John Jenkins: A Conservative for Vancouver City Council

by lewwaters

The Vancouver City Council has one seat open for challenge this year, currently occupied by young Bart Hansen, who was appointed with little or no voter input to replace now mayor Tim Leavitt.

My concerns with young Mr. Hansen continuing to hold this seat have been expressed at Who Is The Conservative Voice on the Vancouver City Council?

Having the majority on the council, even if by a slim margin, centrist I feel is a good thing. But, as we saw with the resent passage of the Special Events Ordinance, 3 liberals and no conservative voice on the council came very close to one of our more important constitutional rights, freedom of speech and assembly, being retained by one vote.

Enter John Jenkins, a conservative running to take the seat away from Bart Hansen which would give us a council comprised of 4 centrists, 2 liberals and 1 conservative, should he win and not the current 4 centrists and 3 liberals.

John, a resident of Vancouver since 1966, has a proven history of personal commitment in voluntarily serving the City of Vancouver as one of the founding members of the Clark College Computer Advisory Committee, serving as its chairman from 1995 until 2008, serving on the Vancouver/Portland Aviation Noise Advisory Committee, chairing the 2004 Vancouver Salary Review Commission and co-chairing the 2009 Vancouver Charter Review Committee.

Being success oriented with a strong belief in “being fiscally responsible in all financial matters,” John would apply these same organizational and management skills that “are vitally needed in the City of Vancouver government to attain its maximum efficiency.”

John came by his experience and successes the hard way, he had to earn it. His father, a career Army man passed away when John was 12 years old, leaving his mother with 4 small children and dependent upon meager Military Survivor benefits. John grew up learning to appreciate the Military and the sacrifices made by those who wear the uniform in defense of our nation.

He strongly feels we must provide adequate care for those who defend our nation, especially if wounded in combat and for the families of those who pay the ultimate sacrifice.

Growing up under such meager conditions taught John frugality and how to maximize what is available to you, which is why he opposes slapping Vancouver citizens with the added expense and tolls of a new bridge with light rail, something that will benefit Portland much more than Vancouver. As John says,

“It is my opinion that additional federal funds should be demanded by both Oregon and Washington. Both bridges are designated Interstate routes and, therefore, the majority of the cost of building and maintaining them should be a federal responsibility. Accepting only 10% funding for the CRC is unacceptable in my opinion. Having read about other bridges with similar design criteria all around the country I know we can do better and for far less.”

Addressing adding Portland’s light rail to a new bridge, John said,

“Light rail costing almost $200 million a mile is unbelievable. Studies by both the Washington Policy Center and the Cascade Policy Institute both offer alternatives that will save millions from the projected cost estimates. These alternatives should be fully discussed and seriously considered. Furthermore, the citizens of Vancouver and Clark County should have a right to vote on whether or not they want to incur the operating costs of light rail.”

In regards to the growing budget deficits, John believes there remains room to cut unnecessary spending by looking closer at mid management, upcoming retirements, training, upper management and more. He opposes new hiring for office positions and protecting the rank and file employees, such as Fire and Police.

John says, “As employees of a city we should be proud and keep in mind ‘We work for You’.”

To regrow jobs in Vancouver and Clark County, John would lower business fees, taxes, and in some cases provide incentives to businesses to move here and provide much needed jobs to our community.

John supports Arizona’s recent law on Illegal Aliens and would oppose any action by the council to condemn the new law protecting Arizona’s citizens.

Seeing how close the current council came to placing regulations on our right to peaceful assembly and free speech he says,

“I believe our constitution is at risk. I will make a strong case for following our constitution to protect citizen rights. The right to assembly is just one. The right to bear arms is another. I will always be mindful of our constitution and who has given so that we may have it.”

Mindful of murders of 2 young girls in our community in recent years by level III repeat sex offenders and seeing how Clark County seems to receive many upon release, he advocates strengthening current law more by writing and mailing notification within a 10 block area of a offender moving into an area, something he has read the state has that authority to impose. As a city council member, he would pressure our legislators to propose such legislation to implement such notification and to continue strengthening our laws to protect our sons and daughters.

Feeling the so-called “Green Energy” over rated, John would prefer to follow the European example of clean nuclear energy, remaining mindful that nuclear waste remains a large issue.

John Jenkins has a resume’ of “proven leadership and experience,” more than qualifying him to serve on the Vancouver City Council and he has ideas that will grant the city council a more consistent conservative voice.

Bart Hansen has the backing of the city establishment, but has shown his lack of foresight and knowledge of history by advocating placing regulations on our right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech, that admittedly by city officials, has never caused a problem to the city by either political persuasion.

In invite you to visit Elect John Jenkins Vancouver City Council and give him serious consideration. We need a conservative voice on the Vancouver City Council.

About these ads

12 Responses to “John Jenkins: A Conservative for Vancouver City Council”

  1. I’m disappointed in this decision. I remind myself it is only one opinion.
    As a church leader I support Mr. Hansen. He is of strong morals, ethics and principals. The assembly regulations mentioned above was not a decision based on freedom of speech, it was based on public safety.

  2. As a Christian Conservative I cannot support John Jenkins. He represents the old, traditionalist that would rather see our church loose parishioners than try to meet the communities needs head on.

    It’s easy to say NO to everything. As believers we need to learn to say yes and make things work for the better of our community and the values we hold dear.

    We are called to look forward and not hide in a fox hole and say “no” to every new idea that comes, if that was the case we wouldn’t have the freedoms we have in our religions today.

    Thank you Bart for looking out for all of our community. Best of luck to you.

  3. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, JO, but if you will note, I said it was lack of foresight and history.

    By that I mean that when it was brought up at council that during the Civil Rights era of the 1960′s, such ordinances were used by Southern Democrats to deny and block efforts of Blacks to march and express their free speech, Hansen became visibly upset and even made a public comment from his seat in opposition to that historical fact.

    As a born and raised Southerner who was coming of age during that time, I saw it being used in such manner and know it for a fact, as does anyone else who was there.

    As for it being an “issue of public safety,” isn’t strange that there has never been any incident where the public safety has been endangered or any costs incurred by the city for any such assemblies, by either side, admitted to openly by city staff, but it was felt necessary to place limitations and regulations on our ability to hold such free speech assemblies on short notice.

    I don’t know if you were present when many gathered on the Capital steps to express support for AG McKenna’s joining the lawsuit over the recent healthcare reform, but that was put together with just 2 or 3 days notice.

    Had this ordinance passed in its original wording and a similar short notice event come up in Vancouver, it would not have been allowed to take place.

    Several people spoke in opposition to the ordinance’s original wording and a slim majority of the council members agreed that it presented a threat to free speech and peaceful assembly.

    Speaking with one of the other council members prior to the meeting where it was accepted with exemptions to “expressive gatherings,” I mentioned how it was unbelievable that the younger members, including Mayor Leavitt, were blinded as to the threat of future events by subsequent city officials, had it passed before.

    Going back to “public safety,” since there has never been an incidence of the public’s safety being jeopardized by such gatherings, what threat was there that would mandate such an ordinance be passed and regulations be placed on free speech and peaceful assembly?

    The possibility of such an ordinance becoming a tool to silence dissension was glaring and fortunately, 4 council members saw that.

    Bart Hansen was not one of them.

  4. “We are called to look forward and not hide in a fox hole and say “no” to every new idea that comes,”

    James 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

    Matthew 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

    2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

    Matthew 7:21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    You know, Andrew, there just might be something to that traditionalism you so easily cast aside.

    Then again, I have not said anything about Bart’s faith, that is his to have and to hold as he sees fit.

    My concern is his lack of foresight that could have regulated a constitutional right that should not be regulated.

  5. To whom it may concern,

    There have been three instantances in which someone was injuried during a ‘free speech’ gathering.

    Honk against healthcare at Brain Bairds office. Two people had their foot runover by a car. There were no onsight police or staff to help and I drove the women to her home for medical attention.

    Last summer there was a rally at red lion qauy back parking lot and two cars hit each other in the parking lot to avoid hitting a child and mom.

    Two months ago the tea party had a rally at esther short and a few people tried to move us and a young women had her eye cut by a fingernail.

    Yes people and safety have been compromised at these events. I’m all for free speech, but safety should be formost.

    Sarah Palin has supported this exact same policies in her homestate and she is not a progressive by any means of the word.

    I had no problem with mr leavitts and hansen sharing palins view of trying to at least allow groups to let officials know. I want my children to be safe.

    God Bless America

  6. From Whom it Concerns;

    Goodness gracious, such riotous behavior that has been hidden from the public and city officials who said there has not be any incidence of major concern.

    Odd too that it is only those big bad meanie right wingers rioting throughout the streets of Vancouver in such a fashion, endangering the public good, scratching people’s eyes out, demolishing cars and running down pedestrians.

    I hope they throw the book at such out of control criminal behavior.

    Seriously now, get real.

    This is your basis for justifying Bart Hansen willing to regulate a constitutional right?

    Perhaps you will explain why he did not voice any of this egregious misconduct on the part of citizens willing to express dissent to the now status quo.

  7. I’m active in our local tea party movement. Our organization is called “We the People Vancouver.” I’m one of those right wingers rioting in the streets. When help was needed it was not available.

    In the future their in fact may be a sitatuion as we have seen many times in Portland when it is the REAL BIG Liberal Leftys who will do much more harm to our community then other groups.

    We need to let someone know. That’s all, simiple. I don’t know where Bart Hansen stands, all I know is on this issue I support him as others in our organization who have been hurt do as well.

    No one is stoping us from setting up and protesting or demonstrating. Leavitt made that clear. I don’t think I need to get real, you need to stop pandering. Restore America’s Decency Laws!

  8. Reading the above bio it is clear John dosen’t understand the role of City Council or whoever wrote that blog.

    A city council does not make decisions on any of the following: military, light rail, tolls, Arizona laws, Nuclear energy, so I’m left to ponder does Jenkins know he is running for city council in little Vancouver, Wa? He should be running for Governor if he wants to make these kind of changes.

    What a waste of a blog.

    Robert Faulk

  9. Johnson, I am really happy to hear you are so deeply involved in “We The People Vancouver.” However, I do not recall seeing you stand before the Council voicing your support for the ordinance as originally written, as did Thomas Hann, Terry Busch and several others, also from “We The People Vancouver” when they all lined up to voice opposition to the ordinance.

    I might also add, Johnson, the scenario you describe as has happened in Portland is called a “riot.” Last I heard, riots to do not abide by any ordinance and are dealt with swiftly and harshly by law enforcement.

    Gee Robbie, if I didn’t know better, I’d think you meant to hurt my feelings.

    The blog can’t be that much of a waste, it draws you to it.

    Oh yes, just so you know, I fully realize many of the things written about are beyond the control of a city council member. But, isn’t it sort of nice to know just how they think over all?

    Maybe people only wanting just limited information on candidates for public office is why we have so many that poorly represent us.

    Feel free to stop back anytime you feel like wasting your time again. I’ll be here. ;-)

  10. “Feeling the so-called “Green Energy” over rated, John would prefer to follow the European example of clean nuclear energy, remaining mindful that nuclear waste remains a large issue.”

    I do not agree with this John Jenkins guy for this reason, and this is where I wanted to get down to. Thank you for putting this information out there so I can vote for the right person. Bart Hansen has my vote because of the above quote.

  11. I’m sure Bart Hansen appreciates your vote.

    Hopefully, he will learn one day the importance of free speech in our society.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply. Spam and & off topic comments will be deleted at Blog Author's discretion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: