No need to be so begrudging, thanks for the recommendation. I’ve contacted them about e-newsletters and look forward to weighing the options. They have a sweet website.

The Bill of Frights declares that persons have “rights” to “affordable” health care, housing, energy, to be paid a certain wage, and various other goodies on every leftist’s wish list. The trouble here, of course, is that all these goodies must be provided by other persons — health care providers, builders, energy producers, employers, *et al*. So a claim to a “right” to such things entails a claim to the services of other people — to their time, talents, energy, and the fruits of their labor. But someone who claims a right to others’ time, talents, and to the fruits of their labor is declaring those others to be his slaves.

No one can have a “right” to goods and services others must provide or produce. The notion turns the very concept of rights on its head: *rights* is the concept which protects each person in the possession, use and enjoyment of that which is his own — his time, his talents, his person, and the products of his labor, i.e., to those things he has acquired without inflicting loss or injury on others. It is the concept which forbids thieves from stealing your property, and other predators and pillagers from maiming, raping, enslaving, and murdering you.

Governments have, of course, concocted many fiat rights (“frights”) over the years — “rights” spun from whole cloth to placate various interest groups to which politicians have promised free lunches in exchange for their votes and campaign contributions. These frights are conceptually fraudulent and, because satisfying them entails the violation of bonafide rights, are morally repugnant.

The vote on Prop 4 will certainly indicate the extent to which Spokane’s voters understand the concept of rights, and the maturity of their moral instincts. It will also reveal the extent to which this city’s residents have abandoned the ideal of a free society in favor of the ideal of the free lunch. I await the outcome with interest.

Point 1) The bill of rights states: “For residents otherwise unable to access [preventative health care], the City shall guarantee such access by coordinating with area healthcare providers to create affordable fee-for-service programs within eighteen (18) months following adoption of this Charter provision.” How can you think that won’t require significant staff time? And I don’t think that you really believe that it will be recouped by fewer emergency room visits. I can tell you that my extended family has had as much preventative health care as anyone could and we’ve had family members in the ER for a number of different injuries and sudden onset health issues. If there would be fewer visits, I highly doubt that it would be enough to make a dent in the cost of the staff time it will take to implement such a program.

Points 2 & 4) As for your second point, you’re right. I was misinformed. And it’s worse than I thought. It says “prevailing wage.” Having to pay prevailing wage (which is the median pay for the area in a given field) for construction projects will significantly increase costs, not only for the construction companies, but also for any business that is having a building constructed. I’m all for people being paid what they’re worth, but I don’t think that you should get middle of the range payment regardless of your skill and work ethic.

Point 3) I believe 4th duty that would be imposed upon the City of Spokane would be “providing legal defense for actions of neighborhood councils in vetoing land development projects.” Which would mean that the City would foot the bill for all the impending lawsuits from businesses whose projects are vetoed.

Point 5) And that leads me into your 5th point. Neighborhoods can veto development plans with as little as 15% of the people who voted in the previous election within the neighborhood limits. 15%! So if your neighborhood has 100 voting residents, you better hope that 15 of them don’t disagree with the other 85 or those 15 could cause a development project to be vetoed.

Three final things:

1) The bill of rights says “The City shall ensure the availability of low-income housing stock sufficient to meet the needs of the low-income housing community.” If the housing doesn’t exist now, I’m curious where all this low-income housing is supposed to come from. Is the City supposed to build low-income housing? If that’s the case, you better hope that less than 15% of the residents of the neighborhood the City wants to build said housing in is supportive of the project, or it could be vetoed.

2) Part of the 9th amendment states: “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…” While I absolutely agree that entities abusing our environment and ecosystems should be held accountable for their actions, it seems a bit crazy to me that someone would be able sue the City, an organization or an individual on behalf of the river, a patch of trees, etc.

3) The bill of rights says the City will be required to provide “sufficient funding to neighborhood councils for the creation, adoption, and enforcement of neighborhood plans” and yet there is no mention as to a dollar amount for such funding. It’s illogical and irresponsible to suggest something like this with NO indication of the amount of how the amount would be determined.

I must admit that when I first heard about this citizens’ bill of rights, I was excited about the prospect of something so innovative. But upon further reading, I was extremely disappointed to discover how truly deceptive the language is in the bill of rights. I do think that a bill of rights for the citizens of Spokane is something I could vote for in the future, if it was developed in a socially-, fiscally-, environmentally-responsible way with language that is concise and transparent, and if it accounted for all details and outcomes.

I appreciate being able to debate this with you, and I appreciate the fact that, because of this debate, I went back and re-read the proposition’s fine print. Despite your arguments in support of such a flawed proposal, I strongly feel the need to protect myself, my family and the city I love and I will VOTE NO ON PROP 4.

1) “Health care” in general is not what the Prop. 4 amendment is aiming for. The Community Bill of Rights would merely require the City within 18 months to engage local private entities in planning for a fee-for-service PREVENTIVE health care program. Since the services offered are only preventive in nature, and the clients are paying in to the program, taxes will not be raised or required to implement the amendment. If there is a cost for staff time to coordinate, it would probably be recouped by preventing emergency room visits and other health crises among the population.

2) Minimum wage is not included in the Community Bill of Rights. That is sheer misinformation. Read the document before you repeat the soundbites put out by the well funded opponents.

3) Most of the rights in Prop. 4 could only be enforced on private actors, not the City. For the three rights that the City would be responsible for, if the City upholds it’s obligations to not violate the rights of the community, then they are off the hook and no lawsuits could be filed.

4) Not sure how the cost of doing business would be higher here with Prop. 4. Maybe you think large scale employers would loose cost-containment power by not being able to threaten people for unionizing?

5) “Neighborhood councils vetoing everything proposed by the City” wouldn’t be allowed either. That is just a false scare tactic being trumped up by opponents. Objections could only be voted on if there was a clear violation of either the Comp. Plan or the Neighborhood Plan. This will allow people to be able to protect their property values and will create an incentive to be active within their neighborhood organization.

I am also a young, smart, environmentally- and socially-conscious business professional who was born and raised in Spokane. I feel compelled to educate my fellow citizens, and ultimately come together around innovative solutions to maintain and improve Spokane’s quality of life. There are things that I would do differently, but overall I think it is worth voting YES TO PROP 4.

Let’s see… increased taxes to cover community health care, a minimum wage that will put many smaller companies out of business, tax monies going to pay for all the new lawsuits that will be filed against the city, new businesses looking to locate anywhere BUT here because of how much higher the price for doing business here would be, random bands of “neighborhood councils” vetoing everything proposed by the city.

Um, yeah. That sounds wonderful. Are you kidding me?

I wish that instead of WASTING time and money promoting this joke of a bill of rights, and now more time and money fighting it, the residents and leaders of this community were focusing on continuing to move forward in the POSITIVE direction we’re already headed.

I am a young, smart, environmentally- and socially-conscious business professional and mother who was born and raised in Spokane. I feel compelled to fight for myself, my family and my city by voting NO TO PROP 4.

I am disappointed with how many smart young people in Spokane have been duped by the smoke and mirrors of this ludicrous legislation.