Friends and Neighbors,
Although our winter has been relatively warm this year, the political climate is cool, with a significant wind chill factor. The many unfunded mandates, imposed upon cities by Federal and State law and enforced by the Dept. of Ecology, would turn most taxpayers cold. Two of these mandates remain especially onerous: 1) reducing the phosphorous levels in the effluent coming from the wastewater treatment plant and going into the Spokane River to 43 parts per BILLION, and 2) implementing the Stormwater Management Plan. Together, these requirements will cost Spokane taxpayers approximately $800 million by 2017!
First, I haven't talked to anyone who wants to have a polluted river. But perhaps we should ask whose “best available science” is being used to determine the mandated standards. Also, especially in these tough economic times, is the timeline for implementation reasonable? How will cities, or more appropriately you, the taxpayer, pay to accomplish these standards? To answer the last question, Senator Ed Murphy and Representative Timm Ormsby are co-sponsoring the 2010 Clean Water Act. If this law is enacted it will raise taxes on thousands of petroleum-based products from .7 of a percent to a full 2%. Since 1987 this money has been set aside to pay for cleaning up toxic sites such as Kendall Yards and other pollution related projects. Unfortunately, last year the State swept millions of dollars from this fund to help plug the gap in the general fund. If the 2010 Clean Water Act passes, 70% of the additional revenues collected during the first three years have been slated once more to be siphoned off into the general fund to plug the ever-growing deficit! In addition, analysts suggest we may all soon pay 3-6 cents more per gallon at the pump. Will that cost be worth it, if it results in cleaner water? You be the judge.
After the revenue is split among 100 cities, Spokane could receive less than $10 million toward their $800 million bill. If you love research or just wish to express an opinion, I would appreciate any input you can offer in answering these three questions: 1. Are environmental standards reasonable and sustainable? 2. What is a fair and sustainable funding source? 3. What are reasonable timelines for improvements?
Another issue I am grappling with is whether Spokane citizens should be taxed to raise money for more after-school programs, helping child abuse victims, and reducing our dropout rates. Aren’t these critical goals already a part of existing government programs, i.e. education, child welfare, and justice? Will funding new programs solve the problem? The Children’s Investment Fund Initiative would place an additional $.35 for every $1,000 of assessed value onto your property tax bill to generate $5 million dollars annually. I am cautious about this additional tax, but perhaps would agree to it, if the funds did not land in a new government program, growing government jobs (with salaries and benefits,) and missing the true goals of strengthening marriages and encouraging parents to care for their children. The long-term answer is in strengthening the family. Indiana Representative Mike Pence pin-pointed the root problem recently: “…to reverse American decline we should recognize that our present crises is not merely economic and political, but moral in nature. We must win back America for the fundamental traditional values of the American people: The sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage." What are your thoughts?
Finally, I would ask for your prayers – for wisdom and discernment, for endurance, good health, and joy in the journey in spite of the political isolation.
Together,
