In support of a treatment facility
It’s interesting how many people showed up at the July 8 City Council Meeting to protest a possible MAT facility the Jamestown Tribe is apparently considering. It appears the packed venue was there to express their “not in my backyard” views.
I can’t say that MAT treatment is the answer to Clallam County’s ever-present drug problem but continuing to do nothing certainly isn’t. Perhaps a couple of these well-intended people could look into what alternatives are out there and put that forward. I’m also not sure where this notion of a 400-bed facility comes from. I read treatment of up to 400 individuals. Four hundred beds would be well in excess of the 100-bed hotel the tribe is currently building at a cost of $40 million. In fact, I doubt there are currently 400 hospital beds on the entire Peninsula.
The Jamestown Tribe has done more for our community than any other entity. A show of hands would probably indicate a large number of the July 8th attendees use the Jamestown Clinic or dental facility for their health needs. While MAT treatment may not be the solution, I applaud the Tribe’s apparent attempt to contribute to the community with a facility that might help these addicts get control of their lives.
City Council needs to listen to MAT concerns
I’m writing in reference to the July 10th article “Community members rally at city against MAT facility.” I share the concern of those Sequim citizens who oppose the MAT facility.
I believe strongly in the strength of a representative body, such as the Sequim city council, conducting business on behalf of the citizenry. I believe that the consistency, volume and voracity of the citizens’ input ought to guide and craft the product of the council’s decisions.
The Council’s response to the MAT issue was reactive not proactive. It’s a bureaucratic response that reflects a body of policy that is carved in stone but is presented as neutral and balanced because it allows the citizenry to scrape at the edges of that policy via “the process.” This bureaucratic posture is crafted as a disguise to avoiding the perception of bias. Everyone, including the council, acts on the basis of bias. In this current matter of a MAT facility, the city council’s bias prevents proactively lending an ear to the voice of citizenry. Citizens have delivered a singular message; no MAT facility in Sequim.
A representative body has a duty to act on the input of those it represents. Fear that such an action would expose a bias toward listening to the voice of the community runs counter to the very definition of representative governing. Governing is the act of bias; the bias of representing the legal, moral, and constructive will of those you represent, Sequim’s citizenry.
The input the council has heard will only grow louder, stronger and more consistent. A MAT facility is not wanted. Your constituents have delivered a message; has it been heard? If it has, act proactively and avoid the bureaucratic dance; it’s an effacement that is unbecoming of your station. It is your responsibility to speak “for,” not just “to” the citizens you represent.
Response to bias
In reference to “Biased letters broaden divide” on July 10, the writer is stating, “Don’t publish letters I disagree with.” The word contraction “op-ed” means a section of a newspaper devoted to airing opinions and editorials (and) those two words are based upon bias, (so) one cannot voice an opinion without bias. For example, I might state that modern progressive liberalism is singularly responsible for every evil besetting our society today. Is that true? Based upon my observations it is. In other words, the statement is my biased opinion.
I will state that every major US city with homeless problems is run by Democrats. That has more truth than bias, at least on the West Coast. Letters to the Editor are opinions based upon how the writers view what may or not be facts. Let’s keep it that way.