Donate

Richland District Measure No. 1 – Vote NO

Vote NO on the Charter Amendment Requiring Voting for City Council by District

By Bruce Spanner

Do you get frustrated that your vote does not count in Washington state-wide and national elections because the liberal west side voters overwhelm the process? The proponents of the City of Richland Charter amendment want to put you in the same boat. Presently, you get to vote for all seven council positions. The Charter amendment would limit you to only voting for a minority of the council positions.
How does that work, you say? The current City of Richland Charter gives every citizen the right to vote for all seven council positions. The Charter amendment would create five districts and two at-large positions. You would only be allowed to vote for the candidate in your district plus two at-large candidates. Thus, of the seven council positions, you would get to vote for a minority of three.
 
Why would anyone advocate for the dilution of the voting power of the citizens of the City of Richland? It is pure partisan politics. All of the supporters listed on the web page of the charter amendment proposal are liberals. In fact, three of them, namely, Shir Regev, Ginger Wireman and Randy Slovic have unsuccessfully run for the Richland City Council. It’s obvious why they failed. They are liberals running in a community that votes overwhelmingly conservative. Historically, two-thirds of City of Richland residents have voted Republican in partisan national, state and local elections.
 
The Charter proponents can’t win elections under the current rules. So, they want to change the rules. I find it offensive that they want to dilute my vote just so that they can put themselves in positions of power. I hope you feel the same.
 
Don’t be misled. Vote NO on the proposed City of Richland Charter amendment.

Not Advocates For All Richland

In my last message I pointed out that passage of the proposed City of Richland Charter amendment would dilute the citizens’ voting power by limiting our ability to vote for only three council members, rather than all seven.  I also pointed out that proponents are motivated by pure partisan politics.  Candidates should not be allowed to choose their voters.

This message addresses the Charter amendment proponents’ claim that they seek “to ensure communities within Richland that have shared concerns and interests get at least one member to advocate for their needs”.  My family moved here in 1959, and I have lived here almost my entire life.  I can tell you that the claim is based on false premises.

 

First, there is no proof whatsoever that the Richland City Council has ever made, or will ever make, narrow-minded decisions that benefit only the areas they live in.  Liberals view government as the great provider.  That’s why they favor pork barrel politics.  Conservatives want limited government, not handouts.  It is natural for liberals to believe that future councils will vote in the interest of their neighbors.  The liberal proponents err, however, when they project their view of government onto a conservative community, and assume that future council members will vote for the benefit of their neighbors, rather than the community as a whole.  I was tempted to ask the liberals to give one example of a council member voting to benefit his or her neighborhood.  But that is the wrong question.  The proponents need to provide a sufficient number of examples that would cause us to give up our right to vote for all seven council members.

 

Second, there are no “communities” within the City of Richland in the sense that areas that can be defined by their culture, values, lifestyles, traditions, heritage or customs. There never have been.  That occurs in big cities like Seattle, but not Richland.  Admittedly, in the past there were areas defined largely in terms of occupations and professions.  The doctors and dentists lived on Harris Avenue.  Hanford management, engineers and other professionals originally lived east of George Washington Way along the Columbia River.  Blue collar families generally lived in central Richland, and the area south of Lee Blvd. 
 
But all of that has changed with the conversion of Hanford plutonium production jobs to Hanford construction and cleanup.  Construction workers during the years of FFTF, and the WPPSS reactors enjoyed good wages beginning in the late 1970’s.  Then the cleanup workers and professionals began in the 1980’s to take their place.  Later, expanded PNNL and Kadlec staff were added. These workers now make up most of Richland’s middle class and can live wherever they want.  The extension of the Richland border south of the Yakima River makes that possible.   We have become a homogeneous community.  The proof is that currently, four of the five proposed districts already have council members in them. When Pat Holten is elected in November, she will fill the only empty proposed district.  
There aren’t any enclaves that share unique common issues or challenges that are not shared by the entire community.  We all need good roads, accountable law enforcement, professional fire fighters, reliable utilities, a responsive City Hall, a modern library and clean and safe parks and recreational facilities.  While there remain areas where the less affluent live, City Council can do little to address socio-economic disparities.  Those are state and federal issues.  Thus, there is no need to advocate for the “shared concerns and interests” sub-communities.  Such an approach has no factual basis and only serves to divide.
Do not let candidates choose their voters. For further information as to why you should vote no, go to https://www.KeepRichlandOne.com.

Less Responsive with districts

In my last message I debunked the Charter amendment proponents’ claim that there are sub-communities within Richland that need their own councilmember to advocate for their needs. This message addresses the proponents’ claim that councilmembers would be more responsive to constituents if they are elected by districts. The opposite is true.
 
Presently, you get to vote for all seven council positions. All seven know that every resident has the right to vote them out of office. They know that they must listen to and consider every citizen’s concerns. The Charter amendment would limit you to only voting for three council positions, namely the council member in your district, and the two at-large council members. Only those three council members would have any motivation to listen to you. The other four could ignore you with impunity. The council would be less responsive to the citizens, not more.
 
The influence question is particularly important under the current charter. Council members are generally elected for four-year terms. However, the term of the candidate who receives the fewest votes in any election will be only two years. In terms of influence, this is huge. Council members will be responsive so that they can have a four-year term. In addition, the two-year term serves as a means to dismiss non-performing council members.
 
Don’t forget, all of the supporters listed on the web page of the charter amendment proposal are liberals, some of whom have unsuccessfully run for the Richland City Council. They can’t get elected under the current rules. So, they want to change the rules.
 
Vote NO on the proposed City of Richland Charter amendment.

Not Shared concerns for all

In my last message I pointed out that passage of the proposed City of Richland Charter amendment would dilute the citizens’ voting power by limiting our ability to vote for only three council members, rather than all seven.  I also pointed out that proponents are motivated by pure partisan politics.  Candidates should not be allowed to choose their voters.

This message addresses the Charter amendment proponents’ claim that they seek “to ensure communities within Richland that have shared concerns and interests get at least one member to advocate for their needs”.  My family moved here in 1959, and I have lived here almost my entire life.  I can tell you that the claim is based on false premises.

First, there is no proof whatsoever that the Richland City Council has ever made, or will ever make, narrow-minded decisions that benefit only the areas they live in.  Liberals view government as the great provider.  That’s why they favor pork barrel politics.  Conservatives want limited government, not handouts.  It is natural for liberals to believe that future councils will vote in the interest of their neighbors.  The liberal proponents err, however, when they project their view of government onto a conservative community, and assume that future council members will vote for the benefit of their neighbors, rather than the community as a whole.  I was tempted to ask the liberals to give one example of a council member voting to benefit his or her neighborhood.  But that is the wrong question.  The proponents need to provide a sufficient number of examples that would cause us to give up our right to vote for all seven council members.

Second, there are no “communities” within the City of Richland in the sense that areas that can be defined by their culture, values, lifestyles, traditions, heritage or customs. There never have been.  That occurs in big cities like Seattle, but not Richland.  Admittedly, in the past there were areas defined largely in terms of occupations and professions.  The doctors and dentists lived on Harris Avenue.  Hanford management, engineers and other professionals originally lived east of George Washington Way along the Columbia River.  Blue collar families generally lived in central Richland, and the area south of Lee Blvd. 
 
But all of that has changed with the conversion of Hanford plutonium production jobs to Hanford construction and cleanup.  Construction workers during the years of FFTF, and the WPPSS reactors enjoyed good wages beginning in the late 1970’s.  Then the cleanup workers and professionals began in the 1980’s to take their place.  Later, expanded PNNL and Kadlec staff were added. These workers now make up most of Richland’s middle class and can live wherever they want.  The extension of the Richland border south of the Yakima River makes that possible.   We have become a homogeneous community.  The proof is that currently, four of the five proposed districts already have council members in them. When Pat Holten is elected in November, she will fill the only empty proposed district.  
There aren’t any enclaves that share unique common issues or challenges that are not shared by the entire community.  We all need good roads, accountable law enforcement, professional fire fighters, reliable utilities, a responsive City Hall, a modern library and clean and safe parks and recreational facilities.  While there remain areas where the less affluent live, City Council can do little to address socio-economic disparities.  Those are state and federal issues.  Thus, there is no need to advocate for the “shared concerns and interests” sub-communities.  Such an approach has no factual basis and only serves to divide.
Do not let candidates choose their voters. For further information as to why you should vote no, go to https://www.KeepRichlandOne.com.