1. In typical (un)democratic party traditional manner, there are two poling places miles from anyone's home for the rural folks who are actually affected by the Conservation District and five places for the urban folks whose playgrounds in East King County are at issue.

Rural folks need to VOTE to ensure representation from East King County. If that means driving 20 miles - DO IT. The alternative is MORE Seattle liberal values dictating how to live in the rest of the county.

Posted by: deadwood on February 10, 2007 03:16 PM

2. Andy,
I just wanted to thank you and all of the folks here at SP who supported me the last time around in 2005. We got in late and still only came in 84 votes short of winning on a write in basis.

It is vital that the KCD represent the interests of rural landowners, Matt will do an excellent job for us on the board. I hope to see you all at the polls next Tuesday, I will be voting at the old stomping grounds in Carnation at the Senior Center.

Thanks again

Ross

Posted by: Ross Loudenback on February 10, 2007 03:31 PM

3. I wonder if it is possible to have an initiative to abolish all these random voting dates and legally require that all votes be held on the same day as regular election. Wouldn't that make a lot none essential stuff disappear from the ballot, not that I am saying this is non-essential vote. Heck, I am willing to concede simple majority for school levies if they were done during the regular election.

Posted by: DopioLover on February 10, 2007 04:01 PM

4. As a rural King County resident who has raised everything from horses to chickens, I think the KC conservation District has really been one of those unsung government offices with sincere people. I have received good info from these people, but have never voted before in this type of election. I don't know any of the "policy" issues that would prompt a political Party to endorse a candidate, but I guess I find any endorsed candidate suspicious - Democrat or Republican or otherwise. I will investigate the candidates before I vote, but I must say - a party endorsement smells a lot worse than my horse manure.

Posted by: Rocketdog on February 10, 2007 07:48 PM

5. Two years ago, one of the five polling locations was in DT Seattle. I guess too many people to the right of center must have voted at that location. Therefore they changed it to:

Garfield Community Center, 2323 E Cherry St, Seattle

I'm voting anyway. Folks in the 43rd, we can talk about car 'polling' since there is not much parking at the community center.

G.

Posted by: gregg on February 10, 2007 09:01 PM

6. After the stealth King Conservation District election two years ago, I looked into why they have their elections on separate days and not on the same ballot as other elections. The key issue is the division of election costs.

When any special-purpose district conducts an election that is run by the county auditor, it has to pay its proportionate share of the cost of conducting the election. Because conservation districts are county-wide, their proportionate share would be huge -- it would consume a significant portion of the $5 per lot (going up to $10 per lot in King County) fee that the district collects.

In order for conservation districts to be able to afford to be on the general election ballot, the legislature would have to amend state law to exempt them from paying their share of the election cost. The concern is that as soon as the legislature did that, every other special-purpose district would be coming in to the legislature asking for similar treatment, and before you knew it the whole system of sharing the cost of elections across all jurisdictions on the ballot would come crashing down.

Of course, a more cynical explanation is that the conservation districts just want to be able to control who votes in their elections so that they can keep people on the boards who are "their people". This is definitely the case in more rural counties -- they want the farmers to be able to run the conservation district without the "city folk" even knowing that an election is taking place. This works fine in most places around the state -- but most places don't have a Ron Sims who is determined to control everything that happens in the unincorporated area as though it is his royal domain, including installing his people on the conservation district board to change its method of operation to be more consistent with "his way of doing things". Here, we have a demonstration of exactly what conservation districts around the state hope to avoid -- a hostile takeover by the "city folk".

I agree with Rocketdog that the King Conservation District goes about their work in a much better way than, say, King County DDES and the Critical Area Ordinance. The CAO is a one-size-fits-all monstrosity that imposes arbitrary buffers and percentages of open space regardless of the local conditions or lay of the land; it is your typical liberal top-down regulatory regime. The KCD, on the other hand, sends people out to work with individual land owners and cooperate with them to develop a workable, affordable customized plan to reduce erosion and runoff into streams and otherwise protect the environment while preserving the economic value of the property.

The biggest threat to KCD is a takeover by Ron Sims, Larry Phillips, and their Seattle cronies, who would rob the district of what little conservation fees it gets and redirect them into even more one-size-fits-all top-down regulation.

To loosely quote Jefferson, Sims wants to "[erect] a multitude of New Offices, and [send] hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." It really is essential that rural King County residents outvote the busloads of apartment dwellers and county employees that Sims will bring to the polls to effect his takeover of the conservation district.

Posted by: Toby Nixon on February 10, 2007 10:16 PM

7. I have known this fine man for several years. He is an honest and dedicated person in whatever endeavor he is involved with. Thanks for the information about this election. I will make the effort to vote for Matt.

Posted by: marge on February 11, 2007 11:00 PM

8. PS: For those who may question whether Matt is 'rural' or not, he is. He owns horses and his wife writes and educates fellow horse owners about preventing mud from forming around barns, turn out areas and pastures. Also protecting local water sources and being responsible large animal owners is part of their goals. I am sure Matt has more concerns than those mentioned.

Posted by: marge on February 11, 2007 11:28 PM

9. I voted today ... however, this reminder needs to go to the top of the page ... I had to scroll a lot to find my polling place, and people who missed the first announcement might miss it altogether.

Posted by: Lisa on February 13, 2007 01:02 PM

10. Unofficial election results

Matt Livengood - 768 votes

M. Prinsen - 327 votes

http://www.kingcd.org/new_ele_res_2007.htm

Posted by: Lisa on February 14, 2007 11:43 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?