Shawn Vestal: Voters capable of weighing merits of pesky bill of rights

If I suggested that no one could succeed in business in Spokane without polluting the river and trampling on workers’ rights, I’d be called an ignorant Bolshevik.

So, of course, I’d never do such a thing. But that’s sort of what the business “community” did Monday night, as one organization after another lined up to tell the City Council that they were very concerned that the Community Bill of Rights would drive away business and cost Spokane dearly.

One of their main concerns is the mountainous legal costs the city would entail defending it if it passes.

Defending it from the very concerned business community, that is.

The Community Bill of Rights is the longest of long shots, a well-intentioned but almost certainly doomed initiative proposal. It would give neighborhoods more say-so over development, guarantee individuals’ constitutional rights over those of corporations, and assert inalienable rights for a clean Spokane River. Listening to the parade of flacks and mouthpieces at Monday’s meeting was enough to make me hope it succeeds, just to see what happens when their bluff is called.

The council was considering whether to add a “ballot advisory” in which voters would have been asked to choose which they preferred if the Bill of Rights passed: raising taxes or cutting services.

In other words, citizens gathered petitions to put an issue on the ballot, and the big money wanted to queer the thing by giving voters a Sophie’s Choice. This strategy originated with Al French when Envision Spokane tried to pass a broader, somewhat far-fetched Bill of Rights in 2009, which was drubbed at the ballot box.

Nancy McLaughlin brought it back this time, saying people needed to understand that this bill will cost money. How much money? In what particular ways? It could be trillions, based on the testimony Monday night. Several people said that the proposed ballot advisory measure – cut services or raise taxes? – was providing “context,” “facts,” “accurate information,” “full disclosure.”

Fortunately a majority of the council chose to leave the matter to the voters. Council President Joe Shogan said it last and said it best, “If this council starts taking sides on initiatives, we’re in for a peck of trouble. … If voters can’t figure these four elements out, we’re in trouble.”

But can they? Without the guidance of business people to light the way? McLaughlin and critics of the bill seem to think voters are children – or at least certain voters. McLaughlin said these voters will believe there are no costs whatsoever associated with the bill of rights. Business folks decried the lack of an independent source of information, like the state’s voters pamphlet, with pro and con arguments.

Because without that, whoever will make the con arguments?

Andrew Rolwes of the Downtown Spokane Partnership told the council the measure would cost the city money, drive business out of town and lead to legal challenges. One after another, representatives of various groups echoed him: It will cost money, drive away business, lead to legal challenges. Cost money, drive away business, lead to legal challenges. Cost money, drive away business, lead to legal challenges. …

Former County Commissioner Kate McCaslin gave a slick, clever presentation comparing the bill of rights to a slick, clever car salesman trying to sneak a lemon past the voters. Ann Martin sang a song calling the measure crazy, the “end of us,” and – interestingly for someone singing a song to the City Council – silly.

Joel White, of the Spokane Home Builders Association, put it most directly: The initiative process in Spokane is flawed, and has somehow allowed a small group of people to put something his organization does not support on the ballot. It would cost money, drive away business, lead to legal challenges.

How does he know that? “Our association will be filing a lawsuit opposing this measure,” he said.

Impressive. Raising concerns over litigation threats while threatening the very litigation he’s raising concerns about.

I’m not sure what all these concerned citizens are so concerned about. Envision Spokane’s vision for the city is a progressive dream in a town that won’t fluoridate the water. Are a majority of us going to come out and vote to declare water has rights? We’re a different kind of crazy here.

Because it would be crazy, wouldn’t it? To allow regular, everyday, non-business- organization-member citizens the right to sue to protect drinking water? To give rights to a river? That would be like giving other nonhuman entities rights. Like corporations.

I’m not exactly sold on the Bill of Rights, though I find its aims unterrifying and the hysterical opposition suspicious. Because, usually, when every suit-and-tie in town lines up on one side of something, I’m over there on the other one. But it’s not up to me, and it’s not up to the Greater Spokane Home Builders Coalition of Business Associations, and it’s not up to the City Council.

It’s up to you.

Citizens gathered some 4,500 signatures and placed this on the ballot. You can make up your own minds without nudges and winks. There’s this thing called a “campaign” where people can argue it out.

And if the business community is concerned that not enough negative information about the proposal will get out, I suspect they’ll find a way to fix that.