ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

More on Ostrom

Dear ETS!,

You're losing me. The virulence of your recent attacks on Aaron Ostrom, and your oversight of facts, have led me to question your journalistic integrity. I know you are self-declaredly "shamelessly biased," but you've gone over the top. Why are you so obsessed with Ostrom?

A few points of fact. Ostrom is not a rich kid, his family is not wealthy, and he is not related to Ostrom Mushrooms. The Seattle Greens were not hoodwinked into endorsing him. Everyone I know at ALT-TRANS and in local transportation circles thinks Ostrom is so great, they would practically jump on that legendary grenade to save him. He has been the driving force of ALT-TRANS since its founding. Eileen Quigley is not conservative, nor am I--we worked at the Municipal League together. With your guilty-by- association logic, we're all right-wing if we know someone who is.

You ask, "Who is Aaron Ostrom"? He's a devoted activist, loyal to progressive causes, and an up-and-coming voice in Seattle politics. He's running in the same race as Nick Licata, another devoted activist who has proven his mettle in 20 years of local activism. Licata works in insurance, lives in a swank (if communal) house, and has approached many rich people for money. If you didn't like or trust him, you could launch a similar diatribe: "Who is Nick Licata"?

Get off your soapbox. If you support Licata, fine. I would rather read pages of arguments in his favor, than ill-supported arguments against his opponent. If Ostrom were running against, say, Jane Noland, or Rudy McCoy, you think he was a wunderkind.

--Suzanne Carlson, Seattle

ETS!,

Here are a few of Aaron Ostrom's likely responses when advocates bring some low income housing proposals to him and call on him for support.

First he will think to himself:

"Oh no I can't support that, it might antagonize my supporters...jeopardize the support I might need in my bid for higher office...and what will my colleagues think... Then there is the P.I. or Times, they might criticize me... Ah, there must be a compromise position I can support that will make me look good while helping these people out at least a little bit... Maybe some other councilmember can introduce the legislation... All I need to do is continue to support continued funding for social services and the housing levy and I don't have to worry about these fringe groups, anyway."

Then he will tell those of us who came to him for help something like the following:

"I think your proposal needs more study... I'm sorry, but the Law Department says your proposal violates the state constitution and would get us into legal hot water... You need to talk to that other councilmember who is the committee chair in charge of this issue, protocol requires me to defer to them but I hear you and if they support you, then so will I (then of course, when the vote is taken, he doesn't)... You raise some very good points and I'll consider them (then of course they don't)... I'm sorry, but my bailiwick is transportation... I'm not too familiar with your proposal, but I will take a careful look at the issue and oh, by the way, keep up your good work... Well, it's getting too close to budget time but after January I think we can get to it then... Well, you may be right, but I promised another constituency I would support them... Sometimes you have to go with your gut instincts and my gut tells me to go this other way... Well, your proposal may be a better solution, but even if my position is only 80 percent right, sometimes thats the best you can do here on the City Council... I've been around long enough to know that being 80 percent right isn't all that bad..."

I have heard all of the above excuses and more made by councilmembers and they all have came out of the mouths of people like Aaron Ostrom who promised this and that, but when it came right down to it, they just weren't there.

--John Fox, Seattle Displacement Coalition, Seattle

(Ed. note: The following statement, issued by Ostrom's campaign, was widely distributed but not sent to ETS! or to Geov Parrish; we received permission to reprint it here.)

As the Campaign Manager for Friends of Aaron Ostrom, I find myself forced to respond to a string of lies being circulated about Aaron. I have grown used to Geov Parrish lying about Aaron, however I respect his right to free speech. But he is now closer to demonstrating a reckless disregard for the truth, which is the legal definition for libel.

If I took the time to respond to all of Geov's lies about Aaron, I would not have any time to run a campaign, which no doubt is one of his goals. I do want to take a few moments, however, to illustrate the pattern of his dishonesty.

Some of his lies are outrageous. I am most offended by his claims about Aaron's work at ALT-TRANS. Aaron helped found and then served as the Coordinator and Policy Director of ALT-TRANS for four years, and continues to serve as a founding member of the Board of Directors. He served both informally and formally as the lead staff person at ALT-TRANS, which has evolved from a collective into a more formally-structured organization. He served as the organization's first "managing partner," a position he resigned from last February when recruited to develop the City's transportation plan. Geov's claim that Aaron was rejected for that position because his colleagues considered him unethical is simply a lie. All of the staff members of ALT-TRANS except one have endorsed him, have contributed to his campaign, and are volunteering on his campaign. The lone exception is one staff person who was unhappy that Aaron led the oganization's early support of the RTA plan.

Some of his other lies are inane. He claims that Jan Drago's campaign manager Bill Dubay is sitting in on our campaign meetings. This has never happened. He claims that Aaron cited Margaret Pageler as a political hero in the Weekly--it was actually Jim Street. Margaret, by the way, seems to be supporting our opponent.

A few other lies--Geov has claimed that Aaron is the pawn of wealthy parents, even trying to claim that Aaron is the heir to the Ostrom mushroom fortune. In fact, Aaron's upbringing was defined by economic hardship. What can I say, other than the fact that Aaron's parents live very simple lifestyles on the other side of the country. The Ostrom mushroom company has been owned by the Street family since the 1920s and was never owned by anyone even remotely related to Aaron.

I'm not sure where Geov finds his claims that Aaron does not speak to progressive issues as a candidate. I can only assume that, like virtually everything else he says about Aaron, he's simply making it up. If Geov had ever gone to a forum or met Aaron he would know that he often speaks to issues of economic justice and poverty. He would also know that Nick and the Licata campaign spend more time on the stump talking about his 15 years as an insurance salesman than they do about stadiums.

I do not have time at this point to respond to the rest of Geov's lies about Aaron Ostrom. I need to focus on more constructive things. I would request that you completely disregard anything that you hear about Aaron or the campaign from Geov. If anyone would like to discuss the issues or Aaron's background with Aaron, please do not hesitate to contact the campaign at 341-9912.

--Beth Doglio, Seattle

G.P. replies: The disclosures: Carlson is on Aaron Ostrom's campaign steering committee, though she does not identify herself here as such. Fox wrote the e-mail letter critical of Ostrom that sparked Ostrom's reply, quoted at length, in last week's article. Doglio's role is self-evident. Two other letters--one supporting Licata, from labor activist Sarah Luthens, and one critical of Doglio's statement, from Coral Cameron, are not printed for space reasons.

As head of the Council, as its most unabashedly pro-downtown member, newly re-elected, and as former head of the Downtown Seattle Association, Drago is now in a position of potentially enormous power- -especially under a Schell administration--to benefit both herself and her patrons; but in the endless and inevitable policy, turf, and budget battles she has no personal allies on council. With newer members McIver and Podlodowski showing occasional independence, and three rookies coming in, she also doesn't always have five reliable votes. From Drago's standpoint, the obvious need is to develop allies; the easiest way is to buy them.

Prior to last week's article, ETS! mentioned Ostrom exactly twice, in articles which spent about the same space on all major candidates and races. My pre-election Stranger column on the likely downtown dominance of the election didn't even mention Ostrom or his race. Some obsession! It's a story. Ostrom's contrast between "loyal progressive" and "friend of Drago" is by far the most striking cognitive dissonance of the campaign. It's our hope that airing these issues will give readers a better idea of how Ostrom will vote if elected. We've done that, printed the replies (delaying two of this week's stories to do so), and intend to move on.

Both Carlson and Doglio nibble around the edges of last week's article. To clarify: sources for both the ALT-TRANS material and that on Bill Dubay stand by their claims. Several other sources, however, confirm that Ostrom did, indeed, get the ALT-TRANS staff position. Dubay has been publicly volunteering for Ostrom, whose campaign office is a few steps from his. You've seen the counter-claims; you decide. In our election issue we made passing reference to "wealthy parents" (no mention of mushrooms) as an influence that might change his current stances--fifth on the list, after Drago, other council colleagues, big money contributors, and city staff. It was a joke, and the only such reference ETS! has made. I confused the Weekly Pageler reference with liberal ex-councilmember Jim Street. I apologize to Ostrom and his campaign for those errors.

That concern holds no matter who Aaron's opponent is; the issue is not who he runs against, but who he is running for. And, most importantly, how he would act if elected, in this or future races. He could address these concerns by making concrete, accountable commitments to push, if elected, specific, achievable proposals that grass roots activists have wanted and "business as usual" has opposed, and by himself pledging to oppose specific proposals that would line the pockets of some of his new allies--as Licata has. Aaron Ostrom has the potential to be a remarkable and effective political force for good in Seattle. We fear he's bargained away that potential before our eyes. We hope not. We're waiting. --G.P.