Archive for the ‘Editorial Opinion’ Category
The Spokesman-Review has made its endoresements for City Council for District 2, Position 2. They are Mike Allen and Steve Eugster (yours truly). Here is a part the editorial:
The race for Mike Allen’s seat on the Spokane City Council has attracted a crowd, but we think it boils down to two candidates who have the credentials and principles for the job.
One is Allen, who was appointed to a council vacancy in 2008 and didn’t plan to run for the office once the term was over. The other is former Councilman Steve Eugster, who declined to seek re-election in 2003 after a stormy four years. So, for both of them, this campaign signals a change of heart.
As I blogged before, I had a good interview with the Spokesman-Review. Go here.
What many candidates for Spokane City Council positions speak of during this campaign season is general, political, lofty, emotional, idyllic, impossible, incomprehensible. While we have a severe budget deficit looming on the horizon - one at least three times the size of the deficit this past fiscal year, candidates speak of farmers markets, bicycle paths, spending over $5 million to buy a 44 year old office and commercial building and to tear it down to make a small area of open space which is hardly necessary and so on. The building probably has an additional useful life of 100 years.
Some speak of being “collaborative.”
I grew up reading of the word collaborate or collaborative or collaborator in connection with minorities of people in France, Norway, Sweden, Russia who worked with their German occupiers in during World War II - cooperating with them, “collaborating” with them.
I suspect the candidate who thinks he is gaining political adherents by aligning himself with the word is using it in a difference sense, that is “working jointly,” being a participant in a group think process.
I do not like the term or the notion. It seems to me the right thing to do is to actively advance understanding of the ever forthcoming problems of a government, advance ideas for solutions of the problems, keep your own counsel, ensure that your points of view clear, supported by realities and reasoned, and actually be of independent assistance in arriving at solutions. I do not know how this work can be done by collaborating.
Where does independent, responsible thinking come into play when one is a collaborationist? It does not.
I wonder, are candidates who seek to be known as collaborators, leaders or followers?
Its candidate filing week for three City of Spokane council positions. One wonders what the general or broad issues will be. The specific issues will be avoided. Instead, the candidates will present a political gloss or persona which they hope will get them on the council. I would rather see discussion of the issues with the main issue being ”just what does a person think his/her city government should be responsible for? Of course my view that the city has the responsibility for a certain set of functions which serve the people in common — police, fire, roads, that sort of thing. These topics deserve the utmost consideration, especially in these time of rapidly dwindling public revenue. I do not think there is much place for the warm fuzzy stuff and debates about issues which are the current political fad.
On Monday evenings I watch the Spokane City Council meetings. They are televised on the local cable television access channel. The channel is a fruit of the franchise monopoly the city has given the cable company, Cox Communications.
Every meeting opens with a prayer, usually by a person who calls himself or herself a “Christian.” The person is representative of an institution of one kind or another.
Next the meeting is devoted to statements, presentations, accolades and proclamations. There is a unusualness about all this. There is a good deal of military tribute. A great deal of local puffing by the so-called “business community” such as the Chamber of Commerce and other economic development types, self-congratulation about how the city is devoted to neighborhoods, the people and the poor — a institutionally permitted counter to the self-congratulation of the business community, news about yet another great event, a run, a parade, a picnic in the park, a skating event coming up, . . . the minutes expand into an hour of this sort of thing.
Next, the council members give their reports of the week. With a great deal of good cheer and enthusiasm the members tell us what meetings each went to, what trips to Washington, D.C., Olympia, Seattle, which “sister city” was visited, and so on. One member uses his computer to provide a presentation of his activities and what neighborhood meetings are coming up.
After the council president finishes his report (why is it that he and the others give me the impression they are just like those dutiful children in 3rd grade making their reports to the class (the teacher) about what they did during the summer?
About an hour and a half into the meeting the council moves to the legislative part of their purpose for gathering. I had thought the legislative part was the real part. The president in no uncertain terms tells everyone he is going to impose the three-minute rule on all comment, except his and those of the council he decides to allow to speak longer. He is a military man and he is going to enforce order, you’d better believe it.
The council rushes through the items on the agenda. Not one item is advanced by a council member. It all comes from staff. Every now and then the mayor presents something of her own but it is usually something which is more political than vital or necessary. In fact, the only time the mayor becomes animated is when she is advancing a topic which fits within the current notion of what is thought to be “good.”
Usually, after 45 minutes the work is finished and it is time for the next stage, Public Comment.
Again the military man in the presidency of the the council tells everyone, a little more belligerently at this point, that he is going to enforce the three minute rule. A few citizens step forward, not many. And, then it is over.
The City of Spokane is safe again for a few days.
The man in the decidedly “unaf fordable housing” area of Spokane, the new Indian Trail Neighborhood, wanted to know what I would do as a city council member about affordable housing. To my knowledge, this person never before had shown an interest in affordable housing. I wondered, “what’s the deal with affordable housing?” Anyone with any experience in the real estate market would know there is inexpensive housing all over the city. One can rent a very nice one bedroom apartment in my neighborhood for $400 per month.
The man I guess, wanted “the government” to subsidize affordable housing. He wanted the government to, in essence, pay to have people live here. Interesting. That seems to be one of the thusts of Envision Spokane. He is a member of the new political party in Spokane and elsewhere in America — the Government Party.
Residents have the right to affordable housing, the right to a safely-maintained dwelling, and the right to be free from housing discrimination. The City shall ensure the availability of low-income housing stock sufficient to meet the needs of the low-income housing community. People and families may only be denied renting or buying of a dwelling for non-discriminatory reasons and may only be evicted from their residence for non-discriminatory causes. [Emphasis added.]
I would imagine there is political support for such a state of affairs. But, are such wishes, such hoped for “laws” practical? Are they possible. Ignoring whether the wishes are good or bad, the question must be “are they practical.” To ask whether the wishes are practical one must as whether the city of Spokane has the revenue to provide for such wishes. It does not. It does not have revenue to meet the needs of the whole community, the common community. It does not have the revenue to provide for the alleged needs of a few in the community. The city has five main tax revenue sources– (a) Some share of property taxes, (b) some share of sales and use taxes, (c) utility taxes on regulated utilities, (d) utility taxes on city utilities, and a (f) fifth source, business and occupation taxes (which Spokane despite its lust for taxes (city utility taxes) will never adopt).
If there is to be what the people of the Government Party seem to want, affordable housing, it will have to be provided by private citizens, not the local government.
Come to think of it, if the people of the Government Party have so much optimism about the efficacy of laws maybe they should cause the government they control or want to control to adopt laws which order citizens to provide things to other citizens. Maybe this is what Envision Spokane really wants to do. Maybe this is what my wealthy Government Party acquiantance in the Indian Trail area really wants.
On Sunday, April 19, 2009, there was an editorial in the Spokesman-Review about the Downtown Spokane YMCA purchase by the Spokane Park the Department. The opinion was strongly against the purchase for reasons of proper development and redevelopment of Downtown Spokane. The opinion is right.
And, it must be emphasized that use of Conservation Futures Tax Revenues for this purchase is illegal. Conservation Futures Taxes are only to be used to acquire open space lands. The Downtown YMCA is not open space land, not at all. The parcel is about 35,000 square feet. The footprint of the building on the parcel is over 25,000 square feet or 71%.
The City Park Department expects to pay $5.39 million for the property. It has already paid $1 million. Conservation Futures Taxes paid for the purchase are to be “not more than $4.39 million. And, get this, the building is to be torn down in five years. The cost of the demolition is to paid by the Park Board, the City. The cost of demolition in today’s environment considering the nature of the building and the location of the building on the river bank will be at least $750,000.
So where are we? One way to look at this very astounding proposal is to look at the cost per square foot of the property. The cost = the purchase price of $5.39 million and the demolition of $750,000 which equals $6,140,000. The cost per square foot is — $6,140,000 divided by 35,000 — $175 per square foot. What a waste of precious resources.
December 15, 2008 ·
It is disheartening to learn Council President Joe Shogan is going to censure the speech of those who testify at meetings of the Spokane City Council.
A lawyer who should understand at least some of the fundamentals of freedom speech and the right to petition one’s government, says he is going gavel down and expel from the the rostrum “any person who engages in a personal verbal attack on any other citizen, City staff, the Mayor or any member of the City Council” who “will be told by [him] as Council President to cease such behavior and to leave the podium.”
He is to be arbiter of what speech is permitted and not permitted. I wonder where he may have acquired such abilities. Law school, perhaps?
As a person, he should know better. As a lawyer sworn to uphold the law (which includes the right of freedom of speech), he should really know better.
At least, he should consult the Spokane City Code before he becomes the city strong man. Sections 02.01.030 and 02.01.050, he might find to be relevant.
As Council President he presides over council meetings. Such meetings are governed by Robert’s Rules of Order and city statute. Mr. Shogan’s “no tolerance policy” is not a part of the Rules of Procedure (Section 02.01.050) by which City Council meetings are to be governed.
One hopes Mr. Shogan will take the opportunity to reflect and, hopefully, repent. One wonders how much more trouble and civic dullness the City of Spokane can withstand.
Let us say Spokane becomes a city beleagured by the current economic situation. And, let us say things become worse and Spokane experiences a recession or even a depression (unemployment is now over 10.6%).
What then as to the city budget? We will have to limit our expenditures to essentials and as to them some serious cost cutting.
What are city essentials? There are some basic things government should continue to provide even in hard times. Here is my list.
- Police protection.
- Fire protection and emergency services.
- Roads.
- Building and land use.
- Government Information.
- Sewer collection and disposal.
- Water.
- Garbage collection and disposal.
- Parks.
- Libraries.
I cannot think of any other item which rises to the level of necessity as the items on this list.
(Some items are provided by public entities separate from the city — the arena, the convention center, for example. Some necessities like sewer, water, garbage are separate utility programs which are paid for by utilility rates.)
I think we should learn to limit understand and limit our city expenditures to these essential items. Only then should we consider adding to them and adding to the revenue the city seeks.
Thus, I propose we limit our utilty taxes to 6% on all utilities and then come up with a budget for the essentials with the money the city can generate from this tax and other taxes normally coming to the cit such as a share of the property taxes, a share of sales taxes and perhaps a share of the real estate excise taxes. We should then look to cut back on the essentials to arrive a a preliminary balanced budget.
Next, we should determine what additional items we want — first what enhancements to the basic budget items we want to make. Next what other items we want to add to the budget.
Then with these clearly in mind and framed we go to the electorate for approval of tax revenues in excess of the basic tax revenues.
[Free speech is] an act of privilege, it ranks with the privilege of committing murder: we may exercise it if we are willing to take the consequences. Murder is forbidden in both in form and in fact; free speech is granted in form but forbidden in fact. By the common estimate both are crimes, and are held in deep odium by all civilized peoples. Murder is sometimes punished, free speech always — when committed. Which is seldom. There are now fewer than five thousand murders to one (unpopular) free utterance.
Mark Twain, The Privilege of Grave, The New Yorker, December 27, 2008.
In Spokane, where I live, the President of the Spokane City Council, Joe Shogan, a lawyer (Gonzaga Law, circa 1978), is going to make sure none of the citizens of Spokane commit the act of free speech. See the Inlander - No More Mud. He’s grandstanding of course. Actually, he is not. He is just what he says he is, he does just what he says is going to do. I know from first-hand experience. I tried to commit an act of free speech and was pretty much prevented from doing so.
Our good City Council President must think there is such a threat of free speech that someone might actually exercise the franchise and that therefore it has to be baned.
Lawyers are an interesting bunch. I hope the current president of the Spokane City Council is not stereotypical of lawyers today. As I think of this, this hope, I am somewhat deflated by the remembrance of reading that lawyers in Germany in the 30’s and 40’s were essential to the regime of Adolph Hitler and National Socialism.
Now for a discussion of Envision Spokane’s Right No. 3, Affordable Housing. This is the language of the charter amendment:
Third. Residents have the right to affordable housing.
Residents have the right to affordable housing, the right to a safely-maintained dwelling, and the right to be free from housing discrimination. The City shall ensure the availability of low-income housing stock sufficient to meet the needs of the low-income housing community. People and families may only be denied renting or buying of a dwelling for non-discriminatory reasons and may only be evicted from their residence for non-discriminatory causes.
Remember now, when you think of this “right” keep in mind the enforcement provisions the charter amendments include an “enforcement right.” Here is a part of what the enforcement right provides:
All rights recognized by the Community Bill of Rights are fundamental, inalienable, and self-executing. The City of Spokane, or any person, neighborhood, or neighborhood council aggrieved by a violation of their rights, or any person seeking to enforce the rights of ecosystems, may enforce these rights. Enforcement actions shall be filed as civil actions in a court of competent jurisdiction, against any person, government, or entity violating these rights, and sufficient legal and equitable relief shall be awarded to remedy the violation, including restoration of a damaged ecosystem.