Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Lilac Valley Backers Learn Of Flaw In Proposal Two Other Plans Remove Heart From Incorporation Effort

One large hole is forming in the middle of the proposed city of Lilac Valley, and another is likely to open up in a few weeks.

While the voids may not sink the proposal to form a municipality of 75,000 in the Spokane Valley, they will definitely complicate it and may force drastic changes.

Lilac Valley proponents learned at a public meeting Monday that a smaller incorporation effort underway in the Valley is headed to the polls.

County Auditor William Donahue validated the petitions submitted by a group trying to form a city called Evergreen in the east-central part of the Valley.

That means an election will be held, probably next year.

It was also revealed at the meeting that proponents of another small city called Opportunity are on the verge of submitting their petitions for validation.

Both Evergreen and Opportunity are within the larger proposal’s boundaries.

According to state law, Lilac Valley proponents cannot include areas slated for other incorporation elections within their proposal.

That spells trouble for the Community Action Committee, the group leading the Lilac Valley effort.

Chairman Ed Mertens remained upbeat after the meeting before the Boundary Review Board despite the bad news.

His group has six months to gather the signatures of 10 percent of the registered voters with Lilac Valley’s proposed boundaries.

So the group has to decide what those boundaries will be.

Mertens said he planned to meet with proponents from the other two efforts to try to convince them to join his group.

Mertens said he wouldn’t fight them if they decided not to give up their campaigns.

“They have the constitutional right to do what they’re doing,” he said. “I’d never challenge that.”

That would leave the Community Action Committee with no choice but to alter the boundaries of Lilac Valley to exclude Evergreen and Opportunity or to put their effort on hold indefinitely.

Altering the boundaries or successful elections for Evergreen and Opportunity would have a dramatic impact on Lilac Valley.

It would mean the loss of nearly 30,000 people and key tax-rich commercial areas along Sprague Avenue and the Sullivan corridor.

Lilac Valley proponents proffered olive branches to the Opportunity and Evergreen leaders at Monday’s meeting, to no avail.

“We’re all in this together,” said Tom Stone, co-chairman of the group’s auction committee. “We should combine it all.”

Loyd Peterson implored Evergreen and Opportunity to abandon their efforts and “smell the lilacs.”

One large city would be less expensive to run than two or three smaller ones, Peterson, a Community Action Committee board member, claimed.

“They will actually take the heart of the Valley,” Peterson said of the other two proposals.

Leaders of the two smaller incorporation movements said they didn’t plan to give up.

Vivienne Latimer of the Evergreen movement said Tuesday that Lilac Valley proponents could have avoided this headache by waiting before launching their effort.

Latimer said most of the people in the Community Action Committee were aware of the other incorporation plans but decided to move ahead anyway.

“I’m sorry they think we cut the heart out of their area, but that’s too bad,” Latimer said. “I’m not angry with them. I just don’t understand. I really don’t. They were premature. There’s no use arguing with them.”

Ed Meadows, who is leading the Opportunity campaign, said he would push forward as well.

“There’s no reason for me to throw away all my hard work now,” said Meadows, who expects to file his petitions with the county auditor next week.

Latimer said she thinks Evergreen, which will probably go to the polls next summer, has a pretty good chance of passage.

Many people in the proposed city are desperate for more voice in their local government, she said.

“The main thing is people want representation,” Latimer said. “They’re fed up. They want that vote.”

, DataTimes ILLUSTRATION: Graphic: Proposed Valley incorporation boundaries