July 15, 2009 in Opinion

Editorial: Council leaves voters to envision viable future

• Print
• Email
• Share

The hostility on display at and surrounding Monday night’s meeting of the Spokane City Council provided a hint of what the community is in for between now and the Nov. 3 general election.

A brawl, politically speaking.

Before the meeting was over, the council did the right thing, sending Envision Spokane’s proposed “community bill of rights” to the Spokane County auditor’s office to determine whether the measure has the valid signatures it needs to go on the ballot. The odds are good; supporters turned in more than 5,000 signatures, and they need only 2,795.

Given the ample numbers, the council could have bypassed the signature-checking step and sent the proposal straight to the ballot. On the other hand, it also could have ruled the plan invalid based on structural shortcomings, notably the variety of activities it includes – health care, employment, land use, housing, energy, lending and the environment.

Instead, the council took the middle road, making the supporters defend their signature-gathering but leaving it to voters to carefully consider the measure and render a decision this fall.

Judging by passions expressed from the public lectern Monday, the debate will be vigorous. Opponents are convinced passage of the initiative would send businesses fleeing and smother the city in litigation. Advocates say it will establish social and economic justice and environmental responsibility now lacking in the community.

Those claims will get an airing and a public examination that wouldn’t have happened to the same extent if the council had waylaid the measure on technical grounds.

From what we’ve seen, the “community bill of rights” is full of dreamy aspirations, and it heaps their achievement on the shoulders of city government and the taxpayers. Backers of the plan will have to demonstrate otherwise or at least convince the voters that it’s a reasonable price to pay.

It will be voters’ duty to listen, to learn and to choose the city’s future wisely.

Four comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  ChefGus/ John Olsen on July 15 at 6:40 a.m.

  A wise good thing that the Five yes votes on Council moved to let the voters decide this issue. I do not understand the roadblock to the clear clean process that was obvious with the No votes of Councilwoman McLaughlin and departing council member French… Seems to go against their Oath of Office… john

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on July 15 at 8:34 a.m.

  Actually not a bad editorial for once. I am not a big fan of Spokane politics and government as in my opinion they are very dysfunctional. If this causes citizens of Spokane to wake up to this fact and actually debate on how to fix it, this would be a good thing. It’s a case of a problem looking for a solution - to restore a responsive government to WE THE PEOPLE whom WE THE PEOPLE empower it to govern.

  On the other hand this initiative is way outside the one subject rule of citizen initiatives and is illegal on its face. It would have saved money in the long run to not put it on the ballot and forced the proponents into court for a legal ruling and or rewrite it so it conforms with existing state law re citizen initiatives. No matter how people may view Steve Eugster he made a brillant presentation that Mr. Shogan attempted to gavel down. See my thoughts I posted in another thread.

  http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol/2009/jul/13/crowd-gathering-outside-city-hall/#c51635

  As to the arrogance of our government, Council President Joe Shogan sometimes forgets who he actually works for. See my personal experience at:

  http://friendsofmarkfuhrman.org/blog/?p=116

  As to my belief that Spokane’s political/governmental structures are dysfunctional, you can read more here:

  http://friendsofmarkfuhrman.org/blog/?p=138

• 

  stroupe55 on July 15 at 12:10 p.m.

  I agree with Chiefgus and Ron the Cop. The 5-2 vote is telling. Councilwoman McLaughlin and Councilman French are businesspeople first and it seems to be the only criteria they use when making any decision. And President Shogan has been badmouthing Mr Eugster and most of the regulars at the counsel meetings for as long as he’s been running the show. I don’t know if there are term limits, but I hope we don’t have to put up with President Shogan for much longer. As for the “Bill of Rights,” I’m glad it’s coming to a vote. I’m sure there will be a lot of discussion on this and the citizens will determine the outcome, not just republicans.

• 

  George_Sands on July 15 at 3:38 p.m.

  Gus, the council members have sworn to uphold the laws and that includes the single subject initiative item and to be good stewards for the voters. On the other hand they also swore to the initiative process. Obviously a conundrum. Some chose one side of the Devil and others chose the other side.

  I imagine its always tough as an elected official to decide upon “whats right” and “what the people want” especially when the two dont intersect. On onside your considered a tyrant and on the other side your considered a fool. Depends on what you can sleep with at night and your desire for a legacy.

  echo stroupe55 on Shogan’s lack of anger management and PUBLIC abusive behavior. The council should have had a blanket party on him a long time ago or a spanking behind the curtain. One of Spokane’s “embarrasments”.