Stated Ambitions

Why the race for one Spokane city council seat means much more Nicholas Deshais

Amber Waldref and Mike Fagan at a city forum last week [Photo: Young Kwak]

Something bad has happened to the air in the basement of the Central United Methodist Church. It’s hot, verging on muggy, and the air is stagnant — despite two oscillating fans blowing their contrary winds at each other from either side of the room.

It’s Wednesday, and 50 congregants (the reason for the swampy atmosphere) sit in portable chairs, fixedly staring at the stage, somber-faced, maybe bored, but paying close attention. Except there’s no preacher. Instead, the church is hosting one of a handful of candidate forums in the city, and Amber Waldref and Mike Fagan are sermonizing into their microphones, hers green, his red.

She mentions that her firstborn, the daughter she and husband Tom had last year, is a fourth-generation Spokanite. He says he’s “hailing out of historic Hillyard.”

The two are the only two candidates vying for a City Council seat from Spokane’s northeastern territory, a district that encompasses blue-collar Hillyard and part of the downtrodden East Central neighborhood. It’s a district bounded by the traffic-jammed Division Street, I-90 and the sprawling Valley, a district currently being run through by a massive highway 50 years in the making, whole neighborhoods razed to ease the cross-town commute. It’s a district known, unfairly or not, for its apathetic and largely absent voters — the average voter turnout in the district for the last two council elections was about 46 percent, 10 points lower than average city turnout.

It’s strange, then, that these two candidates are meeting here. The two have names that reverberate across the state. Fagan has already put his stamp on Washington through the many anti-tax initiatives he’s orchestrated with Tim Eyman. And Waldref, some say, has a bright future waiting for her in Olympia.

And though the two don’t appear on the primary ballot — because there are only two candidates and the field needs no whittling down — come November, it’s on. Waldref versus Fagan — quite a big match-up for such a little part of town.

Face to Face
At the forum, Fagan is obviously more comfortable. The Ron Paul-related Campaign for Liberty is hosting the event and Fagan throws around “C4L,” as if the group is a pal of his.

For her part, Waldref seems at ease. This is the first time the two have met, and both are polite, if not simply ignoring each other. They answer the questions posed to them, hardly looking at each other or responding to the other’s answers. Fagan does break down once, saying he agrees with Waldref’s assessment of eminent domain — “Use it sparingly” — but that’s about it.

It’s no wonder they ignore each other. They don’t agree on much.

“It’s an interesting dichotomy,” Waldref says. “Young versus old, extreme right versus a more moderate view.”

If by moderate she also means Democratic, then she’s right on. When Waldref announced her candidacy in May, the state’s Democratic establishment lined up behind her. Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, who represents Spokane, gave Waldref a hearty endorsement within a week of Waldref’s entering the race. This endorsement was quickly followed by those from Chris Marr, the senate’s majority whip, and Sharon Smith, vice chair of the state’s Democratic Party, also fellow Spokanites. Waldref, unsurprisingly, got the party’s backing in short order. The party hasn’t endorsed any candidates in District 3 and belatedly gave its approval to Jon Snyder in District 2.

“We are pretty focused on quality … and it doesn’t get much better [than Waldref],” Smith, the party’s vice chair, says. “We’re going to do whatever she wants us to.” The organizing ability has helped, especially when it comes to fundraising. Waldref has pulled in more than $17,000, second in fundraising only to incumbent Councilwoman Nancy McLaughlin in District 3. Smith and her partner, Don Barbieri, have each donated $500, and Marr has given $250. Waldref’s lawn signs are everywhere.

But Waldref, development director for the Lands Council, says she’s about more than having a party behind her. She says her district has been especially hit by the downed economy, considering its lower average household income and its loss of big manufacturers, like Kaiser Aluminum. She wants to grow the green-job sector, especially in her part of town, and points to the work Greater Spokane, Inc. and Avista are doing to promote “clean, green technology.”

For public safety, she wants to lessen the impact that large arterial roads have on her part of town, roads such as Nevada, Division, Francis and Market.

“It makes it a really unsafe place for kids to get around,” she says. “We feel divided by these huge arterials. We feel disconnected. It’s unsafe to walk from one part of town to the other.” For this reason, she supports the North South Freeway, to relieve congestion on neighborhood roads.

But she also wants people to know the differences between her and Fagan, whom she calls Eyman’s “foot soldier.” She points to Fagan and Eyman’s successful campaign for I-776.

“The car tabs initiative — it’s one of the reasons the North-South Freeway has taken so long,” she says, adding later in an e-mail, “Governing by initiative hasn’t created new solutions in government, [it has] only furthered our budget problems and polarized the debate over fair taxes.”

Mike Fagan doesn’t talk a lot about the initiative and referendum process, though he’s “definitely a huge proponent.” Which is kind of a given.

Fagan co-founded and co-directs the anti-tax group “Voters Want More Choices” along with Eyman. Together, they’ve pushed through limits on property tax increases and worked to put limits on how transportation money is spent in the state.

Yes, Fagan’s been called the Tim Eyman of Eastern Washington, but he’d rather be known as the Bulldog from Hillyard. In fact, it’s hard to get him off the topic of the neighborhood, which in no small part he’s helped to transform.

“On a city level, when I’m elected here, I want to be able to share the ideas, the vision, the expertise we’ve gotten over the last 10 years … in getting the Hillyard area where it is now,” he says. “We’re talking about blue-collar, bulldog-determination folks.”

Fagan wasn’t clear on what exactly has helped Hillyard in its effort to revitalize, other than to say it involved a lot of civic involvement, an aversion to government “handouts” and a lot of cooperation. “We’re like one big happy family,” he says.
You get the impression he loves Hillyard more than anything, that the neighborhood is the jewel of Spokane.

“We practically had to beg him to join the race,” says Curt Fackler, former chair of the Spokane GOP who now acts as its spokesman. The last entrant for any council seat, Fagan said he’d take on Waldref just three days before the deadline. Now that he’s in, Fackler says he has the party’s support. “This is one of the easier races, as far as I’m concerned. … There was no doubt who we were to support.”

Fagan agrees — there’s only one candidate who any voter should seriously support.

“I personally feel that Ms. Waldref is being groomed to replace Alex Wood,” he says, pointing to the Democratic state representative from Spokane.

“Whether she’ll remain true to her commitment to not seeking higher office, I’m not so sure,” Fagan continues, referring to a question the two received at the church’s voters forum. “She’ll jump at whatever situation arises. I guarantee. She’ll jump.”

But at that forum when they were asked if they’d seek higher office during their council term, both candidates, as polite as could be, didn’t even have to think about the question.

“No,” said Fagan.

“No,” said Waldref.

Average: 4.3 (7 votes)

Nice try

Nice try Rob, but Amber Waldref has clearly stated on numerous occasions that she does not support Envision Spokane. Please feel free to direct us to any quotes or evidence you have that she does support the initiative.

Mike Fagan, on the other hand, believes that Envision Spokane is part of a U.N. conspiracy as evidenced by his own comments on Jim Camden's blog on 7/29/09 (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol/2009/jul/24/news-flash-eyman-...):

"Why doesn't the spokesman or any other paper in this city do an expose on this bill of rights, Envision Spokane, and the trail leading all the way up to the UN?"

There is already at least one conspiracy theorist embarrassing us on the council, do we really need to add another?

Amber Alert

On Amber's web page http://www.voteamber.org/issues.htm she responds to the question of Envision Spokane :

What are Amber's thoughts on the Community Bill of Rights presented by Envision Spokane?
Sustainable Economic Development
“We can grow living wage jobs close to home by encouraging local business development in our neighborhoods, supporting clean technology development and worker skills training locally. Growing higher-paying jobs is a community-wide effort and Amber can lead the way with her experience bringing together economic, social, and environmental organizations to coordinate efforts.”

Why didn't she say she didn't support it when the question was posed to her? Sounds like she supports it to me Nick.

Amber on Envision Spokane

The quote you are reprinting is listed under the heading "Sustainable Economic Development," which is part of the issues page. The question, "What are Amber's thoughts on the Community Bill of Rights presented by Envision Spokane" is a link. Click on the link (http://www.voteamber.org/commentsonEnvision) and you get Amber's answer to the question, which is:

"Most of the aspirations of Envision Spokane are laudable – I believe we should work as a nation and as a community (and many wonderful people are!) to support access to affordable health care, housing and other basic human needs. If elected, I will keep the values of good neighborhood planning, utilization of renewable energy, worker rights, and the need for a locally vibrant economy in mind as I make decisions; but, I cannot support the community bill of rights for several reasons. I have major concerns about the ability of the city to guarantee all the rights presented – most, such as health care, are beyond the scope of city government and our available resources. We cannot pull resources away from traditional city functions such as street maintenance, libraries, police protection, and fire/emergency services.

I am also uncomfortable with how vague the platforms are. How do you define "affordable" housing? What types of treatment/care are/are not included in "preventative" health care? Defining these parameters could take years in courts to decide, which could be at considerable cost to the taxpayer.
I cannot support in principle all the platforms of the initiative and I cannot support it due to the probable high costs to the city and taxpayer.

Her web site could probably be designed better to make it more apparent, but her clear answer to the question on Envision Spokane is there.

Amber alert

The Washington State Supreme Court struck down the I-695 Initiative because it addressed more than one issue such as reducing the license tab tax and requiring voter approval for future tax increases. This process taught candidate Mike Fagan the hard lesson about single-issue initiatives. Unlike the Envision Spokane Initiative, at least the subject was the same - reducing taxes. The Envision Spokane Initiative, contains more issues than the Communist Manifesto, and multiple issues isn't the only resemblance between the two documents.

The Spokane City Council realized the multiple issue problems, but sent it on by giving it a green light to get on the ballot. They cited the Initiative process as reflecting the will of the people. Strangely enough, Mike Fagan's opponent, Amber Waldref, supports Envision Spokane, but complains about "governing by initiative." Amber is rightly concerned about how a down economy is hurting jobs in her District, but several members the City Council itself admit that the Envision Spokane Initiative will be a job killer. But Amber supports it anyway.

In order to obtain and hold a job one must have reliable transportation to get to the job site. By the Washington State Legislature going ahead with the $30.00 License fee, they helped many afford that reliable mode of transportation. It was tough to try and afford a decent car that wouldn't break down, and the old license tab tax was like an extra car payment every year. Mike Fagan understands simple economics and will be in a lot better touch with the practical needs of his constituents than Amber Waldref.

Rob Chase

Stated Ambitions, Amber & Nicholas

The Inlander is up to it’s usual peculiar standard of alternative political reporting. Nicholas Deshais, who penned the article Stated Ambitions featuring only the candidates from the City of Spokane District #1. It is a little odd given they are not up for election until the General Election in November 2009. The two other races in the city of Spokane, namely District 2 & 3 each feature multiple candidates that spoke at the very same forum, are up for election in the Primary election in August 2009. Since the Primary ballots are now in the hands of the voters, it would have made better sense if Deshais had written an article covering the candidates for District 2 & 3 versus District 1.

Prudence in reporting aside, Deshais neglected to mention Amber Waldref’s confession that her husband calls her a ‘Nazi’. It didn’t take long for the audience to notice that clearly Waldref suffers from acute inappropriate diarrhea of the mouth (AIDOM) when engaging in public speaking. Although acute diarrhea of the mouth (ADOM) is not a characteristic already lacking on city council, (AIDOM) it is an indicator of a lack of experience in public speaking and political naiveté. No other viable candidate in the Forum made a verbal gaff even in same league as Waldref; who appeared to be trying to attain a persona of likeable, warm and fuzzy versus competent and articulate. Obvious points missed by Deshais.

Considering who is endorsing Amber, it is difficult to believe as Deshais conjectures that she will have any influence on local State DNC luminaries (and Waldref supporters) such as Lisa Brown and Chris Marr. It is more reasonable to conclude the opposite would be true. With her demonstrated marginal public political skills, Waldref will more likely be a vote for Marr and Senate Majority Brown on Spokane City Council, than a voice for the citizens of District #1.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? After all, Lisa Brown, a doctoral level economist is the 3rd legislative district representative and the Senate Majority Leader of the State of Washington. Former car salesman extraordinaire Chris Marr is the Majority Whip. Surely what is best for the State of Washington is best for the City of Spokane?

When Brown was elected to the Senate, the 3rd legislative district was the poorest in the state. It still is to this day; despite her years in high position in State Politics. Chris Marr sponsored legislation that outlaws studded tires, a Westside issue. After 5 feet of snow in eleven days last year, and a near record snowfall the year before, some in Eastern Washington and a majority of legislators were are not keen on the idea.

In 2009 Chris Marr and Lisa Brown cosponsored and passed into law Senate Bill 5599. This legislation transfers our State’s Electoral College votes to whom ever wins the national election’s popular vote for President of the United States. This eliminates any presidential candidate from ever needing to come to Washington State to campaign. A real boon for large population states such as California, Texas New York etc, a bust for Washington State citizens.

It is not a far stretch to see Waldref would be more likely to serve the interest of her political mentors than those of City of Spokane District #1. A conclusion easily derived with a little objectivity and just minimal political insight. Nicholas Deshais apparently was just too busy gushing over Amber to notice any other candidate.