There are so many layers and possible directions for talking about the Community Bill of Rights that no one forum can encompass all the opinions, points and perspectives that concerned citizens care to offer. The issues are so stirring that they have even begun to surface on other Spovangelist threads that have nothing to do with Prop. 4.
Let’s try to narrow the conversation by a few degrees and consider how the issues are being treated in video messages produced by both the “Yes” and “No” campaigns. Maybe you don’t like how your stance has been articulated in these clips? Maybe you like some aspects of the amendments mentioned, but are leery of others? Maybe one of these stories or examples is a useful tool with which to discuss the issues? Let us know.
(The above video contains several proponent segments bundled into one, so we included several opponent clips below.)
Tags: Breaking Boundaries · Competition · Political Surprise · Videos13 Comments
13 responses so far ↓
Well, Mariah, you know I couldn’t resist commenting on this one. I’ll just repost my comment from the non-related thread you cited, since this is where it belongs.
—————————-
The fiscal and legal implications of the the Community Bill of Frights for the City, and the economic implications for businesses in the City (and their employees and customers), provide ample grounds for emphatically rejecting this inane measure. But an even more compelling reason is the moral
one.
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.
——————————-
A fuller philosophical discussion can be found here:
http://www.freespokane.net/?page_id=13
This is also an extension of what was gong on in the Cheers to Tears section. Under the local economy section it is stated “This provision wouldn’t require the private business to re-design their request for bids, or request for proposals, just to qualify locally-owned businesses for the bidding process, but it would require that the private business open their bidding and proposal process to locally-owned businesses that would satisfy their needs.” Envision Spokane has told me that they were not aware of any local alternatives to Constant Contact. So I am wondering if pleading ignorance will be an exceptable excuse if prop 4 passes? Who’s responsibility is it to know of local alternatives? What if the local alternative is 30 times more expensive then the national option? Who says what is an acceptable alternative?
I am not afraid.
The best of the SR letters so far on Prop 4:
Letters / Sept. 30, 2009
Early stand favors Fagan
Envision Spokane/Prop 4 just might be the worst, most destructive idea ever to grace a ballot in the city of Spokane’s 128-year history. I thought it would be a good litmus test to evaluate the 14 candidates seeking seats on Council in 2009. Who among them would have the insight and courage to standup and defend their city against a genuine threat and who wouldn’t? (Two of the 14 candidates were already sitting on Council so I excluded them from my evaluation.)
Of the 12 remaining, only two bothered to speak against Envision Spokane before Council. Of the two, only Mike Fagan made it past the primary. What was so surprising was Fagan not only denounced Envision Spokane before Council but also organized a rally and actively campaigned against Prop 4 all summer. (Every candidate now is against Prop 4.)
If we can’t trust candidates to speak out against really bad legislation when no one is watching, why elect them?
Fagan is the most impressive City Council candidate I’ve seen in years. I encourage the people in city of Spokane District 1 to elect Mike Fagan, and everyone, please vote a resounding no on Prop 4 this November.
The best from the Inlander on Prop 4 so far…
Please read Prop 4 Very Carefully Before You Vote.
Here is the actual text. http://www.inlander.com/files/sustainable_spokane_bill_of_rights.doc
When reading it, notice how ambiguous it is. If passed it will require flocks of legal eagles to argue in court at taxpayer’s expense. Not just for a week, or a month but for YEARS.
Why should we the people of the City of Spokane supply the local legal profession with unnecessary job stimulus? Lawyers (the largest donors to the Yes on Prop 4 campaign by far according to the Public Disclosure Commission) are bankrolling this for a reason.
This is not a grassroots movement for the benefit of the public, as it has been portrayed. If this were the case, the bulk of the money would come from thousands of donors, not just one attorney who has donated over 85% of all the money reported.
Every member of city council as well as the mayor have publicly spoke out against Envision Spokane and have endorsed voting No on Prop 4.
Getting this crowd to all agree on anything is next to impossible; but Prop 4 is so bad for Spokane, members of council and the mayor put aside their differences and have all publicly stated No on Prop 4 is the best direction for the City.
Candidate Jon Synder affirmed several times publicly he is not supporting Prop 4. Candidate Mike Fagan actually took time off from his campaign to organize a successful anti-Envision Spokane rally and has worked actively against Prop 4 all summer.
One must admire someone who put the No on Prop 4 election ahead of his own election for city council.
Don’t vote to subsidize the litigious few at the great expense of the bill paying many.
Tell your friends, family, strangers and neighbors, Prop 4 is bad legislation and not for City of Spokane.
Vote No on Prop 4 this November.
Here is another good one from the Inlander on Prop 4
This “Bill of Rights” purportedly came about as an attempt to empower the Neighborhood Councils to get the City to enforce the Comp Plan. Businesses and developers provoked this citizen response. However a lot of other baggage got added. “Rights” 1-8 do not accrue to individuals but to groups and abstractions, which in effect can override individual rights. More concerning is the possible vigilante effect of “Right:”9 which allows an “aggreived person” to “enforce these rights”. For these reasons I voted against the document when I was a member of the PeacefulValley Neighborhood Council at a meeting in SDec. 2008.
SpoWind: It is generally considered rude to re-post huge chunks of commentary from other media outlets without adding your own interpretation in a comment section.
If you’re not going to take the time to come up with some original analysis of your own, then please refrain from spamming everyone with text you didn’t write. The excerpts you’ve included would be more appropriate as a link.
You do know how to post a link, don’t you?
I can only hope that the post on blog etiquette successfully gets us off topic! So I’ll try to keep things focused. Will the folks from Envision Spokane help me fight the social security tax? Think of all that local money that is invested in other communities.
Blog etiquette? Are there rules for blogs? Define please….and define “huge” while you’re at it.
Much of these verdicts are undefined, unclear and poorly focused. It’s obvious that if Prop 4 passes, the City of Spokane will be required to defend the lawsuit aimed at Prop4. Most will likely be aimed at the rightness of allowing a 9 pt initiative on the ballot when only 1 is legal per the charters I’ve reviewed. From a non resident, the implementation isn’t practical either.
If Prop 4 is simply defeated, much of this goes away sans lawsuits unless they might be initiated by the Envison lawyers trying to save themselves or the concepts embodied in EV. Whether one likes Prop 4 or not, it’ll be voted on by a public who might look at the 9 pts of Prop 4 and vote for the cosmetic “goodness”…without understanding the costs to the Spokane community…..and the implications of trying to make a City conform to rights that seriously will never be rights….just some ideas. Again, non implementable.
If the City must defend Prop 4 should it pass, something else will likely suffer because cuts will either be made in services or taxes will be raised (or both). It’s thorny if one buys into the basic premise that these ideas are indeed “rights”. Follow that path and it may well become an ethical “arguement” even though it’s not. The problem is that the “ethics” idea makes one chose sides….either you’re eithical or you’re not. Ever hear someone say they’re “sorta” ethical? Thus if you don’t do the so-called ethical thing, you’re unethical. Simple huh?
It might be better to be sure the voters are REALLy informed and that they vote. Also though, if this would pass, it makes the government responsible for the outcomes. Oh yes! JOY! Let’s have the government make coices that harness/control a population! Ughhh!
Well done EV and it’s lawyers!! Spokane needs to get braced for some mini socialism if this passes. “Mini” is the operant word in my opinion. Yay!!! I just love the topic. Vote for Prop 4!! unless you value the City of Spokane. Otherwise run for your lives!!! Just my opinion.
Commenting etiquette
Interesting against videos, although i would like to see information backing that stance – specifically regarding the potential legal action everyone seems frightened of.
Regarding the moral issues at stake here (from my point of view), they would be the lack of livable wages paid by many employers in our area. In the area of building construction (just to speak of one industry that seems to come up quite a bit), contractors who work in the private sector currently are not required to pay prevailing wages to their workers whereas all who work on State projects must pay it. Most of those contractors, btw, still make out pretty well. The other major moral concerns being the affordable housing, environmental protections, and access to health care.
At least from a Christian perspective, these would be considered moral issues, as i am unqualified to speak from other perspectives.
And as a quick reminder, all services provided by the city that could arguably be for profit would be a form of socialism. You know, fire protection, schools, police services, parks, streets, transit, water and sewer, garbage, everything at the county, state, and federal levels…
Jon…I’m sorry but I’m not quite so gentle in my responses as some others in responding to such an illfounded post so lacking in….well nevermind. I will let Contrarian or someone else respond. Best wishes.
Jon wrote,
“In the area of building construction (just to speak of one industry that seems to come up quite a bit), contractors who work in the private sector currently are not required to pay prevailing wages to their workers whereas all who work on State projects must pay it. Most of those contractors, btw, still make out pretty well.”
You overlook something, Jon. In the case of state contracts, the State is the customer. Any other customer could likewise require contractors on projects of theirs to pay certain wages. The contractor will be happy to comply; it makes no difference to him what wages he pays, as long as the customer is willing to pay for them. But in requiring contractors to pay certain wages on private projects, the State is no longer expressing its desires as a customer. It is intervening in contracts to which it is not a party, and imposing its preferences on the contracting parties, by force. That means many of those customers will not do those projects in this city. They will tell the State to go to hell, and build their projects in Post Falls, unless they are sure they can pass those cost increases along to their own customers. Which means, of course, that unemployment will rise and prices for most goods and services will increase. Not a healthy prescription for a low-income community.
I’m afraid you’ve succumbed to the myth of the Free Lunch, i.e., that you can create wealth by government decree.
“At least from a Christian perspective, these would be considered moral issues, as i am unqualified to speak from other perspectives.”
Yes, Jon, they are. But your duty as a Christian is to contribute your own time, talents, and money to the alleviation of suffering. It is not to force others to do so at gunpoint. Being charitable with other people’s money is neither Christian nor moral.
Did I offend the queen of blog etiquette? (Is that Emily Post???) The material I gleaned was well-written and so on point that I thought it worthy to post here. It was too good for a mere link that no one would click. Recently, Spovangelist reposted an article from the Inlander, I did not know my re-posting would get anyone’s panties in a tight wad…(consider asking your shaman for some Prozak…)
Envision Spokane / Prop 4 is truly awful legislation and should go down in flames. Even if it passed, it would never survive the single-issue rule for petitions. Apparently the legal eagles of the Envision Spokane crowd are closer to legal beagles …:J
But Envision Spokane folks, take heart. If Jon Synder and Amber Waldref get elected, they can just pass every point of Envision Spokane /Prop 4 into the City Charter along with Richard Rush, Steve Corker and Joe Shogan. Who needs a poorly written petition?
Amber is as far left as about anyone who has run for City Council in a decade. Jon Synder who runs a business and thus must make a payroll, through necessity understands budgets better, but still is the darling of the Green wing of the DNC.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
As I recall, Spokane is pretty conservative. Not sure why Amber or Jon would be elected unless the liberal component gets out the vote. Of course, Envision is pretty liberal too so who knows.!!
If anyone has interest, the 9 pieces of Envision’s Prop 4 look like the same points in the Comp Plan from 2001. DId Envision simply “lift” the 9 points from someone elses work? Looks like the only difference all these years later is that instead of “pie in the sky” ideas, the present Prop 4 is binding. Stolen thoughts never work.
In fact, when I came home to see my parents over the 4th, I strolled over to the party in West Central. I saw those same points in the original CompPlan. Is Spokane more liberal now??? Perhaps some “Sqeaky wheels” have recruited a few thousand people gullible enough to think the plan might work…..and be paid for in a very limited economy…. I cannot tell.