City Pays $62,000.00 For A New Logo Then Tosses It Out The Window

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

Rejected city logo

Adding another example to the list of government debacles, the City of Federal Way, Washington spent over a year and sixty-two thousand dollars for a new logo design that the city council promptly sent to the bit bucket.

The mayor in an interview says he still believes the money was well spent.

In an interview with KING 5 News, the mayor said the city interviewed hundreds of individuals and reviewed hundreds more sketches, but in the end decided to return to the original city logo. For what it’s worth the new slogan “Centered on opportunity” was approved.

Turns out many citizens preferred to retain the original logo and the feedback conveying this belief influenced the city council to reject the new logo, and all the others proposed.

“The city got a tremendous amount of feedback. And that ultimately was that was centered on opportunity, the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges of our city.” And that folks, is something apparently well worth $62,000.00 and over a year’s worth of attention by government officials.

I have been very critical of mission statements, especially in the realm of government agencies. These overly-mulled phrases accomplish nothing in terms of performance or services offered by the municipality and instead waste time. It instead comes across as some pie-in-the-sky dreamed up by bureaucrats with too much time on their hands.

Somehow, I just don’t see a large employer relocating to Federal Way because it selected the best slogan available. But I do see a local government in need of reassessing its direction and expenditures.

By Darren Smith

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

104 thoughts on “City Pays $62,000.00 For A New Logo Then Tosses It Out The Window”

  1. Jonathan Turley still needs a safe space for his speech….

    Darren Smith must support safe spaces then, he allows it (voluntarily, I don’t really care about his personal life) to happen.

  2. Oh and btw, we aren’t on tv D. Smith. This is a self-serving public intellectual’s blog, constantly wanting to increase his individual brand presence.

      1. I thought this blog wanted a robust discussion on law and policy to have an “orientation of free speech”

        Is that not true?

        I happen to think free speech is a critical right and value. But I actually act that way as well. I don’t need a safe space like Jonathan Turley.


    D. Smith

    On your earlier, and laughable and rather horrible, attempts at humor which simultaneously exposed your taking my comments out of context to support your buddy Mr. Turley (thought this blog wasn’t about getting personal, and focused on the issues).

    Leave it to the real comedians for that. Y’all have created a blog is res ipsa (the blog speaks for itself) for being the legal blog equivalent to the onion. Most of what y’all post would be great material if under the auspices as this equivalent. Through this prism, you and JT are truly hysterical.

    1. Chip Kelly – I am a fairly patient person, however you are just annoying at this point.

      1. As you once told me… ad hominem attacks are not productive Mr. Schulte.

    2. Please stop insulting Darren. He spends a lot of his free time helping the blog. This isn’t right. Please be nice.

      1. My account is categorically blocked from commenting on JT’s post.

        D. Smith is doing a thing. He explicitly (AND IN CAPS HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA) told me that he would not do anything to correct this breach of free speech either.

        1. Chip Kelly – if you keep being annoying, you will be suspended from the blog for a term of x days, months, years. Whatever your problem is, you need to get past it.

    1. “Running” for SCOTUS? lol Well, he won’t have much luck doing that until at least 2020! lol

      1. Oh, I spelled it wrong. Gorsuch. it is kind of like Gore Sucks. First name Neil not Al.

  4. So Jonathan Turley has no standing to criticize safe spaces as they relate to free speech issues.

    He prevents my account’s speech on his publication of free speech.

    What an example to set.

  5. How can I be apart of this alleged robust discussion of law and policy (other wacky/very personal items as well) if I can only post on D.Smith’s articles?

  6. Where’s a moderator to clear up my issue with posting?

    1. Chip Kelly – Lynne Kelly was a disbarred felon who gave aid to terrorists.

      1. Yet another political prisoner.

        Moreover, Mr. Schulte, you really think I view the actions of the US gov. and its subsidiaries as a legitimate exercise of the rule of law?

        Has any US official been prosecuted for our global torture regime?

        Of course a lawyer as effective as Lynne Stewart (Not Kelly, that’s not hard to get correct Peter Schulte) with her public posture (an explicit revolutionary) stood no chance to last as a practicing lawyer. If our system is what JT an y’all boast about (excellent propaganda admittedly), she would simply be known as a radical lawyer.

        1. Chip Kelly – she was a radical lawyer and she was proud of it. She went too far, aided terrorists, got disbarred and did time. Not someone I would idolize.

          1. She’s also known as a “people’s lawyer” Mr. Schulte. What practicing attorneys do you idolize?

            1. No, she wasn’t. If she were an actual ‘people’s lawyer’ she’d have invested her time after making rent to pro bono practice aiding people with landlord-tenant disputes, small claims, family court matters, and misdemeanor charges. And you’d never have heard of her.

      2. More like a true American patriot and defender of the United States Constitution. She understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely, knew that her defense of the Constitution would place her in the crosshairs of the State, yet nevertheless remained zealous in her defense of the Constitution.

        1. Mark M. – she is NOT a patriot. She aided and abetted terrorists and did prison time. She was disbarred for her illegal activities with her clients. Personally, I think she is an co-conspirator and should have gotten even more jail time.

        2. She wasn’t a defender of the Constitution. She was a malicious sectary for whom legal proceedings were a means of advancing her rancid political views. No one who isn’t similarly inclined would ever admire this woman.

  7. KellyAnne Conway was taught by Jonathan Turley… (wow)

    hahahahahahaha good job teach. And your bias continues with your lack of condemnation (genuine and forceful) for her rank breach of ethics in her capacity as counselor to the president.

  8. Why is JT afraid of my comments on his posts?

    Even D. Smith has more backbone than that.

    1. Chip Kelly – you are aware that JT does not respond to posts directed at or to him?

      1. Yes. Of course. His blog doesn’t even allow my posts on his publications. If he needs a safe space for speech through the web, he would certainly would not want to respond.

        However, I do wish a moderator would fix this breach of my account’s free speech (Though I don’t expect such capricious folk to do so).

        Lastly, JT is used to advocating (fairly well) for his own brand, other elites, wealthy, powerful people. He wouldn’t have anything to say to most of us commenters.

          1. We had a group at my university attempt to get JT to speak at our school about civil liberties during that time period. JT or his assistants didn’t even return our many messages.

              1. Haha JT doesn’t deserve that sort of pleading.

                I can definitively say now that there would be no chance the group would want such a public figure to attend an event genuinely dedicated to civil liberties issues and discussion. We value truth over patriotic propaganda and superficial status interests, and real diversity and right to self-determination over this faux notion (and fantasy) of alleged pluralism within our country. JT would have been a terrible fit anyway. He belongs at Cato events, and out of touch legal conferences, and five star hotels.

          2. No chance he would address any personal email if he didn’t even have the courtesy to respond, after multiple inquiries (to him and an assistant), to a college group dedicated to the issues he claims to be dedicated to discussing and analyzing.

            If you don’t fit a certain, very-narrow mold, I’ve learned, JT doesn’t even give you time-of-day. It’s all about status. If my group had been from the CATO Institute the outcome likely would have been different.

        1. I’m not sure why you are so upset. You appear to be able to post. As long as your posts do not contain profanity or more than 2 links, they should go through. I have had trouble when I try to post another comment too soon, but if I try again in a while it goes through.

          There is a civility rule posted in the above tabs, as well. This site does allow most forms of speech, including comments derogatory to our host. The Professor does not respond to any comments on the blog. We’ve all disagreed with each other at various points, but this is not our blog. It’s Professor Turley’s. He and his guest authors spend considerable amounts of their free time writing about events that interest them, and sharing their personal opinions. If you disagree so vehemently, there are many blogs that share your view. Your handle seems to indicate that you have a personal problem with one of our commenters, as well, if I understand correctly. My concern is that I quite like the blog, and many of the commenters, including those who disagree with me frequently, and hope that ad hominem attacks on the authors do not take the fun out of it for them.

          I wish you would just state what you disagree with, and why, and then relax, or barring that, try a blog that would better suit. It’s a free country, and contrary points of view are valuable. But my perception is that you seem to really hate the blog and the comments, so I cannot imagine why you continue. Life is too short.

          1. I’ve attempted to post on hundreds of posts by Jonathan Turley today and the comments will not post, but they will on D. Smith’s articles.

            I’m upset because it’s yet another demonstration of the lack of principle by JT (and a general exploitative disposition in using the public interest law moniker to justify/legitimize evil and barbaric action).

            JT relentlessly criticizes safe spaces on college campuses for offensive speech (as my account is viewed on here) yet a safe-space online is carved out for his posts in preventing my account’s speech from being published on such posts.

            Ultimately, you’re are right. There isn’t much reason to troll here other than to debunk the propaganda, and dog-whistle politics that’s constantly being spewed.

            1. The blog is not blocking you. There is a reason why so many of us commenters affectionately call it Word Mess. Sometimes none of my posts go through either and none of the content meets the filter prohibitions. I just copy my comment and try again hours later and it goes through.

              The Professor absolutely allows commentary that criticizes him and comments frequently post that he would disagree with. Your trouble posting on his articles is not coming from him personally. He’s been testifying on behalf of the Supreme Court nominee. I believe he just posts his articles in his free time and does not monitor them.

      2. JT doesn’t even respond when the University that employs him violates the free speech rights of students that featured a Palestinian Flag at their living quarters.

    2. He cannot be bothered to respond to you and you say almost nothing that merits a response from anyone.

  9. Wow. Jonathan Turley needs a safe space on his own blog posts.

    What would happen if I was at GWU law… Would he call security to maintain his safe space?

  10. A safe space on the Jonathan Turley blog…..

    The automated system blocks my posts on any of his posts….


    Free Speech?

    The criticism of safe spaces?

    An empty suit is what exists here…. little to no life.

  11. Still waiting for an answer Darren…

    You have my email if you’re too afraid to post the reasons for preventing my speech from being posted on this site.

  12. Couldn’t they have asked the public if they wanted a new logo before they spent all that money on a new logo, only to belatedly find out it wasn’t wanted?

    As a fiscal conservative, I just want politicians to act as if every dime they spent came from a dear old Granny’s fixed income. Every penny collected came dear. If they would make spending and priority decisions based on that paradigm, then we would cut waste and pork, increase efficiency, cut taxes, and perhaps we would feel like our money was being well spent.

    1. It’s been the policy of this city government to do things in secret to try to slip things by residents. Mayor Ferrell has done this on a couple of HUGE projects like the “Performing Arts and Events Center” (PAEC, pronounced PAKE, appropriately close to PUKE). Also, do a search on the Weyerhaueser property. He’s up for re-election next year. Should be interesting.

      This logo debacle (part of a larger “rebranding” scheme) is minor in comparison.

Comments are closed.