What do they mean by “taking back Pacific?”

There is a new Website blog you might want to tune into: http://takingbackpacific.weebly.com/

The person who apparently has spearheaded this site, Rachel Kringle, shares my concern that it’s time for the madness in Pacific to come to an end. But I’m not sure whether I share the feeling implied in the name of the site. What does “take back Pacific” mean?

Does it mean we want to restore the conditions that led up to the election of Cy Sun as mayor?

Fact: Howard Erickson served 2002-2004, and was thrown out by such a large plurality (two-thirds of the voters) that you could argue the public wanted anybody but him. He subsequently lost his further attempt at elective office.

Replacing Mr. Erickson was Rich Hildreth, a two-time loser for the State Legislature, who announced, when he took the oath of office, that he wanted to be a professional politician.  Eight years later he was thrown out by two thirds of voters, who apparently agreed with the notion, “anybody but Rich.”

I would bet that the Pacific voters right now are in the “anything but Cy Sun” frame of mind.

With the kind of lopsided votes that took place in these elections, it’s pretty clear the public was not happy with city government, so what do we mean by “take it back?” You can’t possibly mean you want to take back a government that racially profiled; used motor vehicle ticketing as a revenue tool; aggravated flooding potentials by depositing fill along the river; conducted a police raid on a local church in pursuit of a youth who was skateboarding in the city park – an action that apparently is not prohibited;  allowed the public safety director to be stopped for DUI, tamper with a witness in a vehicular assault case, fail a polygraph examination on whether he threatened the ex-husband of his wife with a handgun, throw screaming tantrums at city council meetings and tell probationary employees to view porn with him on city time. 

You can’t possibly want a government back whose mayor  heckled individuals who were trying to address the city council and who demeaned a domestic assault victim by showing photos of her bruises at a city council meeting when she complained about how the police responded to her complaint. You can’t possibly want the restoration of a mayor who, after claiming an executive session to review an appointment was illegal, admitted he didn’t care that it was legal, he just didn’t want the council to review the appointment – and in the face of that bald statement, the council rolled over, surrendering its obligation to review. You can’t possibly want a mayor back who feathered his nest with public funds that should have been used to educate subordinates, and traveled on a city credit card in violation of the state constitution. 

You can’t possibly want back a city that tried to suppress a civil rights march protesting police misconduct, when such attempts to suppress violate federal criminal law. 

You can’t possibly want to restore a government in which the city treasurer told Cy Sun he couldn’t look at the city’s financial records – which is one of the behaviors that energized him into running for office.

You folks can’t possible want that restored.

What I think you want is a sense of community with a name that doesn't draw catcalls and laughter. If the past 12 years have proven anything, it’s that the city of Pacific can destroy that community's reputation, but the city cannot build it. 

The Pacific community is not a creature of the government. The city government is a creature of the community. Recalling Cy Sun, which apparently is the short-term objective here, may simply lead to the restoration of the conditions that led to the choice of “anybody but Rich." The most likely individuals who might replace Mr. Sun as mayor were part of the body politic that created the conditions for the citizen revolt that got Mr. Sun elected.

According to a recent news report  (http://www.king5.com/news/cities/federal-way/Mayor-of-Pacific-lashes-out-against-critics-161736355.html) Mayor Sun is now talking to the city of Auburn about taking over some of the city of Pacific’s functions, which may satisfy the city’s insurance carrier so that they change their mind about cancelling coverage by December 31. That might be a good first step toward having the City of Pacific annexed to Auburn. Then Pacific can just be a nice neighborhood that is part of a well-managed municipality that respects all the people within its jurisdiction.

Imagine that:  A city that can act professionally toward its residents, so that they can build a sense of community.

Isn’t that really what you want? And doesn’t it make sense that the City of Pacific will never be able to deliver on that, but perhaps Auburn can?

I don't think you even need a City of Pacific. I think you just need each other, and that that's where your efforts should be directed. If the resources for a community exist, you can find them.

think creatively, Rachael. Show me what you got.

I double dog dare you. And I double dog dare the rest of you, as well.