believe this is a free nation and not a fascist state, who have the courage of our beliefs – we’ll continue to act accordingly as responsible adult members of this community. And we’ll do our best to clean up the messes created by the rock-throwers.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
It’s odd that one of the most “vitriolic” pieces that Orcas Issues has published in my recollection (and I realize that this writer is only a “guest”) begins by accusing others of vitriol. It’s odd that it rants about “lies stated as facts” and “personal attacks” while putting forth clear misstatements as facts, and making personal attacks on people many of us know, like Charles Dalton and Nick Jones. (The most obvious example of misstatement is the assertion that, in the case of Helen King’s 2 bedroom B&B, “the other residents on the private road vehemently opposed” her request for extension; in fact, the other residents, with one exception, supported Mrs. King; and, of course, The Friends of the San Juans opposed it.)
Happily, most Orcas islanders know at least some of the people abused by Ms. Kivisto in this piece, are privy to the facts, and can make up their own minds without Ms. Kivisto’s peculiar slant to “reporting.” What she says here, and on her own, for-profit, blog about the land use issues of Charles Dalton, the Speeds, Nick Jones, and Helen King is seriously twisted. (I suspect that she also got the Craftsmen Corner controversy wrong, but haven’t taken the time to go back and look. (The Department of Community Planning and Development can do no wrong, and it’s open season on anyone who suggests anything to the contrary.) If anyone would like specifics, please call me and I will tell you how to find the official records. Or talk to these people, who Sharon apparently believes have been abusing the County.
As for the not-for-profit Trojan Heron, http://www.trojanheron.blogspot.com, Sharon conflates what I think is a well-researched, well-documented, and well-written blog, with some of its crazier comment posters. The Trojan Heron arose as a result of the failure of many traditional media outlets to report on a number of major county government issues. It has continued to rile those who would prefer to conduct county government business behind closed doors or in the company of their friends rather than in the daylight.
Responsible reporting, especially about “libel,” would be to identify the specific “lies” that Ms. Kivisto claims exist on the Trojan Heron, and to counter them with facts, proof, evidence, documents. Notably, to my knowledge, she has not identified a single factual error in Trojan Heron’s writing. She claims to oppose only anonymous posters; yet Trojan Heron accommodates both anonymous and identified posters. Sharon’s blog fails to allow online comment from any poster, even those with verified ID, and I have heard from more than one person whose response she declines to publish–like Nick Jones–thereby allowing her point of view to blanket the airwaves unchallenged.
(For those interested in the debate about blog comments, small communities, and anonymity, our fellow islanders over on Lopez are having an interesting debate in the context of that island’s pending school bond vote. LopezRocks.org and LopezSpeaksOut.com.)
In my opinion, Sharon’s work does not comport with standards of professional journalism. She has a clear agenda, and anything that gets in the way of that agenda is steamrollered–giving a whole new meaning to the term “bully pulpit.” She published two stories about the recent criminal charges in a land use case without even trying to contact the principals, much less asking whether criminal charges were an efficient approach to the case or whether they might be in any way considered retaliatory.
If I have to choose, I would prefer my information in the form of documented facts with “vitriol,” as opposed to slanted reporting masquerading as objective journalism. I prefer to make up my own mind.
Finally, I’m not sure what Sharon seeks to accomplish by invoking the name of the heroic Afghani, Malala Yousafzai, here. If she sees parallels between Ms. Yousafzai and herself, she’s a bit off in the deep end, much like the local environmental activist who compared herself to Rosa Parks. As for the Founding Fathers and anonymous political commenters, there were a few of note both during the Revolution and during the development of our Constitution–Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton come to mind. Wikipedia (closest at hand this morning) says that their authorship of the articles at the time of publication was a closely guarded secret.
P.S. I enjoy Wikipedia. Volunteers spend lots of time and effort to write up a subject, then the product is scrutinized, reviewed, and criticized and revised based on explicit rules and open debate. The product is still developing, but it is an open process.
This is the hearing examiner’s opinion regarding adverse impacts in the King B&B case. It can be found in full on the County website.
5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. There are no adverse impacts caused
as a result of the proposed use. Although community support is usually not probative
of project impacts, in this case it is noteworthy that the owners of six surrounding
properties expressed support for the proposal and the owners of only one other
property opposed the project. This is significant because the bed and breakfast has
operated for more than 14 years and in that time has not generated any impacts
sufficient to generate opposition to the project. The sole property owners in
opposition, the Kinglands, could not cite any impacts other than persons speaking
loudly on their cell phones on the deck of the bed and breakfast. As this type of
impact could just as easily result from residential use of the residence, it is not an impact that could be reasonably attributable to bed and breakfast use.
Thanks Peg Manning for bringing facts into the mix of innuendo and curmungeony.
Hello neighbors, I was so very disturbed by this diatribe against Sharon Kivisto that I needed to reflect for a couple days before replying. Obviously, anyone who puts out their opinions in bold form is subject to public scrutiny, and when they do so frequently they become targets for judgments. This holds equally true for Ms. Kivisto and Ms. Manning.
The reason I am writing tonight is to say that I have had numerous occasions to closely observe Ms. Kivisto as a journalist in action, and to my mind she is for sure one of the very top journalists in our county. She actually investigates stories (!), and reports her findings to the public. In cases where it appears some wool is being pulled over our eyes, she is wont to expose that wool, requiring great amounts of time and dedication — and exposure to condemnation by those who don’t agree with her editorial perspective. Fine, don’t agree, but don’t verge on slandering her reputation as a person or journalist! That way of addressing issues is not productive, and has not historically been the island way. I’m sure that all of what we choose to write as public comment can be improved, including this comment. I will not rattle on and on, but ask that we give each other some benefit of the doubt and search for the wisdom of the group, rather than attempting to discredit others who see things differently.
I believe that Sharon Kivisto’s piece and my response can be read together without finding slander of reputation, and that my reply has little to do with denying someone a chance to “see” things differently. We are discussing her a very badly written report, one that is subject to objective analysis; mistakes and misrepresentations can be identified. and her story is full of what seem to be intentional misstatements of purported facts that result in damage to the targets of her tirades.
Read carefully what I say about her statements vs. what appears upon review to be the truth. If you then disagree, or somehow think we each have the right to think our facts are correct, well, so be it. This is not open to interpretation.
There are facts claimed and facts proven wrong. You decide. But don’t confuse truthful statements of fact with “slandering”. Also, it’s not slander if it’s true.
Sharon chose to dredge up older stories about friends and acquaintances of mine. I have followed the facts and will not allow her misstatement of those relevant facts to stand unchallenged.
Thank you Sharon Kivisto for your Editorial commenting on the anonymous blog authored and edited by Edward C. Kilduff of Lopez Island (AKA, ECK). Thanks also to David Dehlendorf for corroborating the underlying truth of Ms. Kivisto’s Editorial.
I too was accused of hypocrisy and selective ethics by Mr. Kilduff. Never mind that what he wrote was untrue and absent of any evidence, it made a good story and fit with his sinister view of people with whom he disagrees. He is skilled at twisting a few innocuous facts into a scenario involving erroneous assumptions and ultimately character assassination.
The situation arose because I own shares in a community water company, whose shoreline water main suffered a major leak exposing the line and eroding bank material onto a beach. He insinuated that I was involved in the company’s decision to correct the problem by constructing an un-permitted bulkhead and placing fill in more than just the eroded area. Mr. Kilduff was well aware that I personally, and as a Board Member of the FRIENDS, oppose new bulkheads on forage fish beaches, unless required to protect a home. So he implied that my ownership motivated me to ignore my public opposition to new bulkheads and to disregard this particular bulkhead for personal financial reasons.
Efforts to correct his characterization of my actions as being duplicitous failed. On his blog, I stated that I was unaware of the water main damage and had no knowledge of the water company’s decision. A submitted declaration by the water company president also attested to my lack of knowledge and responsibility for operational decisions. I asked him in person for a retraction, or an apology, all to no avail because he needed to maintain the fiction that someone other than the mysterious ECK (Edward C. Kilduff) was writing the blog.
Until I read the Editorial I had no intention of making my experience public. Kilduff’s blog is so virulent, I concluded that when I was unable to obtain a retraction, it was best to ignore the matter, call no more attention to his rants, and move on with the important things in my life. I recite my experience only to inform others who have been or will be personally maligned by Mr. Kilduff that they are not alone and that ethical people, once informed about his tactics, will not accept his bullying as appropriate free speech.
San Olson, Lopez Island