Brad Read

At its Aug. 3 meeting the Spokane City Council considered a resolution to place a pair of advisory questions before the voters in the November elections. The two questions were, (1) Should the City seek “new funding sources” (e.g., new or increased taxes) to pay the costs expected to result should Envision Spokane’s “Community Bill of Rights” be approved by voters?, and (2) Should the City reallocate funds from other City programs to pay those costs? (Link to the meeting is here, select Part 2 of the August 3 Council meeting).

Naturally a number of “Bill of Frights” supporters were on hand to oppose the resolutions, accusing the Council of attempting to subvert the “democratic process” by misleading and scaring voters. Supporters of the resolutions (i.e., opponents of the “Bill of Frights”) and some Council members accused Envision Spokane, in turn, of misleading voters by repeatedly telling them that the BoF would impose no costs on the City — a claim stubbornly repeated by several boosters at the hearing, which no Council member swallowed. Even some of the BoF supporters seemed to find that claim a bit implausible, but suggested that voters could decide for themselves whether there would be costs — an equally implausible claim. Very few voters have the information or expertise to estimate the cost even of something as specific and and concrete as paving a block of street, much less the costs of something as broad and ill-defined as Envision Spokane’s menu of free lunches.

But the most telling testimony of the evening (which should have been the focus of the S-R’s coverage but wasn’t) was that of Brad Read, former chair of Spokane’s Human Rights Commission and ES’s Board President. As did other BoF proponents, Read accused the Council of “acting out of fear . . . of being afraid of democratic decision-making,” and of improperly attempting to influence the vote on the BoF initiative.

One of the questions asked of Spokane City Council District 2 candidates at the League of Women Voters forum (first shown on July 23, link  here, “Other Video Programs“) was, “Sometimes the Council grants developers exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning regulations. What would be your criteria for granting these exceptions?”

Interestingly, while the other candidates proceeded to set forth the criteria they would apply, only Steve Eugster pointed out that the Council cannot grant “exceptions” per se to the Plan or to the zoning ordinance. It can grant variances to the latter, provided one of the grounds for doing so specified in the ordinance is satisfied. It can also grant zoning changes, which are merely amendments to the ordinance, usually accomplished simply by redrawing a zone boundary. Such amendments, however, are required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Therein lies the rub. What is and is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is very much a matter of opinion. That is because the Plan consists of a vast number of “Goals and Policies” which are ambiguous, vague, often inconsistent, and sometimes irreconcilable. There is a principle in logic that from inconsistent premises, any conclusion follows. Hence for virtually any proposed amendment to the zoning law, an argument with some plausibility can be advanced that it is consistent with something in the Comprehensive Plan.

Other than the two incumbents in the City Council primary races and Steve Eugster, the candidates have been curiously silent regarding their positions on the “Bill of Frights” Charter Amendment proposal which will appear on the November ballot. I found no mention of that proposal during a quick tour of the web sites of candidates who have them (except Eugster’s). Nor have any questions asked at the two forums I sat through (via the Web) addressed the issue.

I’m sure some of the candidates would prefer to avoid taking a position, lest they alienate some fraction of voters. Always safer for politicians, of course, to keep silent on as many concrete issues as possible, so that voters can fill in the blanks with their own preferences.

If asked, some of them may decline to answer on the ground that the issue is before the voters and that their role as a City Councilperson will be to carry out the voters’ wishes, whatever those prove to be.

But they should be pressed. The question is good probe of the candidates’ views regarding the role and scope of city government.

So, John Waite, Jon Snyder, Kristina Sabestinas, Karen Kearney, Victor Noder — what are your positions on that issue?

Public transit nemesis Randall O’Toole also testified before the Senate committee hearing mentioned in the previous post (video and transcripts here). Some of his points (none of which were challenged by any member of the Committee or other witnesses):

Randall O'Toole

♦ “Transit subsidies have historically had only a trivial effect on ridership. Between 1987 and 2007, annual subsidies in real dollars grew by 68 percent. Yet annual ridership grew by only 18 percent. While capital subsidies are sketchy before 1987, operating subsidies increased by 1240 percent since 1970. Yet ridership grew by only 45 percent.”

♦ “More importantly, despite total real subsidies of well over three-quarters of a trillion dollars [emphasis added] since 1970, per-capita transit ridership and passenger miles actually declined . . . more-or-less steadily from 1970 through 1995. Although per-capita transit usage has grown a little since 1995, it remains below 1988, and far below 1970, levels.”

It is an article of unquestioned faith among advocates of public transit systems that such systems are more efficient than the privately-operated automobile (POV) for passenger transportation. The dogma was expressed most recently by Michael Replogle, a consultant for the Environmental Defense Fund and professional transit propagandist, in his testimony on July 7 before a Senate committee considering whether to lavish further federal subsidies on transit systems:

“Travel by personal vehicle, which makes up the majority of U.S. travel, is among the least efficient passenger travel modes. As a result, 62 percent of transportation‐related GHG emissions are due to gasoline consumption in personal vehicles (an additional 19 percent come from freight trucks). Public transportation, on the other hand, is one of our most efficient modes of passenger travel.”

That dogma has been repeated so often and gone unchallenged for so long that most auto users no doubt also believe it. Yet 90% of them resolutely ignore it when choosing their own method of transport. Drivers appear to consistenly choose what they themselves acknowledge to be a less efficient mode. Isn’t that irrational? Why should there be such a striking disconnect between belief and behavior?

One of the most amusing arguments in the repertoire of the anti-automobile zealots is the “Obesity Argument.” You know how it goes: we should build more bike lanes, force higher urban densities, build narrower, “traffic-calmed” streets, increase fuel taxes for auto users, etc., in order to compel people to walk and bicycle more. Obesity is, after all, a major health risk, contributing to heart disease, diabetes, and other ailments.

One might wonder, of course, how and why the risks individuals choose to take with their health should fall under the purview of public policy wonks and government bureaucrats.

The opinion of the Spokesman-Review’s editors (July 11) regarding the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Stormans v. Selecky is as puzzling as the decision itself. (The ruling in question lifted an injunction issued by a lower court which barred the State of Washington from enforcing a decree that pharmacists stock and dispense the “morning after” pill).

The S-R’s editorial writer says, “Significantly, however, the 9th Circuit opinion stresses that the religious-freedom concerns claimed by an Olympia pharmacy and two pharmacists there have to be weighed against the interests of the public.”

Oh? Since when?

Well, the blog is “officially” launched. Not much here yet, but give me some time.

After haunting a number of other local blogs over the last several months — some of you may have read the rants of “Contrarian” — I decided to launch a blog of my own and give those other patient bloggers a chance to get even.