Carpetbaggers, No; Sport Complex,

Heads up, Spokane voters. Later this week, ballots for a vote-by-mail election will arrive in mailboxes all over the city. The election will decide two propositions:

One would create a recreational sports complex around Joe Albi stadium, without a tax increase. This deserves approval.

The other would destroy the cooperative, money-saving arrangement through which courts for the city and county of Spokane handle drunken driving, domestic violence, theft and traffic violations. The proposal is to create a separate municipal court. Concocted by a special-interest group, this ill-considered scheme is opposed by Spokane police, judges, attorneys and city administrators. Voters ought to reject it.

The parks proposition would expand Spokane’s bursting-at-the-seams facilities for recreational sports. Here’s how:

If voters agree, the city will sell the filled-in site of a former city sewage lagoon. This 30-acre chunk of commercial-grade land, located near Northpointe, is valued at roughly $3 million. The city would use proceeds from the sale to pay for two park projects.

First, the city would develop a neighborhood park for the Nevada-Lidgerwood area.

Second, the city would build a self-supporting recreational sports complex on unused portions of the Joe Albi Stadium grounds. Plans include five or six lighted softball fields, two soccer fields, a Rollerblade-hockey rink, a batting cage complex, two sand volleyball courts, two outdoor basketball courts and a skateboard area.

This new civic asset would relieve the shortage of sport fields and create an opportunity to host major softball tournaments. Vote yes!

Unfortunately, the municipal court proposal is a menace, not a blessing. It appears on the ballot for the worst of reasons.

The union that represents local court clerks has been bickering with local district court judges over civil service rules, the bargaining process and a grievance case. Annoyed with the judges’ stance in these matters, the union decided to propose a restructuring of the local court system. Its lawyer, William J. Powell of Spokane, wrote an initiative creating a separate municipal court, administered in accord with the union’s demands. The union spent $13,000 on paid signature gatherers and got the initiative onto this month’s ballot.

When The Spokesman-Review invited the union to justify its proposal, it could not supply the name of a single Spokane clerk, judge or attorney (other than Powell) who backs the plan. Two officials from union headquarters in Everett spoke with us by speakerphone. They claim their scheme would save money - by reducing the number of judges and cutting judges’ pay by 25 percent.

That’s malicious. It jeopardizes an important public service.

At the present time, the city’s municipal court shares facilities, support staff and judges with the county’s district court. City administrators say this saves money. City police say it protects public safety and prevents escapes, because there is a secure route from the jail to the courtrooms.

A separate court would require separate staff, separate judges and the construction or lease of separate buildings. Spokane judges and city administrators estimate the proposal actually would burden taxpayers with an additional $5 million in costs. The union’s analysis glosses over these costs.

In addition, Spokane police and judges say the proposal threatens the local domestic violence court, developed as part of the longstanding cooperation between the city and county.

Spokane needs more city-county cooperation, not less. If court reforms are needed, they should be proposed by a broadly inclusive local study process, not by a few special-interest carpetbaggers.