Spokane7
62°
November 1, 2009 in City
Following trail of Prop 4 campaign spending turns up twist
Among the talking points hotly debated by both sides in the campaign over the city of Spokane’s Proposition 4 is whether the proposed changes are good or bad for local business.
The talking point on the “Yes” side says a requirement for local banks to reinvest local money in local business will pump more money into the Spokane economy and help mom-and-pop businesses struggling against the national chains and big-box stores. The talking point on the “No” side says that provision isn’t what local businesses need, and requirements for prevailing wages and apprenticeship programs will put locals at a disadvantage against competitors just across the city line.
Talk, as the saying goes, is cheap – although during a campaign, speech covers everything from folks bloviating at forums to literature in the mailbox, TV ads and radio spots. Campaign speech often comes with a payment-due notice from sign makers, print shops, commercial schedulers and consultants.
So the question is, when the campaigns pay for such speech, and anything else they need to convince you of the rightness or wrongness of Prop 4, who spends their money locally, and who spends it elsewhere?
There are three campaign committees in this little dust-up: one in favor, Envision Spokane, and two against, Save Our Spokane and Jobs and Opportunities Benefiting Spokane. A check of the most recent Public Disclosure Commission expenditure reports shows that at last count, one spent about 95 percent of its campaign money in Spokane; one spent 68 percent of its money locally; and one spent 15 percent.
Guess who spent what where?
Now, if one listened extensively to Greater Spokane Inc., an opponent of Prop 4 and the driving force behind those “BUY LOCAL” signs one sees in local business windows, one might guess that the JOBS committee, which has GSI backing, would be the one that spent all but a nickel of every campaign dollar in Spokane.
And one would be wrong. JOBS spent about two-thirds of the $137,000 it reported last month with local – which we shall define as somewhere in Spokane County to avoid being parochial – vendors and consultants. The four biggest checks they wrote, however, went to Moore Information in Portland for polling and Polis Political Services in Olympia for consulting services.
SOS, which has significant financial support from the National Association of Home Builders funneled through its local affiliate, is also reaching outside for about 80 cents on every dollar spent on the campaign through Oct. 17. Much of its printing is done in Monroe, Wash., and its mailing vendor is in Stanwood, Wash.
Envision Spokane, which is under fire from the local business establishment, is the one that is spending the vast majority of its money locally. Admittedly, it’s not all going to local businesses; some goes for wages to local campaign workers. But as economists are fond of telling us, each dollar paid out in wages turns over in the community several times.
The results are the most recent available on Friday, so some last-minute campaign spending may bring the local totals up for anti-Prop 4 forces, or drive it down for the pro-Prop’ers.
Few people cast their vote based on where the sign or mailer was printed, and the address of the messenger isn’t as important as the message. But so far there’s a big difference among the campaigns – all of whom say they know what’s best for local business – when it comes to matching the money with the rhetoric.
Spin Control is a weekly political column by veteran reporter Jim Camden. It also appears as a blog, with daily posts, videos and reader comments, at www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol.
Romney/Paul split weighing on county GOP 
Lulubelle on November 01 at 7:28 a.m.
Surprise Surprise. Does anyone, regardless of their stand on Prop 4, really think Spokane’s real estate & development tycoons have any interest the the well being of Spokane residents?
Support local business?…what a laugh………it’s buy political influence, throw up ticky-tacky housing developments and big-box commercial eyesores in somebody else’s neighborhood, then take the money and run.
CalJones on November 01 at 8:08 a.m.
Jim - I have never heard the runners of either the JOBS group or SOS group trying to “mandate” a “local economy.” In fact, I’ve only ever heard them talk about the market place which means you go where you can get the best deal. So I applaud them with being the best stewards of their money.
The investigation of Envision Spokane is still on going, we don’t how much they have actually raised or spent in Pennsylvania yet….
Let’s not forget about the tactics being employed by Envision Spokane (the supporters of Prop 4). They are trying to mandate a local economy through their proposition but then hypocritically purchasing their campaign signs from a Houston, TX vendor and all via an employee of an East Coast Organization called CELDF.org. To top it all off, they tried to cover it up, but were called on the mat by the PDC’s. (and have been under continuous investigation for several months.)
Unsurprisingly, the “yes” signs have begun (through out the past 2 weeks) appearing where the “No” signs once stood.
(mysteriously along with Snyder, Waldref, and No on 1033 signs….hmmmmmm………..) Seems like they are being placed by the same folks.
Proposition 4 is opposed by every member of the council from moderate conservative Nancy McLaughlin to moderate Liberals Steve Corker and Mike Allen to Far Left (bordering on socialist party) Richard Rush. Important to remember as you are filling out your ballots.
CalJones on November 01 at 8:34 a.m.
I’m just glad we have someone like Mike Fitzsimmons, and the folks calling in to alert us to these tidbits.
Dazzeetrader11 on November 01 at 9:12 p.m.
Lulu…you’re a Prop 4 booster? Odd how you lump the developers in the same basket. There are some who think the cooperation between a neighborhood or community is the big consideration prior to embarking on a project. Prop 4 and Envision’s leader Tom Linzey apparently don’t. Remember their big point about “neighborhood self determination”?
Two weeks ago, the West Central Neighborhood group voted 20-4 in favor of allowing a 10 story building next to the courthouse. Apparently they voted 30-0 in favor of the project 2 years ago but the project was stalled by one of the neighbors (Mr Chinn) who continues to contest the project. In the second vote, Mr Linzey was one og the four. When the votes were counted, apparently Envision’s leader did quite agree with the neighbohood’s vote as convincing as it was.
Mr. Linzey didn’t reverse his vote despite being there for the vote. SO much for “neighborhood self determination”. The developer had tried to build a daycare and a grocery store since these two items were requested by the neighborhood. The developer came through. Mr Linzey and EV were the hypocrites in this. This is recorded as part of Mr Chinn’s lawsuit and it’s part of the record as of October 27th, 2009. “What a laugh” you say?
Lulubelle on November 02 at 6:19 a.m.
Daisy - One question on the neighborhood “self-determination” vote…….
How many of the people in attendance and voting at that meeting were actual residents of the neighborhood and how many were absentee slumlords?
Dazzeetrader11 on November 02 at 10:30 a.m.
From what I can tell, voting is precluded unless the voter is an actual resident WITH a working address in the West Central boundaries. It’s the “sine qua non”……….ie..you don’t live there, you can’t vote. So the neighborhood DID exercise their “self determination”. It was the Envision Spokane component that tried to derail the neighborhood’s will.
It’s all on record at City Hall. As far as the “right to vote” goes, my girlfriend says the criterion for voting privleges is part of the West Central bylaws…..which are also public. It’s hard to think how Envision/Linzey’s hypocrisy could rise any higher.
Some of those nasty little secrets eventually do leak out.
And guess what!!!..if the neighborhood’s will is enforced, EV and Chinn will sue again to derail it. Nice group…they’re all for the neighborhood’s rule unless they’re against it…
Lulubelle on November 02 at 11:51 a.m.
On the voting requirements…..that’s not the info I was given, but since I can’t find the by-laws on line for myself, I hesitate to state it as fact. If neighborhood residents welcome the development….i say go for it. All development isn’t bad thats for sure. But if its detrimental to neighbors quality of life and benefits only developers and real estate salespeople who wash their hands of the “deal” once its done and they’ve made their buck…then the pros and cons need to be weighed. Anytime the Comp Plan, zoning and/or neighborhood planning is overridden in favor of developer interest, I am suspicious.
In keeping with an argument made by the anti-Prop 4 folks……
do you think 30 votes at a neighborhood council should automatically approve a development plan? If so, why such an uproar against the 15% against a development that would just bring the issue to the council?
Dazzeetrader11 on November 02 at 3:10 p.m.
No uproar. Bylaws are the rules. The 30 votes were 75% of the eligible voters. There always wis an issue of “quorum”. Quorums were present in each vote. Thus, every possible objection was managed. The Comp Plan is meant to be fluid and change according to the time and the needs of the community. Comp Plan is just guildlines not law or even hard and fast rules. Done years ago because of the Growth Management Act which mandated such a plan be written.
Back to the 15% level though. If anyone thinks this is anything BUT a way for a severe minority to dictate progress, well…..
Remember, this isn’t just some group who decides to stop in and vote. They voters must be appropriate to the bylaws. 15% ( EV’s level) means nothing…….it has no value…it’s just something Linzey made up so minority rule could take over….on the run. sorry for any typos.