City Council clears ‘bill of rights’ for vote

A list of nine responsibilities that could be added to the duties of Spokane city government will be determined by the voters, if supporters of the proposed “bill of rights” have gathered enough signatures.

All seven Spokane City Council members sharply criticized the proposed initiative Monday night as overly broad and a burden on the city, but a majority allowed the concept to proceed to the ballot.

Council members said they trust voters to understand the possible problems in Envision Spokane’s initiative, which would require the city to create an “affordable fee-for-service” preventive health care system; create banking restrictions; give neighborhoods power to veto development projects; and stipulate that construction projects can’t “damage the surrounding ecosystem.”

The council voted 5-2 to allow the 5,000 signatures gathered by the group to be counted by the Spokane County auditor to determine whether 2,795 of the signatures are valid – the threshold needed to put it on the ballot.

Councilman Al French and Councilwoman Nancy McLaughlin voted against sending the measure to the county for counting.

Envision Spokane supporters said declaring the initiative invalid before voters had a say would invite a lawsuit.

“This is a fundamental piece of democracy,” said Kai Huschke, project director of Envision Spokane. “Blocking this would not be a wise move.”

Others said the measure would almost certainly be challenged if it passed. They argued that some of the rules conflict with numerous state and federal laws.

About 50 people protested outside City Hall before the debate. They held signs such as “Envision Spokane, Envision Spokane bankrupt.”

Inside Council Chambers, protesters said the council should reject the initiative because of legal problems.

They also said the proposed rules would prompt businesses to flee the city under the possible regulations. Supporters quoted Thomas Jefferson. Opponents quoted former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and brought Adolf Hitler into the debate.

“Make the hard decisions you were elected to make. Don’t make the equivalent decision of negotiating with Hitler,” said Spokane Valley resident Grant Rodkey.

Former county Commissioner Kate McCaslin sharply criticized the proposal and joked it “ought to be called the Lawyers Full and Permanent Employment Act.”

But she said once the voters are fully educated on the plan, “I’m confident that our fellow citizens” would reject it.

Councilman Mike Allen agreed. “I’m pretty confident I know what that decision will be. I do not support it, but I support the initiative process.”

Former City Councilman Steve Eugster, who is running for City Council against Allen, testified that the proposal should be ruled invalid because it violates rules prohibiting initiatives and ordinances that tackle more than one topic at a time.

Some who testified likened members of Envision Spokane to “carpetbaggers,” pointing to its connection to the Pennsylvania-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.

Envision Spokane has been advised by Thomas Linzey, an attorney for the defense fund. Linzey was in the audience Monday, but declined to comment. Huschke said Linzey has lived in Spokane for over a year and plans to move to Spokane permanently.

Huschke said that the entire Envision Spokane board lives in Spokane and that the direction of the initiative was pushed by residents.

Council members said they had been advised that courts would be unlikely to rule if the initiative includes more than one topic until after the election.

Breean Beggs, executive director of the Center for Justice, said the proposed rights fit under one topic. “I see this as these are the components of a healthy, sustainable Spokane.”