More communication with the City Council

author : John Van Eenwyk topic : vandalism in Olympia

by John Van Eenwyk

A psychological analysis of why vandalism is occurring in Olympia, as presented to the Olympia City Council.

My name is John Van Eenwyk. I’m a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst here in Olympia. I am a priest at St. Benedict’s Episcopal church in Lacey and have been a priest at St. John’s Episcopal church just up the street. I am also the clinical director and founder of the International Trauma Treatment Program here in Olympia, which has received a proclamation from the City Council contributing its support to our work. I have never sat through a whole council meeting, so that’s why I stayed. I didn’t re-alize we would be able to talk at the end of the meeting, so here goes.

What I have to say will not be pleasant as it is a psychological analysis of why we’re getting vandalism and hate crimes in this town. First of all, as a priest and as a psy-chologist, I do have my finger somewhat on the pulse of the community, and secondly, as someone who travels to war zones around the world, I have some knowledge about why people rise up and rebel against authority. So here’s what I have to say.

The image of the city council among much of the public today is decreasingly good—in fact, it’s very bad. The public is beginning to express concerns about the council for three reasons. One: Scornfulness toward the public. Calling members of the public “idiots” is something that is not going down well with the public. Two: Arrogance. Ar-rogance basically refers to the hearings that you held on raising height limits on the isthmus. These hearings were considered to be a sham. The public believes that you had made up your minds beforehand. Now, remember that I’m giving you people’s perceptions. You may feel that the facts are different. Three, and probably the most damaging, is corruption. The word on the street is that you have received campaign contributions from Tri Vo, and that Capital Playhouse has received contributions from Tri Vo. This obviously fosters an appearance of corruption.

Now, when people feel they’ve been disenfranchised, when they feel that there has not been enough effort made to generate consensus, they become anarchistic. They take matters into their own hands. And they will respond with as much force as they feel is coming from the council. So as the council is acting toward them, so they will feel justified in acting toward the council. I fear that your vote tonight to raise the limits, with so little attempt to reach consensus with the public, is basically a statement that the public will hear as “let the battle begin.” I think this battle may not be good for the council, and it will not be good for the public, but it is, unfortunately, a psychological reality. This is how people do respond. If you do not like the response, then you must change your attitude toward the public.

I would have liked to have presented this before your vote, but I didn’t have an opportunity. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but better that you know the lay of the land rather than going into it not knowing what you’re facing.