It has come to my attention that e-mails containing a video of me are circulating. The video was first posted on a blog, then e-mailed from one real estate agent to another on San Juan Island. The video is a 5-minute excerpt of a speech I gave in June 2012. (The excerpt can be viewed here: https://vimeo.com/47054431, and the full panel discussion here: https://vimeo.com/47054429 ).
Without asking me about the video, or the context — the e-mail states: “After watching this video I’m not sure if Lisa is a socialist or communist.” For the record, the video is from a talk I gave about the history of the ideas that led to the current day community land trust model for providing affordable housing. To assign a political philosophy to me based on that talk is inaccurate and inflammatory.
I’m not surprised about people criticizing me or expressing different opinions. That comes with the territory of running for office. What concerns me is the effect that viral e-mails with misinformation have on the culture of our community.
I have found again and again that civil interactions with people, whether they agree or disagree with me, broaden my understanding and strengthen my connections. Like so many of us, I have had to learn how to use e-mail effectively, which often means limiting its use. It is easy to forward an e-mail without thinking about the consequences. I think it is valuable to ask: is there evidence that validates the information presented? Could I say to someone’s face, the thing that I am sending to others?
The culture of this place is tended by each of us. When we fail to treat one another as we would want to be treated, we risk losing the decency and tolerance we have cultivated. I appeal to each of you to hold steadfast to our culture of mutual respect. If you read something about a candidate, ask yourself if the source is authenticated. If not, consider replying to the person and suggesting that he or she verify facts.
If you wish to learn more about me, or any of the candidates, contact us directly, check out our websites or meet us at any of the numerous forums and events occurring in the coming weeks.
Let’s debate the issues and examine candidates’ actual qualifications, not engage in mud-slinging and innuendo.
Lisa Byers
Candidate for County Council, District 2
**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.**
Has the Joe McCarthy Era, and its devastating effects on thousands of totally innocent lives already been forgotten by most people?
This kind of smear-tactic will make good people think more than twice before they decide to run for any office, to the detriment of us all.
How very sad that it has come to this in our supposedly exceptional Community.
How disgusting and discouraging to read of this viral attack. It reflects so poorly on a community I love.
However, Lisa’s thoughtful and generous response has convinced me to vote FOR her!
Lisa, I believe this appears to be a reasonable opinion and not “mud-slinging and innuendo.” I have review both the videos listed above and I fail to see how there is a problem in posing the thought “After watching this video I’m not sure if Lisa is a socialist or communist.” I have not only reviewed the videos but checked out the “New Economics Institute” website, the organization hosting this, and your website also. The video, NEI, the people and organizations supporting them would appear support the possibility raised by the e-mail. Your comment above, “To assign a political philosophy to me based on that talk is inaccurate and inflammatory,” is neither. This history is all a part of how you think and will govern. It is not only fair to question your stated views, political associations and economic philosophies but it is our obligation as citizens to do so. You say “Examine candidates’ actual qualifications,” that is exactly what the e-mail is about.
I am not concerned in this response as to what your political philosophy is. I do however find it curious that you have chosen not answered the question raised here. Instead you attacked the questioner. If the conclusions he or she has are incorrect, regardless of how they arrived at them, then just correct them, support your claim with facts as they have and let’s all move head in civil debate.
Also note that it is the tone of your post here that has led another to post “smears.”
Let it all out. I trust you and the other candidates have nothing to hide or shade and desire to be elected on the sum of all the values and principles you hold as a candidate. Right?
I completely agree with the comments of Mr. Pencil, above. I too have spent some time reading and viewing videos at the web site of the New Economics Institute. I STRONGLY urge those who are curious to look for themselves. neweconomicsinstitute.org. I think that a citizen concerned about your views is justified in sending an e-mail to friends raising questions. Rather than treat these earnest inquiries as personal attacks, realize that you are running for office and answer the questions, in public, for all voters to see.
Lisa, the enthusiasm you demonstrate for socialist concepts in connecting yourself to organizations like the NEI and those groups listed with them on the NEI web site worries me when you seek to expand your influence from OPAL to the entire County government. You seem to believe that there is little government should not provide for people, and that working people should be taxed more to do so.
For me, and others like me, who have eeked out a living in these islands through the years without government help, and for those like me who employ people in good-paying jobs (my company employs 15 to 20, with benefits), you need to explain your philosophy and how it will affect your decisions about free enterprise and private property rights (one of our fundamental civil rights) if you are elected.
Lisa, you also made a huge impression on me a few years ago in a San Juan Initiative technical advisory meeting. When the problem of some properties becoming “unbuildable” under the proposed new regulations, you were very cavalier and said, “Oh well, life’s not fair”….” How would you feel if it were your land??? Especially if you had earned every penny of the money it took to buy that land. Have you ever bought a piece of property by working and saving for it? If you have, you would gain some valuable insights.
Please stop disparaging those who are asking straightforward questions about your beliefs toward capitalism and free enterprise.
And if you believe that we need more restrictive land use regulations like the pending CAO, please be specific about what problems you think exist to justify those rules.
Finally, I am interested to know how you think a career in an enterprise that is heavily dependent on grants and special privileges (waiver of permit fees, preferential processing of building permits) will translate to the County government, which is looking at federal and state grants funds drying up in the ongoing financial crises.
I look forward to your response.
Mike Carlson
Gee, guys –
The New Economics Institute’s philosophy is “based on the assumption that people and the planet should come first, and that it is human well-being, not economic growth, which should be prioritized”.
These are certainly values that I hold in high esteem.
Economic stability requires both a healthy human population as well as a healthy planet. If we want stability, we need to establish strong priorities — and the first priorities must our human and natural resources, not the profit motive.
Lisa–the issue at hand is very simple for you to resolve. You have basically applied for an important job in which we as citizens of San Juan County are your potential employer and are conducting a job interview. We are asking you to tell us about yourself. Please answer the following questions:
1) Will you respect and defend our private property rights if we elect you?
2) Do you support land use laws that purport to protect the environment, but are not based on pier reviewed science?
3) Do you believe that individuals should own land as private property?
4) Why have you chosen the Community Land Trust model over other programs such as Homes for Islanders where the participants own the underlying property?
5) What best describes you political affiliation?
6) Do you think that free market capitalism is a good economic model to support and grow our local economy?
7) Have you ever run a business where the motive was a profit? If so, how well did the business do?
8) In your experience, does grant money have strings attached? Are there spoken or unspoken expectations that come with grants?
We all look forward to your answers. Thank you.
The language quoted as the New Economics Institute’s philosophy is really more vision statement (“based on the assumption that people and the planet should come first, and that it is human well-being, not economic growth, which should be prioritized.”) In this County, no one is pushing economic “growth;” we’re looking for economic recovery. The candidates all talk about rebuilding the economy, but our context is much different than that of global economies and the profit motive. We’re a handful of small island communities whose working classes have been decimated by the collapse of the real estate and construction markets, and we’re hearing mixed messages about our economy. Some candidates argue for finding and bringing low-impact, “living wage” jobs here. At the same time, other emphasize the importance of tourism or agriculture. There is no question that tourism is an important component of the economy, but it is not going to provide many “living wage” jobs; the majority of jobs generated by tourism are service jobs with low pay. Agriculture constitutes a very small percentage of our economy, and while some families manage to make a go of it, others rely on low-paid interns or casual workers with no job security.
The question of how one approaches reviving the economy is critical. More specifically, how one envisions the role of County government in the process. Should it rely heavily on grants that produce few jobs but reams of paper? Or should it simplify its processes and streamline its regulations to allow revival of the key portions of our economy and development of new ones by local entrepreneurs?
[continued, sorry] The unavoidable fact is that a huge proportion of our economy, pre-recession, was related to real estate, and the report that real estate agents on San Juan were discussing the question of a candidate’s economic philosophy based on a presentation that seemed to approve of a communitarian approach to ownership of land should surprise no one. Although I haven’t seen the e-mail in question, the portion quoted above does not suggest a smear tactic or McCarthyism. It suggests an aware electorate. As for communicating personally with the candidates to determine their views, the revised Charter whole-County voting district renders that virtually impossible. The concerned real estate agents on San Juan might consider a candidates forum, but the average citizen is simply not going to be able to have the opportunity for a conversation with any candidate, much less five, before the April election. Therefore, it behooves the candidates to make available specifics about their philosophical approach and recommendations for restoring our economy.
Peg, Mike, Royce, and Don-
I write as a private citizen. I appreciate that you have signed your names to the opinions stated above. The issue that was addressed in Lisa Byers response was the use of anonymity and the reluctance to engage in direct communication. The blog that has generated this email endorses anonymous postings, allowing anyone to say anything without taking personal responsibility for the opinion or accusation. In a very clear way, this is the electronic version of the KKK hood and cape.
This anonymity used to be acceptable on the Islands Sounder site until it became clear that such a policy lead to unfounded and inflamitory rhetoric, rather than intelegent community discussion. They have since changed their posting policy and I am greatly appreciative. Clearly, Orcas Issues also ensures that postings are attributed to the author. [Editor’s note: Orcas Issues has never accepted or posted anonymous posts, believing it is the duty as well as the privilege of Community Journalism to identify the name that stands behind the opinion or information]. It is the right way to go.
No matter what you believe or where you pitch your political tent, for the conversation to be honest and constructive, everyone needs to take their cloaks off.
Peg-
When the economy hit the skids in 2008, the Wild Rose Meadow project was in the beginning stages. OPAL CLT could have put the brakes on as most other developers did at that point. But they did not. They recognized that the need for housing would likely increase during the downturn and employment would certainly take a hit. They came up with a creative funding plan that allowed 20+ local folks to stay employed during a time when most construction ground to a halt. We can argue policy, or we can look at practice. Either way, I’d say Lisa has our local economy first and foremost.
Hilary – You had me until you likened anonymous political commentary to the KKK. I am no fan of anonymous mud-slinging that allows people to post comments that they would never say if they had to take personal responsibility for them. However, the tradition of anonymous political commentary in America dates back to “The Federalist Papers,” which were published under the pseudonym “Publius,” but were authored by Madison, Hamilton and Jay. Unsigned but well-reasoned and highly influential political works have been circulated for a very long time. Their aim is not terror or oppression, like the KKK, but to bring to light unpopular or risky political ideas and arguments.
Hilary, your comment, “The blog that has generated this email endorses anonymous postings, allowing anyone to say anything without taking personal responsibility for the opinion or accusation. In a very clear way, this is the electronic version of the KKK hood and cape” is not supported by the facts in evidence. Lisa Byers has not presented a case for this kind of language nor have you or anyone else. Anonymous or not, the statement made in the e-mail “the e-mail states: ‘After watching this video I’m not sure if Lisa is a socialist or communist’” is certainly reasonable and hardly “mud-slinging and innuendo” or “inaccurate and inflammatory.” The “mud-slinging and innuendo” and the “inaccurate and inflammatory” statements began with Lisa Byers in her post and has continued in the posts supporting her here to date.
Let’s have and open, honest and factual discussion of how Lisa Byers stands on the issues and her qualification. Will she answer in this public format Mike, Royce, Peg and myself?
I have reviewed a large amount of the information on the New Economics Institute website as well as most of the supporting or associated websites listed under the headings of “Our Mission,” “Our Work” and “Our Network.” The concerns expressed by myself, Mike Carlson, Royce Meyerott and Peg Manning are a direct result of the information found on Lisa Byers website, her public statements, her statements in candidate forums, the mission statements of organizations she supports or is supported by, the views and beliefs of such organizations, and her track record.
The website “The Global Transition to a New Economy”, https://gtne.org/, lists OPAL Community Land Trust under the heading of “CITIZENS AND COMMUNITIES.” Regardless of some of the wonderful sounding words and phrases employed by “The Global Transition to a New Economy” and “New Economics Institute” they, and other organizations like them, are trying to move everyone to one world government under what they call a “new economy.” The words “new” and “just” are a move toward communal living, socialism and communism. They are promoting the oppressive failed policies of communism.
“Socialism” means so many things that it means nothing, other than a scare word. (I’ll ignore the use of “communism,” which smacks to me of McCarthyism.) OPAL is a small, NONGOVERNMENTAL organization supporting a mix of private and commonly held land uses to support those with low and moderate incomes. Its funding comes from both public and private sources. I live in a planned unit development where 99% of the land is held in common. Since when is common ownership and action a step on the slippery slope to communism? The first settlers in America owned many of their resources in common.
Each public action, each issue that the county council will address will need to be considered on its own merits, by reasonable people willing to work together. Lisa is a top-notch administrator with a superb ability to see both sides of issues and to balance the needs and interests of different people and different groups. I am on the OPAL board, and I think she’s the most competent, thoroughly knowledgeable leader I’ve ever met. I hope that can count for more than scare words.
The land is not held in common. OPAL the organization holds title, not the homeowners.
Gary is correct, in terms of the legal title. But OPAL holds the land for the benefit of the homeowners or rental tenants, as well as for the long-term benefit of the islands. Through Homeowners Associations and Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, the residents are responsible for managing the land in their neighborhoods.