This is who we are rooting for in the Spokane City Council primary races. Please take a moment to read about and support these excellent candidates.
District 1: Amber Waldref
District 2: Jon Snyder
District 3: John Waite
Tags: Competition · Political Surprise · Videos · Young People64 Comments
64 responses so far ↓
Doesn’t look like growth for Spokane is important to any of these candidates. Spiritual maybe but serious growth? Nope. Spokane is desparate for growth to sustain itself as the present structure of the city is quite limited. This is what kills the city…..stagnant city just trading dollars inside. Unless /until outside monies flow in, it’ll remain much the same. Not one candidate Mariah’s “rooting” for engenders the characteristics needed for an expanding economic future in Spokane.
Probably very nice people but leaders? Very limited. Maybe there aren’t any in Spokane…which is a frightening idea.
When someone says that we need outside corporations to come to Spokane to cause outside monies to flow in, I wonder how they ever came up with that idea. Outside monies come from internal innovation from strong local companies which market their ideas outside our area.
Bending knee to the Wal*Marts of the world, disrupting traffic patterns, destroying our local environmental life support system, and putting local businesses out of business does not help that mission. Indeed, not only does it prevent us from generating the capital we need to grow, but it also harms our quality of life, driving innovative people with the choice to live anywhere they want out of our community.
We need candidates who support local businesses over the interests of the corporations who would accept your money at the checkout line and ship it off to some other place. That is how our community will prosper.
I guess it all depends on what type of “growth” we want. Do we want to support our local businesses and circulate our resources within our City, or do we want to encourage the Home Depots and Wal-Marts of the world to move in next door, take our money and ship it off to corporate headquarters out of state?
Do we want to encourage the suburban sprawl concept of “the good life”, or do we want to support a robust and sustainable (excuse the dirty word) business climate in the city.
If Daisy is really interested in “serious growth”, she/he might want to consider supporting a few ideas that make a city worth living in. A vibrant, and yes “livable”, city attracts energetic, smart people and forward thinking companies……..much needed commodities in Spokane. Otherwise, the best of our young, educated people will continue to leave in droves seeking a decent paying job and life affirming living situations. I know this because my three adult children wouldn’t live in Spokane on a bet….they much prefer Portland and Seattle.
Thank you Spovangelist for sticking with us “oldsters” and trying to drag this city into the 21st century. And thank you Jon, Amber and John.
Why don’t you people leave Spokane alone? Spokane is what it is for various reasons that took over a century to develop. I used to be one of those young people who wanted to drag Spokane into the 21st century, now I celebrate how stubborn it is. I run a successful business in (gasp) the suburbs. I know because I have made it here I can make it anywhere, yet I am not going anywhere. Call me a neanderthal but I am going to get in my fossil fuel burning vehicle, drive to the suburbs on the opposite side of the city and listen to some banjo tunes!
Daisy and Brian are both right. Spokane certainly needs to encourage local entrepreneurs who develop products marketable outside this area, but it also needs to attract capital, products, and services from outside the area. Boise’s impressive growth in the last 2 decades is directly traceable to the entry of an “outsider” — Hewlett Packard — in 1973. HP’s Laserject printer, developed in Boise, became the company’s biggest product ever. Five years after HP came to town, Micron was founded locally. It eventually became one of the largest manufacturers of semiconductors in the world, and is currently the only maker of DRAM chips in the US.
You’re forgetting, Brian, that the crucial requirement of a high quality of life is a job, particularly a job that allows you to do the kind of work you love to do and which pays well. HP and Micron attracted swarms of innovative, talented people to Boise, a town of 75,000 (at the time) whose “quality of life,” by the standards of Silicon Valley and the Bay Area (whence many of them came) was primitive.
The next most important factor for a high quality of life is one’s range of choices — in employment, restaurants, housing, shopping, entertainment, etc. I’m curious, Linda, whether you’re as unhappy with having Nordstrom, Macy’s, and the Gap in town as you are having WAlMart and Home Depot.
“Sustainability Action Plans” and overbuilt transit systems rank well below those factors on most people’s lists, if they are included at all.
1. WalMarts, etc are simple “service ” type jpbs. They recirculate the same money spent on managers, clerks ect. Brin knows this…hopefully since he want to be a Co Commissioner last year as I recall. Spokane depends on this type of money for maintenence. And.although I don’t like the idea of sending money outside, it’s necessary to have those jobs until a local concern decides it’ll be the next WalMart, Home Depot , etc.
2. I’m thinking more of bring new businesses to town. Manufacturing…whether it’s keyboards, knives or hobby horses.
This is a new source of money and is used to interact with other business that might come. Increasing the tax base to get some workable roads, amplify new services and amintain the ones SPokane has cannot be a bad idea. RIght now, or so says Mary Verner when I was in town for the 4th ( at one of those block parties in West Central) the city is about $7.2 million under. How’d this happen? What’s the cure? Not the same old money recirculating. Linda…sorry to hear you kids left but I’m one those kids who had to leave to expand my thoughts, develop fields that simply didn’t exist or had development stifled by the powers that be in Spokane. I know how it works. Us kids won’t be reclaimed and your kids won’t come home until Spokane develops. Pure and simple. How it develops is the “rub”.
3. Some people , like Exiled think like he wrote…”Why don’t you people leave Spokane alone?”….and then other do want growth (” sustainable”…..yuk to that overused word) but the type of growth is unclear. Nobody knows. If I may be so bold, I’d say this “Stuff that makes Spokane money and grows further”.!! The direction of that growth is presently controlled. It’s the arts, spiritual type things that will be defined by each person or group interacting with various persons, places and things in/out of the Spokane community.
ON the other hand, Spokane can sit and recirculate the money it has and fall backward with the Birkenstock types ( have a pair) and stay as it is. Fall backward as the rest of the country moves ahead. The rest of the world thinks financial, intellectual and community growth is a pretty good thing so the schools, road, fire dets, etc can take place. Further though, new technology happens in funded places….. As do new drugs, devices etc….you know the things that protect life and makes it better. Even RIVERS can be cleaned!!!
Lots to offer this little city. Lots of smiles and happiness too. My opinion is that financial growth has many good things to offer. No growth is what’s been going on for years in Spokane. DO you see what the “No growth” types have achieved? Delayed growth, debt and and uncertain future except for the few on top of this heap.. Spokane can do better…just my opinion though.
This is why I wondered what the Spovangelist’s political favorites had to offer in the “growth” or “leadership” categries. Sorry if I ruffle feathers.
Hey Daisy,
Interesting comments. But I think looking for outside money for growth is a fallacy. Think for a second, if everyone is looking for “outside” money, all you do is chase dollars and give tax breaks to companies that will leave when the next good deal comes along. Don’t you think every community is looking for outside dollars?
So what we need is internal growth and innovation unrelient on others. if you create a community that is so attractive to outsiders, they want to come. We have the brains and leadership to make a great Spokane built around the resources we have locally. I think you’ll see the country as a whole work towards locally led sustainable economies. Especially as energy costs increase, an innovative, local based economy will be a must. If the internet retailers/providers win, everything will be based in a few select locations, leaving places like Spokane falling behind. So think local, Spend local, tax local, govern local.
John Waite, City Council candidate, 3rd district
Not “every” community is looking but I grant you, most are. Staying “inside itself” is exactly what has Spokane is such trouble. I suppose Spokane can simply recirculate its own money and then wonder why there’s been no growth.
Why do you think Idaho’s economy has grown as has it’s cities? They welcome solid companies who give jobs. SO what if there’s a tax advantage or incentive? Those jobs bolster their economy and keep their streets paved,….something you might be thinking about Mr Waite should you be elected. Idaho’s not in debt and neither is CDA to your East.
Contrariwise, Wa Government is a disaster….and the Governor has WA in debt to the tune of $10 million now with more to come as she’s being sued by every program she cut back.. They WANT to be in Idaho ( I know because they gave my own group huge incentives to relocate). Corps leave Wa St. All anyone has to do is drive around Spokane. Bump bump bump…hit the freeways and it’s better but be careful. Now go East and notice once the Idaho border is passed, no more bump bump. CDA…. same story. Weather’s the same…streets and roads much better in Idaho.
Outside money helps. Inside, recirculateded money = stagnation. If you’re a “no growth” candidate…well…..best wishes. I’m not in Spokane but I think both approaches should exist. Keep the CIiy working and I hope the $7 million debt is managed somehow. But doesn’t anyone notice that money must come from the outside or taxes must be raised? Mr Waite….what will you do? What will the Gov do to manage her well concealed ( during her run) debt of $10 Billion? Will Obama help…it’s our own money he’s “helping ” with.
It’s something to think about. I’d like to have Contrarian weigh in on some of this.
Jane’s Pics for Spokane City Council: Ballots due August 18th
Spokane is divided into 3 City Council Districts, (which have different boundaries than both legislative and County districts).
District 1 is roughly north of the river and east of Division Street, has only 2 candidates, Amber Waldref, neighborhood and environmental activist, and Mike Fagan, Eyeman’s Spokane negative tax activist. Under our current top-two system, that race will not be voted upon until the General Election in November.
District 2, Position 2 has 6 candidates. It is roughly south of the Spokane River.
Mike Allen, 42, incumbent, was appointed to the council in the fall of ’08. He worked for EWU as corporate and foundation relations director until recently. His interests are economic development, nurturing small businesses and job creation.He was endorsed by the Spokesman-Review because of his experience and values.
Steve Eugster, 65, former city councilman, lawyer and community activist. He said city government should deal first with police, fire, and streets — that is, public safety. Add some land use matters, and the rest, – for instance, parks, library, an ombudsman, a sustainability Task Force, – would fight for
remaining monies. The S-R, while citing these ideas as appealing, was careful to remember his former combativeness and litigiousness.
Jon Snyder, who publishes (and writes) Out There, a monthly magazine, doesn’t confine city government to Eugster’s “essentials”. He believes in working to slow urban sprawl, supports an ombudsman, would renew the current street bond to improve streets. He supports pursuing light rail and “honors neighborhoods, our historic buildings and street trees.” A vibrant livable city supports current business and attracts new business.” He co-founded and was first board president of KYRS, Thin Air Community Radio. He was endorsed by Sixth District Democratic members, Sierra Club PAC, Angie Dierdorff and Betsy Rush among others.
David Elton, 43, had been attending City Council since ’83, (he said) but now is barred from attending because of perceived threats to Council President Joe Shogan, Tracy Cowles, Elton’s x-wife, and others in e-mails. His answers at the forum I’ve attended were flip and usually one sentence: he does not appear to be a serious candidate.
Greg Ridgely, 18, will be a senior at Gonzaga Prep and says he’s running to encourage youth to get involved. He says he will cut spending on social services. He hasn’t attended many forums, or campaign events and isn’t a serious candidate.
Kristina Sabestinas, 29, has also missed forums that I’ve attended. She’s on leave from her job in Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rogers’ district office. The S-R says she is bright and energetic, aware of Spokane’s need for a more conservative fiscal city budget, and has potential. She may be hoping for the Republican woman ‘s vote: she put out an expensive, slick mailer and signs.
I recommend Jon Snyder.
District 3, Position 2: This district, north of the river and west of Division, has 6 candidates, three of which “merit serious consideration”, according to the Spokesman-Review (and I agree).
Nancy McLaughlin, 51, is the hard-to-beat incumbent for fiscal and social conservatives who has been endorsed by the SR. She has voted against union compensation contracts (already negotiated), and said she would continue to vote against union contracts that include benefits for workers’ unmarried partners. She was opposed to putting Envision Spokane on the ballot, and makes even the SR cringe for her “curious views on global warming and the United Nations”. McLaughlin and her husband run a construction and remodeling business, She is a great friend to developers and thus not well-liked by devotees of the Comprehensive Plan. She does support the ombudsman and did help raise the council’s pay to $30,000 per year from $18,000.
John Waite, 45, owns Merlyn’s, the downtown comics, book, game, and science store. His beliefs are socially progressive and fiscally conservative; domestic partners “should be treated exactly equal with everyone else that chose to get married”. He supports light rail. His goal #1 of three is to create a balanced and sustainable city budget; goal #2 is to make cities and counties the core of government with unfunded mandates from state and federal rule; goal #3 is to make city and state government transparent and accountable. Waite is a former teacher and coach and has a radio show on KYRS.
Karen Kearney, 57, was a former member of Spokane’s Human Service Advisory Board, and a former regional operations manager of Capital Saving Bank in Seattle before moving back here. Kearney is critical of McLaughlin’s vote against union contracts but she generally opposes including benefits for unmarried partners. She supports the city’s Comprehensive Plan and is a passionate advocate for the Spokane River and aquifer. She’s against siting Little League baseball fields on polluted ground over the former Indian Trail area landfill. Kearney would go slower on light rail and agrees with the city that the ombudman’s office should wait for investigative power.
Barbara Lampert, 63, a retired nurse’s aide, has run for office very year for over a decade. Although she may be more qualified for this position than others, she hasn’t wide knowledge of city issues and constraints.
Victor Nader, 49. A Navy veteran used his lap top to read off short statements. When he gave spontaneous answers he was very unfocussed and used platitudes inappropriately at times. Not a serious candidate.
Christopher Stevens, 36, is the owner of a medical marijuana dispensary. He has not responded to requests for interviews or forums and hasn’t filed the required paperwork. Not a serious candidate.
Although Karen Kearney seems to have a passionate interest in the Spokane River and in neighborhoods, I would give John Waite the edge as the overall best candidate. I would certainly support Kearney over McLaughlin (if I could vote in this district) if both finish the primary as the “top two”.
Contrarian—I’ll bet Linda dislikes Home Depot and Wal-Mart not simply because they’re chains, but because they’re huge sources of suburban sprawl, which in turn disinvest from the city. The Gap, Macy*s, and Nordstrom, while chains, all have stores downtown. They don’t get tax breaks to be there, though big box stores do when they want to move into the suburbs. Sprawl is possible because the government subsidizes it. We’d all like local businesses over national ones, but I think most people dislike big box stores because they create sprawl—the antithesis of the whole idea of the city. It destroys any sense of localism we once had.
We don’t have an overbuilt transit system. Like most American cities, it’s underbuilt. Freeways create sprawl. Well-planned rail transit (and people-focused planning in general) create compact neighborhoods.
Exiled Chairman—Spokane was well developed like other cities until sprawl destroyed much of what was accomplished. I-90 paved over countless acres of downtown property, forcing many to relocate. This created a disinvestment in the city and an exodus into the suburbs, a living situation that will be more difficult to maintain as we approach peak oil.
Snyder, Waite, and Waldref will be excellent additions to the City Council if elected. They realize that growth is something that should accommodate the wishes of the people, not simply the city’s tax base. They realize that good transportation isn’t limited to more roads, but making neighborhoods better connected and more able to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists—along with improving public transportation and making it more appealing to the average person.
Daisy—it’s not necessary to have big box stores for our service industry. If we didn’t have the likes of Wal-Mart and “category killers” like Best Buy, Home Depot, and Staples, we’d have more local businesses: corner grocery stores, electronic stores, hardware stores, office supply stores, etc. Not only are jobs lost when big boxes come to town (like Lowe’s replacing local hardware stores), but national chains have little incentive to use our local services: they don’t heavily rely on local banks, local accountants, local design firms, and local newspaper advertising, and these businesses can be hurt in addition to the targeted one. Local charities are also affected in a similar way, since chains have little connection to the community.
We don’t need a local business to become the next Wal-Mart or Home Depot. Each neighborhood needs to have a vibrant business district so they can provide these places—and so people don’t have to drive far (or at all) to get essential services. We don’t need one huge local business, we need multiple ones scattered around the city to make it more convenient for residents.
Sure Spokane needs to grow. We need to reinvest in downtown and other urban areas (East Central, Hillyard, N. Monroe St., etc.) and create a more compact city like we once had. A healthy city can’t have a ton of sprawl.
John Waite wrote,
“Interesting comments. But I think looking for outside money for growth is a fallacy. Think for a second, if everyone is looking for “outside” money, all you do is chase dollars and give tax breaks to companies that will leave when the next good deal comes along. Don’t you think every community is looking for outside dollars?”
Sure they are, John. Some of them get them and some of them don’t. See my remarks above re: Boise. Or even closer to home, Kootenai County, which has consistently outstripped Spokane in job growth over the last 3 decades. If a community creates a favorable business climate, it will *both* encourage local entrepreneurship *and* attract outside capital. Special tax breaks and subsidies are not necessary; generally low taxes and a minimum of costly and discouraging regulations are sufficient.
“If you create a community that is so attractive to outsiders, they want to come.”
No, John. That is putting the cart before the horse. At least, if you mean what I think you do by “attractive.” People will not come to Spokane because it has a lively art scene, a hopping club scene, a farmer’s market, a few LEED certified buildings, or an official “Sustainability Action Plan,” and certainly not because it has a gold-plated transit system. They will come to Spokane because they can find work here that utilizes their talents and skills, challenges them, and pays well. It would be even more attractive to them if the city also offered continuing education and advanced degrees in their fields. *They* are the ones who will create the lively art scene, club scene, theater scene, etc., after they arrive. Disposable incomes are the prerequisite of all of those things. Money is the prerequisite of culture. That has been the case at least since Michaelangelo’s day and it is still the case.
“I think you’ll see the country as a whole work towards locally led sustainable economies.”
That is certainly not what we’re seeing today. We are seeing an economy which is becoming ever more global, and there is every reason to suppose that trend will continue. It will continue because it offers consumers a vastly expanded range of choices and ever-lower prices — and those factors far outweigh the ideals of “green” parochialists in determining one’s quality of life. Anyone seriously interested in improving the quality of life in Spokane should purge the word “sustainable” from his or her vocabularly. It is a vacuous term that reveals gross ignorance of the workings of economies, and thus leads to policies which *reduce* the quality of life, by any objective measure. “Green” ideology is merely the latest incarnation of the pastoralism/primitivism impulse which has episodically dogged civilization since its advent 10,000 years ago. Like all previous outbreaks, this one too will pass.
“If the internet retailers/providers win, everything will be based in a few select locations, leaving places like Spokane falling behind.”
Why should Spokane fall behind? It already has one of the largest internet retailers in the country, namely Huppin’s/Onecall.com. That is, indeed, one economic area where Spokane enjoys a more-or-less even playing field.
Mike Allen, Jon Synder, and John Waite all have Washington State Public Disclosure Commission violations dealing with who paid for their campaign advertisement. The candidates will spin their infringements with lines like, well the ‘rules are so complicated’ or oh ‘it was my campaign manager’. The truth is that if these guys can’t decipher the relatively straightforward rules of the PDC, how can they handle the difficult rules of the city charter and other regulations? Either they are stupid, or crooked. Blaming the campaign manager or campaign employee is just pathetic. IT IS THE CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN AND RESPONSIBILITY!
There are several other campaigns and they don’t have violations in their campaign material. Misunderstanding of the law leads to avoidable lawsuits the city just can’t afford. We already have seen enough of that on council. Campaigns are like a wedding and we are married to the victor for four years. If the candidate can’t honestly make it through a short-lived campaign without indicating who paid for their campaign materials, (a very basic Washington State Campaign rule), how can we trust them with our tax dollars?
Follow the money. Be wary of politicians who feel they are above the rules and don’t take responsibility when they get caught.
Ignore the charisma and spin.
Vote integrity and proficiency
Hey Spowind, Pretty tough condemnation. This is the first I have heard of my Campaign violations. I would have thought the PDC would have contacted me. I am the campaign manager for votejohnwaite. So what are those violations again? Where do you get your information?
Contrarian, I am one of those small Spokane businesses you speak of. And I have no desire to go to the other side of the border. If Idaho want to be a giant slum and give every tax break possible to attract minimum wage jobs, they can have them. I want businesses that like Spokane and want to contribute to Spokane’s success. It’s about time for businesses to have some civic pride and help Spokane as well as people and families. If you can make more somewhere else, go there. There is more to life than riches.
And I am sick of this talk about how tough are B&O tax is. Mine is about $1500 a year. And you get a break when your a small new business. My freaking Avista bill is higher than that in December alone. That’s a real business cost that no one seems to talk about. And it’s a real cost to families as well. Avista is pretty profitable for being a public/private monopoly.
Daisy (and whoever else), I really think you should read my web site – votejohnwaite.com before you put words in my mouth. Please don’t speak for me. You cannot represent what I think. I’m not even sure you can represent what you think.
John Waite, City Council Candidate 3rd district
votejohnwaite.com
Well John, if you would have bothered to read the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission simple brochure of political advertising,
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/guide/brochures/pdf/2009/2009.Bro.Adv.pdf
You would find that when you place an ad such as the ones you have in Out There Monthly Magazine both July and August issues, it is required to have a Paid for by statement on the ad. This is a simple straightforward rule that you seemed to have ignored. Either you are careless or feel it does not apply to you; either way IT IS YOUR REASONABILITY to obey the law. This rule is as old as dirt with the PDC and this is not your first campaign John. The other candidates are campaign virgins but you are not. Didn’t it cross your mind that a Paid for by statement is required? Since you have been running for office, have you ever read a campaign ad in this state? You are not paying attention and I as a voter would not trust you to understand the complex language of the city charter or the near billion dollar city budget. Every one of your opponents seem to have got it right; why should the people of the City of Spokane 3rd District trust you? The Spovangelist if it had any integrity, would pull their endorsement of you. We will see…
Spowind, you have a warped idea of integrity. If you think this is the height of political corruption, your sadly mistaken. Maybe you should dig around the PCD and look at campaign contributions, and how they relate to council voting. But I doubt you will.
My ads for the Inlander are correct with the disclosure. So I guess I’m half evil in your mind. How is it possible to have one ad correct and another missing a disclaimer?? That’s amazing!!
So please report me to the PCD if you are really upset. Otherwise, lets have a real discussion of the issues and what we need to fix in Spokane. You know, the important stuff. All my idea’s and two years of my radio discussions are on my web site. You can really get after me then. Otherwise, you sound like the guy that said he wouldn’t vote for me because I didn’t wear a tie…
Better yet, why don’t you do your civic duty and run for office.
John Waite – votejohnwaite.com
PS – So who are you really supporting?
SpoWind, do you have anything real to say or are you just trying to cause trouble?
Hummmmm……is it Spowind or Breakwind……I smell a stinker
Well, Eric, you’re reciting the “green” catechism there chapter and verse, and as always, it is mistaken in almost every respect. First, Nordstrom and the Gap certainly did receive subsidies — have you forgotten the RPS scandal already? In fact, Nordstrom is among the most agressive and shameless corporate seekers of public subsidies in the country, a strategy it has employed in cities from coast to coast, a well-known fact which has been reported in numerous media.
(See links in next post)
Walmart has certainly been a major player in the subsidy hunt as well. So have virtually every other national manufacturer and retailer. As long as government officials are willing to give away public money to feather their political caps, corporate managers would be remiss in their fiduciary duties to their stockholders if they did not take advantage of them. There is no need to subsidize either Nordstrom or Walmart. If there is a demand for their respective products and services they will build — provided, of course, that local governments do not erect roadblocks instead.
Then there is the predictable complaint about “sprawl,” the greenie term of disparagement for “growth,” especially growth which does not comply with the greenies’ retro visions of Utopia. Complaints about “sprawl” are simply the whinings of busybodies who are not content to choose their own lifestyles, but believe themselves qualified and entitled to dictate others’ as well. Developers build suburban subdivisions because they know there is a market for that type of housing. There is a market because many people *prefer* to live in a larger house, or because they *prefer* to live on a larger lot where neighbors are not quite so close, or because they *prefer* to live in a quieter, more pastoral setting than can be obtained in a central city. In other words, their visions of Utopia — their understanding of what contributes to “quality of life” — differ from yours (and from mine, truth to tell). But that is OK. They are entitled to pursue happiness as they define it, even as you and I. They have no obligation whatsoever to submit to your (or my) standards and ideals, or to forego their own prospects of happiness in order to enhance ours.
“We don’t have an overbuilt transit system. Like most American cities, it’s underbuilt. Freeways create sprawl. Well-planned rail transit (and people-focused planning in general) create compact neighborhoods.”
No, Eric. That is just another chapter in the catechism. A transit system is overbuilt if its capacity greatly exceeds its use. That is what “overbuilt” means. STA has a system load factor of about 7%, which means that 93% of its seats are usually empty. Other cities’ transit systems do not do much better. A foolproof method of determining whether a transit system is overbuilt is if it requires subsidies. If it receives them it means that the level of patronage is insufficient to cover its operating costs. I.e., it is overbuilt.
Nor do freeways “create sprawl,” or rail transit “create compact neighborhoods.” Freeways *enable* people to live how and where they prefer to live, i.e., they allow choices which are not feasible with a less flexible and versatile transportation technology. They play the same role in urban development that streetcars did in their heyday — they allowed people to live in larger homes on larger lots, further from their places of employment. If people did not wish to live in suburban settings that freeway and those subdivisions would remain unused and unsold (they would be overbuilt). And rail systems “create compact neighborhoods” only if the latter are themselves heavily subsisized (overbuilt), such as in Portland, or if other housing and transportation options are simultaneously removed from the table by edict of government officials who have bought into the greenie fantasy and are determined to inflict it on everyone else.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/1998-12-09/news/those-dole-full-nordstroms/
There were several other links, but WordPress is having a prob with one of them, and tracking down which one is too tedious.
At least Spowind is attacking real issues and not spreading ignorance such as this line from Erik “They realize that growth is something that should accommodate the wishes of the people, not simply the city’s tax base”
I don’t have a copy of the greenie catechism but they might explain the difference between the two in it.
My ideal candidate would not be pro growth, but anti restriction. A healthy economy is based on voluntary co-operation between individuals exchanging goods and services. When this is allowed to flourish the result is growth.
“My ideal candidate would not be pro growth, but anti restriction. A healthy economy is based on voluntary co-operation between individuals exchanging goods and services. When this is allowed to flourish the result is growth.”
That’s it in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman.
When Eric refers to the “wishes of the people,” he means the wishes of those people who prove most adept at imposing their views on others via the political process. He does not mean the wishes of actual, individual people as revealed by their own free choices.
“Greenie catechism”? Some kind of warped Judeo-Christian bent to the separatism of church and state.
Please, spin “sprawl” in any kind of positive conotation. Enlighten the masses with extending the already thinned infrastructure of any non-urban community.
Big dollars rule.
Spokane’s city planners spent years developing a Growth Management (not disparagement) act, yet developers and contractors treat these concepts on infringement of eminent domain. Their “right” to capitalize on the quality of life of the core.
How can anything be over subsidized if they USE it? Portland is wrong, please.
If you build it, they will come?
Vacuouse conomies? Like ours?
CDA can outstrip our business any day, because they pay at best minimum wage to long time residents that can no longer afford their residence.
Green is global, green is local, green will spawn a new economy, not in Spokane, not in Washington, but globally. There will be a new, different economy.
Please define sprawl in such an enlightening way that my daughters can fully appreciate in 20 years. Boise learned it’s lesson, it moved inward. Look at the dynamic cities of Europe, they had sprawl limited by geography, didn’t limit them.
Developers build where they see $$$, the market be damned. If they can profit, they will build, regardless of the ethical ramifications to the community.
Green will not go away, it will not fade, it is not based on a presidency or a fad.
Sustainable is simply meeting the demands of today without compromising the future.
Contrarian–I wasn’t so much justifying Gap and Nordstrom as I was giving an example of chain stores that are downtown, a living arrangement that has proved successful for centuries all across the world. Along with shutting out local businesses, my biggest complaint is that sprawl creates a way of life that is just not going to work in the long run, because it’s dominated by the automobile. It also creates a sense of placelessness. It’s hard to feel connected to regions that look like every other suburban area in America.
I really don’t think most people want to live in sprawl. But that’s all there really is. When’s the last time you saw a new set of grid streets being developed in Spokane with houses that weren’t identical and didn’t require a car to get to the nearest businesses? I honestly don’t care who does and doesn’t live in the suburbs. I just feel that the traditional neighborhood has more to offer than suburbia.
STA’s system load is low because (1) many people live in areas not reachable by transit and (2) we’ve created this false impression that public transportation is only for people who cannot use cars. Buses are just not as attractive to people as rail is. There have been countless examples of cities which built rail transit lines and saw ridership increase.
You can argue all you want about the supposed drawbacks of transit, but there’s more than enough proof that freeways help to induce sprawl. Lower land values encourage low-density commercial and residential development. Just look at all the fast food joints on 3rd Ave. downtown and you’ll see what I mean. Sure, Division has tons of sprawl, and it’s not a freeway, but sprawl wouldn’t be nearly as bad if we didn’t have the freeway. Without it, Spokane would be a lot more compact and intact that it is today. The buildings that were demolished to make way for I-90 were replaced by buildings in the suburbs. The city did not benefit.
People can complain about subsidized transit, but we wouldn’t have freeways without them being funded by the government, though no one is complaining that we’re spending billions to build a freeway that will be congested in a number of years. Freeways are short-term solutions to long-term problems.
In terms of people living in subdivisions near freeways, as I said before, today there are few options for new housing other than in suburbia. People live in subdivisions fueled by freeways because that’s all there is.
You’re right, the first suburbs were connected by streetcars, and that’s what differentiates them from today’s suburbs. In order to live in the suburbs, not only do you have to own a car, but you have to use it for every single thing you do: to go to work, to pick up a few groceries, to visit friends who might live in the next development. I don’t have a problem with people living away from the central core of the city. I do have a problem with the auto-centric monoculture that has been created because of it. We need to have neighborhoods that are friendly to all forms of transportation, not just the car. Downtown was not always the only urban area in Spokane. We had many different business districts around town (E. Central, Garland, Hillyard, etc.) which allowed residents to get essential services without having to leave their neighborhood.
Spotucky—as I said, I’m not anti-growth. I just think we should focus on the under-built areas of town before building further out. We need to focus on improving decaying neighborhoods before spreading the city further out. We need to fill out before we expand, if that makes sense.
Contrarian—by “wishes of the people” I’m not saying that everyone agrees with me. Perhaps that was the wrong wording. What I’m saying is that we shouldn’t accommodate big box stores just to bring in more money for the city. We have to think of how the community will be affected when customers are taken away from local stores and small businesses suffer. Increasing the tax base is good, but not when it turns our city into Anywhere, USA.
John:
Not everyone is cut out to be in elected office. Spokane City Council members are charged to mange nearly a billion-dollar budget. It takes a good two years of hard work just to get an understanding of the office. It is not for the light of heart or the lazy. What am I supposed to conclude when you can’t even follow simple instructions from the Public Disclosure Commission (FYI it is PDC, not PCD) with regards to your print ads? This is like a pre-employment test that you, Allen and Synder failed miserably. Every other viable candidate this season got it right but not you three. Since you have been in an election before, you have less of an excuse.
I am not buying the
“…lets get down to the real issues”. Spin, NO!
If you can’t run your own damn campaign and obey the laws of the State of Washington this means one of two things: You are crooked, or incompetent. Since you misspelled PDC, I will assume you are incompetent. John, you just don’t have the chops for the job. Just because you can run a small funky store does not mean you can handle running a Costco. The job of a good quality city council member is more than just meet, greet and a weekly meeting. The language of the law is difficult as is the budget process. It takes hard work dedication and diligence to do the job and not be forced to take the opinion of city staff or other council members. From your performance on your campaign, you don’t have the skill set or will to get to this level of competence.
Spokane has had enough sub par council members in the last ten years…
I take no pleasure in telling you and The Spovangelist crowd you Allen and Synder are unfit at this time for a seat on Spokane City Council.
To Sirius: It doesn’t get much more serious than telling someone they don’t have the skills to handle a job for four or eight years that helps manage nearly a billion dollars. This is not a game. It is all serious, dude. Waite, Synder and Allen flunked out the pre-hire exam. I for one will not recommend any of them. If ya can’t trust them in small things, ya can’t trust them with big ones; especially when it involves the lives and tax dollars of 250K+ people.
To Linda McHenry: Are you in Junior High? Break wind jokes, honestly. Take the gum out of your mouth, skate home and let the adults discuss the future of our community and city.
To everyone else: Don’t kill the messenger. Look it up at http://www.pdc.wa.gov. Pick up a copy of Out There Monthly and see for your self. The laws are simple and straightforward. The candidates might be your friends but you owe your vote to the person who will do the best job for the next four years with integrity and competence. Allen, Synder and Waite are not up to the task.
“If you can’t run your own damn campaign and obey the laws of the State of Washington this means one of two things: You are crooked, or incompetent.”
Are you serious, SpoWind? There are many, many reasons that people fail to obey the laws of the state of Washington. Do you think that it is possible that the omission that has you so bent might be the result of simple human error? The fact that the “Paid for..” text is in Waite’s Inlander ad suggests that he knows about the rule. Isn’t it possible the line got missed on the OutThere Monthly ad as a result of haste, error, miscommunication, etc.?
And “crooked”? What could Waite or Snyder possibly be trying to hide by omitting that line? It’s not like we are talking about huge expenditures such as a full-page ad in the Spokesman-Review or a billboard on Division. We’re talking about ads in a free monthly outdoor magazine. Oooh, who’s secretly funneling big money into their campaigns to pay for ads in OutThere Monthly?
And “Incompetent”? Nice black-or-white thinking there. People make mistakes and sometimes neither “incompetence” nor malice have anything to do with it. Would you like to be held to such a high level of accountability for any mistakes you have ever made? I know I wouldn’t.
Still, I can see that these horrific and malicious violations of campaign rules have set you against Waite and Snyder this year and I find it doubtful that anyone here will change your mind. That is fine, that is your right. I wish you the best and hope that you are able to find the completely flawless candidate that you are searching for.
Spowind, your actually cracking me up. I laugh as I read your RANT. That’s all it is. If you want to be taken seriously, PLEASE join the real world and help solve the problems of Spokane. You know, I talked to Nancy M a couple of weeks ago about campaigns. Did you know she left her signs out after the last election longer than is legal according to city regs!!! Nancy broke the city elections laws!! OH MY GOD!!!!! Oh yeah, Eugster got suspended from practicing law, so he must be off your list. So really who are you supporting? And seriously, if you have taken Michael and Jon out of the 2nd district race, who could you support? You expectations of perfection are not reality. You really should run being so perfect and all knowing that you can judge us all so well. But you know what Jesus said about Judging others.
So really, I do want to hear and talk issues if you have any campaign issues you care about.
Seriously…
John Waite, City Council Candidate, 3rd district
votejohnwaite.com
John:
Pointing out the sins of others does not make you a saint, John. Yes, Steve Eugster has been suspended from practicing law, but from what I see he has followed the simple campaign laws of the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). Also, I don’t find any laws concerning picking up signs on the entire PDC website, so this argument is rather odd and somewhat pathetic. They did not break State campaign law as far as I can tell. If they did, I would add them to the unfit list along with you, Synder and Allen.
Ask yourself, why should voters except a candidate that can’t even follow simple campaign laws about who paid for their print ad or billboards? IT IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT!
If we ignore the laws of the PDC and don’t hold candidates responsible for violating them; then the wealthy powerful interest will eventually take over and grassroots candidates will not be able to get elected. The PDC helps level the playing field. A number of awful, well financed, local candidates were held accountable in election thanks in part to the PDC.
You would not hire someone to manage your store and your family finances if they failed a basic math competency test you administered. Yet this is what you are asking voters to do with you, Synder and Allen. (The difference is we the people cannot easily fire for incompetence folks we elect to mange the near BILLION dollar budget.)
Now imagine the same prospective employee after failing the basic test, points out that Einstein failed in math earlier in his career, the Bohr atom was incorrect for all but one of the elements and Galileo was branded as a heretic. Let’s talk about the real issues of your store…
Honestly John, your answers in this debate scare the hell out of me. You have chosen to spin (and badly) rather than take responsibility. I was hoping you would learn from this experience and correct your problems. In 2011 you could run for the open seat and be better prepared to be a council member. Your answers however make me think that you would rather try to spin than study and blame others rather than take responsibility.
We are full up of the politician you are showing me at every level of elected office.
You are not going make it past the Primary, John. Unfortunately Synder and Allen will. I will support; neither. I am hoping Waldref /Fagan race will produce a good addition to council.
Read Sowell & Friedman and it will change your perspective on campaigns and promises that politicians make. They will also re-enforce the need for personal freedoms and subsequently personal responsibility.
Contrarian, keep up the good work.
Spowind,
Oh god I want to respond so badly, but I can see how this conversation will go. You ignore what I say and go to your talking point (the single point) over and over.
So I’ll leave it at this – Spowind, good night and good luck…
Anyone else want to have a real discussion of actual issues.
Anyone??
John Waite, City Council Candidate, 3rd district
votejohnwaite.com
John:
Since you quoted Jesus here is one for you:, take the plank out of thy own eye, then you will see clearly enough to take the spec out of the eyes of others. I did not judge you, I just held you accountable.
I presented evidence as well as reasonable conclusions. I did not let you spin out or re-frame the conversation or minimize the accusation. It is now up to the readers of The Spovangelist to judge and vote in part to the comments you and I both gave.
They have been warned and I have concluded with my examination of your campaign.
Lastly John, are you a born again Christian, or do you just quote Jesus when you think it will help with you argument?
Here are some softball issues as you requested. (Enjoy!)
Should elected officials resign if they are seeking another office via election while serving in an elected office?
Is it more important for a city to be fiscally responsible or environmentally responsible?
Coke or Pepsi?
Do you support Envision Spokane?
Do you feel that e
The oldest rhetorical trick in the book is not to attack a person’s ideas, but to attack the person.
If John Waite, as a local entrepreneur who is deeply invested in Spokane and it’s health as a thriving community isn’t qualified to “run Costco” then who is? This is the city council, and personally I would rather have someone who understands Spokane, its business and its people than someone that may meet Spowind’s model of an ideal candidate. Who would that be, by the way?
Spokane has always suffered from an identity crisis; there are some really smart and interested people from almost every background who are interested in helping us steer our (wonderful) city in a direction that releases us from that inability to clearly articulate what Spokane actually is, and possibly (through the input of citizens) achieve something spectacular.
I was in Hobart, Tasmania a few years ago, and some German gentlemen asked where we were from. They were delighted to hear we were from Spokane; they had been there a few years past. It has always struck me that their attitude towards our city was much more positive and warm than most of the people who live here. It is quite “fashionable” to denigrate dear old Spokane–too bad for us.
WalMart, Home Depot, Lowes, Best Buy…meh. Let’s look to the local neighborhoods who want to remain/become vibrant centers of local commerce and are independent of strip malls and box stores. They have a lesson to teach us.
s.o.b. wrote,
“‘Greenie catechism’? Some kind of warped Judeo-Christian bent to the separatism of church and state.”
Yes, that is the parallel. A catechism is set of canned answers to frequently-asked questions which adherents to some dogmatic ideology are expected to recite by rote whenever those questions arise. They are not expected to question or investigate the veracity of those answers (that would be heresy), but to accept them on “faith.”
‘”Please, spin ‘sprawl’ in any kind of positive conotation. Enlighten the masses with extending the already thinned infrastructure of any non-urban community.”
Oh, please. Let’s draw out the implication: “If ‘sprawl’ (i.e., growth of suburbs) continues unchecked, Spokane’s ‘already thinned infrastructure’ must surely break!”
Well, surely not. Were that the case then other cities — Portland, for example — could not have attained a metro population more than triple Spokane’s, and a ring of suburbs about twice as broad and twice as deep as Spokane’s. Despite all that dreadful “sprawl,” the infrastructure in that community works just as well as it does in Spokane (most of that growth BTW, occurred long before Portland embarked upon its rail transit fiasco, which has done virtually nothing to change growth patterns there, except making it more costly). The same kind of evidence can be readily observed in dozens of other cities.
Communities extend their infrastructure as necessary to accommodate growth (unless, of course, their politicos have been bamboozled by greenie mythology, in which case they are apt to refuse to do their jobs in order to create the result the mythology prophesizes). There is no “threshhold of disaster” beyond which growth must not proceed.
“Spokane’s city planners spent years developing a Growth Management (not disparagement) act, yet developers and contractors treat these concepts on infringement of eminent domain.”
I assume you mean “infringement of their property rights.” Which of course the GMA and the city’s Comprehensive Plan are.
“How can anything be over subsidized if they USE it? Portland is wrong, please.”
That is the point — they DON’T use it, in numbers which can justify its cost or capacity. Portland has spend $2 billion on rail transit systems since 1980, yet fewer Portland commuters use transit today than they did in 1980 (fraction fell from 9.5% to 6.5%). Fewer downtown Portland workers used transit in 2007 than they did in 2000.
(Check the “Transit Myths” posts on my blog, http://www.freespokane.net)
“Developers build where they see $$$, the market be damned.”
Er, I think you are confused. The “market” and “$$$” are the same thing. If developers “see $$$,” what they see is a demand for whatever they plan to develop. A “demand” means that there are people out there who are willing to freely spend their money for the product or service the developer is attempting to provide. Those $$$ are not going to fall into the developers’ pockets via the Law of Gravity or because the developer has held a gun to someone’s head; each one of them will be freely surrendered in exchange for a product or service some customer deems desireable.
“If they can profit, they will build, regardless of the ethical ramifications to the community.”
Developers, like everyone else, have a duty not to infringe anyone else’s rights when developing their projects. They and their prospective customers have no duty, however, to fulfill the mere wishes and preferences of third parties, or conform to some zealot’s faddish ideology. On the contrary — the third parties and the zealots have a duty not to interfere with those customers’ pursuit of their own happiness, whether they approve of their choices and lifestyles or not.
SpoWind wrote,
“If we ignore the laws of the PDC and don’t hold candidates responsible for violating them; then the wealthy powerful interest will eventually take over and grassroots candidates will not be able to get elected.”
Oh, rubbish. Public disclosure laws are nothing but attempts to enshrine the *ad hominem* fallacy in law. They are invasions of privacy and violations of free speech.
Base your voting decisions on the candidates’ qualifications, voting record, and stated positions on the issues. Who else may be supporting him or her is irrelevant and none of your business.
TLP—you’re right about Spokane giving itself a bad reputation. And yet we’re not doing much about it. We’re digging a deeper hole. Less big box stores and more small businesses will make us more appealing, because we won’t look like everywhere else. More big box development on the South Hill is the last thing we need.
Contrarian—as for “greenie catechisms,” I’ve explained my positions. You still haven’t talked about how sprawl can be something positive.
Growth management acts wouldn’t be necessary if we didn’t make communities completely reliant on the car. Because we do, we need to keep sprawl in check until that way of living is no longer feasible. I can understand how growth management might seem restrictive, but without enforcing it, we’ll continue to get nothing but sprawl.
I looked at your transit posts. Randall O’Toole? Really? Not only is this guy anti-transit, most of what he says is downright anti-city.
Besides, whatever Portland’s statistics are, O’Toole obviously hasn’t been to Spokane: STA’s ridership increased 17.7 percent from 2007 to 2008 (national average: 5 percent), and 40 percent between 2005 and 2008! October was the first million-passenger month. Even as gas prices decreased between last and this summer, ridership has remained steady. There is demand for good public transportation in Spokane, no matter what O’Toole might say about it in general.
Wrong again Spowind….I’m a 62 yo senior citizen…HA!!!!
And at least I use my real name when accusing others of ignorance and maleficence. What’s your name anyway….come big feller, you can tell us…can’t ya??????
Eric wrote:
“Contrarian–I wasn’t so much justifying Gap and Nordstrom as I was giving an example of chain stores that are downtown, a living arrangement that has proved successful for centuries all across the world.”
The development patterns observed in human settlements reflect the technologies available during various periods in their history. Dense, compact cities worked for centuries because the only means of transportation available to most people for centuries was their own feet. For most of that time, in most places, even horses were available only to the relatively wealthy. People did not live in those closet-sized, walk-up flats in 3-6 storey buildings (building higher than 5-6 stories was infeasible before electric elevators became available) on narrow streets because they found that living arrangement ideal. They chose it because it was the best arrangement available given the extant technology. Even in that era, however, people who could afford a horse and carriage tended to choose larger houses on larger lots, further from the “teeming masses” — the manor houses and townhouses of the European gentry.
The advent of streetcars and rising incomes in the 19th century made it possible for many people to build larger houses on larger lots, further away from their places of employment. Spokane’s neighborhoods between 29th and Wellesley illustrate the development patterns of the “streetcar era.” Those
neighborhoods were the “sprawl” of their day.
As incomes continued to rise and the automobile became available and affordable by most people, streetcar use (and public transit use generally) declined and “suburban” neighborhoods, characterized by even larger lots and even more distant from the commercial and industrial center of the city, began to develop (a “suburb” was originally understood to refer to residential area not accessible by streetcar, although sometimes streetcar lines were extended to them. Those became “streetcar suburbs”).
You are trying to freeze-frame the development patterns of the 18th and prior centuries and canonize them as some sort of ideal. But they were “ideal” only in their historical and technological context. As soon as economic and technological development opened new housing and transportation options, people greedily seized them.
“I really don’t think most people want to live in sprawl. But that’s all there really is. When’s the last time you saw a new set of grid streets being developed in Spokane with houses that weren’t identical and didn’t require a car to get to the nearest businesses?”
Well, that is simply false. Urban housing options are readily available in every city, and always have been. Every city has thousands of flats, townhouses, condos, and inner-ring SF houses on small lots. Where a demand for more of those types of housing appears, the market readily responds (consider all the new condo projects which have appeared in Spokane over the last few years). But many more people prefer the suburbs, which is why growth in that segment over the last 50 years has far outstripped that for inner city housing options. For many people, the further they can get from the central city and still feasibly commute, the better. That includes people who work downtown everyday and are thoroughly familiar with the “charms” of city life. They can’t wait to escape those charms every day at 5 pm.
Let me say that I am not one of those people. I have lived downtown or near downtown all my life, and would not live in the suburbs if you gave me a house there (I’d sell it immediately and buy a cabin in the woods and a Hummer to get me to it). I find the kaleidoscope of urban life endlessly fascinating. But I have no desire to impose my own preferences on everyone else.
[From 2nd post]:
“You still haven’t talked about how sprawl can be something positive.”
“Sprawl” (suburban housing) is positive because it satisfies the desires of the people who prefer and have chosen it, and that is the only relevant criterion. There is no such thing as a “common good” in large, civilized societies. Whatever is good or bad is good or bad only for particular persons, and it varies from person to person. The only sense in which one can speak of the “common good” of a community is in reference to a situation in which each person in that community is free to pursue the good as he or she understands and defines it, without interference from others. That is a “meta-good.”
Contrarian—you bring up some great points. In fact, I agree with most of what you just said.
There’s nothing wrong with the suburbs in theory. I just think they are designed in a way that promotes an auto-centric culture. I don’t hate cars, I own one; I just feel the lifestyle that’s been arranged for us for the past 60 years makes doing the most basic things inefficient because we have to use the car to go everywhere.
You’re right, the first suburbs of the 20th century were streetcar suburbs. Today public transportation has been gentrified as a service only poor people are encouraged to use. We need to promote communities that cater to all forms of transportation.
Of course there’s urban housing available. What I mean is that new large-scale developments in Spokane are in the form of the cul-de-sac, with wide streets (which promote faster and less safe traffic), skinny (if any) sidewalks that don’t lead anywhere, and isolation from essential services. Even the old streetcar suburbs were connected to business districts outside downtown, like Garland or West Central. Suburban sprawl isn’t dictated by public demand as much as you say. There is a very powerful sprawl lobby that helps to maintain the status quo, even though a lot of people don’t like it.
As far as existing housing is concerned, I think some people house hunting in Spokane are more apt to live in the suburbs, not necessarily because it’s more appealing to them, but because it’s readily available. Cul-de-sacs often have the entire subdivision for sale as the houses are built at the same time. It’s easier for people to buy a house quickly there than wait for something to pop up in an older neighborhood. Sure, some people obviously want to live in the suburbs, but I think others do it because that’s all that’s available at the time (or that’s all they’re aware of).
As I’ve said before, I have no problem with people who live in the suburbs. I’m close to people who do. I don’t judge people because of where they live. At the same time, I think it’s important to promote the idea of the traditional city.
Half of all Americans live in sprawl. For some it’s because it’s appealing to them, to others it’s due to an unclear idea of the city, and for others it’s the only option (like sprawl-dominated areas in the Southwest).
Suburban life was originally promoted because the city was dangerous. There was a ton of crime and pollution. Instead of fixing the city, we decided to abandon it, which made it worse. It was a self fulfilling prophesy, and we’re still feeling the effects of it today.
I do, however, think the suburbs can be a good thing. But too often “suburban” is followed by “sprawl,” which is antithetical to the very idea of the city. You can’t have sprawl without disinvestment from urban areas. While downtown has certainly improved over the past decade, sprawl has continued unabated. More housing, office space, and retail outside the city means more unnecessary extensions of infrastructure, sewer, and energy, all of which has to be maintained by the city or county (and paid by our taxes). This in turn requires us to build more schools and expand fire and police services.
If we were just expanding the city by adding new grid street neighborhoods and setting aside land for mixed-use areas, then I’d have no problem with it. But because the car dominates transportation, and because it’s difficult to develop residential and commercial uses near each other, the suburbs don’t work nearly as efficiently as they should.
They will only work as long as oil is cheap. American are willing to drive for $3 a gallon, but what is our limit? $5? $10? $20? Modern suburbs exist because of cheap gas. They worked well because it was affordable to live out of town. But what happens when it’s no longer economically feasible to fill up our gas tanks once a week (or more)? The city as we’ve known it for centuries will continue to exist, but the suburbs will come to a standstill.
“I just feel the lifestyle that’s been arranged for us for the past 60 years makes doing the most basic things inefficient because we have to use the car to go everywhere.”
But we don’t. People who prefer to live within walking distance of shopping and services can easily find housing which allows it. No one “has to” live in a suburb, or in any area distant from services. If they choose those areas they do so because they judge the travel time and cost burdens to be preferable to the other drawbacks they perceive with a more urban environment. They *prefer* to have some distance between themselves and the urban hubbub.
“We need to promote communities that cater to all forms of transportation.”
There is no need for “we” (meaning government planners) to “promote” any style of housing or mode of transportation. Each person is prefectly capable of deciding for herself which of the numerous options available best meets her needs and preferences. Everyone who develops a housing project, of any type, will be promoting his or her particular offering, whether it is a downtown condo or apartment project, an inner-city “micro housing” project, a gated subdivision in the suburbs, or a “ranchette” development on 5 acre wooded lots in the boondocks. Consumers listen to all their pitches, weigh their relative advantages and disadvantages, and then choose among them. Government has no useful role to play in that process. Its role is to follow those developments and extend urban services to them to the extent their residents desire them and are willing to pay for them. Any attempt on its part to “promote” or “guide” or dictate those choices will be arbitrary, presumptuous and counter-productive.
“Suburban sprawl isn’t dictated by public demand as much as you say. There is a very powerful sprawl lobby that helps to maintain the status quo, even though a lot of people don’t like it.”
Are you saying that some large fraction of suburban residents don’t like living where they do, and have somehow been “forced” or “brainwashed” into living there? What is your evidence for such a claim?
Recent market history tells a different tale. Spokane, like many other cities, saw a spurt of inner-city condo developments between about 2000 and 2006, spurred by demographic changes (smaller household sizes) and volatile fuel prices. That segment of the market appeared to be underserved in Spokane, and developers proceeded to close that gap. But it quickly petered out. Several large condo projects — the Wall St condos, YWCA twin towers, the tower proposed on W Riverside (which was opposed by some Peaceful Valley NIMBYs) were all cancelled. Rob Brewster’s Vox Tower appears to be on permanent hold. The huge Kendall Yards mixed use project is going nowhere. Last March Wells & Co placed the first “micro housing” project in Spokane (that I know of) on the market. I have no info on how many of the units he has sold, but this month he began offering them for rent. All of those cancellations and suspensions, except Wells’, occurred *before* the housing bubble collapsed last fall. They were cancelled because the demand for the units was not there. In the meantime, sales of homes in suburbs continued apace, until the recession clobbered the entire housing market.
“More housing, office space, and retail outside the city means more unnecessary extensions of infrastructure, sewer, and energy, all of which has to be maintained by the city or county (and paid by our taxes). This in turn requires us to build more schools and expand fire and police services.”
They are not “unnecessary” if they are meeting someone’s needs and enabling them to live as they desire. I do agree that those residents should pay any costs incurred in adding or extending those services — and they do. All of the infrastructure in a subdivision — the roads, sidewalks, water and sewer lines, underground electric service, streetlighting, etc., are installed and paid for by the developer, who passes those costs on the the homebuyers. Maintenance of the streets is also paid for by the residents, via property taxes, just as is maintenance of all other public streets. In fact, that new suburban resident will typically be paying *more* than his “fair share” of street maintenance costs, because his home is probably valued higher than average for the area, and because his streets, being new, require less maintenance than average. In other words, a new subdivision adds costs for public services, but it also adds new taxpayers to pay those costs — and then some. And if they don’t pay their “fair share,” then there is something wrong with the tax structure, not with the subdivision.
The Contrarian does such a good job of countering most of the left leaning points on this blog I hate to dumb it down with this question.
But hopefully Eric will satisfy my curiosity. Are you against the electric car? Based on your economic ideas a car that gets 200 mpg will only allow people to move further away from the city. Or if you think that eventually suburbs will die based on the market effects of supply and demand on oil why don’t you just sit back in your urban dwelling and wait for the masses to come flocking back to the city? My guess is the general liberal tendency to not give Americans any respect for the choices they make. Do you hope that the city council candidates we were discussing earlier will make rules to protect the citizens of Spokane (who are so far behind those from Portland & Seattle) from our own ignorance?
I had another long comment to add, but I think I’ll end it here. It’s just getting silly now. We’re obviously not going to agree on anything, so let’s just move on. I’m done.
Wow, talk about killing the messenger. Ok now it is time for serious mocking.
TLP your logic escapes me. I presented evidence that three candidates running for Spokane City Council have broken fairly but important simple campaign law and proved it. Waite even admits it, Allen and Synder were written up in the Spokesman Review about it yet, TLP starts his response with the line:
“The oldest rhetorical trick in the book is not to attack a person’s ideas, but to attack the person..”
Where is the line TLP? When do you say?
“Well the candidate broke that law, I guess they would not be an effective leader. I’m not going to support their campaign.”
Is it something deeper than that TLP? Is it because you know John Waite that you are willing to overlook his mistakes?
Hypothetically, if this was a candidate you didn’t support in Waite’s race say Nancy McLaughlin or Karen Kearney, would you have the same attitude or would you find my conclusions more agreeable?
Look into your own soul TLP. Waite, failed a fairly simple requirement of the PDC. He is the only candidate in his race that did. It is not his first campaign. Would you really trust this guy as one vote of seven of a nearly billion-dollar budget? When confronted, instead of taking responsibility he tried to re-frame and spin with the line “…lets have a real discussion of the issues and what we need to fix in Spokane.” Translation: Ignore what I have done and do not hold me accountable, I am much too important to be held to a standard others must follow.
Kind of reminds the casual student of politics of Nixon, Clinton, Jim West, Brad Stark etc…
I think his spin is worse than the PDC violations. My respect for Waite plummeted with how he responded to my comments.
I’m weary of spin when caught politicians. I seek better for my community. I want integrity and competence elected to office. Elected officials who are not trying to make a career but will represent the public.
If this is a crime then I am guilty.
Wait… TLP were you referencing me with your opening statement or Linda McHenry?
Contrarian: Why do you toy with the simple minded? Don’t you have anything better to do with your time? You seem like a ‘bright kid’, but being contrary just for the sake of being contrary in order to get a rise out of folk seems a bit sophomoric and unproductive.
You wrote:
Oh, rubbish. Public disclosure laws are nothing but attempts to enshrine the * ad hominem * fallacy in law. They are invasions of privacy and violations of free speech.
Base your voting decisions on the candidates’ qualifications, voting record, and stated positions on the issues. Who else may be supporting him or her is irrelevant and none of your business.
Your use of Ad hominem fallacy in law was incorrect. I presented facts and derived a reasonable conclusion. I did not fault Allen, Synder or Waite because they are part of some group as you implied I did with the above statement.
Strike one Contrarian.
Your statement of “Invasions of privacy and violations of free speech.” How is this an invasion of privacy? It is a public election for a public office. The people have a right to know who is funding a candidate. Whose free speech is being violated? The candidates? Public Corporations have a much more rigorous reporting criteria.
Strike Two Contrarian.
Your statement “who else may be supporting him or her is irrelevant and none of your business.” Is so moronic I hardly feel it is necessary to comment. Hypothetically speaking, if a wealthy Canadian came to Spokane and donated a $200,000 each to four city council candidates and the mayor, he or she could literally buy the elections. Then he could have his loyal elected officials approve the Canadian Park Square Garage Construction Project. This involves paying upwards of 27 million dollars for a 9 million dollar garage in downtown Spokane. Without the PDC there would be no way to see who is funding the billboards and newspaper ads touting the lemming candidates.
Strike Three Contrarian, you’re out of credibility.
I know you will attempt to defend because you like to argue. The truth is however; Waite, Synder and Allen broke campaign law. That is factual statement so there is no need for further debate. The question was it deliberately or an oversight needs to be answered next. Since this is job that manages nearly a BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET, I’d say the answer to the deliberately/oversight question is moot. Either way, they are not fit for the office.
Linda McHenry: It shouldn’t matter who I am. The content of what I write is what is important. If I’m in error, please feel free to logically counter my arguments with facts versus attempting to attack my character. You are attempting to discredit the mailman who delivers bad news. Your support of Waite is dogmatic despite contrary evidence.
I am not trying to dissuade you from your dogma, only look at the evidence I present and evaluate it.
Again Mr. Spokwind………Names (real ones) add credence to statements. Until you are willing to identify yourself there is no context to what you say. May be you are one of the candidates running against Allen, Snyder or Waite…….looking for some, any, advantage in the race. May be you are just the humorless, angry (why?) person you portray with no other outlet. Whatever the case, hiding behind a pseudonym while accusing others of integrity lapses is weak….very weak.
SpoWind wrote,
“Your use of Ad hominem fallacy in law was incorrect. I presented facts and derived a reasonable conclusion. I did not fault Allen, Synder or Waite because they are part of some group as you implied I did with the above statement.”
You need to brush up on the meaning of “ad hominem fallacy.” It includes any pseudo-argument directed to some characteristic of the speaker, rather than to the substance of his arguments. E.g., “What Tweedledum says must be wrong because Tweedledum is a Catholic,” or “Tweedledum must be right because he Tweedledummer supports him, and Tweedledummer is a nice guy,” or “Tweedledum must be right because Tweedledummest supports him, and Tweedledummest is a doctor.”
Your particular version is known as “ad hominem circumstantial,” or “Guilt by Association.” Here’s an example from the IEP:
————
Guilt by Association
Guilt by association is a version of the ad hominem fallacy in which a person is said to be guilty of error because of the group he or she associates with. The fallacy occurs when we unfairly try to change the issue to be about the speaker’s circumstances rather than about the speaker’s actual argument. Also called “Ad Hominem, Circumstantial.”
Example:
Secretary of State Dean Acheson is soft on communism as you can see by the fuzzy-headed liberals who come to his White House cocktail parties.
——————
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Guilt%20by%20Association
“Your statement of “Invasions of privacy and violations of free speech.” How is this an invasion of privacy? It is a public election for a public office. The people have a right to know who is funding a candidate. Whose free speech is being violated? The candidates? Public Corporations have a much more rigorous reporting criteria.
My free speech is being violated. “The people” have no more right to know who I’ve supported financially or to whom I’ve donated time and talents than they do to know for whom I voted. That is a pseudo-right cooked up by the Left to deny the hated “rich” and “corporations” free speech and their rights of free association (because they are wicked golems, non-persons). It is a tactic regularly used by them: “We must dismiss this global warming study, since it was partly funded by Exxon,” or “No one should vote for Tweedledummer because he received a campaign contribution from Behemoth Insurance.”
“The truth is however; Waite, Synder and Allen broke campaign law.”
If they did, that is a point in their favor — a noble example civil disobedience. Some laws richly deserve to be broken, and that is one of them. If I were a candidate I’d file every PDC report on time, with “None of your business” scrawled in black EZ marker across every page.
Point of clarity, Spowind: I didn’t claim *you* were making an *ad hominem* argument, but that the public disclosure law does. Your sin is invoking and thereby implicitly defending that specious law.
First point- I admitted I was dumbing down the argument with the electric car question but it was a good opportunity to catch Eric in a contradiction. Market factors take time to work and allowing them to slowly shape our economy is important to true strong growth. Legislation to speed up market factors are just steroids (ex. Cars for Clunkers).
My guess is Spowind is either another candidate or working directly with one. He has successfully derailed this blog from a discussion on the growth of Spokane to some kind of legal vocab course. Did you know Barack Obama ran un-opposed in his first campaign for state senate? He did this by having his people file objections to the signatures gathered by his opponents. I just realized a key path… Do we want a professional bureaucrat, someone who can follow the PDC rules to the letter, on the city council? or a man/women of action who will not let the tedium of government stop them from doing what is best for Spokane?
SpoWind – It is people like you that make me leave sites like this. It is easy to attack people mercilessly and mock them in the anonymity of cyberspace. Your approach is not only malicious, it is cowardly.
As a graphic artist at a newspaper, I can assure you that many candidates forget their “Paid For” statements at the bottom of their ads. I’m constantly putting it on the ads for them. In fact, the publications that ran John’s ads this way bear some responsibility, as do the salespeople who handled the account.
Tiny details are often forgotten in life. It is the large ones that matter most, and your strange fixation on this issue speaks of rampant immaturity and an irrational hatred of a candidate for reason other than those you are revealing. If the “Paid For” issue is the most you can attack John for, that makes your stance pretty pathetic.
For the record, my intention was to inform not to focus any discussion upon little old me. For the record, I am not any candidate or have I been and I am not an employee on any campaign local or otherwise. That was just a rumor started by Linda McHenry. (She also implied I smelled but that was just juvenile and untrue most of the time. She is apparently a huge supporter of Waite and did not like me criticizing her candidate. She insists on knowing my secret identity. Unfortunately, she believes that unless she knows the source, the source has no credibility. She is old enough to know better however. With her standards, Nixon would have never been caught. Deep Throat kept his identity secret for decades. Thanks to him and his “cowardice” (according to McHenry), a sub par president resigned and most of the perpetrators were sent to prison. To this day, every American voter should always remember, “Follow the money”. I believe this and I also believe in the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). FYI, Washington State has the best in the Nation bar none. It is there to be accessed so we the people can have idea who is supporting a candidate and how the money is spent. It allows us to follow the money without being Bob Woodard. It also shows us if we care to look, how a candidate can handle a campaign. Did they FOLLOW THE LAW and report. If they don’t report and obey the law, it defeats the purpose of the PDC. It is also and indicator of how the candidates will perform in office.
Instead of attacking the messenger (Spowind), research the message and see if it is correct. Try not to yield to the temptation of attacking the messenger when you don’t like the message or can’t win the debate.
Don’t be political patsy and let any candidate off the hook. They work for us and we are doing the hiring.
Note: The Voice of Reason: You claim that you work
“As a graphic artist at a newspaper. “…many candidates forget their “Paid For” statements at the bottom of their ads. I’m constantly putting it on the ads for them.”
Let them fail TVOR. The people have a right to know that your clients are idiots and unworthy of public office.
Quick note on Jon Synder, HE OWNS AND PUBLISHES A MONTHLY PUBLICATION. He should know about Paid for by statements wouldn’t you think? Waite has run for this office before, one would think he would know about ‘paid for by’ statements? Mike Allen, well, he is new to local politics and doesn’t own a monthly publication. He still can read and is just as responsible as Synder and Waite.
The Exiled Chairman of the Peoples State of Spotucky: I was aware of the Obama first election story. That is Chicago politics and this is Spokane. Synder, Allen and Waite did their violations on their own. I did not have any of my Acorn workers set them up; they violated a basic campaign law purely on their own. They should have done better.
In conclusion, I’ve done my bit and reported accurately and in an unbiased manor; it is up to everyone else to decide. I’ve addressed the rumor mill about me, which is a huge waste of people’s time. Follow the money, Follow the money, Follow the money.
Now if we can continue, let’s have some fun. There is an election on Tuesday.
My prediction is
District #2: Jon Synder for the win and Mike Allen second. Eugster for third.
District #3: Nancy McLaughlin for the win by a wide lead; Karen Kearny comes in at a distant second. Waite and Lampert duke it out for third.
If you would like an explanation, I’ll submit one, otherwise don’t forget to vote.
Place your predictions folks: Let’s see who is the closest to being correct. The winner gets to be insulted by Linda McHenry.
Look, folks, this guy is just repeating himself. We’re better off ignoring him than to give him the attention he so desperately needs. Feebs like this always disappear when ignored.
TVOR, you state I am repeating myself when I introduce new material every time I post. Please. You are just sulking because YOU don’t have a decent response to my response to you. (New material)
If you can’t win the debate, discredit the debater…very old and obvious tactic TVOR. I have moved on two postings ago. All I am doing now responding to personal attacks on me versus folks intelligently discussing the integrity of the candidates. Again, I’ve said my piece and have moved on. (Old material)
For Example: Who is going to win on Tuesday August18th? The Primary election is over and I am curious who can predict who is going to win BEFORE the election.
This was NEW material in my last post. It is not a explanation of old material or even a defense against folks who are basking in a very weak argument. I have moved on, can you?
We all don’t have to agree in order to have a discussion. (New material)
Many Americans over the years died so we today could discuss politics without fear of retribution. We honor those souls by taking part in our political process; discussing, debating, disagreeing and seeking what is best for our community. Eliminating a voice that speaks the truth because we don’t like what we hear is a step towards the destruction of freedom of the press and free speech. Beware those who wish to destroy free speech; they are the enemy of every American. Honor those who have the guts to stand alone on truth and hold the people we hire to lead us accountable. (New material)
Don’t forget to vote!!! (Old material)
Old material, new material…………….the real point is nobody cares…bye-bye spokwind….
oh, and one more thing……..I didn’t vote for John Waite…..he not from my district
I didn’t vote for John Waite either, as he is not in my district. I DID, however, vote for Jon Snyder.
You stated who you voted for, but who is going to win and in what order (1,2,3)?
Chairman of Spotucky -
Your point about having a bureaucrat vs. a genuine person if action is really quite salient. It is the professional politicians and bureaucrats who have driven this country into the ground. It’s important to begin at the city level and clean this mess up, and people who really give a damn, like Waite, Snyder and Waldref are the kind of people we need.
We need to give government back to the people, and not to those who answer to special interests. The cancer in our system will never go away until we do that.
That’s why I’m The Chairman.
Incidentally I voted for myself.
Voice of Reason said,
“We need to give government back to the people, and not to those who answer to special interests. The cancer in our system will never go away until we do that.”
Well, you get to be the foil, VoR. You have just recited another verse in the catechism of the Left — one trotted out in virtually every political discussion.
As I mentioned a few posts back in this thread, a “catechism” is list of canned answers to frequently-asked questions or responses to frequently-raised points which adherents to some dogmatic ideology are taught to recite by rote, and whose coherence or validity they have never questioned.
Your distinction between “the people” and “special interests” is an ubiquitous one. It reflects one of the foundational planks in the Left’s ideology — indeed, its central principle. It is also the most absurd.
The underlying assumption is that there is some kind of abstract (even mystical) collective entity, “the people,” which occupies a higher moral plane than individuals and whose goals and interests therefore override and transcend those of mere individuals. But the noble and sacred goals of this superior being are constantly thwarted by selfish, morally stunted, impious reprobates indifferent or hostile to this “Greater Good” and driven only by their own narrow, material and corporeal interests.
This social ontology is ancient, of course. It derives from *homo sapiens*’ tribal heritage (a heritage we share with all primates), which held the tribe to be the immortal and sovereign entity, the enduring reality, the wise and imperious Mother and Protector of all, and mortal individuals to be merely its temporary vassals and servants. Those born within the embrace of this exalted entity, who adhered to its ways and submitted to its imperatives were “the people;” all other humans were “barbarians,” or “enemies,” and later, once montheistic religions had adopted this ontology, “heathens.”
And that ontology is nonsense, from start to finish. There is no abstract, transcendent entity “the people;” there are only individuals. There are no transcendental goals and interests which override the interests and goals of individuals; the goals and interests of individuals are the only goals and interests there are.
Every tribe has some version of a priesthood — a witch doctor, a priestly class, a Council of Elders or Sages — who profess to have a channel to the Divine, the Eternal, and can therefore speak for The People, the tribe, for God. In modern societies politicians and ideologues play this role. They also claim to know what is in the interests of The People, what The People desires, and what is for the Greater Good. But of course, since there is no such transcendental entity or interests, they will inevitably be speaking only for the “special interests” of some particular individual or individuals, those being the only interests there are.
All interests are “special interests,” special to the persons interested in them. The interests of land developers, investors in corporations, persons in business, “the rich” are all indeed “special interests.” So are the interests of “greenies,” wage laborers, consumers, and welfare recipients. (The most dangerous “special interest” of all is the intense interest some persons have in obtaining sufficient power over others to force them to serve their own idiosyncratic “special interests”).
What is needed in a social setting is a set of rules which allow everyone to satisfy his or her own “special” interests, whatever they may be, insofar as he or she is able to do so without inflicting harms or losses on others in the process. An approach based on a flawed ontology, on myth and superstition, which sanctifies the interests of some persons as universal and transcendental and dismisses those of others as “special” and parochial — merely the base desires of heathens and non-persons — cannot possibly lead to those rules. It can lead only to intensified hostility and perpetual conflict.
Contrarian – Forgive me that I don’t have time for long winded, pseudo-intellectual answers where I parse all the subtleties known to man. You may feel that my response is “canned” or cliché, but the reason something becomes a cliché is because of the truth held within.
I wish I had the time to go into more detail, but this is only a blog with a few reasonably intelligent people involved and I can’t stay here and bang my head up against a wall of your dogma. I have far, far better things to do.
I wish you all the best and good luck in the elections folks!
Gee Voice of Reason what is it with you? When someone has a good argument, you care not to address, you just either call him or her names or you state you don’t have time. Why can’t we be blessed with this supposed wisdom you imply exist between your mastoid regions? I’m still waiting for an answer from you why a publisher would make up an ad that didn’t have a Paid for by Statement
You stated:
“As a graphic artist at a newspaper, I can assure you that many candidates forget their “Paid For” statements at the bottom of their ads. I’m constantly putting it on the ads for them.”
It is a reasonable question to ask why a publisher and editor in chief wouldn’t place the all-important statement in ads in his own publication! As you state so succinctly, “In fact, the publications that ran John’s ads this way bear some responsibility, as do the salespeople who handled the account.” That of course would be Jon Synder Publisher of Out There Monthly.
You gave no response because there is no reason that is not damaging to Synder. It is much easier to ignore or silence as inquisitor than it is to face the fact that either Synder did not follow the basic instructions of the Public Disclosure Commission or as a Publisher, ignored the law.
Either way, there is no answer you had the heart or grey matter to handle.
Instead you take the big fat coward’s way out; insult and run away.
You remind me of Eric Cartman “Screw you guys, I’m going home.
You called me a ”Feeb” which might be true, we shall see. If it is true however, this “Feeb” just routed you in argument and outed you as a coward. Does that make you a “Dekafeeb”?
“Voice of Reason”
My prediction was was mostly right.
I said: District #2: Jon Synder for the win and Mike Allen second. Eugster for third.
Well I blew it on Eugster but get this, Kristina Sabestinas could overtake Allen in the next two days and I would be really wrong…It is very close and GOP folks do better after the election than DNC.
I said:
District #3: Nancy McLaughlin for the win by a wide lead; Karen Kearny comes in at a distant second.
Waite and Lampert duke it out for third.
Lampert was not a factor but Waite was indeed third.
Waite has very little chance to beat Kearney and she should distance her lead on Wed and never look back.
McLaughlin is going to win the race in Nov anyway, by a big margin.
No one is perfect…
[...] to those who answer to special interests.” (From a comment by “Voice of Reason” here. Scroll down to comment [...]
VOReason, Contrarian has done a near perfect job of defining precisely the terms so important to any biological, scientific, political, etc discussion. If the issues, terms, etc cannot be defined, there’s no point in continuing because each particpant will be speaking in on-specific terms when specificity is exactly what’s needed. Makes for “squishy” talk with no firm conclusions….and it’s stiffling when trying to communicate.
I don’t know anyone on this bog. I do know a quality, trained mind when I see one though. Contrarian isn’t just some overblown windbag. He’s very exact when he dissects an issue. Most in politics/science/philosophy aren’t. “Pseudo-intellectual” is what people frequently charge when they’re out of bullets in a discussion……or just too lazy or disinclined to continue.
“Cliches” might have some truth in them but that’s not why they’re called “cliche”. A better, more apt idea might be this: it’s what most people say so frequently, the verbage is stale without lots of thought required. ie …it’s just a canned statement heard so often, it’s “cliche”…..basically adds nothing.
Well, when I began the comment section on Spov’s blog, it went far afield when what was supposed to be a discussion of the candiates and each’s potential for leadship in growth. Well done everyone. Some commentors fell by the wayside and did that early. SOme had some thoughts suitable for the “peanut gallery”. I hope there’s some growth in the candidates who prevail come Novermber. It’s the best we can hope for. In the world, there’s no sitting still or stasis,…it’s the rule these days that a city grows or gradually dies off. Best wishes.
Daisy
Without Elected officials with diligence and integrity it is only a matter of time before we will be into another River Park Square (which BTW we will be paying just under 3 million per year until 2027. In 2027 we will have NOTHING TO SHOW FOR the money spent. Not a square inch of ground, not a retail outlet or even a garage.)
Without citizens willing to hold elected officials accountable, it is only a matter of time before we elect another majority on city council or on the county commissioners that will sell us out in order to appease the powerful. Power tends to corrupt unchecked power corrupts absolutely.
I could not have been more disappointed in some of the responses. I presented valid, verifiable, concerns about three candidates. Only one person agreed with my concerns. Everyone else opted to ignore or dismiss the evidence and attack me.
Until Spokane voters are willing to look at the facts and ignore candidate charisma or familiarity, we are doomed to repeat the same pattern of rule by the powerful at the expense of the many.
Research, reason then vote as if your children’s future depends on it; it does.
SpoWind
Mr. SpoWind. It looks like your predictions were fairly accurate and left you with 2 candidates you would not want in the 2nd district. As you may know by now, Mike Allen is nearly a week late in filing his C-4 (report detailing expenses and contributions for 9/1-10/12) with the PDC. Any comments?
Sure. Any person who can’t handle the simple rules of the PDC can not hanlde the complex rules of the RCW. He is not fit for public office; at least not yet.
A great deal of other candidates got it right; why not Mike Allen?
The rule applies across the board in my book.
[...] There I was, sitting on the sunny steps of the Spokane Convention Center, listening as my friend John Waite (who lost in the primary race for City Council against Nancy McLaughlin last year) got booed for [...]