Reader replies
See what other readers are saying about Valley incorporation:

I have always voted against incorporation and plan to do so again. I think the county is very well run and the commisioners make themselves available when the constituents find a need.We can use Spokane City vs. Spokane County to make a judgment as to whether or not we want to make a city. To me the choice is clear. Yardley is the big question mark, but as long as the city cannot legally incorporate it I prefer to stay as we are. In short, why change from what we know to what may be?

John Skov
Spokane

After reading some of the negative opinions on Valley incorporation, most of them lack substance. There were a lot of “I's” which seemed to be quite self- serving. So let's consider:--No one likes to see their taxes go up. But on my last property tax statement 46 percent of my taxes were voter-approved. We do have a say, and we say it at the ballot box.--We have the opportunity to control our own destiny. Don't we resent being told what is in our best interest whether it is from Washington D.C., Olympia, or the courthouse in Spokane? We have problems that are unique to us, and best solved locally.--How many of the commissioners actually live in the new boundaries of the proposed Valley city? I was told that none of them do. That is not to imply they do not do the best they can, but they also have to balance our needs with the needs of the rest of the county.--The Valley has changed. It is not the rural community is was 40 years ago. And since it has changed, we must get our heads out of the irrigation ditch and change with it.So let's quit looking at the mess we see in Spokane as an excuse to do nothing or to remain stagnant in the status quo. Will there be problems? Sure, but we can solve them.

Richard Castleman
Spokane

I am surprised to see so many people write negative letters on this issue. I always voted against incorporation, but wanted badly to become part of a metro system of county-city cooperation. The reason “I like it the way it is,” I feel is not a good reason. I am for incorporation now because with all the new businesses, the mall, etc, it makes sense.If people had liked the territory of Washington the way it was, and were afraid to try to improve on it, we would not be a state today. You know, sometimes change is good. “Another layer of government?” That's nuts. Come on. I am a very senior citizen, but that does not make me afraid to trust we Valleyites to set up our own city.

Jack C. Holloway
Spokane

The Spokane City Council dropped its appeal to the Boundary Review Board, allowing us the right to vote on incorporation. I was one of those Valley residents who were in attendance. City Councilman Al French looked straight at us and said “if the incorporation vote does not pass, I will immediately begin proceedings to annex the Valley.” He did not say Yardley, he said the Valley.The waiver method of annexation is now unconstitutional, which threw out Spokane's idea of annexing Yardley without a vote. Spokane is not the only city that had annexation ideas, therefore the cities are now lobbying in Olympia to get the law changed to somehow allow them to annex without a vote. Believe me, this is a very sophisticated and powerful lobbying group and success is possible.Having said this, Valley residents must NOW decide whether they want to be annexed into Spokane with their financial problems because of mismanagement and mistakes or incorporate our own city with our neighbors elected to our city council because we may never again have the chance.

Loyd E. Petersen
Otis Orchards

I preferred the Spokane Valley when there still were orchards, truck gardens, some livestock and open spaces. If I'd wanted to live in the city, I would have moved there.That being said, it seems the time has come for Valleyites to make some hard decisions. Do we want to try to hang on to our way of life a few more years, or do we want to take the plunge and incorporate into a city? Play in the big leagues like the city just across the street?Well, no one as yet has convinced me that life is magically going to be better if we incorporate. How can incorporation backers sit there and tell us we'll all have more to say about our destiny when we have a mayor, a city council (oh, my God!) three or four more levels of major and minor bureaucrats, all making a grab for prestige and power?Do I believe there is anyone in this for the good of the community? No, I don't. My supreme worry is regarding who will step forward to run this dog and pony show. I believe the most ardent advocates of incorporation have their own axe to grind. Certain businessmen have come out with land use plans that prove this to me, and since I am adamantly opposed to every word they've said, I will be voting “no” on incorporation. Again.

C.K.Crigger
Spokane

Let's vote no on Valley incorporation! The proponents have come up with a lot of suspect figures showing why it can work. It's unreasonable to expect that the same costs that we have now, with another level of government employees, will cost less. My experience with accountants is that they can get figures to say whatever “management” wants them to say.Backers of the new city scoff at the management of the city of Spokane and the county, explaining that they can do it better. Keep in mind they haven't been able to successfully manage the last three or four incorporation attempts. How can they manage a city? Oh, they will say that they don't want to run this new city, rather that they are going to let us vote in new management. (Wanna bet who'll be on the ballots?)A city the size of the Valley will have all of the problems that Spokane has and the nature of politics is that within two or three years we will have the same quagmire that exists downtown today.Better solutions? There are two:--“Annex” the city of Spokane into the county, throw out the “dunderheads” currently in power, get ourselves voted in as managers and run the perfect city.--Work with the current county government, making it more cost-effective.My preference would be to merge with the city, form one powerful political entity to represent this area. We, as a whole, could overcome the current problems existing in downtown Spokane.

Herb Limbaugh
Veradale

At the present time, I am not likely to vote for Valley incorporation. I do not know what to expect if we incorporate. I do know what we are receiving now for our tax dollars. I am OK with everything as it is. I have no complaints. Perhaps in the future we may have more reasons to incorporate.

Betty Jean Blackman
Spokane Valley

Incorporation? Not if good sense applies. Our three commissioners aren't always perfect, but they usually come up with the best answer they can for the good of the county. Three is enough. They provide all the government we need.

Charles F. Dayley
Spokane Valley

I feel compelled to attempt to answer some of the questions and criticisms floating around regarding Spokane Valley incorporation.1. "Our taxes will go up.” There have been 14 new cities incorporated in Washington in the last few years, each of which has fewer people and a far smaller tax base than Spokane Valley. Each has been able to lower taxes and provide more services. If they can do it, so can we. The fact is that our taxes will go down because cities cannot apply the road tax which counties apply. The county has been taking millions of tax dollars out of this Valley every year and spending it elsewhere. It is high time that we stop subsidizing the rest of the county.2. "This will be another layer of government.” The new city will replace the county as our basic government, not add to it.3. "I'm happy with the way the county is serving me.”Tell that to the people who have to go down to the courthouse to get building permits, etc. When we get our new city we will elect our own neighbors to the City Council. It would be easier to go to your neighbor to get your problem solved than to go to the courthouse and talk to a county commissioner who does not live in your neighborhood and may not understand your problem.Please join me and vote May 21 to incorporate our new city of Spokane Valley.

Loyd E. Petersen
Otis Orchards

How good it will be to have the vote on May 21, a successful one for the formation of our new City of Spokane Valley.How good it will be to have our own local, elected representatives to protect our local interests.What a good feeling it will be to know that our business people will know we are interested in their well being. The last thing we need is bigtime interests shoving our local businesses aside.I want to see a permit department, without a lot of red tape, working with developing the Valley in a common-sense manner.I want to know we can go to sleep at night secure in the fact that a methamphamine lab won't be in operation in my neighborhood.I want to see enough public parks available for our young people as well as the elderly to enjoy. How lucky we are to have a beautiful river flowing through our Valley, and with the Centennial Trail bounding the river for all to enjoy.It has been proven to me, beyond all doubt, that there is sufficient revenue created in the Valley now, and into the future, to support our goals now and into the future without increase in taxes.I hope, sincerely, that our Valley people, young and old, will see what we have and vote favorably for our new city.

Francis A. Donahue
Otis Orchards

From time to time the idea crops up that the best thing for the Valley is to consolidate with Spokane.About seven years ago the idea sprouted wings.The League of Women Voters created another group, which they called "We The People.” In conjunction with a (mostly downtown) business group started the process which created "freeholders.” The freeholders were elected countywide.There was almost $500,000 available.A unified city/county charter, not presently involving the county commissioners (other than the fact that the commissioners had made available to the freeholders $200,000 of taxpayers money) could very well, if voted in by the county citizens, result in a form of government which, say after five or 10 years, the citizens became disillusioned with.If this happened, the citizens may very well find that there is no way out.With the county and municipal governments having been dissolved, the cost of trying to reinstate these governments would probably prove financially impossible.When it came to a vote, the Valley voted over 90 percent against it, South Side of Spokane 60 percent and North Side a little over 50 percent in favor.If the other cities and towns had voted for it, it might have passed, irregardless of the Valley's wishes!

Vern Slichter
Spokane

I thank God for the city of Spokane. It is here that I have been educated, married, had my children and then later our grandchildren who were also born here and now a few great-grandchildren as well. My parents are buried here and my husband’s parents also. This will always be my city. Do we turn our backs on her when she is in trouble? Do we speak well of her? It is so easy to complain. But it is also easy to speak blessings. To call those things that are not as though they were. By faith I call the streets repaired and I call the city beautiful, prosperous, and doing well. May all those who drive her streets do the same. Be encouraged Spokane, better things are coming.

Beverly Kelly
Spokane

Incorporation should be a fairly simple decision. Pay my $1,500-plus annual property taxes to a group of commissioners who control an area 10 times the size of the proposed city? Or have my money be 10 times more powerful by keeping it home where I have to sleep, drive, and play? Hum.If this were a commune, then all the work and all the funds generated by the whole should go into a single fund to support the needs of the community. Last I checked Spokane was not a commune. As a result, there will be areas, which do not or should not enjoy the benefit of my taxpaying ability. I would like to have the option to direct the millions, which the Valley generates in revenue, go back to the roads, law enforcement, and public good of the Valley.Here is the Libertarian principle; Pay for services where they are rendered. If I want groceries; I pay for them where they sell them. When I want clothes; I pay for them where they sell them. If I want my roads maintained in the valley; why should my money go to Five Mile, Deer Park, or Mica? Do I need to maintain all the outlying fire districts, when only one will protect my home? I chose to live in the Valley and I accepted the services that were here, I am also therefore willing to pay for them and keep them here. I am not, however willing to keep getting my tax bill raised so the people of the outlying areas have their roads paved at my expense. They also bought houses where they are, dirt roads and all.I care very little what happens to the city of Spokane, and would like to see the entire council pay their salary back to the city for the farce they have made of the government. If the city looses money on this deal, they will probably sue the new city for the loss. They can't even decide as a group if it is day or night with out a debate. The last thing I would want would be annexation.I won't shed a tear for the county's "lost" revenue. The county or a contractor can supply many of the services the new city will require. The big difference will be that if they don't do what they are paid to do. We can fire them, and hire someone willing to earn their wages. As it is now, you can't fire the county.

Robin Palachuk
Veradale

The city of Spokane is in a significant pickle regardless of the Valley annexation outcome. Admittedly, I am sorely lacking in political savvy but the overview of Spokane's economic health is not good. I have struggled, quite literally, for 13 years with the economic aspects of this city. The charges for utilities are unbelievable. (As a single adult living in a small home on Spokane's northeast side, I am appalled to be charged $140 a month for electricity, consistently, despite keeping my home in the 55-60 degree range and installing insulation, weatherization and new windows.) Ditto water/sewer/garbage. My wages in Spokane are 25-50 percent of my earning potential on the other side of the state; and it wasn't that long ago that The Spokesman-Review ran an economic comparison of East vs. West and costs were essentially the same, save for housing! What goes on here?In a nutshell, I have lost faith in Spokane. Agreeably, to lose the revenue of the Yardley area (so obviously 'Spokane's') to the Valley would be a real blow, but quite honestly, I don't care anymore. I know apathy is a terrible thing, but the end result of what I feel as loyal consumerism to this city and having contributed to the tax base via 12 years of home ownership is nothing. Yes, the streets are awful, the political and city government in-fighting is an embarrassment, and again, the economic reality for many is poverty. It is an overwhelmingly depressive state of affairs and I wonder if the city of Spokane will rise above. Strong-arming the revenue from the Yardley area will help, somewhat, but then what of the people in that area? They will undoubtedly be belted with a huge rise in their property taxes, assessments for switching over existing septic systems and a miscellany of other expenses. The city of Spokane should look within its own immediate boundaries and learn to deal with a sensible budget that benefits its citizens, in lieu of penalizing them for living within this city.

Pava Young
Spokane

After carefully reviewing the issue I will vote against Valley incorporation. I believe taxes will go higher and we will have another layer of government to burden us. The backers point to the problems in the city as a primary reason for the valley to incorporate but there is no guarantee we might end up with similar special interests running the valley!Also, in truth the valley is not a homogenous entity such as Kent or Shoreline in Seattle. My clients in Seattle tell me that is easier( though far from easy!) to deal with King County than with Shoreline so that aspect of incorporation has backfired! The Valley has so many different interests that it could be a monster to deal with.Spokane County is a far-flung entity but we do not seem to have the problems that would warrant a divorce from the present commissioners. Perhaps the backers have had problems with the commissioners, or perhaps the have visions of running this new government.The jury isn't out on the city of Liberty lake yet- lets wait and see how that system works.

Robert R. Cannata
Spokane

I worked with some of the opponents, like Susan Ashe of Kaiser, Tom Agnew and the rest of the corporate folk who would once again like to vanquish the Valley incorporation effort. I imagine they are already having meetings like the one I attended in the boardroom of Vera Water Power. Just prior to the beginning of the strategy meeting Kate McCaslin called to let me know, in no uncertain terms, that Valley Incorporation SHOULD happen. It was right then, as McCaslin argued, and it is right now. I was wrong.I am a 36-year-old father of five and we need direct representation here in the Valley. We also will handle our money more responsibly than those on the Spokane City Council, what with their mounting legal fiasco, thanks to the River Park Square parking garage debacle.We in the Valley are proud of our mall. We are different from the city. We have energy in the Valley, just like Liberty Lake.We can make a great city ! I will gladly vote yes, and I will encourage others do the same.

David Elton
Spokane

It is my personal opinion that though the city of Spokane has provided services to the Valley, it is time for the Valley residents to make their own decision as to what is best for the Valley. The very basis of the United States is the spirit of free enterprise, that if one can provide a better service at a lower cost, than one is entitled to do so. The competitive edge that the Valley has over the city of Spokane is that it is consistently more business friendly. What the City of Spokane can or cannot afford has little to do with the essential freedoms and liberties of the people of the Valley to decide what they want and are entitled to. The city of Spokane can still provide services to the Valley, but they can charge the Valley for them. The vote on May 21st has the potential to stimulate change and I encourage that.

Gus Koedding
Spokane

It is more true than not that those who feel the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence are usually disappointed once they get there. I believe that Valley incorporation probably falls into this category. We are simply not a large enough community to be dividing up. I have a hard time believing any significant economies of scale in services or government will be achieved by doing this. Couple that with the budget crunch the city of Spokane is facing and we are setting ourselves up for an expensive and unnecessary exercise.The great thing about our country, however, is that citizens have the right to self determination. If the majority of the valley residents vote for incorporation, that's it. I just hope that when May 21 Valley incorporation vote rolls around that thoughtful voters will take a pass on this. We have lots of problems as a community (North, South and Valley) but I remain unconvinced that this is a solution that is in the best interest of all the parties.

Preston Ritter
Spokane

I have attended one incorporation meeting and in that meeting the spokesperson (Dennis Scott) explained in detail the differences between the two feasibility studies that have been completed. On paper both studies lean toward the "new" city being in much better shape, in all aspects, than the city of Spokane who will be trying to annex it. Secondly, the question of the Valley sewer came up, parts of that answer disturbed me. The Valley sewer system, sooner or later will have to connect to something. It can be a Valley treatment plant or it can hookup to the outdated and too small city treatment plant by running underground from the Valley to northwest Spokane via a 7ft pipe. The cost of that would make the Spokane street bond look like peanuts in comparison. That item alone will make me vote FOR incorporation.

Dan Allison
Spokane Valley

My husband and I have been supporters of Valley incorporation for many years. We would prefer to have more of a say in what happens here in the Valley. We actively participated in the campaign with the unfortunate name of “City of Chief Joseph.” We also believe that there would be enough money generated by taxes to support the services required.However, as the years have gone by, I have become more concerned that we don't have the leadership required to govern the new city. And that is my question: who has shown interest in running for office? And the response that we can't talk about that until we know whether we have a city to govern will not satisfy me.My husband is going to vote for incorporation, however, I am presently undecided.

Joann Ritchie
Spokane Valley

There always is a certain amount of sex appeal to the idea of cityhood and independence. But has anyone done a brutally honest cost/benefit ratio study of incorporation? The real driving force to incorporation is: “What is this going to do to my taxes both near term and long term?”Any real or promised benefits will almost always be secondary to the more gut level fear of higher taxes, even with local representation.What kind of “pluses and minuses” have other communities realized in the state of Washington? Which city government services will cost more? Which ones less? Which communities succeeded, which ones have failed to perform, and why? Can we learn from their mistakes if we do finally choose to incorporate? Answers? Someone, anyone?

David Barker
Spokane Valley

I think the queston that needs to be answered is: Can we create a new city for the same amount of tax dollars or less? If it's going to cost the residents of the new city more, why do it?

Leo Ohanesian
Veradale

The biggest concern I have is watching the Valley become annexed, piece by piece by the city of Spokane. I am proud of being considered a Spokanite.However, in the past 10-15 years we have seen the city government fooled by contractors, mismanage money that should have gone to maintaining streets, and see an uncontrolled growth in a bureaucracy that is so powerful, not even a well-meaning “strong mayor” can penetrate the strangle-hold they have on all aspects of life in the city.My concerns about a new city government are that we will see the same mistakes made with the resulting city government as un-responsive as the Spokane city government is to the needs of their citizens. Given the record of childish squabbles the city of Spokane government has endured and the serious blunders the bureaucrats have made, I am willing to take a chance and give a Spokane Valley city a chance.Hopefully, the voters and the folks who are voted into office will learn from the incredible errors the city of Spokane officials have made. Establishing a new city is not an automatic, easy fix to our urban growth challenges. It could be a fresh start with a chance to not make the same mistakes.

Richard M. Munson
Spokane Valley

Spokane and the Valley have changed dramatically over the years. I have lived here for more than 30 years and have seen the population quadruple. I believe the Valley eventually will have to incorporate, whether we like it or not.One reason is the way the city of Spokane has been run the past few years. It's gotten nasty and I don't think the Valley residents want the same people governing them. Therefore, the Valley will incorporate.One question I have is: What will happen to our taxes? Will they skyrocket because of a new city or will they stay the same or go down?

Devyn Derrick
Spokane Valley

My wife and I grew up within the Spokane city limits and we lived there for the first four years of our marriage. After a three-year stint in Aberdeen, we returned to the area in 1995. We are now grateful that we decided to purchase a home in the Spokane Valley. Observing both public and private leadership has been comic and pathetic at the same time.Who would want to live in a city which elects someone to the city council who continuously files litigation against the very organization in which he serves? Who would want to live in a city where a prominent wealthy family who supposedly cares about the community seems to care more about saving face? Not us.In the past we have voted against incorporation, but now we most likely will vote in favor. At this time we simply don't want to be associated with the mess that is the city of Spokane.

Gary Olson
Spokane Valley

Here are some issues that need to be considered:First, all of the elements of a new city exist. Second, the people with a vested interest tend to be the most motivated to form a city and can blunder terribly because they are blinded by their vested interest. They can also, if successful, take over and run a new city. They won't last for long, however, because a new city will take on its own momentum.Of the uncommitted majority, the biggest hazard is unrealistic expectations. They think, we can do it right and at a lower cost than we pay now, not like all the others who blew their opportunities. A Valley City will have all of the agonies of every other city, including Spokane. It is dirty, hard work and some will be hurt in the process.We can't predict that things will be better. All we can predict is that things will be different. Is it worth the effort? That is the question which we all must answer as best we can. There is an old saying which applies. It is “success is the ability to make the right decision with insufficient information.”

Allan deLaubenfels
Spokane Valley

Many people are dissatisfied with the current city and county governmental bodies. Many of the comments I've heard in favor of Valley incorporation stem from a desire to distance the Valley folks from what the city folks seem to be doing wrong. Indeed, there is a great deal of hype about how grand it would be to have the Valley incorporated. Eliminate the hype and address key questions with regard to how a new city government would be funded, using specific data. Has anyone calculated how much money would be available to run the new city, and from which sources of revenue? I'd like to see a breakdown of how the money would be spent, as well. Which services that are currently received from either the city or county would a new city be expected to provide for themselves? What are the advantages of incorporation? Specifically, what benefits could be expected over the next, say, five to 10 years, versus what we have now? What are the disadvantages? Objectively, what do we lose by incorporation? The people who are pushing for incorporation are presumably prepared to run for political offices within the new incorporated city. If this is indeed the case, I'd like to see those persons handle all of the pros and cons of incorporation objectively and let the voters see the hard facts, not hype.

Lyssa J. Gooch
Spokane Valley

There once was a big bad wolf who, along with his relatives, ruled the tangled woodlands with fierce rapacity. These were a co-dependent lot who perpetually squabbled amongst themselves over many issues, such as how many gopher holes were on their plot of land and most importantly, who should be charged with paying to have them filled in. Most of the wolf clan believed that all of the woodland creatures should cover the cost because, well, it was everyone's forest and all would benefit. They even tried to put it to a vote, but very few wanted to give the wolves any money because the woodland creatures were wise and knew that the wolves would only claw at one another and eventually spend the money on their new outhouse. Which leads to another more confusing ruckus over this new public outhouse built by the beavers. This outhouse was planned as a rather quaint sized one with only a few stalls built in the middle of the wolves' property to help support the woodland creature's scavenging efforts. But the beavers not being very good with numbers quickly went over budget, and then a fight broke out between the beavers and the wolves. So now the wolves are looking for someone to cover the never-ending costs of the paper goods while trying to maintain the confidence of the rest of the fauna of the forest. Which finally brings us to the topic of this fairy story. The wolves, we are finding out, tend to be an imperialist lot who seem to be in league with the crows who are experts in looking for ways of snatching up bits of newly improved pieces of forest. The wolves and the crows spied out the “Homes” and the “Yards” of the three little pigs whose only desire was to count the “Costs” of starting a small kinship of their own in which they could govern themselves apart from the confusion and devastation of the wolves domain. But alas the wolves' jealousy was kindled, and the grand wolf tried to step in to stop the little pig's efforts. Now there is much turmoil in the forest as the pigs try to break away from the wolves' claws. The grand wolf bears his teeth and growls every so often, but the pigs are undaunted and faithfully pursue their own autonomy. What the outcome will be, only remains to be seen. But if victorious the pigs too must walk in fear and use wisdom for fear of becoming big bad wolves themselves.

Eric Fugitt
Spokane Valley

Why incorporate? Why not merge into one large city with Spokane? What will be the impact of incorporation on the rest of the county that will not become a part of the new city, and if the new city absorbs most of the high-paying tax areas, will there be enough money to maintain county services in the unincorporated area?Will the new city have a strong mayor with lots of new, expensive assistant staff members?Will there be more duplication of fire and police departments and chiefs?Will the people pushing for incorporation make it clear who they are, who they represent, what their vision is for the new city, and who they expect to support in the new government?Who is funding the incorporation proposal?Where will the new city hall and downtown be located? By any chance will it involve properties owned by people seeking incorporation?What will be the relationship between the new city and the city of Spokane? Will there be mutual cooperation or will we suffer endless competition between the two cities?I worry that the new city will have as many problems as Liberty Lake with much greater opportunity to spend huge amounts of taxpayer money.What will happen to the present county commissioners?

Ed and Nancy Parker
Spokane Valley

Do the math. While most Valley property owners can expect some modest property tax reductions, the few large landholders, developers and mortgage companies backing incorporation get monster tax reductions amounting to millions of dollars. This money will be recouped from Valley working people in the form of higher fees for many of the services we presently take for granted.Do we really want to forsake the safety of the fat county treasury for the sake of a few large landlords?

Michael Poulin
Spokane Valley

Vote incorporation. Why? The valley is so different than the city in many respects. When we moved here in July 2000, I noticed that the Valley seems like a small town compared to downtown Spokane. Good and bad.By incorporating, we can focus more attention on our concerns and needs. It seems that sometimes the Valley gets left out in the cold when it comes to receiving benefit from services provided. We can generate ideas to receive funding for development or grants for improving the environment, for example less litter on the roadways, more sidewalks and bike paths, more parks, etc.; increasing awareness of all our needs.Times are tough economically but won't stay that way. We need to believe and find out all we can about incorporation and get involved. It seems to me that we have the impetus this time to successfully incorporate. What we need are more people with some enthusiasm and knowlege of all our needs and the initiative to put words to action.

Joni Granrud
Veradale

I believe that eventually I am going to be in some incorporated government entity and at this point I don't want it to be Spokane. I live in the Yardley area and when I built my house here I was forced to connect to city sewer service to protect the aquifer. I had no objection to that. That was good common sense.I was, however, forced to sign a waiver, in order to connect to city sewer, stating that I would not fight annexation by the city. In my view that was a form of blackmail. The recent Supreme Court decision to ban annexation by petition was received with great joy. In my opinion, Spokane extended sewer service to the Valley primarily for an excuse to annex us and I resent that.Also, the antics of the Spokane City Council does not at all impress me positively. The parking garage fiasco and the road deterioration problems indicate that they do not use their tax dollars very wisely or efficiently. I would not like to give them my tax dollars.Will a city of the Valley do any better? I don't know but I am convinced that they wouldn't do much worse.

Richard Clark
Yardley

I'm on a fixed income. How much property taxes will I have to pay?

Bob Adams
Spokane Valley

I learned early in life that there is a difference in one's needs and wants. We in the Valley do not have a need for a city. We have every service that we need without another layer of government to look for new ways to tax us to contract for the same services we now have.What I think we have is a group of people who want a city, not because we need it, but for their own reasons.They have tried, and will continue trying, to convince the majority of us that we do need a city. And unfortunately, they will convince many that they are right. They will juggle numbers, make rosy predictions, and if we fall for them, and they are wrong, well, you have seen the city of Spokane in action, do I need to say more?I hope every person in the Valley will get registered and vote. And if the majority want a city, then so be it. But please, let's not let 30 percent or so of the people make the decision for all of us.The people who want a city are organized and almost all will vote. We who oppose a city must vote in greater numbers, or we will have a city we do not need, and I believe, we would pay dearly for it, financially.

George C. Ragland
Veradale

My wife and I both feel strongly that the Valley should not be incorporated.We agree with the results of independent studies that show that our community would be best served by the merger of the city and the county.The Valley lacks any sense of community as a separate geographical area, like Liberty Lake does. We work, shop, play and spend more time in the city than in the Valley, except when we are home. We like our Valley home, but feel that all of us should be supporting those things that make our community the great place to live that it is. Those things lie primarily in the city of Spokane - the community we call home.Every time part of our county is carved out for a city, the tax base for the county shrinks. This is not fair to those left behind, whose services will suffer or will have to bear an increase in their taxes.

Paul and Jacque Smith
Spokane Valley

Governments don't solve problems, they create them. The solution to a problem of inefficient, costly and unresponsive government is not to add more government!It defies logic to believe that another layer of government can be added without adding more cost and more bureaucratic meddling. Will we still be subject to county government? Of course we will, and we will continue to pay those costs, whether directly or indirectly. The county commission will continue to make decisions about many important Valley matters beyond the power of the city government, with no greater (and no less, I hope) concern for a Valley perspective than we have seen in recent years.Meanwhile, a new city government will have its own costs. Some well-meaning people will try to keep these under control, but they will grow. We need look only as far as Liberty Lake to see how rapidly the appetite for more government services grows, and how quickly the original intent to have a limited, efficient, helpful city government gets warped by “political realities.”Once we have a city government, there will be no going back.

Carl Paukstis
Spokane Valley

My greatest concern is: Will this new city be able to maintain the same level of services without an increase in taxes?

Gene Volland
Spokane Valley

Finally we get to have our say? Recently, an attorney for Valley incorporation made this statement after the city of Spokane dropped the Yardley appeal, opening the doors for another vote on Valley incorporation.How many times have the Spokane Valley residents voted against incorporation, yet the same proponents keep pushing for a `new city.” I and many others don't believe their claims of lower taxes and better representation. Last year, at the Interstate Fair I asked somebody at the Valley incorporation booth, “Why should I vote for a new city?”His response was “So you can be just like these guys” while pointing to the city of Spokane. Not a good example!Myself and many others are comfortable just being a suburb of the city. Every time there is a vote against the “new city,” the boundaries of the city change like a jigsaw puzzle. After this vote is defeated, how long will it be before they let us Valley voters have our say again?

George Hietala
Spokane Valley

My first and foremost concerns are, What type of government are we talking about? Elected mayor and City Council or will we remain under county government? What kind of police and fire protection will we have? Who will provide these services? Who and how do you intend to pay for these services? What kind of gains do the dentists and lawyers plan on making? Are the people who worked the hardest and donated the most money more likely to run this city than those who have no money? Last of all, is this going to be another city of do nothing except raise taxes?

Charlie Beck
Spokane Valley

As I see it there are only three questions to the valley incorporation.1. Do I want the leaders of the city/county of Spokane to run my life in the Valley?2. Do I believe that people who live in the valley should control their own lives?3. Do I believe the people we elect in the Valley will do their best to keep from making the incorporation “another layer of government” and actually manage the new city with our interests in mind?After answering these questions, the majority wins. Personally, I do want closer control of our government, and believe the Valley lifestyle is worth preserving before the Cowles mob decides to annex us. I also believe that if the City Council is prohibited from drawing a salary for their “public service” as they should be, we will keep people in the office who only have the communities best interest in mind. This presupposes that the city is founded with that in mind.I personally would be proud to serve a term or two without pay if it means getting a truly worthwhile government is formed. Unlike the Liberty Lake folks, who voted themselves a raise, without even having a budget figured out.If you are willing to take responsibility for your part of the government, you can at least blame yourself if it goes wrong. If, on the other hand, you want to continue to point the finger westward, and whine, vote no, and take what they give.

Robin Palachuk
Veradale

In my opinion, Valley incorporation is long overdue. you trace previous, failed attempts at incorporation, you will find that the campaign against incorporation was funded largely by interests out side of the Valley. e tax base that county residents and businesses, that are outside of the Valley, would lose I believe is the primary reason. sidents of the Valley: please don't let this effort fail as in previous years.

Todd Shelton
Valley resident 27 years(now in Arizona)

I just got a copy of the new map and by golly, we're inside the boundary for the first time since the talk of the Valley becoming a city began. Now I'v got some homework to do and will be watching the articles and questions people ask very closely.

Mary Farley
Spokane Valley

I have been a Valley resident for many years and my wife was born and raised in the Valley. The “sky is falling” campaign raised by the same people again has been lost with the city's ability to annex the Yardley area taken away by the courts.We (Valley voters) have voted “no” enough times that you would think these people would get the hint. Every time they push one of these campaigns the same old issues are raised and the same people get on soap boxes. It also costs the voters money to have the election. When a measure continues to fail and keeps getting brought back up I feel the people pushing the election should have to pay for it up front before any vote takes place.The issue of another layer of government should tell people sitting on the fence or new to the area what voting a city would mean. More career politicians and their “buddies” paid for by you. It would also mean a number of years of fledgling officials fumbling around like in Liberty Lake. People without a clue.There are no compelling issues that would make me vote for Clark Hager and his friends for anything, let alone to run a city. They can't even run a campaign. I am still interested in where they get their money to send junk mail and plaster billboards with threats directed at our neighbors.

J.S. Pardee
Veradale

There have been several campaigns to make the Spokane Valley a city of its own. I served on all of the committees but the one in 1990. I was one of the leaders of the last effort to form two small cities, Opportunity and Evergreen.I spoke at meetings, met with the Legislative Committee of the Valley Chamber of Commerce, gathered thousands of signatures for petitions, wrote many letters to the editor, was interviewed by television reporters and was prominently involved in all facets of the campaigns.I was not asked to serve in this most recent effort, but I am, nonetheless, a strong supporter of Valley Incorporation. This area of over 80,000 residents is the most urban area I know of that technically does not exist. It is patently ridiculous that we have such little control over our collective lives.I am, however, quite disappointed that the leaders decided on a form of city government which the voters of Spokane finally realized is unwieldy and inefficient. That is the one with a figurehead mayor that has little authority other than ceremonial. I know Spokane is having trouble just now, but I am convinced that with an assertive mayor who isn't afraid to buck outdated tradition and entrenched political power, Spokane could be a city of tremendous potential.I hope I'm wrong, but I fear decades of bickering and infighting within the government of Spokane Valley without a leader with the tact and authority to control a group of seven different personalities and egos.

Ed Meadows
Spokane Valley

After living in the City of Spokane for over 30 years and lucky enough to be Valley resident for five years, I really don't see what the fuss is to incorporate. The roads issue has been at the forefront of city politics since the mid-1970's. Former Spokane City Council member Margaret Leonard's whole campaign platform in the 1970's was the streets, and it hasn't changed since then.The roads in the Valley are far superior to the city, and the services I receive in the Valley are as good or superior than the city's. County Commissioners Kate McCaslin, Phil Harris and John Roskelley do a great job in running the county equitably. The county also has a “rainy day fund” and with the efforts of our great county treasurer, Linda Wolverton we should continue to have that fund. I guess I must be behind the times.

Gary A. Doerschlag
Greenacres

No, no, no! A few people decide for the rest of us, and I don't want to pay for startup costs in the Valley. I have seen the problems at Liberty Lake. I have a business in the Valley and have been here for 17 years. I like it the way it is.

Nancy Cotter
Otis Orchards

I read with interest the comments regarding Valley incorporation. I agree with all of them and in doing so, my apathetic cap clearly sticks out. I agree the Valley is urban sprawl lacking that community feel. Does that mean we can't become a community?I agree our current levels of services are commendable _ yet will the Valley retain that level as we continue to flourish? I agree it's unlikely the city of Spokane will annex the Valley _ yet greater foes were conquered for smaller rewards than the lucrative tax revenue the Valley has and the city needs.I agree a substantial tax savings is reason to use the “yes” pen, but if no tax savings is realized, will my money sink into city coffers when annexation occurs? (Oh, that won't happen, will it?)I agree the incorporation proponents may have a personal agenda. Still, we've witnessed the effects of total control by a few; can we take heed?Reflecting on “back when” is wonderful. Unfortunately, we're “here now” and the Valley has grown, folks. We need to organize, control, and build community if we want to deter becoming a financial feather in the city's cap via annexation.While we kick around not being a “community” and brag Valley services are “fine” (ignoring the booming meth problem and increased burglary rate), the city plans its next move.As I weigh the issues on incorporation, I'm pulling off that apathetic cap, replacing it with a mortarboard. Let's make sure that whatever happens come May 21, the Valley's cap will not read “dunce.”

Sandra Babcock
Spokane Valley

One thing that I am concerned about with forming a new city in the Spokane Valley is adding another layer of government. However, my biggest concern is that we will have a bunch of dolts running things like the group in Liberty Lake or an inept tag-team like Powers and Eugster in Spokane.

Danny Shea
Greenacres

Back to Top