Spokane7
33°
July 14, 2009 in City
City Council clears ‘bill of rights’ for vote
County auditor will determine whether Envision Spokane has enough signatures
A list of nine responsibilities that could be added to the duties of Spokane city government will be determined by the voters, if supporters of the proposed “bill of rights” have gathered enough signatures.
All seven Spokane City Council members sharply criticized the proposed initiative Monday night as overly broad and a burden on the city, but a majority allowed the concept to proceed to the ballot.
Council members said they trust voters to understand the possible problems in Envision Spokane’s initiative, which would require the city to create an “affordable fee-for-service” preventive health care system; create banking restrictions; give neighborhoods power to veto development projects; and stipulate that construction projects can’t “damage the surrounding ecosystem.”
The council voted 5-2 to allow the 5,000 signatures gathered by the group to be counted by the Spokane County auditor to determine whether 2,795 of the signatures are valid – the threshold needed to put it on the ballot.
Councilman Al French and Councilwoman Nancy McLaughlin voted against sending the measure to the county for counting.
Envision Spokane supporters said declaring the initiative invalid before voters had a say would invite a lawsuit.
“This is a fundamental piece of democracy,” said Kai Huschke, project director of Envision Spokane. “Blocking this would not be a wise move.”
Others said the measure would almost certainly be challenged if it passed. They argued that some of the rules conflict with numerous state and federal laws.
About 50 people protested outside City Hall before the debate. They held signs such as “Envision Spokane, Envision Spokane bankrupt.”
Inside Council Chambers, protesters said the council should reject the initiative because of legal problems.
They also said the proposed rules would prompt businesses to flee the city under the possible regulations. Supporters quoted Thomas Jefferson. Opponents quoted former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and brought Adolf Hitler into the debate.
“Make the hard decisions you were elected to make. Don’t make the equivalent decision of negotiating with Hitler,” said Spokane Valley resident Grant Rodkey.
Former county Commissioner Kate McCaslin sharply criticized the proposal and joked it “ought to be called the Lawyers Full and Permanent Employment Act.”
But she said once the voters are fully educated on the plan, “I’m confident that our fellow citizens” would reject it.
Councilman Mike Allen agreed. “I’m pretty confident I know what that decision will be. I do not support it, but I support the initiative process.”
Former City Councilman Steve Eugster, who is running for City Council against Allen, testified that the proposal should be ruled invalid because it violates rules prohibiting initiatives and ordinances that tackle more than one topic at a time.
Some who testified likened members of Envision Spokane to “carpetbaggers,” pointing to its connection to the Pennsylvania-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.
Envision Spokane has been advised by Thomas Linzey, an attorney for the defense fund. Linzey was in the audience Monday, but declined to comment. Huschke said Linzey has lived in Spokane for over a year and plans to move to Spokane permanently.
Huschke said that the entire Envision Spokane board lives in Spokane and that the direction of the initiative was pushed by residents.
Council members said they had been advised that courts would be unlikely to rule if the initiative includes more than one topic until after the election.
Breean Beggs, executive director of the Center for Justice, said the proposed rights fit under one topic. “I see this as these are the components of a healthy, sustainable Spokane.”
Snow rules will be considered 
EWU Text-to-Win Contest 
WSU Text-to-Win Contest 
Enter to win tickets to see Adam Carolla at the Knitting Factory 
ChefGus/ John Olsen on July 14 at 5:01 a.m.
Complex and controversial…. but it is a fine good thing that the Council moved to allow the initiative to go to ballot… there is plenty of time ( and money) to be spent vetting the various parts of the proposal.. and the fact that there are so many complex parts of the initiative argues that the average voter will merely throw up their hands and vote no…
Stopping the “process” which is clearly what Council members McLaughlin and French were wanting to do does not engender confidence in our process, as it usurps the rights of the people to bring issues forward… it is NOT their place to roadblock anything like this no matter how Nefarious the unkown motives might be of the backers of the initiative.
Thanks for the instructive article Jon…. John Olsen
liarsinnews on July 14 at 8:25 a.m.
How dare Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. French open their mouths, with what they think is profound and then object to it. If the ballot is as bad as the protesters say, the voters will make the final decision and defeat it.
Bob_Knows on July 14 at 8:25 a.m.
We the people have to live with armed assassins roaming our streets, robing, killing and terrorizing the public. This proposal may not be the best one, but SOMETHING has to be done to control the evil corruption in Spokane City Hall. Our city government has proven itself to be the enemy of the people, and has to hire gangs of gun thugs to use more and more brutal tactics to keep the people under its control. Something has to be done. Let the people revolt against the downtown evil.
Dazzeetrader1980 on July 14 at 11:48 a.m.
The issue was NOT blocking the Initiative. Never was. The real problem isn’t with the members of the Council either. The problem was with combining multiple initiatives into one big initiative. This is illegal according to the City charter. Envision knows this……and if anyone outside of Mr Eugster could have understood this, Envision’s initiative would be dead for now.
To put this on the ballot isn’t right. What’s wrong is that the Council didn’t follow the law as it’s presently written. It’s not a small item or an annoyance when the Charter/law is violated.
Al French and Nancy McGlaughlin were quite practical when asking for a legal decision prior to moving forward. The far left has no problems violoating the law when it favors their cause.
There will be lawsuits. I’d rather be sued for supporting the Charter/law than allowing both to be violated.
MichaelCathcart on July 14 at 1:16 p.m.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Michael Cathcart
Phone: – – –-
Email: M_Cathcart@walkingrailroad.com
or
Contact: Michael Fagan
Phone: – – –-
Email: 1dilligas@gmail.com
“STOP ENVISION SPOKANE” GRASSROOTS RALLY DRAWS ONE-HUNDRED ATTENDEES
Spokane, WA, July 14, 2009 – “In the cold and rainy weather, one-hundred strong grassroots opponents to “Envision Spokane” came out to protest the legality of the ballot measure. Many of the arguments to City Council were concerning the blatant violation of the City and State’s ‘single subject rule.’ In addition, there was significant outcry over the Pennsylvania origins of the Envision Spokane organization.
Unfortunately, only Nancy McLaughlin and Al French had the Political Courage to stand up for the Rule of Law, and oppose sending the measure unchallenged on to the County Auditor.
Spokane Citizens are starting to wake up and this appears to be only the beginning.
- END -
MrNatural on July 14 at 2:01 p.m.
From what I can glean from reports this proposal, though socialistically optimistic and utopian seems a bit impractical in today’s socio-economic political climate. What I find interesting is the activists seem to believe that the “haves” must be responsible to care for the “have not’s”.
I wonder what sacrifices Envision Spokane members (besides Jim Sheehan) have made and what support they have given to existing charities such as Volunteers of America, The United Way, Elderly Services, Habitat for Humanity and the bevy of local nonprofit organizations locally?…did they step up to fund Shriner’s hospital? Or support physician groups who donate time and costs to the poor for medical care?…Often I am amazed and wonder at the collective consciousness of groups such as Envision Spokane who feel that they have philosophical superiority through some myopic rationale and become so convinced as to freely impose their philosophy on the backs of others without regard.
Yes I think Envision Spokane does illustrate the weaknesses that plague all communities but they have done a poor job of bringing the majority of people together and incite polarity at a time when Spokane can least afford it.
The_Spovangelist on July 14 at 2:06 p.m.
It is false to say that the amendments of the Community Bill of Rights would be “added to the duties of Spokane city government.” Read the 9th amendment (the enforcement provision) which specifically says the City MAY enforce the enumerated rights, not that it SHALL enforce them.
THIS IS A CRITICAL FACT THAT OPPONENTS ARE TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE MISUNDERSTAND.
Apparently Jonathan Brunt doesn’t have any qualms about mischaracterizing this aspect of the initiative either. Shouldn’t it be the job of local journalism to help voters objectively understand the nature of proposals set before them?
I agree that it is unlikely that this measure will be accepted by voters. In the mean time we should all strive for the highest caliber of dialogue possible. That means taking a deep breath and being responsible with our words. Mentioning outrageous analogies to Hitler may spice up someone’s story or heated rhetoric, but it is also a waste of our scarce civic time.
It is also misleading to say that the initiative “would require the city to create an “affordable fee-for-service” preventive health care system.” All the affordable preventive healthcare amendment requires is that the City ATTEMPT to create such a system by convening partners within 18 months - not that an attempt has to succeed or meet other standards.
In my mind this it the LEAST we can ask of our local stakeholders. It is all about ensuring people have incentives for taking personal responsibility over managing their health. Right now we have a bankrupt system that bails people out for ignoring (or not being able to afford screening/prevention) for early warning signs. It is long since time we turned this scenario on its head and stop waiting for the feds to take leadership on fixing the sinking ship.
bartm on July 14 at 9:07 p.m.
Thanks for setting the record straight Spovangelist. I feel it a great disservice to the people of Spokane to be misinformed on this critical opportunity. I say bravo to government for the people!
Ron_the_Cop on July 14 at 10:21 p.m.
OK here’s my two cents worth:-) I agree with Mr. Cathcart. I sent this email to the Council before the meeting:
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.
George_Sands on July 15 at 2:20 a.m.
While there is a “bill of rights” it also should include a “bill of responsibilities” such as not entangling our goverment with phony Utopian initiatives. A vision is one thing, reality is another and it appears the Envision Spokane loons does not operate in the latter.
Part of the failure of our initiative process is putting the burden on government to pay for the cost of the election process for initiatives. If you put your name on an initiative, they you should shoulder the burden for placing the initiative on the ballot.
As a kid I used to look wide eyed every Christmas at the catalogs that came out chock full of toys. My sister and I would go, “I want that, I want this”. Well we never got our wants because our parents couldnt afford it. The same is as the ES wants. Whose going to pay for it?
jonathanb on July 15 at 5:29 p.m.
There are certainly nuances within the rights, but I believe my story accurately reflected the provisions. A handout about the rights that was provided by Envision Spokane says: “the city would be tasked with working with area healthcare providers to create a program that would provide affordable fee-for-service preventative healthcare to all residents of the city.”
As for enforcement, the Envision Spokane handout says: “Any person, neighborhood, or neighborhood council whose rights have been violated could file a lawsuit to enforce their rights, or the City of Spokane, or any person seeking to enforce the rights of ecosystems.”