Spokane7
61°Quick links: 2012 graduating seniors • Summer camp guide • Jobs: The Road Ahead • Prep sports • News quiz
Opponents of Proposition 4 have complained that out-of-town influence helped shape the proposed amendment to the Spokane City Charter. But the opponents rely heavily on national and state development interests to bankroll the campaigns against the proposal.
Led by the National Association of Home Builders, out-of-town business groups account for about 85 percent of the identified contributions to Save Our Spokane, which opposes Proposition 4’s Community Bill of Rights. Out-of-town business groups account for about 30 percent of identified contributions to the other opposition group, Jobs and Opportunities Benefiting Spokane, or JOBS. The national home builders association has funneled some $85,000 to the political action committee of its local affiliate.
Together, the two campaign committees have raised more than $275,000. When expense reports were filed last week, they had almost half of that total still available for a pre-election day push.
Envision Spokane, a group that spearheaded discussions that produced the proposed charter changes, has raised about $69,500, with $55,000 coming from Jim Sheehan, a retired local attorney who established the Center for Justice and owns the Community Building on Main Avenue. The largest out-of-town contribution for Envision Spokane was about $450 for the donated work of a graphic artist in Wauwato, Wash.
To read more, and for links to a list of the PAC contributors, go inside the blog
Proposition 4 would add nine amendments to the City Charter about issues such as medical care, the environment, low-income housing, minimum wages and apprenticeship rights on jobs. It seeks to expand neighborhood influence over local development.
When Envision Spokane brought the proposed charter change to the Spokane City Council for inclusion on the Nov. 3 ballot, critics balked. They called one of Envision Spokane’s attorneys – who worked for the Pennsylvania-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund and had recently moved to Spokane – a carpetbagger. Although Envision Spokane held meetings over nearly two years with neighborhood, labor and community groups, opponents continue to complain of outside influence.
“They’re going to use Spokane as a launching base to take (the proposed changes) across the country,” said Tom Power, campaign manager for JOBS. Power couldn’t name anyone else with Envision Spokane who is in his words “a foreigner,” other than attorney Tom Linzey, who is now a Spokane registered voter.
Power said large donations carry less influence. The “vote no” campaigns were designed locally, and outside organizations are “volunteering” financial assistance, he said.
“The distinction is, (Envision Spokane’s) ideas were imported and a few local ideas were added. The opposition is all local, with a few (outside) dollars added,” Power said.
Kai Huschke, campaign manager for Envision Spokane, said opponents are “disingenuous” for complaining about outside influence but dismissing it on their side. Linzey was invited to come to Spokane to help start the process because he had experience in helping communities make decisions, Huschke said, and didn’t arrive with a blueprint. Local residents drafted the charter language, he said.
“They have constantly tried to say this is from some other place,” he said. “Here they are, stepping outside the community to get major amounts of money to defeat it.”
Opponents received a series of large contributions since the beginning of October. Community Builders Trust, a PAC for the Spokane Home Builders, contributed nearly $39,000 in cash and services this month to Save Our Spokane and $15,500 to JOBS.
Community Builders Trust is based in Spokane Valley. . It has raised about $125,000 this year, three-quarters of which is from elsewhere – $85,000 from the National Association of Realtors in Washington, D.C., and another $10,000 from the Building Industry Association of Washington in Olympia.
State and national home builders associations sent the money to Spokane, their representatives said, because of requests from the local organization.
For a list of Community Builders Trust contributors, Click Here.
For a list of Envision Spokane contributors, Click Here.
For a list of Save Our Spokane contributors, Click Here.
For a list of Jobs and Opportunities Benefiting Spokane contributors, Click Here.
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
RathdrumBob on October 21 at 12:24 p.m.
Is the Spokesman-Review planning to endorse Prop 4?!?! If so, where do I go to cancel my subscription? This is the worst initiative I have seen in my 60+ years (and I’m a Democrat!).
skeugster on October 21 at 7:11 p.m.
What an incredible waste of money! Propsition 4 is clearly illegal. The only explanation for this waste of money has to do with the public’s confidence or lack of confidence in the judicial system. The money is being spent because people think the judicial system is without priniciple and predictability. That it is simply a purveyor of political power. This campaign is a warning about the reputation of the judicial/legal fraternity. It is a sign that there is a complete lack of confidence in what the judicial system can be predicted to do.
CalJones on October 21 at 9:51 p.m.
Steve I think you are right, especially when you consider the track record of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is exactly where the thousands of lawsuits that will brought on by Prop 4 will end up.
CalJones on October 21 at 10:04 p.m.
Hey Mr. Camden,
When are you going to do some investigative journalism and alert your readers to the fact that Envision has a ton of hidden campaign contributions? Everyone who attended their early meetings is aware of this, even Mike Fitzsimmons has talked about it numerous times on his show. As you know the PDC is investigating to find out if they have hidden it or spent it and not reported it.
Also, how about the fact that Envision has admitted IN FRONT OF COUNCIL (Just ask Steve Corker) that they have funding to do this at least TWO MORE TIMES? Possibly from their stockpile of cash - again Fitzsimmons has mentioned this numerous times.
Ron_the_Cop on October 21 at 11:09 p.m.
Mr. Camden,
You’re treading a little on thin ice aren’t you? :-) While I have issues with the folks upstairs, I do agree with them on this one. It’s pie in the sky, liberal, PIed Piper utopia. Until the citizens of Spokane wake up one day and decide to wring the corruption out of our local government, things will not change no matter what the Charter says:-)
BTW have you checked in on our Secret Dahlia Society lately. I’ve lost track of whom has the MOBIUS Project lease of late:
http://friendsofmarkfuhrman.org/blog/?p=154
ChefGus/ John Olsen on October 22 at 5:31 a.m.
I am voting against the initiative … I took the time to go to a home meeting on this last summer, and met the principals and listened and asked questions… My view is that these are well meaning, good local people that are involved… Brad Read is a forward thinking ethical man, and the “motives” here in my view ( although it is hard to assign motives to another, or a group) are to improve our average citizens life, and to help the less advantaged at the expense of the highly advantaged… ( Sounds vaguely like a religious movement that started two thousand years ago)…
In that sense it is Prophetic utterance of how life could and maybe should be… and although it is written by highly skilled legal beagles it is so very complex and all encompassing that even most of the local progressives I know are not in favor of it.
It will not pass because the average voter here is likely overwhelmed by the broad swath it cuts… “change” in little increments is not TOO scary… this much change is a call to revolution.. In much the same way as Jesus at the Temple…. John
jimc on October 23 at 11:47 a.m.
I’ll try to address the questions as best as possible, in the order possible:
RathdrumBob - I don’t follow the newspaper’s endorsements that closely (Editorial writers don’t ask reporters for their thoughts on the races they cover, and reporters really don’t care what their editorial writers think, so I usually hear about endorsements it from the campaigns…was at a forum for both sides last night, though, and it didn’t come up). So I had to look it up. But The Spokesman-Review’s editorial page came out against Prop 4. You can read that and other endorsements here. http://www.spokesman.com/tags/2009-election-endorsements/
Steve Eugster - I don’t know if it’s being spent because people think the courts are without principle, or because they think going to court may be more expensive in the long run. Not being a lawyer, I’m always leery of predicting how a court would rule.
CalJones - Not being a lawyer (see above) I can’t say for sure, but I think most challenges would go through the state court system, at least initially, so the makeup of the 9th Circuit probably isn’t the biggest issue here. As for “secret contributions” I’m not sure what you mean…if they’re secret, how is it people know about them? I’m afraid I don’t have the time to listen to my colleague Mike Fitzsimmons every day, but as you know, we did report (twice now) on the contributions reported to the PDC from both sides. And we’ve reported the PDC is investigating a complaint by the Homebuilders about whether Envision Spokane should have filed as a political committee when they started the whole process of holding meetings on the proposal, rather than this year when they began the petition campaign. It’s quite possible the investigation won’t be done until after the election, the PDC said, but when it’s done, we’ll report the outcome. Right now, Envision Spokane has spent only about half of what it has raised; but having money to do this again seems to me to be only a portion of what it would take to try again if Prop 4 fails on Nov. 3. Depending on the results, they may not have the energy/momentum/interest.
Ron - not sure what you mean about skating on thin ice. I write stories about campaign contributions every year, regardless of who gives. But nice job of sticking in a mention of a completely different topic and a link to your site in there.
ChefGus - Each side questions the other side’s motives…which means this is a fairly typical local campaign. I’ll leave to theologians if the money changers at the Temple can be equated to property developers.
Thanks for taking the time. Keep those cards and letters coming in, as they used to say.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on October 23 at 2:02 p.m.
thanks jim… you gave me my smile for the day… and I will need that while i’m standing in the rain this afternoon at Southeast Blvd and 29th with Jon Snyder signs in my hands… best john
CalJones on October 23 at 9:59 p.m.
That’s funny Gus, I was waving both a sign for Mike Fagan & No on Prop4 earlier this evening at Mission & Hamilton…Spokane is in trouble if we don’t get some no-nonesense type individuals on council, willing to make tough cuts, when no one else will. We all know the dangers of prop4 if it passes, we can closeup shop as soon as the vote tallys come in, if that’s the case.
Spok on October 26 at 11:28 p.m.
I am supporting Amber Waldref for city council. She has real ideas for real solutions.
I could never support the guy who has made his living pushing initiatives and would further cripple our city with his and Eyman’s 1033. Tax cutting alone is no solution.