Spokane7
48°
October 31, 2009 in City
State, local issues drive Tuesday’s vote
Washington voters who have yet to turn in their ballots – and based on the latest figures, that’s most of us – have some interesting choices to make between now and Tuesday.
The buildup to this off-year election is admittedly many decibel levels below last year’s presidential contest. The races, and many of the issues, are local. But voters across the state still must decide some complicated issues on government spending and domestic partnerships. Southeast Washington’s 9th Legislative District needs to fill an opening in the state House of Representatives. Cities and towns have council seats up for grabs, and some are electing mayors. School, fire and water districts are filling board positions.
And Spokane city voters are being asked to approve $33 million for fire equipment and determine whether their charter, the equivalent of a municipal constitution, needs a “Bill of Rights.” And if it does, how should the city pay for any changes that wind up costing money.
All but one of Washington’s counties votes by mail, so in one sense the election has been happening for more than two weeks. Campaign literature started filling mailboxes before that and yard signs went up months ago.
But many ballots still remain on desks or kitchen counters, under magazines or early holiday catalogs. The latest figures from Spokane County showed only about one voter in four had mailed in a ballot or dropped it off at a collection box. Secretary of State Sam Reed said recently only about half of the voters will cast a ballot – although he added he’d be happy to be proved wrong if that’s an underestimate.
Here’s a look at some of the highlights on ballots in the Spokane area:
Initiative 1033 would place restrictions on how much the state, counties and cities can spend from year to year, limiting any increases to a formula that takes the previous year and accounts for inflation and population growth. Perennial initiative sponsor Tim Eyman describes it as a way to rein in an ever-expanding government, and has picked up endorsements from conservatives and some business groups like the National Federation of Independent Business. Government officials, large companies that include Microsoft, Group Health and Avista, and state and national unions are involved in a full-court press to defeat it.
Referendum 71 gives voters a chance to decide whether the Legislature did the right thing by expanding domestic partnership rights with a bill that was called “everything but marriage.” The rights, which are being offered to same sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples over 62, cover such things as community property, visitation at hospitals, many estate and tax issues, and, for public employees, many workplace benefits. Opponents of the bill, who contend this is akin to same-sex marriage, gathered signatures on petitions to place it before voters. But to stop the law from taking effect, a voter marks “rejected”; those who support the rights would mark “approved.”
Spokane ballot measures include Proposition 1, which asks voters to approve some $33 million in bonds for new fire equipment and new stations. The 10-year bonds would replace bonds approved in 1999, and cost a homeowner an estimated $27 a year for each $100,000 of assessed valuation. That’s about $10 more per $100,000 of valuation than the expiring bonds. It needs a 60 percent super majority to pass.
Spokane Proposition 4 offers nine amendments to the City Charter, proposing rights for residents on everything from support of local businesses and prevailing wages on certain construction projects to affordable preventive health care, housing and energy. Neighborhoods would have greater say over developments and the environment would be granted rights and corporations would lose some. The rights come as a package, so it’s an up or down vote. Propositions 2 and 3 ask voters how the city should pay for Prop 4, should it pass.
The cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley have spirited council races. Spokane City has one seat on the ballot in each of its three council districts. Because of term limits, the seat in Northeast Spokane is open and matches Mike Fagan, a Hillyard neighborhood activist and Eyman associate, against Amber Waldref, a Logan neighborhood activist who works for the Lands Council. Councilman Mike Allen, a former Eastern Washington University administrator, faces Jon Snyder, the publisher of Out There Monthly, in the South Spokane district, and Councilwoman Nancy McLaughlin, a fiscal and social conservative, faces Karen Kearney, a former bank manager and campaign manager, in the Northwest District.
Spokane Valley voters elect their council citywide, and have five seats on the ballot. Incumbents Gary Schimmels and Tom Towey are unopposed, and one seat that came open after the filing deadline has four candidates: Ian Robertson, who was appointed to the spot, plus Dean Grafos, Ed Pace and Edward Foote. Rich Munson, retired stock broker and longtime Republican activist who has been on the council since incorporation and currently serves as mayor, faces a challenge from state Sen. Bob McCaslin, who was first elected to the Legislature in 1980. Councilwoman Diana Wilhite, a businesswoman and former mayor who is also one of the original council members, faces a challenge from Brenda Grassel, a businesswoman and former teacher.
In the state’s 9th Legislative District, Pat Hailey, of Mesa, a farmer and rancher, and the widow of Steve Hailey who died after being elected to the seat last year, faces Susan Fagan, of Pullman, a former director of public affairs for Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories and a former staffer for U.S. senators in Idaho. The winner represents the state’s second largest district for the year that’s left on the term, and would face re-election next year.
Romney/Paul split weighing on county GOP 
CalJones on October 31 at 10:27 p.m.
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.
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.
alexosurf on October 31 at 10:50 p.m.
Can You Behave Your Way into Minority Status?
Before anyone makes a decision about Referendum 71, that’s the question they need to answer. Before we make a judgment about equal rights, we first need to determine what the criteria is for obtaining the title of “minority.” Then, if genuine minority status has been authenticated, by all means, the parties who’ve been discriminated against should receive the exact same rights as everyone else.
But for hundreds years, most cultures have considered homosexual behavior to be just that—a behavior. Until recently, it’s never been considered something determined by genetics—like race, skin color, gender or a disability. It has always been considered a lifestyle choice—a desire to have romantic or sexual relations with someone of one’s own gender. So doesn’t it make sense that Washington voters take the opportunity to thoughtfully examine the evidence before making such a culture-shifting decision?
Here’s the first question: Is homosexual behavior the result of irresistible genetic make-up, or is it an individual choice? Surprisingly, I don’t recall the question ever being thoroughly debated. Yet I’m being asked by gays and their supporters to either presume the genetic evidence exists, or to just not care. I hate to assume the worst, but I get the impression that pro-homosexuals really don’t want the debate to occur. It seems like rather than being intellectually honest about the question, they choose to bully and label as homo-phobes anyone who even asks what I think is a very logical question. I may not be a doctor, or a licensed family counselor, but I so believe in common sense. So why am I labeled a homo-phobe just for wanting to ask a reasonable question?
Maybe gays are nervous because they know that the APA (American Psychological Association) recently stated, contrary to their original stance in 1998, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a…gay or lesbian orientation.” (APA Online, May 2009) Or maybe it’s because they just plain like their lifestyle, and aren’t really interested in the origins of their feelings and desires. That’s fine, but is that really a legitimate rationale for altering an entire culture’s paradigm and legal system in their behalf?
By the way, how do we know that men who choose to engage romantically with other men don’t do it simply because they find women to be too challenging? Or that some women don’t choose the companionship of another woman simply because they’ve been damaged by the irresponsible behavior of men?
I could be wrong about this. But even if there’s a chance that homosexual behavior is a choice, and not the result of natural biological processes, shouldn’t we take a little more time for the debate to unfold, and for the scientific evidence be revealed, and then add gays, lesbians, trans-genders and cross-dressers to the list of protected minorities? Otherwise we’re opening ourselves to the possibility that every conceivable behavior-related people group on earth deserves minority protection.
Actually, I think I’d like that. If I can behave my way into minority status, I know which people group I’d join – “Middle-aged men who still love surfing, chips and salsa, and sunsets.” Our motto would be, “We can’t help ourselves – we were born this way!”
So I guess I’m urging people to vote “Reject” on Ref. 71. I’m hoping people will be careful not to cave in to the fear of being called a “homophobe”, and will instead simply say, “Wait a minute. If there’s irrefutable evidence that homosexuals are indeed born that way, like African Americans or Hispanics, women or the disabled, then by all means, let’s give them equal rights!”
But until then, let’s be a little more thoughtful and finish the research.
Pastor Alex Ohlsen, Renton Christian Center
Lulubelle on November 01 at 7:57 a.m.
Hey Cal - maybe you ought to read today’s “Following trail of Prop 4 campaign spending turns up twist” before making uninformed statements about who is spending how much money where.
Looks like your SOS and SpokaneJobs 2009 boys take the prize for “non-local vs.support Spokane business” spending.
Lulubelle on November 01 at 12:44 p.m.
Pastor Ohlsen & fbhkymom -
Why can’t all human beings enjoy the same civil rights in this country. Not “special” rights, not more rights…….just the same.
R-71 doesn’t give anymore rights to domestic partners than are enjoyed by my spouse and me. And I can’t see for the life of me how rejecting R-71 is going to “defend” my marriage. I reject the idea that the success my marriage depends on the domestic partnership status of my neighbors.
Diana on November 01 at 1:24 p.m.
Paster Ohlsen, please tell us about what it was like when you made your choice to be heterosexual or homosexual.
southie4573 on November 01 at 1:43 p.m.
JESUS save me from your followers! I just voted for Ref 71! God bless the real chrsitians who will vote for equality.
SteveZemke on November 01 at 2:49 p.m.
Last year sales taxes accounted for 54% of state revenue for the general fund, B&O taxes 18%; property taxes were only 12%. So I-1033 taxes sales taxes and B%O taxes and would use them just to pay property taxes. The I-1033 tax rebate only goes to property owners. The rebate is not dependent on the taxes you pay but the property you own.
But not everyone owns property. Some 35% of households are renters according to the US Census Bureau. Renters will pay the same sales taxes and B&O taxes as before under I-1033 but will see no rebate.
Renters, both residential and businesses will see their tax dollars go to pay taxes for corporations, shopping malls, vacation homes, million dollar homes of others, but will see no rebate themselves of taxes they paid.
This is not fair; this is a transfer of wealth from struggling working families and small businesses to just those that own property. The more property you own, the more you benefit. This is a flawed initiative. Vote No on I-1033.