We Can Avoid The Naysayers’ Many Potholes

The dictionary defines a naysayer as somebody who opposes, refuses or denies as a matter of habit. In Spokane, naysayers might also be defined as big trouble.

Their unchanging habit of voting no on everything local government or civic leaders put forward to cope with our region’s challenges has raised the very real possibility that Spokane is on the verge of taking great leaps backward.

Naysayers appear to represent something between 20 percent and 30 percent of the Spokane people registered to vote. They shouldn’t rule. Often, they do.

When they succeed in fuzzing up an issue with unfounded fears or sloppy rhetoric, or when they go to the polls in an election with a light turnout, they can - and do - prevail.

They twice voted no on the Arena, no on the science center, no on a gas tax for street repairs.

They voted no on city-county consolidation, no on computers for the schools, no on a funding plan for low-income housing.

On Tuesday, they likely will be voting no on the much-needed bonds to repair 50 miles of bumpy, potholed streets in Spokane.

And, some will get carried away with the power of no and cast a vote of no-confidence in city government by voting, ironically, yes for a costly, bureaucratic plan to impose a strong mayor form of government on City Hall.

Everyone has a right to an opinion.

Everyone has a choice to vote yea or nay on every ballot.

This is the wonder and power of democracy.

But here is the problem. Naysayers have become the very thing that they often decry: an elite so convinced it is right that it has stopped listening to anybody else.

A classic example of naysayer logic can be found in their discussion of the Spokane street bond vote.

Naysayers claim the $37.3 million bonds are too expensive.

In fact, a vote against the street bonds Tuesday assures that fixing the streets will cost much, much more in the future.

The math is simple. Five years ago, 57 percent of the city’s arterials were in good repair. Today, only 31 percent are in good repair.

If another five years goes by without needed preventive maintenance, the cost per mile of resurfacing and rehabilitating the streets will likely double.

This point is lost in a blizzard of obfuscation about the need for City Hall to tighten its budget.

Fact is, city government already is tight in Spokane. The city spends 31 percent less per capita on city services than any of the four other largest cities in the state.

And do naysayers never drive city streets? Do they not see the ruts and ruination of a decade of bad winters? If they do drive, might they suggest where to find the money to fix the woefully rutted, pitted arterials?

They like to point fingers, yet rarely have an idea on how to accomplish much, except to suggest if they were in office things would be better.

Spokane has tried that with Chris Anderson.

The current city councilman, who has missed 13 straight council meetings while working on a movie, in L.A.. campaigned and was elected as a naysayer - promising to get things shaped up in City Hall, cut the waste, spend the money more wisely.

To date, Anderson has alienated everyone on the council and collected $1,500 a month for the three months so far that he has missed City Council meetings.

And how did Chris Anderson get into politics?

He was the first campaign manager for John Talbott, leader of the naysayers on the city street bonds.

Talbott’s last money-saving idea, to roll back salaries of city employees to 1990 levels, also had exactly the opposite effect.

Once Talbott’s initiative began to be distributed, nearly every city employee frantically joined a union. Today, only 20 city employees out of 2,000 aren’t in a union, thereby raising the cost of local government.

A version of naysayer logic now appears to be at work among some supporters of the strong mayor initiative that will be decided on Tuesday.

Strong mayor sounds good. Get a grip on government. Cut the waste, all that stuff.

Except strong mayor likely will have the opposite effect. Under this concept, the mayor’s salary would jump from $30,000 to $80,000. The mayor would hire an $80,000-a-year city administrator.

Each council member would be paid $30,000, up from $18,000. Since the mayor wouldn’t be working at the direction of the council - in fact wouldn’t even be going to council meetings - both sides would likely hire staff to gather data and draft competing legislative proposals.

The strong mayor proposal creates more government, raises political salaries and introduces an even more confrontational environment at City Hall.

Interestingly, Spokane has a strong mayor right now in Jack Geraghty. Quietly, without grandstanding, the mayor has forged an excellent working relationship with the City Council (Chris Anderson excepted).

He is working to strengthen ties with the neighborhoods and is focused on reforming Civil Service, which could genuinely improve the efficiency of local government in a way the strong mayor plan would not.

There is only one way to counter the naysayers.

Go the polls. Vote yes for streets, no for the strong mayor boondoggle.

, DataTimes MEMO: Chris Peck is the Editor of The Spokesman-Review.