Letter to editor: Joan Bloom will work tirelessly to achieve consensus’

To the editor:

I applaud all who choose to run and serve as elected officials in the City of Edmonds and across our nation. It’s certainly not work for the faint of heart.

While I love living in Edmonds, we are confronted with serious issues that require vision, a strategic plan and clear priorities and objectives to achieve that vision. The citizens of Edmonds need to be engaged in the development of this plan and feel ownership for its priorities. The Mayor and City Council are responsible for the execution of the plan. The good news is that the planning process is underway. You will be invited at some point to voice your opinions. I urge you to do so.

This November we will be casting our ballots for members of the City Council and Mayoral races. I have great respect for DJ Wilson but have decided to endorse Joan Bloom for City Council. Drawing on an impressive and broad background, her working knowledge of the law, finance, small business, government and environmental sustainability will yield positive results for our community. She is a bridge builder and understands the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Joan is not afraid to challenge the status quo and ask the tough questions but she will work tirelessly to achieve consensus.

I want a Council that can work together with one another and the City Staff; a Council that will put aside their special interests and pet projects, and focus on fulfilling objectives to the strategic plan. Joan will be a great addition to the Council.

Craig Stewart


  1. Just out of curiosity, how does Ms. Bloom plan to have other council member put aside their special interests and pet projects? And, doesn’t Ms. Bloom have her own pet projects. She has vision for environmental sustainability as you mentioned above. Aren’t those her pet projects and special interest? Why should other council set their projects aside for hers? Just curious?

  2. Sustainability is not a project. It’s a goal that has more to do how projects get done than which projects get done. It’s odd that you would pick that issue, since it’s one that DJ and Joan seem to agree on.

    I’m not aware of any pet projects that Joan is pushing. DJ has a bunch of them, some of which would be a waste of money if we had the money to spend on them. I found his statement that voting for overlays “prioritizes streets over public safety” to be insulting. It’s an example of how DJ has been trying to demonize those who don’t agree with him.

  3. Joe,

    I am not attacking the project. I like sustainability. But, Ms. Bloom has a particular vision on the waterfront, for example (https://edmondsforum.com/2011/06/27/the-waterfront-urban-village-is-a-fantasy-solution/). She calls it a fantasy solution. This is a pet project of hers. I think it is disingenuous for the writer to imply that Ms. Bloom has no pet projects. Everyone has pet projects. And, I think it is disingenuous for the writer to indicate that others should set their pet projects aside and Ms. Bloom shouldn’t. I’m just looking for an explanation of how that works.

  4. BTW, Joe, this letter is about Ms. Bloom; Not DJ Wilson. I believe in other posts you have asked people to keep their comments relevant to the subject of the post. I ask that you follow your own guidance here.

  5. Ms. Boom’s view on the waterfront is not a pet project. It is a criticism of some else’s pet project.

    Your criticism of the second paragraph in my comment #2 is fair. It was rude of me to include it here.

  6. Based upon Joan Bloom’s comments over several years, the waterfront is very definitely a pet project of her’s. I can remember her even referring to the waterfront as “her waterfront”.

  7. Joe,

    The other bit of information you do not have is that when I was running for Council, Ms. Bloom and I met because she wanted to discuss the waterfront and some architectural thoughts she had. She certainly does have a pet project. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. However,, as I mentioned above, I do think it is disingenuous for the writer to criticize others for having “pet projects” when Ms. Bloom does also. And, I know Ms. Bloom is monitoring this blog so, I’ll ask her to answer my questions in #1 above directly.

  8. I hope she does answer, even though your issue is with Craig Stewart’s words, and not hers. I’d like to hear her thoughts, as well as Craig Stewart’s.

  9. It’s a wonder anyone takes the time to write MEN during election season since every letter is ‘wordsmithed’ to the bizillioneth degree by all the usual suspects (including me, too, I suppose). I’m a supporter of Joan and on her election committee in fact. Yet, I think Mr. Stewart has plainly said he expects Joan, if elected, to be easily able to put aside any special interests or pet projects if necessary for the good of the community and implies she’ll no the difference between the two.

    I think we can all name politicians unable to do this, locally and nationally and it’s disheartening. Pet projects are not a crime nor even misplaced in a campaign. A platform of ideas and envisioned successes or opportunities for the community are what good candidates assemble and articulate.

  10. @Susan, I submitted a letter re Mayor Cooper and was sincerely disappointed that no one commented on it. And, I don’t disagree with you re pet projects. I’m just asking for clarification from the writer on Ms. Bloom. See my question in #1 above.

  11. Priya (comments 1 an 7),

    I’m not sure what I am supposed to respond to, whether or not my opposition to pet projects is a pet project? Am I concerned about the future of Edmonds’ waterfront? Yes.

  12. The writer says” I want a Council that can work together with one another and the City Staff; a Council that will put aside their special interests and pet projects, and focus on fulfilling objectives to the strategic plan.”

    It is not clear to me what the other “pet projects” are and why other Council members would or should set aside their project in favor of yours or the strategic plan (I’m not sure if they are one in the same)?

    If I were a Council member, I would expect that we would have a cooperative relationship instead of you telling me that the project I have chosen has no value. And, if I were headed in a different direction, I would expect you to negotiate with me. What the writer portrays is a bully: Do what I tell you because I have the most important ideas. That is not how one builds consensus.

    I don’t think the writer understands the give and take process of consensus building. I hope you do.

  13. Joan:

    You did say that, in a letter to the Beacon or The Enterprise a few years ago. I believe it was in 2007 when the redevelopment of Harbor Square and the Antique Mall was under discussion.

  14. This is an “iteration” of a letter that I wrote to Mrs. Joan Bloom on October 3rd, 2011. “Subject: Political Whores! Hi Joan, If it looks like, acts like, walks like … must be a “politician”. You sought and received an endorsement from a political organization for election to a seat on the Edmonds City Council. Good for you! However, this does make you a “politician”. And … if elected … you will be serving as an elected Government official of the City of Edmonds. Agree? According to a reference and articles authored by you and Gary Bloom that are posted on VoteJoanBloom.com … all financial/government officials are “whores”. Rhetorically speaking … if elected … would you consider yourself a “Government whore”! I do not vote for “whores” … no matter what color you paint them! My vote goes to intelligent “politicians” who espouse my political philosphy!
    Be well, be happy, have fun! Evelyn Wellington “

  15. Eve (comment #15),

    The article you are referring to was authored, not by me or my husband, but by Mark Cuban, dot com billionaire, owner of the current NBA champs, Dallas Mavericks, and notoriously candid blogger. I did, indeed QUOTE Cuban, including Cuban’s reference to the large bailed-out banks as “financial whores,” without which language, Cuban’s point would have been softened. And Cuban did compare those bankers with politicians who receive large campaign donations from those banks, and do nothing to reign in their excesses, so costly to American taxpayers.

    I regret that you were offended by a word — and I reluctantly withdrew the post to avoid similar red-herring arguments. But you choose to ignore the main thrust of Cuban’s post, and why I quoted it: he stated that the cure for mutual backscratching was TRANSPARENCY in all government dealings — a cure that is one of my main goals if I win election. If you feel that a naughty word is worse than deceptive practices that cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, then we do disagree. Sometimes, frank discussions aren’t G-rated.

  16. @ Joe, nothing negative here, you presume that Sustainability is not a project, but we in the Sustainability wouldn’t agree, Our goals are social justice, collaboration and stewardship.

    We see an interconnected group of healthy, compact, livable urban centers across the North Puget Sound region, where people work and play together to restore and improve the vitality of communities, the economy, and the ecosystem.

    We define social justice as equal access to resources and opportunity. We believe sustainability in our environment is not possible until people can meet their own needs.

    We believe sustainability inherently requires collaboration and transparancy. If thats not a long term project, I don’t know what is!

    And yes, I think your right, DJ probably does have many pet projects, rpbably not very sustainable, nor transparent.

  17. Thanks for educating us Robert with your excellent post about Sustainability. As you state, Sustainability inherently requires collaboration and transparancy.

    I’m a big fan of transparency, believing that an open and transparent government greatly enhances the elected officials’ attempts to make the positive changes our city needs.

    I recently made the following specific request of all candidates for office:

    If elected, I will support the keeping of detailed minutes for all executive sessions. I will closely review the 14 reasons to conduct executive sessions that are documented in RCW 42.30.110. I will determine which of the fourteen reasons do not require permanent confidentiality. Once those reasons are identified, I will work with my fellow elected officials to clearly establish the point in time the related executive session meeting minutes will be made available to the citizens of Edmonds.

    Several candidates communicated with me verbally supporting the idea to various degrees, but Joan Bloom has been the only candidate to make the exact commitment in writing. I believe that says alot about Joan and her true commitment to open government and transparency.

    Subsequent disclosure of Executive session minutes will increase the citizens’ confidence that the elected officials conduct behind closed doors is ethical and that the City’s laws are applied evenly to all citizens.

    Joan is the only candidate to make this commitment in writing and I think that speaks very highly of her.

  18. @Joan, #16,

    You missed Ms. Wellington’s point totally. She was not offended by your language. What she said was that you pot are calling the kettle black. She clearly says that you slammed political organization but then received and waived the endorsement of political organizations contrary to what you posted and endorsed. Ms. Wellington was very clear in her language. Ms. Wellington was offended by your contradictions. It makes me wonder what other contradictions we will see, if you are elected.

  19. Priya #19:

    Eve Wellington accused Joan Bloom of saying: all financial/government officials are “whores”. She followed this up with some extremely rude remarks.

    Joan Bloom was far too kind in her response. She pointed out that she never said that. She didn’t say that. The Mark Cuban article she linked to didn’t even say that. He didn’t say that all government officials are whores. He didn’t say that any government officials are whores. He was referring to bankers. The politicians he did talk about are those who take money from bankers and then write the weak regulations that allowed them to destroy our economy, not politicians like Edmonds city council members.

    Priya you say that Ms. Wellington was very clear in her language. You claim that Ms. Wellington said Ms. Bloom “slammed political organization”. Ms. Wellington never said that. Yet Now we a false statement about a false statement. But it gets better.

    Priya then concludes that all of this makes it inappropriate to accept an endorsement from a political organization because it’s a contradiction. I don’t think I could agree with that logic if it were based on truth – but it isn’t.

    Priya, there are no contradictions in what you said. It appears that everything you said in the entire comment is just wrong. Every single sentence except the last. I believe you really do wonder about such things.

    If you want to see all of what Mark Cuban actually wrote, you can read it here:

    In the future, if you want to criticize Joan Bloom, I suggest you limit yourself to the things she actually said or did. She’s highly opinionated and has written extensively about her beliefs and ideas. She has repeatedly testified at City Council meetings and in committees. There’s no shortage of material. There’s just no excuse for criticizing her for inflammatory garbage that other people are just making up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.