Spokane7
26°
Opponents of the proposed “Spokane Bill of Rights” charter amendment gathered outside City Hall in the intermittent drizzle, starting about 5 p.m., warming up for Monday night’s council meeting.
It’s an interesting coalition that includes the Spokane Home Builders as well as longtime members of the county Republican Party from both the fiscal conservative and social conservative wings. Organizer Michael Cathcart worked on the Ron Paul campaign last year. Organizer Mike Fagan, a candidate for City Council, works with Tim Eyman on statewide initiatives.
They attracted about 65 people of all ages to carry signs like “Envision Spokane - Envision Spokane Jobless”.
Envision Spokane, for those not keeping track at home, is the sponsor of the charter change.
Jim Camden is a veteran political reporter for The Spokesman-Review.
Jonathan Brunt covers Spokane City Hall for The Spokesman-Review.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
eagleproducer on July 13 at 6:59 p.m.
Wow, what a cast of heroes protecting the realm against such un-american ideas like a living wage and responsible development.
Mr. Fagan and his father Jack are partly responsible for duping the public the last 15 years that crippling the state’s ability to raise revenue is good for everyone, instead of freely admitting their lower tax initiatives mainly benefitted the wealthy who financed them while gutting essential services many lower income citizens relied upon. I sure hope Fagan’s campaign signs include the slogan “let ‘em eat cake!”
And of course those stewards of the public consciousness, the Spokane Builder’s Association has to chime in any time development lust might be curbed. How many more Vandervert Construction strip malls do we need? Most of their developments suffer from poor occupancy rates but instead of filling them with new tenants they just build more.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on July 14 at 5:11 a.m.
Glad that at least five of our seven Council members chose NOT to get in the way of the initiative process… Thanks for vetting “who” are the anti forces…. There is a middle ground, and although the initiative is not likely to pass at all.. it is worth bringing forward to engender discussion…. ( you know… you tell me your feelings and thoughts and i’ll tell you mine, and we can find some middle ground to agree upon?) It sounds like a circus last nite but when has that kept folks from being activist?? at least folks will pay attention to the city council meetings more… john
John_Waite on July 14 at 11:26 a.m.
I’m really surprised to see Mike Fagan fight against the initative process. I would have assumed he would be a staunch defender of the rights of someone to use the initiative process. I’m not fond of the results of the process, but it is a legal right in washington state.
I was also sad to see the words communist, socialist, lenin, marx and even hitler thrown around. That kind of rhetoric is not cool.
I would have supported their right to get this on the ballot. But I do not support Envision in it’s current form.
John Waite, City council candidate 3rd district Spokane
www.votejohnwaite.com
ChefGus/ John Olsen on July 14 at 3:34 p.m.
thanks for your post john w…. anything that gets in the way of the initiative process…( read that Council members McLaughlin and French) is to be pointed out…. I too don’t concur in the totality of the Envision Spokane agenda.. but they have every constitutional right to bring it forward…. very strange that anyone sworn to the constitution of the united states would not defend their right to the election process that is on our state’s books.. best john
MichaelCathcart on July 14 at 6:53 p.m.
I am the biggest proponent of The People’s Petition. However, this was blatantly illegal. I hated that I had to speak out against it, but we live in a Constitutional Republic (NOT A Democracy) and we must follow the rule of law. If Envision Spokane is so opposed to following the single subject rule, perhaps their first order of business should have been to lobby the state legislature and move for a city charter amendment to get rid of that rule. Otherwise they should have been intelligent enough to FOLLOW THE LAW! They refused to work with the city to draft their amendments so the city should have stopped this madness.
I am very thankful that Nancy McLaughlin and Al French had the political courage to stand up for the Oath of Office they both took and defend the rule of law.
If this passes, whether implemented or not, our city will see costly lawsuits from here to eternity. Say goodbye to business and essential services folks.
Ron_the_Cop on July 14 at 7:14 p.m.
OK here’s my two cents worth:-) I agree with Mr. Cathcart. I sent this email to the Council before the meeting:
President Shogan and Members of Council:
I encourage you to vote no on placing the Envision Spokane initiative on the ballot. I disagree with the City Attorney’s position that this initiative must be put on the ballot. In it’s current form the initiative is illegal in that it addresses multiple subjects. And also the subject title is misleading and does not adequately disclose the sweeping changes this initiative proposes to the City Charter. I would strongly support voting no on the basis of its illegal format that would force th supporters to more fully disclose the full intent of this initiative.
I listened to their presentation at one of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee meetings. Their objectives while perhaps worthy are very Utopian and socialistic in nature and radically different from our current form of government. I doubt very seriously that there has been much local support for this movement. In fact I would liken the proponents to “carpet baggers” that have selected Spokane for a trial run of their ideology. The group behind this initiative in my opinion are community organizers of the ilk of Acorn.
There is no need to debate their ideology at this point. The initiative on its face is illegal as to its format and should not be place on the ballot because its multi subject nature. Let the proponents sue or come back with a revised initiative that is and meets the proper format for citizen based initiatives. This would be cheaper in the long run.
—
I saw that Breean Beggs of the Center for Justice was representing Envisions Spokane re getting the initiative on the ballot. I also saw Tim Connor of the CFJ was in the audience. I admire both of them. I sent this comment to them after the meeting:
Sorry Tim & Breean I have a differing opinion on this one:-) You know I have a extremely low opinion of Spoken government in general. I’m a strong supporter of the concept of WE THE PEOPLE empowering those who WE choose to govern. This initiative is throwing the baby out with the bath. What we need to do is hold those we elect accountable. This is something we haven’t done. In my opinion as written this is way outside the limits of the single subject rule of the initiative process.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on July 15 at 6:57 a.m.
Good point Ron… thanks for the discourse… It seems in thinking on this a bit more that perhaps the ballot measure should not have even been certified for collection of signatures if that was possible?? It will likely fall on it’s face anyway.. but does cost some money to put on the ballot… i do not think that Mr French and Ms Mclaughlin’s positions were actually based in their Oath of Office… but could be wrong on that as i did not attend the meeting to hear their comments.. ?? john