Poll of the Day > Q-Anon Unelected Mayor Screws W/Town:

(+) Yeah! (+)

The town is trying to get a drug rehab clinic built, so the mayor and the cronies that appointed him fired the newly elected City Manager that supports the building of the clinic.
You guys should listen to the video clip in the third link, it's nuts.
https://www.myclallamcounty.com/2021/01/12/sequim-council-fires-city-manager-bush-in-4-2-vote/
https://twitter.com/RandazzoTweets/status/1349172161756368897
https://twitter.com/SaveSequim/status/1349211376699330561

---

The only question that really matters is, do the people in the town actually WANT a rehab clinic?

If not, then he's literally doing his job.

On the other hand, if they DO want it and are being denied it via shenanigans, then yes, that's relatively shitty.
---

How is he mayor if he is unelected? Who gave him firing power?

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The only question that really matters is, do the people in the town actually WANT a rehab clinic?
If not, then he's literally doing his job.
On the other hand, if they DO want it and are being denied it via shenanigans, then yes, that's relatively shitty.

The guy who was literally doing his job as he is literally legally obligated to do was just literally fired. This isn't even mentioning the issue of tribal rights, because the land it's being built on belongs to the tribe.

The mayor is trying to block something that has already been approved illegally. I am curious if the State of Washington is going to end up getting involved as the tribe was working with Washington State for this project.

Objections stem primarily from Q-anon racists and retirees clutching their pearls over property values, as if they aren't hurt by the used needles all over the area from a completely unaddressed epidemic.

Mead posted...

How is he mayor if he is unelected? Who gave him firing power?

That is a good question. He was appointed mayor by council members rather than by the public voting. I assume that no one ran for the position?
Ah, here's an article:
https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/sequim-elects-armacost-as-new-mayor/

---

Unelected?

Gaawa_chan posted...

The guy who was literally doing his job as he is literally legally obligated to do was just literally fired.

If the town as a whole doesn't want it, an argument could easily be made that the person who was fired was effectively abusing his own power and influence for personal agenda and was rightfully removed from the position.

So like I said, the only question that really matters is, do the people in the town actually WANT a rehab clinic?
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If the town as a whole doesn't want it, an argument could easily be made that the person who was fired was effectively abusing his own power and influence for personal agenda and was rightfully removed from the position.

No, because that's not how the law works. Stop being a contrarian; you're embarrassing yourself.
Bush literally would have had to break the law by illegally rejecting permits and authorizations to do what you're suggesting. You're literally suggesting that it is appropriate that he was fired for not breaking the law because following the law and the obligations of his position is "an abuse of power."
Btw, you would know this if you had actually clicked on the links provided.

do the people in the town actually WANT a rehab clinic?

Yes, because they have a horrific drug epidemic and need appropriate facilities to address it. A wealthy minority just wants the addicts to die and the Q-anoners like fearmongering about the Native Americans in the area.

---

Everyone should have a rehab clinic

---

Lokarin posted...

Everyone should have a rehab clinic

There are multiple towns in that area that have pretty much nothing, not just in terms of drug treatment, but in terms of health care, period. I mean they have a dearth of HOSPITALS, and what they do have is notoriously poor quality. The nearest hospital has been rated as one of the worst hospitals in the country in the past and I haven't heard that it's improved at all, though I admit I haven't lived there for years; my friends who still live there indicated that it hasn't changed at all. The region is in desperate need of more medical facilities of every kind.

---

Mead posted...

How is he mayor if he is unelected? Who gave him firing power?

He's mayor by divine right, obviously.

---

A google search seems to reveal that the rehab center is massively unpopular with local residents and surrounding towns

https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/sequim-community-members-rally-at-city-against-addiction-treatment-facility/

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/sequim-neighbors-fight-to-block-tribes-plans-for-an-opioid-treatment-center/

And, in addition to whether the fucking place actually works (see below), apparently residents of the tiny town and surrounding towns have very legitimate concerns about a large-scale rehab center going up in their backyard

"Jamestown tribe leaders invested in schools, farming and aquaculture, spreading shells along the tidelands so oysters could grow. Simcosky had multimillion-dollar tribal and state commitments to finance a state-of-the art outpatient opioid treatment and healing center that would combine Native practices with counseling, medical care and medications known to block the euphoric effects of opioids."

So besides serious questions about whether the proposed facility would even work (most rehab facilities have pretty lousy track records, partly because they rely on questionable methods), locals are annoyed by the fact that it would largely draw people from outside the nearby counties to the facility and feel that it would make more sense to locate it somewhere else

https://www.sequimgazette.com/news/sequim-city-tribal-officials-discuss-mat-clinic/

Knowing all this, the objections and removal of the rogue city manager seem to make perfect sense.

And, unsurprisingly, just like how the objections are mostly being driven by out-of-towners who haven't even heard of the town before today, apparently the push to get it built was also driven by a lot of out-of-towners.

Gaawa_chan posted... No, because that's not how the law works.

Except that seems to be exactly how the law works, unless you have something to prove that the firing was illegal.

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

Yes

Then this is the only answer that actually matters, and literally everything else you've said in the argument is both wrong and nothing more than a waste of both of our time.

If someone has a job that requires them to serve the public, and they're not serving the public, then removing them from that position is entirely justified. If they are serving the public, then removing them from that position isn't justified. That's pretty cut and dry.

Speaking as someone who has seen blatant corruption and absolute disregard for the wishes of the constituency by elected officials that claim to represent them (both on the micro level and the macro level), I can assure you that most of the public would happily see those people removed from office and replaced if they feel they're not being represented. That's pretty much why concepts like recall or impeachment exist in the first place. The only meaningful ethical concern is whether or not the public IS being represented.



Gaawa_chan posted...

You're literally suggesting that it is appropriate that he was fired for not breaking the law because following the law and the obligations of his position is "an abuse of power."

No, I'm suggesting that being elected to serve as a representative of the will of the people and then acting contrary to the will of the people IS abuse of power, and that it would be entirely appropriate to remove someone under those circumstances. Because, by definition, they are NOT fulfilling the expected obligations of their position.

Which means from the ethical dimension, literally the only thing that actually matters is whether or not he WAS acting contrary to the will of the people, or in accord with it.

This is not a difficult concept for most people to comprehend.



Gaawa_chan posted...

Btw, you would know this if you had actually clicked on the links provided.

There was zero reason for me to do so, because I didn't make a single claim about the specific circumstances of this case. I asked a simple question, and you threw a tantrum.

This is basically akin to me saying guilty people should go to jail while innocent people should go free as a general principle, and then you complaining because I didn't personally determine the guilt or innocence of one specific case that in no way contradicts my point.

I already said about as explicitly as possible that if the public wants the rehab clinic, then removing him isn't justified. If you assert that the community as a whole does want it (or at least a significant majority wants it), then that's pretty much the end of it right there.

Stop being a contrarian; you're embarrassing yourself.
---

Another person in power falling for a 4chan meme.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

So like I said, the only question that really matters is, do the people in the town actually WANT a rehab clinic?

I never would have fancied PO for a "democracy above all" sort of person. Especially on matters of health care, where the general population is notorious for being inadequately informed to make anything resembling a practically sensible decision.

---

I think a better question might be that do we as a country want that town? I say lets have a vote on it

---

Nice, right across the water from where I grew up.

Supervised drug consumption sites always gain massive opposition from a vocal minority. It sucks ass. Washington is a meth-hole.

---

The fear comes from the idea that if they have a place like that in their area that theyll be surrounded by drug users, completely oblivious of the fact that they already are

---

adjl posted...

I never would have fancied PO for a "democracy above all" sort of person. Especially on matters of health care, where the general population is notorious for being inadequately informed to make anything resembling a practically sensible decision.

ITP: "The will of the people is above question, but the same time you can't trust it when it disagrees with what I want."

And the idea that the general public can't be trusted to act in their best interests when it comes to healthcare in some areas but can be in others is all kinds of flippy-floppy. More importantly, when it comes to rehab centers, they can have some pretty dubious track records thanks to the lax oversight and poor regulation. If you don't remember John Oliver's piece on them which criticized (and rightly so) the kind of practices that this center looks like it's going to be running. Now, I'm one of the biggest advocates of rehab vs prison on this board (and perhaps the biggest advocate on this board for reforming the criminal justice system), but the thing is that fucking rehab has to work.

And, not for nothing, but you want to talk about "low information" decision-making, pretty much everybody supporting this project is only doing so because they hear crap like QAnon mayor or spent a few minutes listening to twitter. Most didn't even take a few minutes to try to look into the news surrounding it.

ReturnOfFa posted...

massive opposition from a vocal minority.

You've confused the opponents and supporters. Almost nobody seems to be in favor of this thing except for the people arranging to have it put there. The claim that "well, it's just a vocal minority" (and by the way, the town only has 7k people) is used to undermine and the diminish the will of the general public by pretending that the support isn't there, despite the fact the town has apparently run opinion polls on top of everything else.

And it should come at zero surprise that the vast majority of support for the project comes from out of town, mostly from people who hear "QAnon mayor" and immediately rush to oppose whatever's happening without even trying to look into the facts. Tell me, who should be making this choice? The people who actually live them or the people who don't?


---

Zeus posted...

ITP: "The will of the people is above question, but the same time you can't trust it when it disagrees with what I want."

damn sjws and their... addiction treatment facility

---

ITP: "The will of the people is above question, but the same time you can't trust it when it disagrees with what I want."

Wow where was Zeus with this kind of logic when right wing morons were storming the capitol building

Guess this town that nobody has ever heard of is just something hes far more passionate about and emboldened by

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Speaking as someone who has seen blatant corruption and absolute disregard for the wishes of the constituency by elected officials that claim to represent them (both on the micro level and the macro level)

Oh wow. I bet no one else here has ever seen anything like that before. Thanks for the insight PO!!