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.