Jill Buhler, John Austin, Phil Johnson of Jefferson County Public Health, Port Townsend Washington seem to think it's ok for you to RENT a home that was a KNOWN Meth Lab and with No Disclosures to you who will be living in the home.

Jefferson County Public Health, Port Townsend Washington is NOT protecting the Civil and Human rights of Jefferson County renters, children and the community at large, the way I see it.

Why is Jill Buhler, John Austin, Phil Johnson and Dr. Tom Locke protecting slumlords over the civil and human rights of the citizens of Jefferson County?

"Barry Ellis stands in front of the Port Townsend house that he and his girlfriend rented in 2011 and that was the subject of his complaint to county and state public health boards. Ellis said chemicals in the house caused him and his girlfriend to become sick in 2011."

Source
http://www.ptleader.com/testing/pt-meth-lab-complaint-rejected/image_c4ce87b6-e5d6-5da2-ade7-23b5b26763aa.html

Folks, Don't you Think You Should have the Right to KNOW

if the home you rent was a place where Meth was cooked?

I have been a Real Estate Broker for 15 years and this is not what we are taught. Meth Labs are a VERY serious health risk. Why is Jefferson County Washington NOT protecting tenants, children and the public at large from slumlords such as Bent Meyer, the owner of this home. 

Jefferson County Public Health and Dr. Thomas H. Locke MD, the powers that be, seem to think that if it is a problem that Meth houses are being rented to unsuspecting families at great health risk, well then let's change the law, the regulations.

Dr. Tom Locke, Jill Buhler, John Austin, Phil Johnson and the gang seems to be saying that We won't enforce the law and protect renters, protect the citizens of Jefferson County, so let's deregulate and make the law, the standards less so that if the home was a Meth Cook Facility, a Meth Lab then we won't have to test, clean up nor let renters know even if we are putting young children at risk with total disregard to the law, public safety and child welfare.

Landlord Bent Meyer

So who owns the Meth Lab rental? I guess its a guy named Bent Meyer. He is said to be a pastor of a church that provides domestic violence counseling and seems to misuse it's power and connections to prey on vulnerable women in the name of God.

From what I hear, Ex- Pastor Bent Meyer, the Slumlord landlord of 31st Street house in Port Townsend Washington knew that the home was used to cook meth, as did the property managers a Townsend Bay Property Management owned by Donna Murphy Doney. And they seem to think its legal, ethical and moral to go ahead and NOT disclose nor protect the public at large.

Townsend Bay Property Management allegedly claims the property was cleaned up, but I have personally seen no proof or certificate of this being factual.

Ex- Pastor Bent Meyer Bent Meyer Speaks Out About Redemption, provides abuse counseling, and comes off as an all around do gooder.

 Yet in Port Townsend Washington, Bent Meyer owns a home that he knew was a Meth lab and yet he rented it out and people got sick, VERY SICK. Children live in the home and are at great risk. Jefferson County Board of Health seems to protect him, why?

I also allege, from what I have heard and believe, Bent Meyer had an issue with the tenant that had the meth lab again and again regarding the Meth Lab and regarding unpaid rent. It is said that Bent Meyer, counselor and either pastor or ex-pastor, traded sex with the tenant in exchange for the rent. I believe that is either rape or prostitution, neither of which is moral, ethical or legal. I wonder if Townsend Bay Property Management knows this too. 

"Former renter plans to pursue matter in federal court"

"By Allison Arthur" Port Townsend Leader Article

"A former Port Townsend resident who rented a 31st Street house in 2011 – and then concluded he had become sick because the place was infused with chemicals from earlier methamphetamine manufacturing – has encountered a setback in his effort for relief.

That former renter, Barry Ellis, at first sought help from the Jefferson County Board of Health, which has the power to publicly post a hazard warning on property proven to have had meth activity, and to require landlords to do a thorough cleanup.

The County Board of Health turned him down, citing a lack of clear evidence.

He then appealed that decision to the Washington State Board of Health. That board, on Nov. 12, denied his appeal, endorsing the earlier decision of the county board to place no restrictions on the property.

Coincidentally (or not, according to Ellis), Jefferson County Commissioner John Austin is both a member of the County Board of Health and the chair of the Washington State Board of Health, to which the appeal was made. Austin, however, recused himself from voting on the matter as a state board member.

In addition, Dr. Tom Locke, public health officer for Jefferson and Clallam counties, has been a state leader in drafting a law related to drug-infused housing, and argues that standards are too strict and should be reduced.

“I was expecting this,” said Ellis of the state board’s rejection of his appeal. Ellis says he is likely to appeal to a higher power, federal court. He’s not giving up, he said, because he thinks that the health of unsuspecting renters like himself is on the line.

“They can’t admit liability. I’m already talking with attorneys. You never win against the state in the state court. I have a three-year clock,” noting a three-year statute of limitations to sue the state Board of Health.
Ellis said he could draw a lesson from the state board’s ruling. “I think that what happened is this is a good ol’ boy network, and I think they covered their ass with Locke,” he said.

STARTED WITH 2011 RENTAL

The case is based on Ellis’ complaint about a house at 1507 31st St. in Port Townsend. In his written complaint to the Jefferson County Board of Health, Ellis stated that he and his girlfriend rented that house in April 2011. During the 14 months he was there, “I experienced internal bleeding, two emergency surgeries, numerous medical procedures.” He said his former girlfriend had tried to commit suicide and required medical attention right after moving in.

In his formal complaint to the county, Ellis wrote that a neighbor told Ellis that the house had been used to “cook” methamphetamine.

In April 2012, Ellis went to Marjorie Boyd of Jefferson County Public Health to inquire about possible drug use or chemical infusion at the house. 

He also started submitting open public records requests to the Port Townsend Police Department (PTPD) to find out if there were any incidents at the house investigated by police.

In his testimony before the county health board in March of this year, Ellis said he had contacted the owner of the house, Bent Meyer. Meyer “refused to address the situation, but did tell me to move out immediately,” Ellis said.

When Ellis responded that he wanted permission to have the property tested for meth, “I was locked out of the residence without a court order,” he said, so that he could not have the residence tested.

Before being locked out, Ellis said, he removed some items and later had those tested for meth residue. He forwarded the results to Boyd of the county health department.

Ellis said the test results showed chemical levels “between two and 26 times the legal limit.” Boyd told him there was nothing she could do to help him, according to Ellis, a conclusion repeated by other county health department staff.

Ellis said he took the matter to the PTPD, where a case file was created. However, the PTPD apparently could not confirm prior drug activity at the house. Without that finding, the county health department again declined to take action.

Ellis did not let it drop. Instead, he said, he pursued the matter by contacting local police, the state Department of Ecology and the Jefferson County Prosecutor’s Office. Ellis’ history shows he is persistent. He said he has been involved in more than 30 lawsuits involving the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office, and added that he’s won a number of those.

STATE INVESTIGATION

Ellis appealed to the state Board of Health, calling on that panel to overturn Jefferson County Public Health’s decision against taking action on the house.

In a Nov. 12, 2014 memo on the case prepared by state board vice chair Keith Grellner, Grellner said that Ellis’ complaint was reviewed and that three of the four witnesses Ellis cited in his written complaint were interviewed.

Neither the state board investigator nor the Leader was able to get landlord Bent Meyer to return calls.

“There was no evidence found or presented that proves that hazardous chemicals were used to manufacture illegal drugs at 1507 31st St., Port Townsend, Wa.,” Grellner wrote in a conclusion. “There was no evidence found or presented that a law enforcement agency or property owner notified Jefferson County Public Health” that the property was contaminated, he continued.

“The sample results submitted by Mr. Ellis did not provide grounds for Jefferson County Public Health to post the property or conduct further inspections under RCW 64.44 and WAC 246.205,” he added.

And finally, he said that public records requests resulted in no findings or documentation that there was ever a meth lab on the property.

LOCKE: LAWS TOO STRICT

Locke said he is pushing to relax state cleanup laws related to buildings used as drug labs, laws that he helped to write. Locke said the cleanup threshold is so low today that it impacts the supply of public housing. When traces of meth are found in housing projects, Locke said, cleanup crews are “charging tens of thousands of dollars” to do “very destructive cleanups” of homes “when there is no evidence that the amount of meth detected is dangerous.”

It is not a new subject for Locke.

“I felt especially strong about this code because I helped write it,” Locke said last week. In the late 1990s, Locke said, clandestine drug labs were a real problem. “We had several in Jefferson County and hundreds around the state,” he said.

But today, Locke said, meth labs are a much smaller problem, because the market is flooded with cheap meth made in Mexican superlabs. “There’s a very small amount of shake-and-bake,” he said of meth that is made in 2-liter soda bottles. “Meth labs have virtually disappeared, and those that do exist, exist on a very small scale.”

But those strict cleanup laws from a decade ago are still on the books, he said.
What is happening now is that any tiny amount of meth – even from smoking it – can trigger a massive cleanup that involves practically tearing the house apart.

“The point is, the cleanup standard is so low, we’ve been urging the state to raise the cleanup standard,” he said.

Locke is proposing the state raise its cleanup standards from 0.1 micrograms to 1.5 micrograms per 100 square centimeters, which is the level the state of California recommends based on a 2007 study, according to public health department minutes from April 17, 2014.

“Current cleanup protocols call for all drywall, carpeting, appliances and personal possessions to be removed,” state the minutes. “This is expensive and has limited the availability of public housing because units are closed and/or demolished rather than cleaned.”

“The law was not written to compel cleanup of residences where the only thing that has happened is the smoking of meth,” Locke said. He said tiny amounts of meth on surfaces of things, such as floors, aren’t dangerous unless you do something like prepare food on them.

Locke said that at a recent state hearing, even the Peninsula Housing Authority testified that the law, as written, is having an impact on public housing because of the high cost of cleanup. He noted that public housing is already in short supply.

PROTECTING RENTERS

Again, Ellis isn’t buying it.

“By asking to relax these standards, it sets up landlords to be able to move people into contaminated houses without legal recourse,” Ellis said in August. “It sets up renters as second-class citizens.”
“I’m going to sue them over what they have done. It’s discrimination,” he said.
Ellis said he still suffers from his days in that Port Townsend rental home, but he’s moved out to the country and is starting to feel better. He asserts that Locke and county officials are trying to protect their tax base.

“Anyone who owns property here, they give protection to. But some child goes and gets in that house and gets sick, there’s no protection,” Ellis said."

Source
http://www.ptleader.com/news/pt-meth-lab-complaint-dismissed/article_5ae257ea-7502-11e4-a6dc-0787963ae368.html

Barry Ellis State of Washington Complaint

"My name is Barry Ellis. I am here today to address a situation which was not dealt with
appropriately by Jefferson County Health Dept.

My former girlfriend and myself took occupancy of a residence owned by Bent and
Joanne Meyer located at 1507 31st Street in Port Townsend in late April of 2011.

During my fourteen months at this residence, I experienced internal bleeding, two emergency
surgeries, numerous medical procedures, an attempted suicide by my former girlfriend
and my fiancée required medical attention right after moving in with me.

In April 2012, neighbors of ours, Denise Early and Paula Martin (Guardian ad Litem
Jefferson County), told us that the owners had cleaned up remnants of a meth lab two
weeks before I moved into this home.

I then contacted Bent Meyer, the owner of the residence and he refused to address the situation but did tell me to move out immediately.

When I asked for permission to have the premises tested for meth residue, I was locked
out of the residence without a court order.

I had contacted Marjorie Boyd at the Jefferson County Health Dept. and to my surprise,
she stated there was nothing she could do except if the Port Townsend Police Dept.
notified her or the owner. I had also contacted Sgt. Green at the Port Townsend Police
Dept., and in essence was told, this was a civil matter.

Before I was locked out of this residence, I removed items from the house and had them
tested for meth residue and forwarded the results to Marjorie Boyd at the Jefferson
County Health Dept., which were between two and twenty six times the legal limit (See
exhibit A/B/C), and was again told there was nothing she could do.

I then contacted Sgt. Kaare at the Port Townsend Police Dept. and he initiated a hazmat
investigation report # 2013-00000872 (See exhibit D/E). In doing so, Sgt. Kaare spoke
with the Jefferson County Health Dept., and was told not to open a case on this matter
and in response Sgt. Kaare told them “I’m covering our ass on this one”, and opened a
case number on it. Through a public disclosure request, I asked who Sgt. Kaare spoke
with at Jefferson County Health Dept., but he could not recall (see exhibit F). I also spoke
with Ms. Armstrong at the Dept. of Ecology, and she also forwarded the lab results to
Jefferson County Health Dept. I received letters from Mr. Jarrod Keefer, Marjorie Boyd
and Christy Fiedler which I want to discuss now.

In short, the letter from Ms. Fiedler reads:

We do not have the authority to respond to this type of complaint except when it is
referred to us from a law enforcement agency or the property owner. If we are requested
by either law enforcement or a property owner to investigate a property for potential or
known contamination, then we would carry out duties as outlined in RCW 64.44 and
WAC 246-205 (See exhibit G). In short, the letter from Mr.Keefer reads:

Jefferson County Public Health Dept. received the above referenced report from the City
of Port Townsend Police Dept. on February 6, 2013. As we stated in our letter on
November 2nd, upon referral or request by law enforcement and/or the propertyowner ,
we will post and inspect the site. We have yet to receive, from law enforcement or the
property owner, a notification of potential contamination at that address due to the
manufacture of illegal drugs ( See exhibit H).

Exhibits D&E were the notifications of potential and verified contamination given to
Jefferson County Health Dept. in February 2013 by the Port Townsend Police Dept. and
by the Washington State Dept.of Ecology.

In a letter drafted by Mr. Keefer that was received through a public disclosure request
(See exhibit I), Mr. Keefer refers to me as Mr.Dundee which is corrected in an email
from David Alvarez (See exhibit J). The letter goes on to state that “the police report does
not confirm that the site is an illegal drug manufacturing lab”.

Our jurisdiction is limited
to the illegal manfacture of drugs. I am now going to read the RCW, WAC and Jefferson
County ordinance. Nowhere in these laws will you read or hear the term “illegal drug
manufacturing lab”

Source and Full Document with Exhibits Click Below
http://sboh.wa.gov/Portals/7/Doc/Meetings/2014/08-13/WSBOH-08-13-14-Tab05c.pdf

Jill Buhler

JCPH ADMINISTRATION

Tom Locke
Health Officer
Jefferson County












Jean Baldwin
Director








Julia Danskin
Public Health Supervisor

Veronica Shaw
Deputy Director &
Chief Operations Director

Jared Keefer
Environmental Health & Water Quality Director

Dr. Thomas H. Locke, MD

Is it a conflict of interest to be on multiple boards such as this?

Jill Buhler
Jefferson County Board of Health

Jill Buhler
Hospital Commissioner

http://www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/index.php?board-of-health-1

Links to more Research

Complaint Details

http://sboh.wa.gov/Portals/7/Doc/Meetings/2014/08-13/WSBOH-08-13-14-Tab05c.pdf

Jefferson County Public Health Meeting Minutes on this Topic

http://www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/pdf/BOH%20minutes%20-%20April%202014.pdf

http://www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/pdf/2014%20March%20Signed%20Minutes.pdf

Jefferson County Public Health Adopted Meth Lab Regulations

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiVEhQOVRhWTFuYkk/edit

Ex - Pastor Bent Meyer Research Links

"Bent is now a highly respected counselor in the Seattle area who specializes in helping those who are abused by churches. TWW encourages all those, who have been hurt by a church and are in need of counseling, to avail themselves of his services link. He has walked that difficult path and is in a unique position to be of assistance."
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/06/22/bent-myer-speaks-out-about-redemption-groups-at-mark-driscolls-mars-hill/

Yet Counselor Bent Meyer is a slumlord, and has a total disregard for the law, and for the civil and human rights of the tenants of his rentals. 

http://northwestfamilylife.org/find-a-counselor/brent-meyer-ma-lmhca/
Bent Meyer Counselor

http://joyfulexiles.com/tag/bent-meyer/

Confessed Betrayal
http://joyfulexiles.com/2014/08/28/new-disclosures-by-former-mh-pastorelder-bent-meyer/

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/06/22/bent-myer-speaks-out-about-redemption-groups-at-mark-driscolls-mars-hill/

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004020898_webmarshill18m.html

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/01/30/fired-mars-hill-elder-breaks-his-silence/

http://northwestfamilylife.org/find-a-counselor/brent-meyer-ma-lmhca/

http://www.paradigmcounselingps.com/

Meth Lab Clean Up Guidelines in other areas

http://health.mo.gov/atoz/pdf/MethLabCleanupGuidelines.pdf

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/LPDnew/methlabs/meth.htm

http://sai-dc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/meth_lab_guidelines.pdf

http://www.methlabcleanup.com/meth%20cleanup%20laws.htm

Washington Meth Lab Clean Up Laws

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.44

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246.205

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.06.020

Dangers of Living in a Home that was a Meth Lab

"Houses formerly used as meth labs, called meth houses, put their residents at risk of serious health consequences, says Stan Smith, a doctoral student at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Drug Endangered Children Task Force, a division of the California Drug Enforcement Agency.

Upon moving into a meth house, people have experienced short-term health problems ranging from migraines and respiratory difficulties to skin irritation and burns. Long-term problems are less well known, but the results from a 2009 study in Toxological Sciences suggest that methamphetamine chemicals may cause cancer in humans.

And because children have small, developing bodies and a tendency to play on the ground and put things in their mouths, they are especially susceptible to adverse health effects from meth toxins. “When we go into a lab, if there are children, the first thing we do is take the children to the hospital and assess them for contamination,” said Smith.

The chemicals used in methamphetamine production are highly toxic and range from pseudoephenadrine — the main ingredient in meth and active ingredient in decongestants — to any one of 32 other precursor chemicals. These include acetone, the active ingredient in nail polish remover, and phosphine, a widely used insecticide.

Home-cooking meth spreads toxins to every inch of the room where the meth was cooked and beyond. Nothing escapes contamination — the carpet, walls, furniture, drapes, air ducts, even the air itself becomes toxic. “Ingesting some of these chemicals, even a tiny drop, can cause immediate death,” said Smith."

Read More Click Below
http://scienceline.org/2010/04/are-you-living-in-a-former-meth-lab/


http://www.ovc.gov/publications/bulletins/children/pg5.html

http://methlabhomes.com/about-us/my-meth-lab-home-story/

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/12/real_estate/home-meth-lab/

http://www.methinyourhouse.com/health-effects-of-third-hand-meth.html#.VIJqcDHF-2g

Port Townsend Growler Jets. Noise Pollution Port Townsend Washington. Stand up for your Right to Quiet Enjoyment.

Start a Blog, Post Documents of Fact. 

Take a Video and post on YouTube. 

Let your Voice be Heard.

Stand UP.  Enough is ENOUGH. 

ReverendCrystalCox@Gmail.com 

"Navy defends electronic warfare training to skeptical crowd" Folks Electronic "WARFARE" and nothing to worry about. Really? And you Think You are Free?

The NAVY will Put these where they want to and they are Everywhere, and more coming soon to a town near you.

"By ANGELO BRUSCAS
North Coast News

PACIFIC BEACH — The town with the most direct impact from the Navy’s proposal to expand electronic warfare training in the Olympic National Forest finally had a public meeting on the plan Wednesday night with more than 175 people in attendance and citizens largely voicing their opposition.

A five-person team that included a 22-year veteran Navy pilot defended the military agency’s finding in August that the project would have no significant environmental impact, and said they had attempted to use the best available science in a process that met all the requirements called for in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Citizens, however, questioned the Navy and two opponents of the project for more than two hours on Wednesday at Pacific Beach Elementary School about a decision that many felt was irreversible and done without proper public notice, comment or study.

Grays Harbor County Commissioner Wes Cormier moderated the meeting.

While some in the audience came from as far as Olympia, Forks and Seattle to address the Navy plan, local concerns focused on the need for emergency service agreements, possible disruption of communication services in and around Pacific Beach, the impact it could have on the frequency of sonic booms and air traffic as well as why more notice wasn’t given of the proposed activity.

“We live here. If we had moved to Whidbey Island or SeaTac, we would expect the noise of the flights. We didn’t expect it here,” said North Beach resident Gina Rawlings.

Shari Curtright of Grays Harbor Fire District No. 8 in Moclips/Pacific Beach questioned what considerations the Navy had given to fire and emergency response, which would largely fall to District No. 8. She noted the fire district currently does not have a mutual aid agreement with the Pacific Beach Navy site, which surprised the Navy panel members.

“We want something in writing about what we are supposed to do if that thing is activated,” Curtright said.

The Navy is preparing to use facilities at Pacific Beach to construct a new tower capable of generating an electromagnetic wave as part of what is being proposed as the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range or MOA (military operating range).

The tower would be capable of generating an electromagnetic wave at frequencies ranging from 2 to 18 gigahertz (GHz) and it would be able to emit up to 64 simultaneous signals while transmitting in pulses or a continuous wave, the Navy’s already completed environmental assessment states. The Navy has said it would not have a significant impact on the public or the community and would be part of a larger plan to install and operate an electronic warfare range in which aircraft, ships and submarines can practice and have that information communicated and analyzed in a central location. Also, the Navy plan is to use mobile emitters at various locations, including several in Grays Harbor County and north of the Quinault Indian Nation.

The intent is to have the project up and running by September 2015. The Navy still needs permission from the U.S. Forest Service and the state Department of Natural Resources for use of roads in remote areas where the mobile units would travel and set up.

Recent public meetings on the proposal also were conducted in Forks and Port Angeles, and there appears to be growing opposition to the plan as the Navy tries to complete the process.

The Forest Service declined an invitation to attend the Pacific Beach meeting, but the Navy sent a team of five members.

John Mosher, Northwest Environmental Program Manager for the Navy, told the crowd that many people may be unfamiliar with what electronic warfare is.

“It is something that the military has been doing for a very long time,” he said. It involves the use of electromagnetic equipment that is in turn used to “impede our enemy’s use of certain electronic equipment.”

“It is critical in protecting our aircraft and our forces on the ground,” Mosher said. “And just about every aspect of military operations these days involves electronic warfare in one form or another.”

The training sites, including the ones in the National Forest where the mobile emitters will set up in remote locations, have been reviewed by the Navy and will be used on a rotating basis. The idea is to simulate on the ground what potential adversaries might be using to communicate, and the aircraft flying above then try to locate such equipment, Mosher explained.

The Navy has concluded that the electromagnetic waves would be no significant harm to people or animals, and would be focused and beamed into the sky.

“The equipment we are proposing to use is very similar to other pieces of commercially and publicly available equipment that you will see and you are exposed to on a daily basis,” Mosher said. He likened it to a TV broadcasting van, or marine radar.

Mosher said the Navy wants “to be a good neighbor” with the community and is committed to it. He noted the project will result in the addition of jobs and construction at the Pacific Beach Naval facility.

“So we have obligations to the community and we feel like we have open lines of communication,” he said.

Just because the environmental assessment found no significant impact, that doesn’t mean “game over,” Mosher added. “Long term, we are committed to working with the local community to make sure we are not affecting your communications systems.”

The Navy too, he said, relies on the local 911 emergency services center and local emergency service providers. Also, he noted the plan must have approval of the FCC and other agencies.

Karen Sullivan, a project opponent who lives on the Olympic Peninsula and is a former employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, countered many of the Navy’s points and questioned the findings with respect to impact on humans as well as wildlife, in particular how it might affect threatened species that use the forest, such as marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls. She noted the testing period will be extended from eight hours a day to as much as 16 hours, and suggested there are other places with more air space the Navy could use.

“So if the Navy says that it needs the Olympic National Forest for training, which happens to be next to a world heritage site in the Olympic National Park, it has to prove that it has no alternative places to go,” Sullivan said, contending she cannot find sufficient proof in the current environmental assessment.

Kent Mathes, Northwest Training Range Complex Program Manager, said the current plan represents the “best alternative,” and the purpose is to train pilots at the very basic level so they are able to move on for more advanced training elsewhere before being called into battle.

“This is all very simplistic use of electronic warfare,” he said, noting there are currently about 1,200 flights per year over the area. The estimate is the number would increase about 10 percent with the new training transmissions.

“This is just going to be a very small portion of the flights that are already going on,” Mathes said.

Pacific Beach resident Melody Emery, who works for cable TV provider Coast Communications, said the government’s existing weather radar at Langley Hill on the North Beach and some shipping radar can affect television satellite reception.

Mathes, however, said the type of transmission the Navy plans to emit has been reviewed by 22 federal agencies and there should be no interference issue with civil broadcasting or receiving.

“Where you are probably seeing a lot of this interference is with these public bands where there is not this rigorous process that we have to go through,” he said.

“The equipment we are going to have is very directional, discreet, and it will be pointed toward the aircraft in a very narrow beam. It’s the difference between a flashlight and a porch light,” he said.

Navy pilot Cmdr. Brian Danielson trains pilots at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, where he has been stationed for 17 years. He said there is no part of the plan that calls for the Navy to exceed the air space it already uses in training missions currently flown over the sites.

“The current space that we are using right now is capped at 6,000 feet,” the Navy pilot said. “We can’t go any lower and we won’t go any lower. There is no plan to do anything differently with regards to going lower, being louder, faster. What we are looking to do with these things is have them simulate a radar and use our systems to detect and locate where they are.”

He encouraged residents to report any instances where pilots exceed the sound barrier or appear to be flying too low, and said reports could be made online through Naval Station Whidbey Island, which controls the training area. Noise complaints can be directed to NAS Whidbey Island’s new comment line at (360) 257-6665, or via e-mail: comments.NASWI@navy.mil.

Sullivan acknowledged that there were no public comments received during the environmental assessment period conducted by the Navy, largely because communities were not notified with the exception of a few newspaper legal ads.

“The finding of no significant impact is supposed to have public input. There was none,” she said.

The Forest Service has extended the comment period on the plan and permits to use the forest until Nov. 28. To comment online: https://cara.ecosystem- management.org/Public/CommentInput? Project=42759

The Forest Service also has the full environmental assessment of the Navy’s plan online: http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?projec..."

Source
http://thedailyworld.com/news/local/navy-defends-electronic-warfare-training-skeptical-crowd

Keep in mind Folks that the Supervisor of the Olympic National Forest, Reta Laford,  is an EXPERT in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). She has been for decades.

Reta Laford knows all the tricks to make sure that the NEPA laws work for what the NAVY and USFS wants. Your health and the protection of the forest, mammals, waterways and delicate eco-system of the Olympic National Forest will not be a problem.

Reta Laford is perhaps the best in the nation at NEPA and this means Mother Earth LOSES.

More Research Links on Olympic National Forest Supervisor, Reta Laford

http://www.rcw42.com/Public_Records/Jefferson%20County/BoCC/Agenda/2012/2012-09-04/Correspondence/PDF/FW_%20Reta%20Laford%20is%20welcomed%20as%20new%20Forest%20Super....pdf

Reta "Laford worked in the Eastern Regional Office in the NEPA, Appeals, and Litigation program areas (2000-2002).  With the exception of a one-year assignment as Environmental Coordinator for the Manti-La Sal National Forest, she was the Prescott National Forest’s Environmental Coordinator from 1995 to 2000.  She has also been a District Forester, NEPA Coordinator, and Staff Officer for Planning/Heritage/GIS (1989-1995). "
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/olympic/news-events/?cid=STELPRDB5389332

Reta Laford is very experienced at doing what it takes to ensure that "Environmentalists" are shut down; be it a Timber Sale, Warfare machine, river toxins, mining or any other environmental concern that gets in the way of greed, money, and the destruction of Mother Earth as is often the agenda of the USFS.

"Finding of No Significant Impact" Seems to be her standard. 

Reta Laford has built her career in direct opposition to the actual needs of Mother Earth and the Environment. She is a NEPA expert, hence the Olympic National Forest is the best place to bring her to be the supervisor. Right in the heart of all the liberal Tree Huggers that want to breath fresh air, NOT be attacked by Electronic Warfare, want Clean Soil, Clean Air and Clean Water. She is an expert in ensuring that we don't get that.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/adventure/2012/09/05/reta-laford-named-new-olympic-national-forest-supervisor/

"Reta Laford, Deputy Forest Supervisor ... Training for cooperating agencies on the NEPA process. "
http://www.rosemonteis.us/files/coordination-meetings/011626.pdf

http://www.rosemonteis.us/files/coordination-meetings/014979.pdf

http://www.pima.gov/bos/rcarroll/PDFs/Rosemont%20Mine/101013%20Vilsack%20to%20RC%20No%20Action.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-12-13/html/05-23983.htm

http://www.arizona.sierraclub.org/rincon/files/newsletter-jul10-sep10.pdf

http://www.rosemontminetruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Citizens_action_handout.pdf

http://media.azpm.org/master/document/2010/8/30/pdf/LNDecisionApplFPAmendTrMgtFINAL_080410.pdf

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20130817/news/308179990/rep-kilmer-leads-port-angeles-panel-on-timber-management

Work with Idaho Senator Mike Crapo

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2007/12/18/senate-section/article/S15902-1

Much more on Reta Laford, NEPA and the issues in the Olympic National Forest Coming Soon.

More public meetings on Navy Growler flights, noise

"PORT ANGELES — The Navy has scheduled two more public meetings on plans to add as many as 36 more EA-18G Growler aircraft — electronic warfare planes — at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station.

The hearings will provide information and take comments on the scope of an environmental impact statement.

The Navy scheduled three public meetings last month at Oak Harbor, Coupeville and Anacortes.

Additional meetings have been scheduled for Dec. 3 at the Lopez Island community center and Dec. 4 at Fort Worden Commons at Port Townsend.

A spokesman told the Peninsula Daily News the hearings were added at the request of U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer, whose constituents say the jet noise carries across Admiralty Inlet.

Currently, 82 Growlers are based at Whidbey, where they practice for aircraft carrier takeoffs and landings."

Source
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/11/more-public-meetings-on-navy-growler-flights-noise/

Letter to the Forest Service regarding the Navy Training Electronic Warfare Environmental Assessement

"Quick overview: Why is this an issue?

The DOD has stated they want permission from the Forest Service (and us!) to do this training. To be clear, this is from the Forest Service EA on behalf of the Navy:

The Navy wants to run Electronic Warfare Training runs on the west side of the Olympic Peninsula, including over habitat for endangered Spotted Owls, towns such as Forks, areas very close to the Hoh River campgrounds, and generally all over the Peninsula’s west side.

-11.152 events per day
-2900 events per year. Current number in the Olympic MOA is 1200.
-Run up to 12 hours a day
-In use 45 minutes of each hour

-The equipment will be in use up to 260 days a year

The Navy’s own figures state that a jet flying at 1000 ft above ground level creates 113 decibels, which is far above the threshold for hearing damage.

So, 113 @ 1000 for one aircraft = 123 for two, and 128 for three. In other words, permanent damage instantly. (Twice as loud for two and an additional 50% louder for three.)

Ok?

So here’s the response to the Forest Service. There are no answers, only questions at this point:
To whom it may concern:

I am writing to express my concern with substantive issues of  the Environmental Assessment being carried out by the Forest Service on behalf of the Navy’s Pacific NW Electronic Warfare Range.

There are number of issues that I am raising:
DOD Department of Agriculture Master Agreement 1988
DOD, Department of Agriculture (FS) Master Agreement on “Use of National Forest Service Lands For Military Activity” (1988)

As stated in this 1988 document: “Training activities on National Forest Service  Lands will be authorized when compatible with other uses and in conformity with applicable forest plan(s), provided that the Department of Defense determines and substantiates that lands under it’s administration are unsuitable or unusable.”

I see nothing in the EA or the EIS that substantiates that the current lands in Eastern Washington or Idaho are unsuitable or unusable. In fact , It is clear on page 2-8 of the EA that Roosevelt and Okanagan are still possible to use.

I see a case  made that it is too far for local pilots. But this is neither an unsuitable or unusable  argument as they are being used for this purpose now. Could the lands be used if necessary? The answer appears yes, but the Navy would prefer to do it in the Western Olympic Peninsula. That does not seem to meet the criteria as outlined in that foundational document between the DOD and the FS.

The 1988 agreement, noted above goes on to say that:
“This agreement does not apply to the airspace over National Forest System Lands unless directly associated with the land based training.”

Questions of overlooking the issue of aircraft
There is an implied issue that is not addressed in the current EA that I am commenting on, and seems critical to the EA.  IF there will be active flyovers of public land (USFS, ONF, WSDNR), and IF there will be active electronic engagement with mobile emitters then it seems that  potential adverse environmental impacts MUST be addressed in the EA.

Any reasonable person would conclude that they are tightly coupled, and that one relies on the other, as they do in fact. Any attempt to suggest that these aerial activities are NOT a part of this Environmental Analysis and have been or are going to be addressed in a separate EIS are inexcusable considering potential adverse impacts to the human and natural environment.

Again, the airspace requirements for this EA are distinctly directly associated with the land based training, so while it is not addressed in the current EA, it is required by the 1988 Master Agreement to be considered in the EA and likely an EIS that would take into consideration both issues. That the Forest Service has not bound the airspace issues with the land based issues seems to be a significant oversight on behalf of the FS reviewer.

Previous EISA entries from the DOD/Navy did not address this specific use of the airspace, which may significantly alter the altitude and noise impact to both the National Forest and the National Park. So the question I ask is “Why is it not bound to this EA?”

Also, the flight paths of these jets flying unmuffled at 1200 feet are not even shown on diagrams. What population areas, businesses and homes are going to be affected by these flights?

Section B of the 1988 Master Agreement states:
Military Training activities on Forest Service lands are actions that require the analysis of environmental impact in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other statutory and regulatory requirements. The Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture will cooperate to accomplish the appropriate NEPA compliance.

Questions of Noise

A question of whether the activities of the DOD are compatible with  other uses and conform with applicable forest management plans can be questioned, since hiking, fishing, camping and other human activities are expected to take place both on FS land and the adjacent Olympic National Park (ONP). The noise of the jets participating in the testing and training of the pilots, and directly associated with the land based training, flying at heights of 1200 feet, will be at decibel levels that are known to damage human hearing (greater than 80 decibels for example).

These planes, which are required to make deployment of the electronic gear being requested necessary, will be heard inside the Olympic National Park, in such locations as the Hoh River campground, and other campsites close to the deployed gear, according to the maps provided by the FS and Navy.

In earlier court cases, the National Park Service has found that Snowplane noise violated park standards. Has the Park Service weighed in on whether the noise of the unmuffled jets flying training sorties at 1200 feet will meet noise criteria in the areas of the National Park over which the jets will fly? And what about the noise levels generated adjacent to the Park? This has been successfully argued in court to be a violation of the Wilderness Act.

Questions of Fire 
There is no mention of possible fire, caused by either the jets themselves or the equipment. If a jet crashes, especially if it happens in late summer, what measures do the FS and the Navy expect to take to fight the subsequent fire?  This seems to be an oversight in the EA.

Quantities of training 

The DOD has stated they plan to do this training:

11.152 events per day
2900 events per years. Current number in the Olympic MOA is 1200.
Run up to 12 hours a day

In use 45 minutes of each hour
The equipment will be in use up to 260 days a year

The Navy’s own figures state that a jet flying at 1000 ft above ground level creates 113 decibels, which is far above the threshold for hearing damage.

So, 113 @ 1000 for one aircraft = 123 for two, and 128 for three. In other words, permanent damage instantly. (Twice as loud for two and an additional 50% louder for three.)
This cannot be construed to be “no harm” as exposing human and animal hearing to the directly associated unmuffled air training that is done in conjunction with the required land based equipment could cause human hearing impairment.

There has been no Environmental Impact Statement done on the joint use of the two distinctly directly associated activities. I request that one be done.

A reasonable person who would live, work or recreate near such activity would not consider adding 260 days and 12 hours a day of unmuffled jet noise associated with this activity, along with the coming and goings of trucks at all hours of the day and night, to be “no significant impact”. So what was the criteria in establishing that ruling in the FONSI?

Question Of Conversion Of And Taking Of Private & Public Property 
An issue not addressed is the implied conversion of private property under the flight paths of these jets, in the vicinity of the transmitters. (Flight paths are not even considered in the EA) Citizens are being told that they will be living under a war training zone, that unmuffled jets may be going over their homes and businesses at 1200 feet as much as 12 hours a day and up to 45 minutes in those hours. Would they consider this an impact on their businesses and personal lives?

This seems to be a “taking” of the private property use, without properly addressing the issue of whether there is going to be a loss of value or reimbursement  to the homeowner, business person or property owner.  This kind of issue has been dealt with in many locales when flight paths in and out of airports brought jet traffic over homes. These homes often are purchased and destroyed. Seatac has two such locations, north and south of the runways.   When the Navy has created training ranges such as Yakima Firing Range, there was a condemning or purchase of the land there. This issue has not been raised in either the EIS nor the EA.

Loss of Wilderness Soundscape
The loss of wilderness soundscape over the ONP is also, per my comments above, a possible violation of the Wilderness Act. It could also be seen as a violation of NEPA because it appears there has been no adequate consultation with the Park Service prior to the EA nor documented on this issue in the EA.

Use of DNR Lands
It also appears that there are use issues with DNR lands in that vicinity, has that been documented somewhere other than this EA?

Loss of tourist trade
There are unknown losses that may occur due to tourist activities that may not happen due to the understanding by recreation users and others that low flying unmuffled jets are in the area. That is not addressed at all in the EA, nor the Navy’s EIS for the training areas. Are there similar locations in the Continental US that could be looked at for possible loss of incomes and tourist trade?
Issues with the Finding Of No Significance (FONSI)

In the comments in the FONSI there is mention of having referred to the FS NW Forest Plan, but no mention of which sections of the FS NW Forest Plan the writer is referring to. Which ones is he referring to?

The FONSI appears to have been arrived at with no public input and insufficient scientific data, thus violating NEPA.

In the comments section of the FONSI there is no mention of jet aircraft in consideration of  the actions proposed on page EA-2.  However, the jet aircraft are required for this training. They are not a separate entity, but intrinsically part of the whole.  A reasonable person would assume that would be taking into consideration in this EA.

I request that the FS rewrite the EA to take into account the jet aircraft in use specifically for this training be done.The EIS that was originally done by the Navy regarding airspace did not consider or discuss this use, but was specifically calling out issues related to training at sea.
In the comments section of the FONSI the reviewer only considers the Navy’s needs in the alternatives, and not whether citizens who live and use the National Forests of the affected areas on the Olympic Peninsula would request an alternative.

In the comments section of the FONSI the reviewer states that there will be no effects on the human environment. Most reasonable people living, working or recreating on these lands would consider 200 training exercises a year requiring jets flying low enough to produce sound above the range of damage to human hearing to be a negative effect of any such activity.

IN CONCLUSION:
Given all these issues, I respectively suggest that the EA is inadequate in addressing the possible impacts to public health and safety, biological resources, Noise, Air Quality, and Visual Resources, along with the lack of proof that the use of Forest Service Lands by the Navy has not been adequately shown to adhere to the 1988 Master Agreement (referenced above), and wish to see it withdrawn and or rejected."

Source
http://olyopen.com/2014/11/26/letter-to-the-forest-service-regarding-the-navy-training-electronic-warfare-environmental-assessement/

More Information at 

http://olympicnationalforestnews.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Olympic-National-Forest-Environmental-News/1504705656455591

https://www.facebook.com/protectolypen

Olympic National Forest extends review period for Navy’s electronic warfare training plan Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/10/31/3462620/forest-service-slows-down-navy.html#storylink=cpy

"The U.S. Forest Service announced Friday that it is slowing down a Navy proposal to enhance jet training above Olympic National Forest.

For the second time, the Forest Service is extending a public comment period on the Navy’s request to use forestland for electronic warfare training that would benefit a growing fleet of EA-18 Growler jets based at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island.

The Navy wants to use up to 15 sites in the forest as temporary stations for three trucks equipped with electronic communications gear. The jets would be challenged to find electronic signals emitted by the trucks as practice for the surveillance and radar-busting assignments handed to Growler jets in war zones.

Hundreds of people have already commented on the proposal, with many expressing concerns about how the training would impact wildlife or the atmosphere of the forest. Opponents protested outside of the Forest Service headquarters in Olympia on Oct. 24.

“I’ve decided to extend the current public comment period to ensure the public has plenty of time to share their thoughts,” said Forest Service Pacific District ranger Dean Millett in a news release. The new deadline is Nov. 28.

The Navy on Nov. 6 is scheduled to a hold a public meeting on the proposal in Port Angeles. It is to take place at 6 p.m. at the City Council chambers, 321 E. Fifth St.

Training could take place up to 260 days a year, but the Navy says the trucks would be rotated among the 15 locations.

The noise generated by the jets should not be noticeably different from the sounds of Navy training that already occurs above Olympic National Forest, Navy officials told The News Tribune.

The Navy has said it will take steps to protect forest users, such as posting signs and shutting down training if people move into an exercise area.

The Navy has 84 Growler jets stationed on Whidbey Island. It wants to use the Olympic Peninsula for electronic warfare training area as an alternative to a location 400 nautical miles away in Idaho.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/10/31/3462620/forest-service-slows-down-navy.html#storylink=cpy

Source
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/10/31/3462620/forest-service-slows-down-navy.html

The Unist'ot'en Camp Resistance; Freda Huson - Make a Stand and STOP the Oil Companies from Polluting our Waters, Destroying our Land. Stand with the Indian Nation. Make a stand for Mother Goddess Gaia.

Federal Government has NO Jurisdiction on Indian Land. The Native Americans will Save Mother Earth and us along with it; STAND with the Indian Nation.

Support the Unist'ot'en.

Please Spread the Word about these Folks.

Standing with the Unist'ot'en and doing what you can to help is something that we ALL need to do however we can to save the SOUL of Mother Earth.

Blog the Story, Send them Money, Go there, Make a Stand; Help in whatever way you can, even if it is simply prayer. This is massively Important to raise the vibration of Mother Earth and her people, water, land, animals, soils and air FOR US ALL.

United We Stand for Goddess Gaia; Mother Earth.

Whoever you are, wherever you are. 

"Over the past four years, the Unist'ot'en clan of the Wet’suwet’en nation have literally built a strategy to keep three proposed oil and gas pipelines from crossing their land. Concerned about the environmental damage a leak could cause on land they've never given up, they've constructed a protection camp to block pipeline companies. As opposition to the development of Alberta's tar sands and to fracking projects grows across Canada, with First Nations communities on the front lines, the Unist'ot'en camp is an example of resistance that everyone is watching. "

Solidarity with the Unist'ot'en

Links for more information and how you can help

http://unistotencamp.com/

http://unistotencamp.com/?p=1021

http://unistotencamp.com/?cat=7

https://www.facebook.com/unistoten

Twitter
https://twitter.com/UnistotenCamp

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/the-view-from-unistoten-a-camp-that-stands-firmly-in-the-path-of-enbridges-northern-gateway-pipeline

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/unistoten-camp-evicted-a-fracked-gas-pipeline-crew-from-their-territories-985

http://aptn.ca/news/2014/03/13/unistoten-camp-resistance/

Port Townsend Washington Real Estate; Broker Crystal L. Cox; Real Estate Consultant Crystal L. Cox. Buyers Rebates; Discount Brokerage; Real Estate Consumer Advocate. Broker Owner Crystal Cox, Goddess Realty Port Townsend Washington.

Real Estate Consultant; Broker Crystal L. Cox
SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com 

Goddess Realty

eMail Broker Owner Crystal Cox

SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com 

Call Today and See What We Can Do For You
406-624-9510

Goddess Realty

PO Box 2027

Port Townsend, Washington 98368

Crystal L Cox

Broker Owner

15 years Broker Experience

Port Townsend Real Estate

Port Townsend Land for Sale

Real Estate Listings Port Townsend

Broker Owner Crystal Cox has been a real estate Broker for 15 years and a real estate consumer advocate for 10 of those years. Crystal will be able to protect you in your real estate transaction better then most.

Real Estate Consulting Services

   Hourly Rates Available

Even if you have a Buyers Agent, and you are in a Contract, you have a right to a 3rd party observation and 3rd party advice. It just makes sense to have a 3rd party that is not paid ONLY if the Deal Closes.

SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com

Full Service Brokerage

Discount Brokerage

Buyers Rebates at Closing

We Work With For Sale By Owners

  ( You Find a Buyer You Get the Commission; 

We Find a Buyer, we Get the Commission)

eMail us today to find out more

SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com

Forensics Real Estate Services

Hire Broker Crystal Cox to research every aspect of your real estate transaction. Great for legal actions or other situations where you must have expert advice, deep research, and fact finding for your legal action.

Due Diligence Services

Hire a 3rd Party, Expert Real Estate Consultant to do your Due Diligence for You, even if you have a Buyers Agent or Sellers Agent. You have a right to 3rd part impartial advice, from someone who is paid whether the sale closes or not.

Goddess Realty is an Independently Owned and Operated Real Estate Firm.

Washington Real Estate Brokerage

Washington Real Estate Consultant

SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com 

eMail Broker Crystal Cox Today and 

See what she can do for YOU !!

Chimacum Real Estate

Real Estate Consulting Services

Broker Crystal Cox

Port Townsend Real Estate Consultant, Broker Crystal L. Cox of Goddess Realty.

Goddess Realty, Real Estate Consultant, Crystal L Cox. 

 You have a Right to 3rd Party Real Estate Consulting.

You do NOT need a Realtor to Buy or Sell Real Estate.

You may need Real Estate Advice, But you don't Need to Pay 6% for It.

Goddess Realty

Real Estate Consulting

Crystal L. Cox

Broker Owner

SavvyBroker@yahoo.com 

406-624-9510

Port Townsend Poison Factory aKa the Port Townsend Paper Mill. Stand UP Folk. Shut Down this TOXIC Factory. It is YOUR Air. You have a right to clean air and to NOT breath TOXINS so they make MONEY.
http://billmoyers.com/2013/06/11/who-is-polluting-in-your-community/

No NEW Hospital. It is Ridiculous at Best.

How about a Homeless Shelter? How about a place for victims of sexual violence, trauma, domestic abuse, alternative medicine, healing, or a place for children and teens to "hangout" and NOT a $20 Million Dollar Hospital that is NOT needed

a Port Townsend Homeless Shelter or many other OPTIONS are Better then a NEW 20 Million Dollar Hospital.. that will only 'pretty up' and create no new beds, no jobs and fill no "REAL" Need.

Port Townsend Hospital Commissioners

http://www.jeffersonhealthcare.org/AboutUs/Hospital-Commissioners.aspx

USDA Loan? First Federal Loan? Mmmm .. Kevin Padrick, Joseph Stilwell, Crystal Cox and Port Townsend... WOW.. can't beat this STORY.. stay tuned.. the TRUTH is Going to be ROLLING downhill.

"The $20 million project will be financed by a $15.6 million, 3.5 percent loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with expenses not covered by the USDA loan to be financed by a separate loan from First Federal, according to Glenn."

WOW, how is this kind of money being loaned to a Hospital that is fine how it is and it's not increasing beds. Port Townsend NEEDS alot of things, LIKE Clean AIR for Example. We do NOT need a NEW 20 Million Dollar Hospital, in my Opinion.

Oh and hmmm.. for those of you who don't know me, My name is Crystal L. Cox, I am an anti-corruption blogger. My good buddy arch-nemeis KEVIN Padrick, is on the Board of First Federal... wonder how much money he is making from this 20 Million Dollar "Loan"?

Oh sorry I Digress..

Anyway.. send me ALL tips, documents, take videos of meetings.. let's take a look at this PUBLIC INFORMATION that is being hidden from the PUBLIC. 

I say Mike Glen, Port Townsend Hospital CEO SUCKS at "value engineering".

http://m.ptleader.com/news/hospital-building-project-back-up-for-decision/article_fe7d03fa-0c75-11e4-b984-0017a43b2370.html?mode=jqm

Mike Glenn, Port Townsend Hospital Project. What's the SCOOP? What is REALLY Going on? eMail Me.

Port Townsend Hospital Project Investigations. Every Dollar, Every Deal, Every Decision. Got a Video, Audio, Paperwork, a TIp? Post it here and / or email ReverendCrystalCox@Gmail.com , SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com

Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

I want to KNOW and I want to TELL ALL, so eMail Me your TIP, take videos of meetings, send me emails and all information that provides accountability and transparency on this project.

Dick Bratton - Port Townsend Hospital Project.

Got a Tip?
SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com
ReverendCrystalCox.com

Port Townsend Hospital Project or Scandal?

"The $ in this article are not the actual project cost numbers that were presented to, and approved by, the hospital commissioners at their board meeting on Wednesday, July 16.

The approved project budget is now $26.1 million, an increase of more than $3 million over the 'original' proposal.

As usual, hospital administration chose to hide this information from the public until the last minute. Not one of the 19 PowerPoint slides presented to the board on this subject at the meeting was available to the public (online) prior to the meeting, the printed copies provided at the meeting were largely illegible, and there was no opportunity for public comment prior to the board voting to approve the 13.4% increase in budget for the new building."

Tom Thiersch Comment

http://www.ptleader.com/news/hospital-building-project-back-up-for-decision/article_fe7d03fa-0c75-11e4-b984-0017a43b2370.html

Got a Tip? email me at SavvyBroker@yahoo.com or ReverendCrystalCox@Gmail.com 

Who are the decision makers? Who is really getting the money? Why does the PUBLIC not know what is going on?

Why are the Public Notices' hidden in bushes and down low to the ground around the hospital? A 26 Million Dollar Budget and NO Money for a real sign? WHAT?

Port Townsend Hospital "Project" ~ Mike Glen.

Mike Glenn wants 1.5 Million more for the Port Townsend "NEW" Hospital. Why? Where is the money really going? Who does it really affect? Have the Neighbors been notified? Has there been an environmental review on the issue?

Have the Nesting Eagles been assessed for any issues with their displacement?

Rumor has it that the Hospital does not have the money to build. So why is there another 1.5 requested when the first 16 million is not even there, or is it?

Whats in it for Mike Glenn? I mean what benefit is REALLY in it for him PERSONALLY? Got a Tip? eMail me at SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com

If an environmental assessment has been done, why have the surrounding neighbors not been notified?

Is the Hospital in this small town really not more then adequate? What is this MONEY really about and who is really pulling the strings?

Got a Tip? eMail me at SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com

Reverend Crystal Cox
Investigative Blogger
Eye on Port Townsend

Port Townsend Hospital Project. Got a Tip? eMail me.

SavvyBroker@Yahoo.Com

ReverendCrystalCox@Gmail.com

Port Townsend Nepotism. Got a Tip? eMail me

SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com

ReverendCrystalCox@Gmail.com


Start a Blog, Expose Corruption, Report on an Issue, Send me a Link