Freeholders’ Plan Makes Most Sense

How many governments does Spokane County need?

Two separate efforts for local government reform are moving full-speed ahead. The proposal to form a city in the Valley, rejected twice by the voters, goes on the ballot again in May. Next fall, the county can vote on a broader plan - by the freeholders, chosen and empowered by the voters.

Both efforts are inspired by the failings of our current government. But the two solutions are at opposite poles.

Today, the City of Spokane and Spokane County fight for power and tax base while broad community interests go begging. Smaller entities such as Spokane Transit Authority obey unaccountable boards stymied by feuding representatives of the city and county. If a new city formed in the Valley, there’d be three major governments - bickering, pestering and consuming tax dollars for their separate bureaucracies.

In the next century this county deserves a government that will represent us all rather than making us all cringe.

The freeholders have spent more than two years listening to public concerns and studying models for democratic design. Their 25-member group is a diverse representation of local interests. On March 10 they completed a draft charter and sent it to lawyers for final review.

Some freeholders fear the plan is too sweeping for the voters to grasp. They sell the voters short. And they would sell out their mandate, by sending the voters anything less than their best prescription for fundamental change.

The freeholders’ plan would dissolve the current governments of the city and county of Spokane. Good riddance. It would create a new government, with an elected executive and a 13-member governing council, elected by district.

Election by district offers representation for neighborhood concerns, now often ignored. The 13-member council would end the damage a single wacko can do in the current design, and would make it tougher for any special interest, downtown included, to acquire undue clout.

One study estimated the new government eventually would spend 5 percent more than the current governments do. But this assumes service in the Valley (police, libraries, parks) will rise to the level of service in the current city of Spokane. If that’s what the public wants, the new, separate city proposed in the Valley also would be pressed to that same end. But a city in the Valley would have a narrower tax base, and a government destined for turf war with its neighbors.

We’re in this together, folks. So why not work, together, for better government? Take some time. Think it over. We can choose: More of the same? Or something new?

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board