Spokane7
26°
September 30, 2009 in City
Facing a wave of opposition
Other city issues eclipsed by focus on Proposition 4
Tyler Brown walks from home to home Monday in northwest Spokane handing out materials in support of ballot measure Proposition 4.
(Full-size photo)
One of the dominating issues in City Council races this year is one on which every candidate agrees.
All six hopefuls for three City Council seats say they oppose the “Community Bill of Rights,” the initiative on the November ballot proposed by Envision Spokane. Even so, at least in some forums, the issue has become: Who opposes it the most?
“We haven’t been able to spend as much time talking about other issues,” said Amber Waldref, who is running against Mike Fagan for a seat representing northeast Spokane. “It has distracted from some of the serious budget issues we’re facing for the city.”
Waldref said the bill of rights is a legitimate issue, given its potential financial implications. But she said that other topics are more pressing, considering the solid opposition among the candidates.
“What I’m concerned about is that the discussion over Prop. 4 is maybe overshadowing some of the danger that 1033 offers to our government,” said Jon Snyder, a candidate for a south Spokane council seat. Initiative 1033 would restrict local governments’ ability to raise taxes and fees.
Other issues relegated to the back seat include those related to the fatal confrontation between police and unarmed janitor Otto Zehm, including a federal investigation into the possible obstruction of justice, and the future of Spokane’s trash system – an issue that likely will gain prominence in the next four years as several contracts expire related to the city’s Waste-to-Energy Plant.
Councilman Mike Allen, who will face Snyder in the November election, said it’s clear why Envision Spokane’s measure is prominent in campaign discussion, even if all the candidates say they oppose it.
“Proposition 4 is particular to Spokane and, if passed, could really do a lot of damage to our business community and our citizens,” said Allen.
Earlier this year Envision Spokane gathered enough signatures to place its bill of rights on the November ballot. The proposal would create nine rights to residents, including affordable preventive health care, affordable housing and renewable energy.
Envision supporters say the rights would give power to citizens and neighborhoods often ignored by business interests and elected leaders. Opponents say they would create a financial burden on city government.
Though all the candidates are on record in opposition to the proposal, some have suggested ties between other candidates and Envision.
The July newsletter for the Spokane Home Builders Association labeled Snyder “the Envision Spokane” candidate, though he stated his opposition to the proposal well before the City Council placed the measure on the ballot. The association has endorsed Allen.
A news release sent out over the summer by Tim Eyman, who with Fagan has led numerous efforts in support of state initiatives restricting tax increases, including I-1033, referred to Waldref as an “Envision Spokane-supporter” though her Web site already was expressing her opposition.
Councilwoman Nancy McLaughlin, who faces Karen Kearney in her bid for re-election, said the issue lost prominence once all the candidates came out in opposition.
“There’s no debate in my mind,” she said.
Still, last week, the issue was at the forefront in McLaughlin’s race. At a forum held by opponents of Envision Spokane, City Councilman Steve Corker told the audience that Kearney was the only candidate citywide who was declining to take a stand on the issue publicly.
Earlier in the day, however, Kearney spoke strongly against Envision during an interview also attended by McLaughlin at Spokesman-Review offices. McLaughlin was at the forum with Corker but did not correct him.
Kearney said she’s always been upfront and open about her opposition to Envision’s proposal, and she called Corker “a liar.” In an interview this week, Corker said he honestly thought Kearney hadn’t taken a stand and apologized to her when she phoned to question him about his statement.
Snyder said he’ll avoid a debate about who’s the most opposed to Envision Spokane.
“There’s a discussion that has to continue to happen about what’s the best way to develop our city,” Snyder said. “I’m happy to be someone who can talk to both sides of that debate.”
Corker said he doubts the loud debate about Envision will affect voting in the City Council races.
“I haven’t had a single person come up to me and say I’m voting for Nancy or I’m voting for Karen based on the issue,” he said.
Trio charged in Bonner County homicide 
EWU Text-to-Win Contest 
Enter to win tickets to see Adam Carolla at the Knitting Factory 
WSU Text-to-Win Contest 
Lulubelle on September 30 at 8:40 a.m.
The reason Prop 4 is still being discussed is because builders, developers & realtors WANT it kept on the front burner for their own purposes and are using candidates Allen & Fagan to promote their need to remain in total control of development in Spokane.
Additionally, they are using Prop 4 as a wedge issue to advantage Michael Allen in the council race. As evidenced in the ongoing Southgate development plan, Mr. Allen is a willing toady of the big money boys with little concern for neighborhood impacts of “big-box” development. (Check his PDC report to see where his campaign money comes from if you need proof)
Initiative I-1033 pimp, Mike Fagan, must just need a job that comes with a regular paycheck and health insurance….qualifications and concern for City operations be damned. Plus, if you want a lot of Tim Eyman west-side influence on Spokane City Council, Fagan’s your guy.
Whatever side of the fence one falls on the Prop 4 issue, the tactics of those for and against are telling. People and organizations engaging in bullying, insinuation, and in some cases outright lying should be judged by their actions.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on September 30 at 9:08 a.m.
Republican candidates are NOT telling the truth…and inference or statements that people are FOR something they have come out publicly AGAINST are typical of the lying stances they take… john
CalJones on September 30 at 9:51 a.m.
This year we have non-partisan elections, so the only Republican Candidates are the ones in your head, (except in the 9th Legislative District). Besides Gus, why would any politician say the people are “for” something and then come out publicly “against” it. That is just silly.
Lulubelle on September 30 at 10:31 a.m.
Walks like a duck….quacks like a duck……..misrepresents like a Republican.
Why would the Spokane Home Builders call Jon Snyder the “Envision Candidate” AFTER he specifically denied support of the initiative?
Why would Mike Fagan’s mouthpiece Tim Eyman call Amber Waldref a “wacko Seattle greenie” when she was born and raised in District 1… and her family is still there?
Why??……….because they LIE and DISTORT the truth to advantage their self-serving agendas.
Open and candid representatives can be “against” a particular initiative and still support honest debate on the FACTS…not scare tactics…. and favor allowing citizens to have a say in their government with their vote.
SteveZemke on September 30 at 3:55 p.m.
Before anyone thinks I-1033 is going to just help citizens pay property taxes, there are several catches in Eyman’s I-1033 they should know about.
If you don’t own property, you’re not going to see any rebate on your taxes. You’ll still pay sales taxes and other fees. If you rent or are a senior citizen on fixed income or a working family and don’t own property you lose twice. No rebate and no new or restored public services.
Also another thing Eyman won’t tell you is that your amount of rebate is not proportional to the sales taxes and other fees you pay but to the amount of property you own. Last year some 57% of state revenue was from sales taxes. Only about 12 % came from property taxes.
And did you know that some 40% of the property tax rebates will go to commercial property, companies like Boeing and Weyerhaeuser, even though they already get a sales tax exemption for materials and goods they resell. The consumer is the one that pays sales taxes and you’ll still pay the same sales taxes after I-1033 passes.
I-1033 is more complex than Eyman says. Vote No I-1033!
ideasman on September 30 at 9:04 p.m.
I think people have called Jon Snyder the “Envision Spokane Candidate” because if you look at his PDC, 25% of those who gave money to Envision Spokane also gave money to Jon Snyder. Say all that you want, but that tells me what Jon really wants to do on the City Council.
CalJones on October 01 at 5:59 p.m.
Some folks may not know, but Mariah McKay a member of the Envision’eers Board of Directors was going to run for City Council against Mike Allen, however she decided not to do so after Jon Snyder put his hat in the ring. It’s good to know that his ideals are so close to hers. Jon and Amber are both Envision candidates, just because you oppose Envision Spokane’s Prop4, doesn’t mean you oppose Envision Spokane. Both have implied that they would seek to implement the “ideals” of Envision Spokane through Ordinance rather than charter amendment.
It’s scary to think, that if both Jon and Amber win - combined with Richard Rush, Envision Spokane will have a 3 man caucus on the council. All they will have to do is get Shogan, Apple, or Corker to cross over once in a while and they will get whatever they want through the council. The easiest of the 3 is Shogan, he is a lefty who likes to pretend he’s a moderate, but if it leans his direction and their are 3 votes he will likely be the swing.
We cannot allow Jon and Amber to both win, right now the council has almost a complete compliment of different ideologies that all work together from left to right, this would be a dramatic shift in the wrong direction.
Lulubelle on October 02 at 9:01 a.m.
Cal & Ideas - typical conservative “if I say its so, it is…….facts be damned” caca. Both Jon Snyder and Amber Waldref have repeatedly stated that they do not support Prop 4, and have given their reasons why. You should have attended the GSI forum yesterday……Prop 4 was specifically addressed once again.
Ideas - I’m assuming you polled all 198 contributors to the Snyder campaign to come up with your 25% Prop 4 in favor rate…..or did you just pull that out of your posterior too?
Gee, I didn’t get a call, but in case you just haven’t finished your poll…..count Lulubelle as a “no” vote. While not in favor of a charter change, I do favor honest debate on FACTS not the lies and innuendo thrown out by SOS and Spokanejobs2009.
And I do favor allowing voters to have their say.
Rethinking my “no” vote……I may just have to pencil in the “yes” oval as a protest vote to the strong-armed tactics of the opposition…..just tired of being pushed around and bullied I guess.
Envision Spokane is just another wedge issue being used by our monied developers and building industry friends to maintain the status quo stranglehold on decisions regarding the direction our City will take in the future. It’s time citizens and neighborhoods had equal say in the decisions impacting the way we live. We are looking forward to more equitable representation on City Council with the elections of Amber Waldref and Jon Snyder.
CalJones on October 02 at 8:46 p.m.
Why don’t we let property owners determine the future of their property? It’s a thing called….Property Rights. The only role the government should have is to protect my private property and my neighbors private property. If what I do to my property harms my neighbor’s property (his life being his property as well,) in anyway or devalues his property in anyway, then the government has a right to play mediator. But the government should have no right to place pre-emptive regulations on my property.
ideasman on October 03 at 11:39 p.m.
It is a simple fact, not from my posterior, that if you look at the PDCs of Jon and Envision Spokane, you will see that 25% of the names that you see on the Envision Spokane list, you also see on Jon’s list. You can agree that money speaks.
Speaking of money, does anyone know how much Prop 4 will cost you and me and the city? I still cannot find it…
CalJones on October 04 at 9:07 a.m.
Ideas -
GSI did a report on the health portion - 17-171 million dolllars depending on how much the city has to subsidize to make it “affordable.”
Just consider that Amendment 5 will end all construction in the city of Spokane, Amendment 9 will strip all rights from businesses, so immediately we’ll see fewer (if any) folks moving into the city. Followed by a mass exit of businesses, followed by massive unemployment, which leads to a mass exit of residents, which would be followed by all of the incoming freeloaders to come enjoy the guarantees off affordable housing, healthcare, and energy.
So if the only folks living in Spokane are the holdouts and freeloaders, the “local economy” will suffer. Sales tax revenue will drop dramatically and remember Amendment #1 requires that all lending institutions only lend within the city, and provide all residents with equal access to credit. So these freeloaders get loans they cant pay back (wait, isn’t that kinda like the problem we are in now).
So with the mass exits we have less sales tax, less property tax, but more people to take care of. Which means that the city will literally go bankrupt as those holdouts will finally leave, and the freeloaders are not going to contribute anything to the city coffers.
This wont just cost the city, it will cost everyone who calls Spokane home!
That’s my take, from the reading I’ve done.