Disincorporation won’t improve control of our future
The Vocal Point of June 25 is a plea for the facts concerning incorporation or disincorporation of the city of Spokane Valley. But first, let me put to rest the issue of the close election. President Bush was elected without a majority of the popular vote, and Christine Gregoire was elected by 129 votes. I suspect that if disincorporation passes by only one vote, the proponents will accept it.
The reasons for incorporation are just as valid today as they were during the numerous failed attempts, and the one successful attempt. While county government provided acceptable services, the Valley citizens had no direct input on issues affecting only the Valley. County commissioners are elected countywide, and they have to provide countywide services without regard to where the money comes from.
Two county commissioners in the 1990s admitted that the county collected at least $10 million more annually from the Valley than the county spent in the Valley. The Valley was the cash cow for the county for many years. The $18 million surplus the county had before incorporation came mostly from the Valley. Without the Valley as its cash cow, where is the county’s surplus now? Our tax dollars were supporting a disproportionate share of the cost of county government, and we had no direct representation. The single commissioner from the Valley is only one of three that we vote for.
Before incorporation the Valley did not exist as an entity in any form. We were not recognized by the state, we were not recognized by the Legislature, we did not appear on any map, and we had no legal standing before any court. Even the incorporated cities in the county did not recognize us as an entity to be considered. In short, we did not exist until we incorporated. The Valley was simply a part of the unincorporated Spokane County. As a direct result of that nonrecognition, we had no representation on county boards; we had no representation on joint city-county boards. We had no say in the development of the rules and regulation required by the Growth Management Act.
We now have direct representation on all of the decision making boards by our council members who sit on those boards. The Valley was simply a non-entity, pumping out millions of dollars a year to the county for the county to spend as it saw fit.
A good example of this is the wastewater collection system in the Valley. It was all paid for by Valley residents, yet the county owns it lock, stock and barrel. It charges us what it wants, and we are required by law to pay it. Just recently, the county raised our monthly sewer charge by $2.68, and we had nothing to say about it.
According to the county, the residents of the Spokane Valley account for more than 73 percent of the wastewater handled by the county. Yet we have nothing to say about how it is managed. This would not be so if the Spokane Valley City Council would take over the wastewater system as offered by the county. The county not only offered the city the wastewater system, but also offered to give the city $35 million, which is 73 percent of the money they are holding in the reserves generated by the system.
Going back to the county is not going to improve control of the future for the residents of the city of Spokane Valley, but electing a new City Council in November will. In fact, there is nothing wrong with the new city that a new council cannot cure.