Spokane’s Proposition 1 lacks common sense

Application of any thought, and not necessarily intense critical thinking, exposes Envision Spokane’s Proposition 1 as a thinly-veiled attempt at democratic tyranny, radical environmentalism, union expansion, and anti-business laws.

There are a multitude of problems with the ballot measure. Thankfully, it only contains four distinct and separate issues. I’ll discuss them each and put aside our State’s Constitution which has a one subject rule (Article II, Section 19). If passed, this ballot measure will most likely be challenged and be found unconstitutional because of the one subject rule violation.

Part 1: Democratic Tyranny – Creates too much uncertainty

The Community Bill of Rights declares that the neighborhood majority must approve all zoning changes and gives them the ability to reject significant¹ development.

Washington State’s environmental laws are already some of the nations most stringent. Developers already have an arduous and expensive regulatory labyrinth to navigate. The development process currently involves a series of public notifications and hearings—and opportunity for public input. Under the existing state law, public concerns are already carefully considered during the permitting process.

This proposed change in Spokane, however, goes further. This proposal allows for a democratic tyranny—a mob-rules mentality. A neighborhood majority will have the ability to veto a developer’s plans. With this level of uncertainty, investment capital will find opportunities outside of the Spokane city limits.

Part 2: Radical Environmentalism – Assigning inalienable rights to rivers and aquifers

The radical environmentalists have had their say in part 2 of Proposition 1. The Community Bill of Rights asserts inalienable rights to the Spokane River and the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. The inalienable rights—as the proposal says—are for the river and aquifer to “exist and flourish”.

If this proposal passes, any resident of the City will have standing and be able to sue on behalf of these natural features.

What does this mean? If your neighbor thinks when you wash your car, brush your teeth, or flush your toilet, that you are using too much water, then they can sue you on behalf of the river or aquifer.

This is a clever device to allow a few litigious radical environmentalists to force their conservation ideology on the rest of the citizenry. If conservation education isn’t enough, pass a law that allows you to sue people into submission.

This is a perfect example of creating rules under the banner of “protecting the environment” that don’t solve problems, rather use cleverly camouflaged tools to advance a social ideology.

Part 3: Union Expansion – Protectionism for Spokane

Faced with the need for massive state budget reform, Washington will have to look closely at our labor laws and begin to negotiate equitable salary and benefit packages for state union workers. And as the private sector continues to feel the impact of the economic recession, they will have to continue cutting costs as well.

The Community Bill of Rights proposes to give collective bargaining rights to all unionized workers in Spokane.

In these tough economic times, when unions should be negotiating in good faith, tilting the tables of labor negotiations towards the unions is a bad idea—for both the public and private sector.

There is also language in the proposal that offers to give constitutional protections to employees. People already possess constitutional protections for things like free speech, and search and seizure. It is unclear if the proposal intends to expand these rights, or assign things like state’s rights to the people of Spokane.

Part 4: Anti-business laws – Driving business out of town

The last part of the proposal desires to strip any business entity of all legal rights, privileges, powers or protection. In other words, businesses would be stripped bare, and exposed to all legal actions. There would be a new class of citizenry born in Spokane. We could call them the “litigious looters”. It would be the wild west version of wealth distribution. Anyone that desired to own the assets of a business could simply sue them and take everything.

Smart businessmen would immediately close their doors and move out of town.

This proposal is a paired down version of Envision Spokane’s 2009 measure that had 9 “rights” they were trying to assert. That ballot measure was defeated handily with over 75% opposing.

The authors of this ballot measure were able to gather enough signatures to get this proposal on the ballot. I’m presuming that many people that provided their signatures didn’t read or thoroughly understand the impacts of this proposal.

A final tips for voters in Spokane: 1. Read petitions and understand them before you sign them.

---

Scaled-back Bill of Rights still packs in issues, The Spokesman-Review [click here]

¹ Significant Development is defined in the ballot measure as commercial development if it is 10,000 square feet or greater, and residential development if it is 20 units or more.

Thurston County regulations snare business owner

Linda Reichel realized her life-long dream of owning a restaurant when she opened The Ranch Cafe 2 months ago. She needs to sell food—as well as coffee—so she can make enough money to keep her doors open.

Thurston County has been on the lookout for what they call “menu creep”—that’s when business owners like Linda increase their menu without Thurston County’s permission.

Now, Thurston County will not work with Linda and let her add menu items. She has already been forced to layoff her only employee and faces the real possibility of losing her business.

Linda Reichel Ranch Café owner

Commissioners top 10 worst policy choices

The top 10 worst policy choices by Sandra Romero, Cathy Wolfe and Karen Valenzuela in their roles as Thurston County Commissioners. Thurston county is asking for public input on the top 7 wonders of Thurston County—we thought it would be good to announce out top 10 bad policy choices list.

Sandra Romero, Cathy Wolfe, Karen Valenzuela–bad policy choices

Thurston County Commissioners out of touch

Thurston County, WA—There is a long and growing list of bad policy decisions the Thurston County Commissioners are making these days. I made a video blog with Glen Morgan where we highlighted the top ten worst policy choices, and you can view it here.

In these tough economic times, government should be working to prioritize government and getting their financial house in order—just as everyone employed outside of government is having to do.

I ran across a job posting that Thurston County advertised. It is for a Sustainability Specialist. I’ve read through the job description, and I’m still confused as to what this person will do—other than write a bunch of regulations.

Here is the job description for the Sustainability Specialist as advertised:

Performs a wide variety of complex and multi-faceted tasks associated with all phases of sustainability planning.  Works with the Board of County Commissioners, the Energy Conservation Committee, and other stakeholders identified by the Board to meet conservation and sustainability objectives of the County.  Drafts sustainability policies and programs for consideration by elected officials, advisory committees, and affected departments.  Develops measures of effectiveness and monitoring regimens that enable the refinement of affected policies, programs, and projects to achieve the maximum desired sustainability benefit.  Researches, analyzes, and communicates on resource conservation, principles of sustainability and related public policies.  Evaluates and develops County regulations and policies, working with the public and elected officials on sustainability issues, and conducting research and providing detailed staff reports, planning studies,and recommendations.  Designs and develops program’s short- and long-range goals, work plans and objectives with measurable performance standards and financial impacts and tracks program effectiveness.  Develops and manages assigned program budget and approves expenditures.  Researches and identifies grant opportunities in the areas of energy efficiency, clean technology and sustainability; interprets eligibility through grant resources or alternative funding.  Acts as the grant administrator and liaison with the granting agency.  Partners with organizations dedicated to green initiatives and energy/resource conservation.  Works with County offices and departments on the development of County waste prevention measures and conservation contracts.  Organizes training and educational seminars for County employees on energy reduction and sustainability activities.  Reviews needs assessments and develops resolution to issues.  Analyzes County energy efficiencies and identifies problems/issues, analyzes and evaluates deficiencies, and provides management with alternatives and recommended courses of action.

And what will this person earn? A salary of $4,305.00 - $5,740.00 / month. Not bad for a job that has no measurable performance other than how much you can harm the public with abusive regulation.

Here is a link to the job posting [archive].

Sequim dumps ICLEI

The new generation of socialists are camouflaged as your friendly environmentalists and they have a new mantra that is taking over government called “sustainability”.

I’m not as much of a conspiracy theorist as I am a believer in bandwagons, and the new, shiny, left-leaning bandwagon is called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives or ICLEI. ICLEI contains the tools that local governments use to hypnotize citizens into willingly giving up their every last right to use and enjoy their own property.
ICLEI provides tools, model legislation and best practices for implementing “sustainable development”. Scratch the surface of ICLEI and you find centralized planning concepts—designed to move people off rural lands and into densely populated urban cores where people are “encouraged” to walk (read: taxed if you drive)  and live in small box-like condominiums.

But one sensible administrator has had enough. Sequim City Manager Steve Burkett has decided to let their ICLEI membership lapse. It expired in August. Steve has been the City Manager for two years and has been reigning in his City’s expenses in response to the economic recession. Steve said, “There wasn’t a good reason to continue the membership, so we let it lapse. In these tough economic times, we’re looking closely every expense and working to save money.

Whatever his reasons, my hat’s off to Steve for dumping ICLEI. This action means more citizen control of their local government. That’s a move in the right direction.

As of this blog post, Sequim is still listed on the ICLEI membership page. [ click here ]
Story from the Peninsula Daily News [ click here ]

Tumwater Man Asks Court to Halt Enforcement of Tumwater’s Ban on Political Signs

BY: JESSICA BOWMAN, FREEDOM FOUNDATION
On Monday, Barney McClanahan asked a federal judge to order the City of Tumwater to stop removing free speech signs from along streets and sidewalks.
Tumwater business owner Barney McClanahan filed suit against the City of Tumwater earlier this year arguing that Tumwater violated his free speech rights by removing a political sign from his business property.  McClanahan posted a sign for the campaign, “Stop Taking Our Property,” a movement against Thurston County property regulations, to show his support of the effort.  “They stole my voice,” McClanahan said.  City of Tumwater employees told McClanahan his sign was located in the public right-of-way, and therefore was in violation of the Tumwater Municipal Code.
The case against the City of Tumwater’s sign ordinance was originally filed in Thurston County Superior Court on August 11, 2011, and was later transferred to federal court.
The Motion for Preliminary Injunction requests that the judge temporarily order the City of Tumwater and its employees from enforcing the sign ordinance until the case is resolved.
“Our motion points out that there is substantial case law protecting free speech activity such as the sign that Barney McClanahan posted,“ said Michael Reitz, general counsel of the Freedom Foundation, who represents McClanahan.  “The First Amendment provides expansive protection of speech about government activities.  In our motion we argue that Tumwater cannot justify its restriction on speech.”
McClanahan’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction was supported by several former candidates who filed declarations testifying that Tumwater removed their campaign signs in local elections.  Declarations were submitted by former Thurston County Commissioner candidate Pat Beehler, former Mayor of Tumwater and State House of Representatives candidate Justin Kover, and former Port of Olympia Commissioner candidate Will Stakelin.
The case is Barney McClanahan v. City of Tumwater, No. 3:11-cv-05623-RBL, United States District Court, Western District of Washington.  The Motion for Preliminary Injunction is scheduled to be heard on October 28, 2011.  The case is assigned to the Honorable Judge Ronald B. Leighton.

Diversity, Tolerance, Choice and Debate? -Chris Reykal (D) WA 22nd and Stew Henderson

Fundamental beliefs in property rights cut across the political spectrum. People that may have different views on other issues can come together on property rights.
Glen Morgan, project manager of Stop Taking Our Property Thurston County, has been reaching out to every possible public meeting in Thurston County to engage and educate people on the issues of property rights here in Thurston County.
This past Sunday, He was at Sam Garst’s house who hosted a fundraiser for Denny Heck. He was at the Thurston County Democrat’s Central Committee meeting on Monday.
You would be surprised at what Sam Garst, Stew Henderson, and Representative Chris Reykdal (D) of the 22nd Legislative District said to Glen.

Stew Henderson, Chris Reykal (D) WA 22nd LD

Thurston County Commissioners backpedal

Not too long ago, the Thurston County Commissioners were on a mission to save the Mazama Pocket Gopher—a species that the Federal Government had been trying to exterminate for over 50 years, and now the State says is threatened.

Citizens from around Thurston County—now educated by S.T.O.P Thurston County town halls—have been pouring out to Commissioner meetings asking them to remove the regulations. The Commissioners have dug in their heels and have propped themselves up by a small contingent of environmental radicals called GO (Government Only), and puffed-up science.

The Business Examiner reported on the Pocket Gopher situation a few days ago and it seems that the Commissioners are starting to backpedal. It looks like they are trying to shift the conversation from saving the pocket gopher to saving the prairies. Alas, the citizens wouldn’t give up their property rights for a gopher, maybe they will give up their rights for the prairies—which by the way, were made and maintained by humans.

Here is a quote from the Business Examiner article printed September 19th [link to article]:

“This is about the prairie itself,” Valenzuela said. “The word ‘gopher’ has been explosive — but it’s just a candidate for protected species. That’s the only connection between the gophers and the prairies.”

She isn’t worried about a building shutdown. She’s more excited about a recent $450,000 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grant the county will use to create a regional habitat conservation plan for fragile ecosystems, including the prairie.

The final product, Valenzuela said, will circumvent development issues.

“Our goal is to ultimately create a plan that will take a big-picture approach toward managing impacts to sensitive species,” she said, “rather than putting the burden on each and every permit applicant to come up with a plan.”

With the grant, one of three awarded in the state, the county will work with the Washington Fish and Wildlife Service to establish permit regulations that will allow development — while protecting ecosystems and species.

“This will eventually result in a large, countywide habitat conservation plan so that individual landowners could be relieved of the burden of having to make changes,” Valenzuela said. “It will be more efficient. We think this is the better approach.”

Commissioner Cathy Wolfe agreed.

“We’re thrilled to get this grant,” she said. “It’s going to help the county respond to some of the requests we hear most often — (including) take a landscape approach to conservation, and make the process easier.”

Let me translate the Commissioner’s comments for you. It means that they have taxpayer’s money, they will waste it on hiring staff, and figure out new and creative ways to limit the use of your property.

Ken Berg, Manager at US Fish and Wildlife, was at a recent Thurston County Planning Commission meeting and he said that the new approach isn’t about saving species, it’s about taking property (managing habitiat). Most likely, the Commissioners are now going to be taking directions from Ken Berg since that’s where they have found their new funding source.

We’ll be keeping a close eye on this issue. Check back here to see our updates.

Sandra Romero, Cathy Wolfe, Karen Valenzuela: want to impose a FEE for public participation

Cathy Wolfe, Sandra Romero, and Karen Valenzuela are proposing a FEE for public participation at hearings. Our research exposes that if this proposal passes, then the Commissioners—at their own discretion may impose a fee for ideas that the public may bring forward.
This is a bad idea because it discourages public participation and enables the Commissioners to decide who gets charged a fee. Presumably, if you agree with the Commissioners, then your participation will be free.

Cathy Wolfe voted for Innovative Techniques that was really a rural downzone

In August of ‘07, Cathy Wolfe called in from England to phone in a vote that destroyed her public trust and evaporated any hope of ‘open and honest government’. After barely one day of unveiling an ordinance the Thurston County Commission voted to approve it.
It wasn’t just a housekeeping ordinance. No! This was one of the most sweeping land grabs in the history of Thurston County. It was slid through under the guise of ‘innovative techniques’ a title and method of downzoning cooked up between Craig Ottavelli and Cathy Wolfe.
What this ordinance does is it changes the way that density is calculated from a gross density calculation to a net density calculation. Basically you must subtract all of the critical areas from your parcel prior to making the density calculation. The Commissioners have no idea how many housing units they lost from the County with this ordinance, or if they did the weren’t telling the public about it.
I made serveral requests in the hours prior to the Commissioner’s vote asking them to have just one public hearing to voice testimony about the ordinance. They denied it and Cathy thought that the Commission had, “Met the technical definition of public process.”
Cathy was absent from this particular board meeting, and called in her vote from England, the very country our forefathers escaped so they could own land.

Cathy Wolfe voted for “innovative techniques”–which was really a downzone.