Bill of Rights Basics

1. ECONOMY

The Rights “Residents have the right to a locally based economy to ensure local job creation and enhance local business opportunities. The right shall include the right to have local monies reinvested locally by lending institutions, and the right to equal access to capital, credit, contracts, incentives, and services for businesses owned by Spokane residents.”

Supporters Say By supporting local businesses, more money stays in Spokane. A fact sheet provided by Envision Spokane lists the negatives of allowing non-local companies to rule: More than 75 percent of revenues earned by big-box retailers is shipped out of the local economy, and three times as much money stays in the local economy when one buys from locally owned businesses. The city’s Comprehensive Plan already cites the need for a locally based economy.

Opponents Say Too vague and potentially litigious. Besides that, says Mike Fagan, a candidate for Spokane City Council, the idea behind this amendment is great — it just shouldn’t be law. “A lot of the money that is going to be lost [because of this amendment] is taxpayer money, in order to defend this in court. We can’t compel a privately owned business to reinvest locally, to give equal access to credit.”

Other Points On the coast of California, the Salinas City Council approved a “Buy Local Ordinance” that gave local businesses an advantage over non-local companies. Citizens were happy with the law, and it didn’t lead to a wholesale departure of chains. Then, less than a year later, the city attempted to block the construction of a new Wal-Mart, but citizens weren’t having it. Public outcry against the law was swift, and the council repealed

2. HEALTH CARE

The Rights “Residents have the right to affordable preventive health care. For residents otherwise unable to access such care, the city shall guarantee such access by coordinating with area health-care providers to create affordable fee-for-service programs within 18 months following adoption of this charter provision.”

Supporters Say The uninsured use ERs for basic health care, driving up costs for people with insurance — to the tune of about $1,000 a year, according to President Obama’s speech to Congress. Coordinating local programs would provide coverage for the growing number of uninsured while keeping costs down.

Opponents Say It would cost millions of dollars to implement and sustain. The result would be cuts to services such as fire and police. If the 18-month period expires and there is no consensus for a fee-for-service plan, the city’s left on the hook.

Other Points Comparing this to public health care programs like the ones in San Francisco and Howard County, Maryland, isn’t really fair. Organizers say they simply want the city to coordinate already existing programs to create a rudimentary, basic health program for the uninsured. And why wait on a federal health package that may never come? 

3. HOUSING

The Rights “Residents have the right to affordable housing, the right to a safely maintained dwelling, and the right to be free from housing discrimination. The city shall ensure the availability of low-income housing stock sufficient to meet the needs of the low-income housing community. People and families may only be denied renting or buying of a dwelling for non-discriminatory reasons and may only be evicted from their residence for non-discriminatory causes.”

Supporters Say Downtown Spokane has lost around 1,000 units of affordable housing in the last 10 years, including the evacuation of the Otis, Commercial and New Madison buildings. This amendment would ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing and save money otherwise spent on battling homelessness.

Opponents Say The initiative will increase the cost of housing in Spokane and force “everyday heroes like teachers and police officers,” as Save Our Spokane puts it, to search outside the city limits for affordable housing.

Other Points There’s already a Spokane Low-Income Housing Consortium, and the city has partnered with state and federal governments to create a plan to reduce homelessness by 50 percent in a 10-year period — complete with specific numbers on how many units of what kind of housing they would need. This amendment would add a mandate to efforts already underway.

4. ENERGY

The Rights “Residents have the right to access affordable and renewable energy sources.”

Supporters Say From Envision Spokane: “Currently, there are few legal protections for individuals who want to access renewable energy sources (such as solar or wind power), or whose access to those renewable energy sources is blocked by new development. This provision gives residents a legal right to ensure that new development does not block their ability to use sunlight or wind to produce power… .”

Opponents Say This undersized right is short on specifics and brings up too many questions. What does renewable mean? Obviously solar and wind power are included, but what about hydropower? And nuclear? Do these energy sources, which have lost favor in many environmental quarters, count? And what does affordable mean? Less than the price of natural gas? This right contains too many unknowns and could lead to far too many costs.

Other Points While lacking specifics, this amendment shares similarities with Initiative 937, passed by Washington voters in 2006. That law requires the state’s large utilities to obtain 15 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020. Of course, this isn’t anywhere close to an exact analogy: The state law speaks to large utilities while this amendment appears to aimed at individuals.

5. ENVIRONMENT

The Rights “Ecosystems, including but not limited to, all groundwater systems, surface water systems, and aquifers have the right to exist and flourish. River systems have the right to flow and have water quality necessary to provide habitat for native plants and animals, and to provide clean drinking water. Aquifers have the right to sustainable recharge, flow and water quality.”

Supporters Say Under current law, only those with a financial or property right can make a claim to protect the river or ecosystem, and restitution is paid to them, rather than paid to clean up the problem. This amendment would allow more people to make that claim and use money for damages exclusively for clean-up and restoration.

Opponents Say Giving rights to rivers and animals takes rights away from people and especially property owners — opening the door to, for example, the possibility of your neighbor suing you for mowing your lawn.

Other Points This isn’t a new idea. The Canadian province of Ontario passed a similar piece of legislation, the Environmental Bill of Rights, in 1993 — though it doesn’t give rights to the rivers themselves. A Universal Environmental Bill of Rights, proposed in Switzerland, does, stating that “every natural matter or compound, organic or inorganic is entitled to all the rights set forth… without distinction of any kind.”

6. NEIGHBORHOODS

The Rights “Residents have the right to determine the future of their neighborhoods.” Neighborhood councils should be empowered “to adopt enforceable neighborhood plans, and… to have growth-related public infrastructure costs funded by new development as provided by an impact fees ordinance. The city… shall provide sufficient funding… for the creation, adoption, and enforcement of neighborhood plans ... Residents may also [reject] proposed land development projects.”

Supporters Say Spokane has been run by developers for too long. Thomas Linzey, who helped write the Community Bill of Rights, says one big reason that he was asked to come to Spokane was the conflict between neighborhood groups and developers. The neighborhoods, he says, usually lose the battle. And remember, if this passes, neighborhoods can veto development only if it contradicts the Charter, the Comprehensive Plan or the neighborhood’s planning.

Opponents Say This amendment not only goes against the principles of democracy, by transferring power to a minority of voters, but also flies against the tenets of our nation, by transferring property rights from an individual to a community. According to Save Our Spokane’s Website, this amendment “will grant a 15 percent minority of citizens in a neighborhood council district the right to block any new development… even a fire station.”

Other Points Paul Leistner, a neighborhood program director in the city of Portland’s Neighborhood Resource Center, says this amendment sounds less like any neighborhood model he’s heard of and more like a homeowners’ association. HOAs can regulate activities — such as not allowing certain types of structures to be built within the subdivision — and can impose fines on those who break the rules. In 2006, almost 60 million Americans lived in an HOA.

7. JOBS

The Rights “Workers have the right to be paid the prevailing wage and the right to work as apprentices, on certain construction projects… exceeding $2 million in construction costs (as annually adjusted for inflation), and all public and publicly subsidized construction projects within the city of Spokane. Workers have the right to work as apprentices on all private construction projects exceeding $2 million in construction costs (as annually adjusted for inflation), and all public and publicly subsidized construction projects.”

Supporters Say Study after study shows that paying a prevailing wage to workers improves worker morale, reduces theft and accidents and injects money back into the state’s economy. Training apprentices, meanwhile, is crucial to maintain a skilled labor force. Developers on government projects already play by these rules, and so do some long-successful private developers. Why shouldn’t private developers in Spokane play by those same rules?

Opponents Say First of all, that $2 million figure? Even small developments — with only a few houses — would be affected. This is, essentially, a glossy Anywhere-but-Spokane brochure for developers. And for the few who do decide to build in the city limits, the price of construction — and therefore, of housing — goes up.

Other Points Along with many state governments, the federal government has had prevailing wage laws for its projects since 1931. One national study across many states found that the costs of prevailing wage projects weren’t significantly different than those without prevailing wages. But another, in California, found such projects to be “substantially more expensive.”

8. LABOR

The Rights “Workers have the right to employer neutrality when unionizing, and the right to constitutional protections within the workplace… and the right to be free from captive audience meetings, or other mandatory, non-work related meetings, in the workplace.”

Supporters Say The Employee Free Choice Act is stalled in Congress. But in the meantime, we can get things done on a local level. We can stop companies from putting pressure on their unionizing employees. And we can prevent “captive audience” meetings, a clear violation of the First Amendment. And if it drives away corporations made queasy by those rules, fine. We don’t want those sort of corporations in Spokane anyway.

Opponents Say “Employer neutrality” is a broad phrase. Coercive speech from employers is already illegal; what this could do is muzzle the free speech rights of employers, essentially preventing them from describing the problematic effects of unionization. And if the union doesn’t hurt business, it’s already very hard to get rid of it.

Other Points California had a law that required employee neutrality from businesses that received public funds, and nothing really bad happened. But that law, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, was declared in violation of federal law. Supporters know this, and hope to use the Community Bill of Rights as a means, through the courts, of changing things on the federal level.

9. ENFORCEMENT

The Rights “Residents, workers, neighborhoods, neighborhood councils and the city of Spokane shall have the right to enforce the Community Bill of Rights… All rights recognized by the Community Bill of Rights are fundamental, inalienable, and self-executing. The city of Spokane, or any person, neighborhood, or neighborhood council aggrieved by a violation of their rights, or any person seeking to enforce the rights of ecosystems, may enforce these rights…”

Supporters Say Our city has created a Comprehensive Plan. That’s a great start — but a toothless one. Right now, it’s just a list of suggestions. This will make the Community Bill of Rights matter. It will give the poor and vulnerable a way to protect their rights. And it would stop corporations from — as they have in some cities — using loopholes and technicalities to pole-vault over city rules and regulations.

Opponents Say Hear that? That’s the clatter of a hundred lawyers leaping into the air, clicking their heels with joy. That’s the din of a thousand frivolous, expensive lawsuits being filed. That’s the whooshing sound of businesses — fretting about losing their legal protections against lawsuits — leaving. That’s the city of Spokane clanging against the authority of the Supreme Court — which has given corporations special rights.

Other Points Nationally, there’s a whole lot of precedent giving corporations the same rights individuals have. But there have also been many cities — in Virginia, Maine and New Hampshire — pushing back against corporate rights. In California’s Humboldt County, a measure limiting corporate campaign donations resulted in a lawsuit from two corporations. To avoid legal bills, Humboldt dropped the measure.