I pointed out a lot of what was written in the release simply didn’t add up when you did the math and considered his age and all that he claims to have accomplished in the business world. Had Brown returned any of the several phone calls I made to him, he could have clarified those issues in advance.

However, I personally attended the Feb. 27, 26th District meeting where he spoke. Brown stated exactly what was contained in the story — I wrote his comments down verbatim. The comments about “back room deals” and the Critical Areas Ordinance came directly from his mouth — in front of about 50 witnesses. As I stated in the original commentary, he came off as an environmental extremist somewhere to the far left of Tim Botkin. There was also much more he said that wasn’t included, and would have made him look even worse. All things considered, based on his release and on what I saw, I was pretty charitable.

After the story ran, I got a call from Brown. We set a time to meet, and I found him quite impressive one-on-one. We discussed economic development, social issues and the county’s financial situation. Brown is engaging and seems knowledgeable, with a good grasp of the issues — especially for someone so young.

I asked specifically about NASCAR, since he railed against it at that 26th District Democrats meeting. He answered he’s very open the idea as long as there is no tax money directly taken from the county or the state’s General Fund. I asked if he had studied the financing plan. He said no.

A few weeks later, I received a press release from the coalition of environmental groups opposed to the track, announcing their May 4 meeting. And who was named as one of the main featured speakers at the event? Why, it was Josh Brown. Although I didn’t attend the event, it’s my understanding he didn’t attend or speak. But why was he listed as a speaker against it, if he’s so “open” to the idea?He has since proposed a “Permitting Bill of Rights” that he has to know will be all but impossible to implement or enforce, and appears to be designed specifically to curry favor with the development community.

It’s beginning to appear that Josh Brown talks out of both sides of his mouth, depending on his audience. That’s a dangerous political practice guaranteed to come back and bite him in the butt at some point — and depending on whom his opponent turns out to be, possibly cost him the election.

After a slow start, Earl Johnson is picking up momentum against Sherry Appleton — especially with many union voters unhappy with her toxic stance against NASCAR. Unions are among Appleton’s biggest supporters and contributors, and helped elect her with their “Labor to Neighbor” program. However, local organized labor, specifically the Olympic Peninsula Building and Construction Trades Council, have refused to endorse her this time.

Although she has been among the most vocally venomous against NASCAR, the Washington State Labor Council, one of Appleton’s strongest political allies, has now come out in favor of the project pending a small contingency. Strongly backing the project also are the Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council and the Kitsap County Central Labor Council, along with the building trades councils and other labor organizations in King and Pierce Counties. Meanwhile, local Democratic Party organizations have all come out against it.

It looks like an ideological split is developing within the party itself, with elitist environmentalists who control most party functions opposing regular blue-collar working class Democrats. What it could mean for Appleton as well as other local Democratic candidates in terms of money and support will be interesting to watch.

Another hot button issue that already has the intentional disinformation machine running at full speed is I-933. The usual cadre of local opponents — in some cases the very same people against NASCAR — are demonizing “special interests” they refuse to name specifically, as well as major unnamed corporations they claim control the Washington State Farm Bureau (sponsor of the initiative) who they say are only looking out for big agribusiness and irresponsible developers.

As far as these folks are concerned, I just have to ask, in their minds has there ever been any developer that isn’t irresponsible and/or greedy, and who isn’t making “obscene profits” by destroying the environment?

The basic premise of I-933 is that if regulations passed after you’ve bought property prevent you from using it as you could when you originally purchased it, or if those regulations devalue it, the governing jurisdiction has to allow the original use, or compensate you for denying it.

It doesn’t roll back any environmental protections in place when you bought the property, and doesn’t increase its intensity of use from what was allowed when you bought it. It simply preserves your right to that existing use while mandating the same level of environmental protection in place at the time of purchase.

Personally, I have some reservations about parts of I-933, but read it for yourself and don’t be swayed by the outright lies and scare tactics sure to abound on both sides. This one’s going to get real ugly, with big money being spent to capture your heart, mind and vote.

But in the end, I-933 is about everyday people — many whose life savings are invested in their property. They’ve watched their retirement nest eggs be relentlessly regulated away by ideologically driven, unelected bureaucrats, and they’re finally saying, “Enough!” I believe it will pass by a comfortable margin.