Clyde Hill News: Special Edition
Prop 1 Election Misinformation, and an ad hominem attack against me
With the November election about 50 days away, Clyde Hill voters are starting to hear from the Pro and Con committees regarding Clyde Hill Prop 1. Unfortunately, some of what we’re hearing is (to be polite) just not true.
This week I’m sending an extra newsletter to address this latest bit of misinformation.
One more item before our disclaimer: if you find this newsletter useful or interesting, please forward it to your Clyde Hill neighbors and friends. Thank you!
Disclaimer: while I am a councilmember on the Clyde Hill City Council, I write this newsletter in my capacity as an individual resident. Any opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily the position of the City. The information and references here are from public sources. I welcome email responses — and if the topic is about City business I will respond from my City email account.
The Short Version
The committee opposing November’s ballot measure to change the form of government sent a newsletter earlier this week that claims that Councilmember Dean Hachamovitch (me) received “special privileges” when, following legal advice, the City rescinded the legal fees it charged me regarding the appeal of a permitting decision.
Let’s start from the top:
Clyde Hill residents Lyn Adams, Bruce Dodds and Spencer Nurse (link) are on the official committee opposing Clyde Hill Prop 1, the ballot measure that Clyde Hill voters will consider in November.
That committee has a website and a newsletter. On Friday, the headline for the newsletter (also available on the website) was “Councilmember Hachamovitch Sticks Taxpayers with $7,500 Gate Appeal Bill.”
In 2021, the City billed me for its attorney fees related to a permit appeal I filed. In 2022, the City followed legal advice and rescinded those charges.
The newsletter alleges that the bill was “forgiven” and that I received “special privileges” because I am a City Councilmember. That is completely false; details below.
I have no idea what this legal bill has to do with Prop 1.
What’s true?
While the policy on Clyde Hill’s books is to charge a resident the City’s attorney fees when a resident appeals certain administrative decisions, it turns out that cities can’t do that, according to
Clyde Hill’s current law firm,
Clyde Hill’s previous interim law firm, and
the organization (MRSC) that helps cities and other government agencies with policies and best practices.
Back in 2021, when I filed an appeal of a permitting decision, the City of Clyde Hill tried to charge me its City Attorney’s fees. Since then, Clyde Hill obtained new legal representation.
In February, I shared MRSC’s guidance that a “city could not require attorney fees be paid at the administrative appeal level” with the City Administrator.
In August, following legal advice (“in accordance with our current City Attorney”), the City rescinded the inappropriate charges, and I paid the rest of the bill:
The newsletter’s claims are bizarre. There’s no “special privilege” here. The City is following legal advice.
Of note
It is worth pointing out that Con Committee member Spencer Nurse was a large part of why the City’s legal bills were so high. Of the thousands of dollars of legal bills at issue here, many charges are the result of meetings and communication between the then-City Attorney and Spencer Nurse’s attorneys:
What does this have to do with Prop 1?
Nothing, from what I can tell.
I’m not sure why the committee against Prop 1 sent this out. I’m not part of the effort related to this November’s ballot measure1 and there’s no apparent connection between Prop 1 and a bill to a resident that was rescinded following advice from the City Attorney — much less made-up stuff about that bill.
Their tactics are their choice and reflect on them.
Back in June, Councilmember Steve Friedman politely noted that some residents in Clyde Hill were circulating “unvalidated conclusions, seemingly nonfactual” (link) on the topic of changing the form of government. In July, I wrote about misinformation on NextDoor (link) regarding the same topic.
It’s worth noting that there is some overlap between the Con committee and the June and July incidents.
Misinformation Strategy — Recommendations?
I’m not the first or last person singled out and maligned with unfounded allegations. I’m choosing to address this as bluntly and candidly as possible because the larger issue is Clyde Hill Prop 1.
We deserve better from our neighbors. I’d like to believe that we can discuss the arguments for and against Clyde Hill Prop 1 without resorting to ad hominem attacks and misinformation.
One of the challenges with misinformation is how to address it… ignoring it seems like a poor choice, while addressing it directly sometimes backfires by giving it more attention. If you have thoughts or opinions around how to approach misinformation this election season, I am open to feedback — please let me know! 🙏
Thanks for reading! Please forward and share with your friends and neighbors, and if you are not already getting this newsletter, subscribing is both easy and free.
Dean Hachamovitch
This newsletter has covered the topic; I wrote, several months ago: “To be clear, there are valid arguments for and against keeping the current form of government. Very few have been aired to date.” (link)
I have communicated with residents on both the Pro and Con committees. In general, I email and talk with many, many residents and do my best to help anyone who asks.