In 2009, Envision Spokane asked voters to pass Proposition 4, a massive collection of nine amendments to the city charter called the “Community Bill of Rights.” The 1,400-word text promised affordable health care, a locally based economy, affordable housing, cheap renewable energy, environmental protection, prevailing wages for construction workers, a right to unionize and considerably increased neighborhood powers.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars were raised to stop it, mainly by business groups.
The result in November? Almost 80 percent of Spokane residents voted against the initiative.
Now, two years later, the Community Bill of Rights has risen from the ashes to land on the city ballot once again — leaner, shorter, but still ambitious. Supporters say they’ve learned from their mistakes. Opponents don’t seem too worried.
"It's never fun to have something you believe in go down in flames,” says Kai Huschke, the goateed campaign manager for Envision Spokane, drinking a can of C20 coconut water at the Main Market Co-Op.
The January after Proposition 4 was defeated, Envision Spokane supporters met to figure out what happened. One conclusion was that they just tried to sell too much stuff to the voters at one time.
“It was so cumbersome to talk about the whole initiative,” Huschke says.
But this time, the initiative’s text is only a quarter the length of the old one, and it only contains four amendments, instead of nine. The sections on health care, energy, prevailing wage and a locally based economy were eliminated.
Yet, in fewer words, the new proposition still proposes large-scale changes.
The first amendment would give neighborhoods the ability to prevent zoning changes that allow large developments to move in. (Low-income developments would not be subject to this rule.) The second would give Spokane’s rivers and aquifer “inalienable rights,” granting every Spokane resident the ability to sue to defend the waterways. The third would guarantee unionized workers collective bargaining rights. The fourth would stipulate that corporations in Spokane do not have the same rights as people.
“We have something that people can wrap their heads around this time,” Huschke says.
But Brad Read, a teacher at Shadle Park High School and a leader of Envision Spokane, says the group may have stood a better tactical chance if it only took on one issue at a time.
“But this is about structural change,” Read says, defending the approach. “We don’t go to structural change trying to change one thing at a time.”
Envision Spokane lost two years ago for more than just strategic reasons, Huschke says. The playing field wasn’t level. He complains about how the City Council attached two propositions to the ballot asking how the voters would like to pay for the initiative — even though the initiative had no defined cost. (The Council may do the same thing this year. Councilwoman Nancy McLaughlin has already proposed such a measure.)
Last time, corporations, the Spokane Home Builders Association and Greater Spokane Inc. helped raise close to $300,000 to defeat the proposition, according to the state’s Public Disclosure Commission, far outstripping Envision’s meager funds of less than $80,000.
This year, after Envision turned in more than 4,500 signatures to get on the ballot, their opponents got the old gang back together.
“Maybe if we tell them 85 percent ‘no,’ they’ll go away this time,” says Kate McCaslin, president of the Associated Builders and Contractors and a former county commissioner. “Same bad idea, just a smaller version.”
The JOBS coalition — the big fundraiser last go-around — hasn’t yet raised any money this year, but it still exists as a continuing political action committee.
“I don’t think we’ll be spending nearly the dollars we did,” says Joel White, the executive officer of the Spokane Home Builders Association. “The community soundly defeated the previous proposal.”
Last time, Center for Justice founder Jim Sheehan donated $55,000 to support Envision Spokane’s efforts. Sheehan is still supportive of the measure, but he has given no indication of how much support he’ll provide this time.
Though Huschke says the initiative has a much better chance this year, he notes that the fight is a large, difficult, systemic one. If the initiative fails again, Envision Spokane will try again, Huschke says. And, if necessary, again after that.

I see peasants with pitchforks & sticks on fire voting yes for involvement in the future of their community & neighborhoods.
People have been left out of the loop in this town for too long- the council cares not about zoning set by communities and they favor developers over their constituents. Bring it.
Aug 10, 2011 | Reply to this comment
BTW, Prop 4 was not defeated because of business interests it was defeated because the majority of people saw it for the bad idea it truly was. Aug 11, 2011 | Reply to this comment
I agree with the previous post that zoning should be considered holistically and in a piecemeal. The Community Bill of Rights does not change that. Rather, what it does is when a developer wants to re-zone an area for a development (Which is what I think we both mean when we say "piecemeal") the residents of the neighborhood - the people who are affected by that piecemeal change - get to have a say.
Please read the proposed charter amendment, available at
www.envisionspokane.org/communitybillofrights.html
If you support holistic development, then I suggest voting for the Community Bill of Rights. Aug 11, 2011
We already have a representative government in place; we don´t need to create a micro-managed level of control to satisfy some fairy tale idea about how to allegedly best run our city and it´s neighborhoods.
People in this country are always on the move: new places of residence within a city, from city to city, or state to state. What one neighborhood may want at any given period of time could be exactly the opposite of what people moving into that same neighborhood want. It could only take a very small number of people to change the desired direction of each neighborhood. Can decisions made by certain people in a specific time period be as easily reversed by a different group of people from the neighborhood at a future date? Not likely.
There´s also too much ambiguity in this ballot measure. You can bet your last dollar that when a group of people are given authority they´re not familiar with, they´ll make serious mistakes and stretch that authority too far.
Nope, dumb idea by a bunch of unrealistic dreamers trying to create their own utopia. Aug 15, 2011 | Reply to this comment
What´s curious is that this group purports to represent the neighborhoods. It´s goood to remember that the neighborhoods voted down 24-4 to support Envision. So how is it possible they (EV) believe they should represent anyone when they have been convincingly sent packing by the neighborhhods and the voters 2 years ago ( 80-20 loss)?
Nothing is new...just left out some of the other drivel. They represent nobody but themselves. Aug 16, 2011 | Reply to this comment