Tag Archives: natures rights

Democracy lost at Weed board hearing on creating a new tax (with video)

quote 2 democracy derailed is democracy deniedHearing goes to the weed board – citizens comments are not heeded– county to create large budget for weed board with little democratic process followed.

The Jefferson County Noxious Weed board held a hearing on April 21, 2014 and although advertised as being a public hearing on the discussion of the proposed assessment, the funding is already a done deal.  And although the local paper reported the weed board is asking for $93,000 to pay for their activities, a weed board representative reported at the April 21 hearing that the amount will be in excess of $122,000. Plus another $50,000 would be collected to pay a contractor to set up the assessment on landowners.

The audience of about 20 people spoke against the assessment.  Many of the citizens were told they could not speak about their dislike for the assessment and could only speak about what to charge landowners, and who would be charged the annual tax.

That did not keep the citizens from speaking out  against lack of democracy in deciding to create a new tax or about the increase use of chemicals to control plants and the shoddy way the volunteer weed pullers are organized. The majority of citizens who attended the meeting believe that with proper volunteer organization and education of landowners, plants can be controlled without the use of toxins.spraying weeds tax composit

The Jefferson County Noxious Weed board has increased the amount and location of chemical destruction of plants from twelve locations from 2010 to 2012 to eleven or more locations in 2013 alone.  These new locations included pathways, park trails, lanes next to homes and gardens and rural areas where people manage their own water supply.  Members of the Jefferson County Ecological Roadsides (JCER) reported that they are unable to locate online or through weed board representatives, records of spray use for 2013 and have only locations reported by the local media.  There are no known published records of the amounts, types or locations of sprayed areas as required by law.  Locations on the county website have been moved.

As reported by records from 2010 to 2012 the  weed board is using mostly glyphosate-based chemicals.  These chemicals have been banned in many countries around the world and are being evaluated by Environmental Protection Agency for destruction of prime habitat for endangered and threatened species as well as a cause of major illness in humans.

Jill Silver, Noxious Weed Board member told the audience that the weed board will not stop using the chemicals and the money will be used to hire more people who will be licensed spray applicators. Silver reports that using chemicals to control plants is a last resort to control of plants, but that the chemicals are effective in their use.

Here is a series of links to short videos of citizen testimony and Jill Silvers response during the hearing.  All citizens spoke against the assessment and increased budget.  (Video provided by Nancy Botta). Thank you Nancy!

  • #1 – Jill Silver of the Noxious Weed Board tries to keep people from speaking about the assessment and the use of the money to increase use of Toxic Chemicals.  Ellen O’Shea speaks anyway.  She reports that the process in place is not democratic and that the citizens should be asked first if they want a new tax before organizing a assessment process.  O’Shea believes that just asking the commissioners if they want new taxes will do nothing to support a democratic process.  http://vimeo.com/92686596
  • #2 – Val Phimister – a property owner asks good questions and reports that the land classifications are not equal – which owners should be responsible…all of us foot the bill…or the land owners who refuse to control plants should clean up their own mess. Use of chemicals to control plants should be controlled. And finally this question: “What is it about Silent Spring that you didn’t understand?” – http://vimeo.com/92695189
  • #3 – Mike Regan – citizen has concerns and questions about process of creating a new tax and how much people will have to pay.  Why are public comments being re-directed?  Will the county commissioners know how many citizens are against the new tax assessment? http://vimeo.com/92758469
  • # 4 – Mike Phimister – concern about the non-democratic process of setting up a new tax assessment.  Asking citizens to come to a hearing in which the deal is already done is not democracy.  Weed Board member states that by law the only way to get money is to assess landowners.  Also the voters will not be able vote on whether the new assessment will go through.  Mike asks will anyone associated with the weed board will be able to be hired for the job.  Jill of the weed board says the hiring process will be open to anyone and the best person will be hired. http://vimeo.com/92770594
  • # 5 = Tom a property owner has concerns about the assessment. Especially concerned about Misc non-classified lands such as boats.  He states the boats bring in lots of invasive species.  –  tax code used to set up assessments is complicated and excludes many who are not controlling invasive plants.  Everybody needs to pay no matter what exemptions they have.  – http://vimeo.com/92782838
  • #6 – Gail Chatfield tries to speak and told to keep her comments only about assessments and not whether there should be increase in funding for the Noxious Weed board.  Gail asks “Will there be a vote on whether there will be a new tax in the county?”.  Two weeks ago the local news reporter reported that this hearing would be about the need for an assessment, now it is only about how much to charge – poisoning the roadsides is now a matter of convenience,  and the need to curtail the spraying activities of the Jefferson County Noxious Weed board. Jill of the weed board states that by law the county commissioners make the decision, not the people.  There will be no public vote – http://vimeo.com/92795493
  • #7 Norm Norton – citizen and farm owner.  In 2010 the County Noxious Weed board resumed using chemicals after a 30-year moratorium on not using chemicals.  Citizens were told at that time that a one-time use of chemicals would be used to control and not eradicate unwanted plants. Now there is a constant and increased use of dangerous chemicals being spread by foot and other traffic throughout our homes, yard, and bodies. This issue should go to the voters in November.  Let the people decide.  http://vimeo.com/92839246
  • #8 Ellen O’Shea speaks against the assessment because the Jefferson County Noxious Weed board, WSU Extension, and the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners have gone against the will of the people in breaking a 30-year moratorium on using chemicals to control plants on county roadsides and right-of-ways. The lives of many species and humans are at risk. The weed list includes essential food for butterflies and valuable medicinal plants. Asks to consider why these pioneer plants here – could be to repair the Earth that humans are destroying. http://vimeo.com/92848864
  • #9 Doug Milholland – Citizen – concerned about the process in which decisions are made to cause an assessments.  He asks that the Jefferson County Board of Commissions put forth an advisory ballot in November on the issue to determine the will of the people – http://vimeo.com/92862729
    • #9 – Bob  Anderson, landowner from Quilcene concerned about assessments  and has read the Washington state rules about assessing people.  The state believes a super majority should be in agreement before an assessment happens.  Bob is able to get Jill of the weed board to retract a statement that says that the weed board is mandated by the state to find funding via the general fund or a tax assessment.  The state does not get involved in funding weed boards. http://vimeo.com/92862729 (last part of video)
    • #10 closing statements and arguments – Jill Silver board president of the Jefferson Count Noxious Weed board responds that education and organizing volunteers will also be used but pulling is time consuming.  Jill says that the county road crew needs a better mowing schedule. But, the weed board will not stop spraying. Jill speaks about the benefits of using glyphosate-based chemicals to control plants. Discussion about the number of plants being added to the target plants list yearly.  Many are valuable to nature and humans.  http://vimeo.com/92888963
Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Protectors of the air, the water, and the earth: PT Airwatchers



trees and women river walkingThe following is an interview conducted on April 1, 2014 between Ellen O’Shea of the Jefferson

Community Rights Coalition of Jefferson County and Gretchen Brewer, Executive director of PT Airwatchers.

Summary:  Gretchen Brewer and Tamar Lowell of PT Airwatchers came to a Jeff Co. Community Rights Coalition (CCRC) General Assembly meeting on March 23, 2014 to give our group an update the efforts of PT Airwatchers to bring the mill to higher standards of keeping the air, water and soil clean around the mill.

EO: Gretchen, How long has PT Airwatchers been organized and why did they form? 

Gretchen:  PT Airwatchers was organized in 2007 to respond to ongoing efforts to organize

Region view of Admiralty inlet and PT Mill

Region view of Admiralty inlet and PT Mill

people.  A hearing held by the Washington State Department of Ecology to hear testimony about a proposed renewal of the air operating permit at the Mill really got people ready for action.  People in this community have been complaining about pollution from the mill for year.  The smell from the mill is usually the first thing people notice. There was a lot of testimony at the hearing against the renewal of the air operating permit.  The Department of Ecology ignored the input.  So we organized our group-PT Airwatchers to address the issues of air, water and land pollution by the Port Townsend Paper Corporation.


EO:  What motivated you and your group to get organized?

Gretchen: We did our homework.  We were looking for real scientific data that would tell us about the smell.  We found that the smell from the mill comes equally from the mill stacks and the basin pollution. We found that there is legal precedence in that that kind of pollution that could affect people’s health and livelihood is called “chemical trespass”.

Chemical trespass is chemicals spread from somebody else’s activities which impact your life and property. Our groups have spent thousands of hours researching this pollution and also the mill and how it operates. We wanted to know the details.  It was a great effort by many people.  PT Airwatchers has more than 500 members, and there is a changing core of 100 people doing the research and organizing events such as educating the community.

EO:  Tell me about the Port Townsend Mill, what do they manufacture and how do they generate income?

Gretchen: The main product of the Port Townsend mill is the manufacturing of unbleached Kraft pulp.  The pulp is sold to make corrugated cardboard. The pulp is made from local trees that are known for their extra-fine fibers such as Western Red Cedar. The mill has been buying the slash of clear-cuts since 1929.  The mill also runs a Biomass burner to generate electricity.  Although originally set up with a promise of cheaper electricity to the local community, the electricity is actually sold to the bigger markets for higher revenue.  They already generate 14.9 megawatts to sell. So what they do is buy power that they need from Bonneville Power at sub-market rates and then sell the power they generate back to the power grid at market rates or higher.  They sell at a higher rate because they claim they are making green energy.  It is another way they generate income.

They also receive a subsidy from the US government because they are designated as “green energy” producers.  Two years ago California stopped buying this power from the grid because the state passed a law to buy local first. The state would buy energy from California producers first.  This kind of put a crimp in the mill’s plan to sell “green energy”.  Fracking of natural gas across the country has driven down energy prices and the need for electricity has decreased.

They make money by collecting government subsidies. They get a tax subsidy for using forest products.

They receive a farm subsidy from the Commerce Department for processing “black liquor”. Black liquor is the waste product from the kraft process when digesting pulpwood into paper pulp removing lignin, hemicelluloses and other extractives from the wood to free the cellulose fibers.  The black liquor is mixed with fuel oil and it is then burned for energy.  This action qualifies them for an alternative energy subsidy. They receive a Renewable Energy Credit or REC. They were sued by the WTO for unfair competition and the federal government stopped the subsidy.  The federal government renamed the credit to keep from being sued. The subsidy was then moved to the Department of Agriculture – farm subsidy department who reinstated the subsidy. In a nutshell they get a subsidy for reducing their own dependency on oil but then they mix the Black Liquor they burn with a fossil fuel.

 They also make money burning demolition waste from many sources.  They also reprocess fuel oil at the mill.

EO:  So what did PT Airwatchers find when they began to research the mill and its smell?

PT Mill Plume in relationship to community

Gretchen: We found a general problem with waste disposal.  The process of getting rid of manufacturing waste is affecting the water around the mill, the land on site stores ash from the mill, and the air over the mill and the community. The ash stored near the mill site is a by-product of burning vegetation, metal and other trash. There is also the issue of the amount of resources they use, like the 12 million to 14 million gallons of free water the mill uses every day. Citizens including businesses use less than 900,000 gallons per day. We also pay for the chlorination of the water they use. The water contract with the city is up for renewal in 2020.  Our group will have to monitor the situation at the mill and be ready with good testimony. We just want the mill to pay its fair share.

Our group was not only concerned about the pollution from the mill but who would clean it up once the State and Federal government designates the area as a cleanup site.  It was only a matter of time because of lack of proper disposal that the waters and land would be designated as toxic.  We began to research if the Port Townsend Pulp Corporation had sufficient financial assurances in place to cover cleanup and that taxpayers would not be stuck with it.

EO: So what did you discover about the pollution of the waters around the mill. Surely local fisherman and oyster and other seafood businesses might be concerned about this? Admiralty Bay is known for its geoduck harvest.  What kind of harm is coming to this seafood industry? Is anyone testing the sea life?

Gretchen: The pollution of Port Townsend Bay, Admiralty Inlet and the Salish Sea are very much of concern to our group. The mill uses the bay for mill run off. The closer you get to the mill, the more polluted the waters become. The mill has established an Aerated Stabilization Basin also known as “the pond” to dump its fluid waste runoff. The pond is a 35-acre mid-sized lake located on the shore side of the mill.  It was dredged a few years ago and there is no record of what happened to the sludge.  The mill set up a so-called treatment of the pond. They implemented an oxygenation trial where they added extra 02 to the pond.  The O2 was pumped into the mill runoff fluids in order to increase biological activity.  They hoped that his activity would break down toxins in the fluids before it was discharged into the bay.  The process did not work. Instead, there was an increase of hydrogen sulfide which also increased the strong smell from the mill. In the process of injecting O2 into the water the anaerobic bacteria took over and continue biological action produced methane and hydrogensulfide.

The pond and its sludge have never been tested by outside sources.  However that may change soon.  Outside sources may be put in place to test and monitor the contents of that sludge and water. And then the results of this testing will be made available to the public.

There is also the issue of the ash waste – the mill burns wood and other waste and that creates ash. It is stored in a landfill near the mill on about 50 acres.  Our research shows that the ash is very acid and the mills permit to store the ash ran out in 2009. It is being regulated as limited hazardous waste. Ash from the boiler has a PH of 13 – basically it is like drain cleaner. It is very basic lye. It should be designated as hazardous waste.

Port Townsend Paper Company (PTPC) has operated an unlined landfill for disposal of ash and lime grits from its mill since 1983. In April 2011, The Washington Department of Ecology recommended to Jefferson County Public Health department that the agencies begin working with Port Townsend Paper Company to transition the landfill to a permit under the limited purpose landfill requirements of the Solid Waste Handling Standards. This could include re-establishing groundwater monitoring and financial assurance for the facility.

And in March of this year Port Townsend Paper Company revealed plans for an addition to their process that is a method of refining fibers to make a new product. We don’t know much about this. The permit public comment period is closed. The public wants a public hearing with the Washington State Department of Ecology and they want it to be held in Port Townsend so people can attend. The Department of Ecology said they would decide in April whether they will hold public hearings or not.

EO:  PT Airwatchers just lost an appeal to force the State Department of Ecology to create an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the mill site.  Can you explain what happened with that process?  Is there any recourse?

Gretchen:   If that appeal would have been successful, the Department of Ecology would have had to show that the mill will not have an adverse affect on the environment.  They would have to show numbers, testing results and other information and it would have to been presented clearly to the public and others.

The appeal was lost because it took so long for the courts to respond.  The original complaint was made before PT Airwatchers was able to learn the complexity and damages from the mill process.  We know a lot more now. Since that time of filing the appeal in 2010, PT Airwatchers has learned a great deal.  We are educating ourselves on every facet of the process and learning more and more about environmental law. During the appeal process, the State Department of Ecology was asked to require testing of the mill site, and each level of the appeal the court differed back to the State Department of Ecology who differed to industry. 

The appeal was then taken to the Washington State Supreme Court which ignored the impact on forest and forest soil and also on CO2 sequestering issue.  Industry has a fantasy that C02 put into the air differs according to what you are burning.

EO:  I am interested in the issue of Carbon Sequestration and I found the following explanation in wiki pages:

“Carbon sequestration means capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere or capturing anthropogenic (human) CO2 from large-scale stationary sources like power plants before it is released to the atmosphere. Once captured, the CO2 gas (or the carbon portion of the CO2) is put into long-term storage. Forests are major sources of Co2 sequestration.  When forests are clearcut, the level of CO2 released into the atmosphere goes up and is a large source of pollution and destruction of the Ozone layer around our planet “

Gretchen:  The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that burning trees is less damaging that burning fossil trash or other substrates. Other parts of the country have ruled differently on this subject. They (other state courts) are starting to understand that fallacy of the Biogenic C02 arguments.

“Biogenic carbon dioxide emissions are defined as emissions from a stationary source directly resulting from the combustion or decomposition of biologically-based materials other than fossil fuels.”

The mill planned addition to the Biomass burner was to support massive clearcutting on the Olympic Peninsula by burning the slash from clearcuts.  The clearcuts would be “cleaned up” using large equipment that would pull out the roots and slash of trees and vegetation, leaving the land to be disrupted permanently.

EO: What can we do to make real change on this issue?  If the courts won’t support us, then how do we keep our beautiful place on the earth from being trashed?

Gretchen: If we want to protect ourselves from the expanded Biomass operations of the mill, it is up to citizens.  We need to put constant pressure on local powers.  Citizen action is needed; maybe a “Community Bill of Rights” that would have legal teeth, all those things is needed now.  We have to be vigilant. We should have leaders that support the Precautionary Principal before a project is planned.  The planners and industry would have to show that the project will not harm the people and the environment.

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.

Right now our leaders and the courts have said that waste is not waste if it is being sold as a commodity.

PT Airwatchers is not giving up.  We are part of an important lawsuit that was filed jointly with Green Peace and the Center for Biological Diversity. The suit filed in 2011 in the US District Court Northern District of California would force the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update emission limits or NSPS (New Source Performance Standards) on Kraft Pulp Mills. The EPA is supposed to update the NSPS every 7 years. The agency has not conducted an update NSPS on pulp mills for 21 years.

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are pollution control standards issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The term is used in the Clean Air Act Extension of 1970 (CAA) to refer to air pollution emission standards, and in the Clean Water Act (CWA) referring to standards for discharges of industrial wastewater to surface waters.

The Court ruled in favor of a joint group of attorneys that would develop an agreement with a strict timeline in implementing updated NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills. On March 13, 2014 the EPA issued a final NSPS that will help us.  If the mill moves to replace any old equipment, it will have to meet the new standard.

Final Amendments were distributed by the EPA on March 23, 2014. Here is a link to that report. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pulp/nsps/CR_kraft_pulp_mills_3-13-14%20final.pdf

EO: That is really good news.  Much appreciation goes to your group.  It really does take persistence and deep study of how the courts, law and process work doesn’t it?  Is there anything else coming our way that would help us monitor our air, waters and land?

Gretchen: Longterm monitoring of possible pollution is what I have been asking for.  This equipment is new technology and I am hopeful that we soon will have accurate data about pollution in our community.

Link to ORCAA article on issues of Ultrafine particle pollution- http://www.orcaa.org/air/ultrafine-study-proposal

EO:  Gretchen, what does PT Airwatchers need to stay active and viable?

Gretchen:  We need donations to help pay for stamps and legal expenses and other expenses that come from being an advocacy group. And, we need a webmaster.  The website needs constant updates. We need people to show up at hearings and don’t let up on the pressure to get this mill site cleaned up. That would really help us.

Here is a link to the PT Airwatchers Website: http://ptairwatchers.org/ 

Update as of April 4, 2014 Port Townsend Paper company announced it will not seek expansion of its Biomass burner.  Here is a link to an article in the Peninsula Daily News – http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20140404/NEWS/304049966/port-townsend-paper-corp-drops-biomass-expansion-plans

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Community Rights Coalition General Assembly Saturday, November 30th

trees and women river walkingRegrouping! – Community Rights Coalition activities for the next week:

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 30th –  General Assembly – 9:30 AM to 11:30 am at Quimper Unitarian Universalist Fellowship hall –  2333 San Juan Avenue Port Townsend, WA.  Agenda includes ongoing discussion about how to bring more grassroots voice to the people. Report back from Tuesday night  study group.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3 – The Community Rights Coalition Study group meets on Tuesday Nights at 5:30 PM at the Quimper Unitarian Universalist Fellowship hall. Discussion about consensus process and readings from READ THE DIRT and the national Community Rights movement.  Here is an excerpt from the November issue of READ THE DIRT –  Washington State attempts to sell Columbia River water for $6 million: Those appealing argue state can’t sell rivers, favor corporate farms over family farms.

“The waters of the state are already over-appropriated, but still Ecology continues to issue new water rights – often under political pressure to do so,” said Lee Bernheisel of the appellant Okanogan Wilderness League.

Update (November 4, 2013): Okanogan Wilderness League has filed an appeal of a new water right decision, challenging the Washington Department of Ecology’s authority to issue water rights from the Columbia River that are not conditioned on maintaining instream flows.

The appeal also challenges Ecology’s use of “out-of-kind” mitigation that allows the user to pay into a state fund for habitat restoration projects instead of curtailing pumping when river flows are too low. The price? $35.00 for every 325,000 gallons sold, or, pumped.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

The next Community Rights Coalition General Assembly is June 29th- Join us!

salmon mt overlayThe next Community Rights Coalition General Assembly will be held On Saturday, June 29th at 9:30 AM.

We will have an update on the Chartering or “Home Rule” signature gathering progress and information about the weekly visits to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners meeting 9:00 AM every monday morning at the court-house. The CRC chartering workgroup is trying to persuade the Board of commissioners to call for freeholders to help the county to move toward chartering.  The CRC chartering workgroup  members have collected over 700 signatures of Jefferson County registered voters to further the process.

Also to be discussed will be

  • the creation of a Community Rights Ordinance
  • update from the study group
  •  and involvement with I-522 GMO labeling initiative, and other projects.

The General Assembly of the Community Rights Coalition of Jefferson County Washington is open to all friends.  Please Join us.  Saturday, June 29th 9:30 AM held at the Quimper Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Port Townsend, Washington – 2333 San Juan Avenue.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Coming soon to your local theatre…Salmon Confidential!


Sunday June 23, 2013 –  11:00 AM at the Rose Theatre -235 Taylor Street, Port Townsend, WA.  FREE! Pick up tickets at the box office. Co-sponsored by the Community Rights Coalition of Jefferson County, WA

Salmon Confidential, a shocking new documentary film on the cover up of what is killing wild salmon in the Pacific Northwest by producer Twyla Roscovich.

When biologist Alexandra Morton discovers BC’s wild salmon are testing positive for dangerous European salmon viruses associated with salmon farming worldwide, a chain of events is set off by government to suppress the findings. Tracking viruses, Morton moves from courtrooms, into British Columbia’s most remote rivers, Vancouver grocery stores and sushi restaurants. The film documents Morton’s journey as she attempts to overcome government and industry roadblocks thrown in her path and works to bring critical information to the public in time to save Pacific Northwest and BC wild salmon. Join US!


Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Democracy School is here! Don’t miss it…

Democracy school graphicIt’s almost time for Democracy School!  We still have openings.  Come join us and learn to bring power back to the people!  June 7th and 8th, 2013.

The Community Rights Coalition of Jefferson County Washington and the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) present Democracy School.  A two-day event to teach citizens to take back the power of direct democracy and community rights.

Fri. June 7  &  Sat. June 8th, 2013

Day 1 (Fri) 5:30 pm – 9:00 pm and Day 2 (Sat) 9:00 am – 6:00 pm

Cost:  $150  (Sorry- all scholarships are spoken for and we are actively seeking donations to pay for scholarships)

Location: QUUF – 2333 San Juan Avenue, Port Townsend, WA 98368

Presenters at the School: Emelyn Lybarger & Kai Huschke (CELDF)

If you want to attend, contact either O’Neill or Mike-information and registration below .(includes their email addresses.) All 5 scholarships have been utilized and we are looking for more people with funds to help fund them.


WHAT IS DEMOCRACY SCHOOL?banner_demoschool_05

The Daniel Pennock Democracy School is a stimulating and illuminating course that teaches citizens and activists how to reframe exhausting and often discouraging single issue work (such as opposing toxic dumps, quarries, factory farms, etc.) in a way that we can confront corporate control on a powerful single front: people’s constitutional rights.

Have you ever wondered why large corporations can overrule what people and communities want for themselves and their future? Or why you lose your civil rights when you walk across your employerʼs doorstep? Or how it is that your once beautiful land, clean well water, or pristine fishing area can be “permitted” to be destroyed by industrial pollution whether you like it or not?

Democracy School explores how it came to be that large corporations have more rights than American Citizens, cities and counties. It examines the way our constitution was reinterpreted and laws enacted to shift power from real people to “corporate persons”. The Democracy School explores why it is that big government now enforces the rights of big corporations to extract resources (natural and financial) of citizens and communities

  • Learn how communities in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, Virginia, and Washington are using their municipal governments to drive economic and environmental justice and change.
  • Learn why corporations seemingly possess more rights than the communities in which they do business, and why communities lack the legal authority to say “no” to projects that they donʼt want.
  • Learn what prior movements of people in the United States have done when the legal system failed them
  • And most important:  Discuss the next steps for passing laws to expand protections for people, communities and nature.

If you would like to attend Democracy School on June 7th and 8th at the QUUF contact: O’Neill Louchard. Please send checks to:  O’Neill Louchard, P.O. Box 1628, Port Townsend, WA. 98368.  Note that checks are to be made out to “Community Rights Coalition”.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

CRCC joins citizens across the peninsula to Just Say No! to Monsanto

montage MAM rallyMembers of the Community Rights Coalition of Jefferson County joined citizen activists from across the  Peninsula on the International day for Millions Against Monsanto.  We met in Port Angeles for a rally organized by GAG (GMO Awareness Group of the North Olympic Peninsula). 135 people turned out on a very busy intersection in Port Angeles.  We were met with lots of honks, thumbs up and waves from people in the area.  Thank you B. Goldie and all the wonderful people from GAG for organizing this amazing event.  Many helpful contacts were made. Here are some pictures of activist from that event.

Here is a link to 20 minute talk by Marianne Williamson that took place on May 25th in Venice, California.  She succinctly explains why we must stand up to multinational corporations at this time. She says we must use the tactics of the likes of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.  to stand up against the destruction of all life on Earth. She talks about the rise of multi-national corporations and the creation of GMO’s but also the rise of the community rights movement.   Please watch this important short video. Marianne Williamson on GMO’s, the rise of multi-national corporations war on the world and creating a non-violent movement to protect the Earth.


Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Who we are


democracy hands with borderAs the Community Rights Coalition of Jefferson County, Washington, we have come together as a group that is leaderless, open, volunteer, non-violent and consensus based. We see ourselves as part of the entirety of our community of humans and of nature, both living and non-living.

We assert our intrinsic inalienable rights to engage in an open, transparent and participatory democratic process whereby we can assume the powers necessary to enforce the rights of the natural world including all humans.

Check out the “About US” tab on this website to read more about who we are and what our goals are. – http://communityrightsjeffersoncountywa.org/?page_id=30

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter