CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON
City Council Chambers
Monday, October 12, 2009, 07:00 PM
Book: 63, Page: 1
CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
AB18619 1. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION TO INITIATIVE 1033
Mayor Dan Pike spoke about the reality of the impacts of 1033and the unintended consequences that would result. I-1033 would cap revenues to 2009 levels and limit it to the CPI and population growth. The 2009 economy is at a multi generational low point in revenues. This initiative is unreasonable and counterproductive. Many facets are problematic. For example the Initiative does not count previous years of increased taxes voters approved themselves. I-1033 eliminates the incentive to apply for federal grants. When the federal funds come in, property taxes would have to be reduced. Our Federal reps would not be able to compete for federal funds. I-1033 creates an inherent unfairness in that only property owners would benefit while everyone who pays sales taxes would receive no benefits at the same time there are drastic reductions in public services. Sales tax revenues would go to property owners. The right thing to do would be to rebate taxes to those who pay them. The City has already made millions in cuts. If I-1033 passed, the City would face between $5-$15 million in additional cuts. How will that make the community look 5 - 10 years down the road? This Resolution is an opportunity to educate the voters. I-1033 would be a disaster. The opposition to this initiative is not a liberal vs conservative issue. Mayor Jack Louws of Lynden opposes it, as does Mayor Gary Jensen of Ferndale.
President Barry Buchanan opened the Public Hearing:
Karen Weill: agreed with the Mayor and appreciates the analysis. I-1033 is being opposed by people on both sides of the political spectrum. Only a small group is supporting it. Colorado passed similar law with terrible effects. There was not enough money to vaccinate children. It left Colorado 49th in the US in spending for education. I-1033 is the only statewide initiative on the ballot.
Larry Hildes: Every service and everything that people care about is being cut. Eyman is doing this so the people who have, can have more. He would gladly pay more than the $140 dollars per month that he already does to keep public services going. The State is teetering on catastrophe now. The gap between the rich and poor is growing. Eyman is getting rich. People must speak out against it. It is taxing the poor to give to the rich. Everyone should vote “No” on 1033
Marian Beddill: Opposes I-1033. She is a strong supporter of the initiative process. Tim Eyman has made initiatives a business for himself. Mr. Eyman has proposed that he is trying to make government more fiscally responsible. This is a slap-dash proposal that will do the opposite. Please oppose I-1033.
Lori Province: Opposes 1-1033. Concurs with Mayor Pike's statement. It is a slap in the face of Bellingham citizens and strips local control. Eyman says it will control government. We should call him out as the liar he is. The initiative is based on a market basket that is the general goods and services that people buy like groceries, gas and pantyhose. Cities and Counties and States buy fire trucks and police cars which don't cost the same as our everyday cars. Cities have to purchase school teachers, water and sewer treatment specialists. People are not massed produced to be cheaper. This initiative represents the largest redistribution of wealth ever seen in Washington State. Property owners of large blocks of parcels will get the most. This was tried in Colorado and citizens, lead by business suspended it in 2004. We must take the strongest possible position against I-1033.
Terry Bornemann stated it is a “no brainer”. The initiative is designed to lock in budget cuts and will kill thousands of jobs to come. The City is already struggling to recover from failures of the Federal Government to engage in fiscal responsibility. Tim Eyman is trying to con voters.
Barbara Ryan noted that the City has been going through some very difficult times. She sits on the WTA board which must make cuts at a time when people have less money for gas and cars. Citizens down the road may not be able to turn on the tap or call 911. These extremes are the direction this legislation is taking us.
Barry Buchanan voiced his support for the resolution. The city is being held hostage by the initiative and will be held hostage by the economy if the initiative passes. Many of the budget cuts that have been made cannot be permanent. We must allow a recovering economy help local governments recover as well. This is very important.
TB/BR MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION. The motion carried 6-0. Gene Knutson excused.
AB18620 2. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF REFERENDUM 71
Barbara Ryan introduced this resolution affirming the State's legislation and she stated that it is the right and just thing to do. The ballot language is confusing and needs discussion to clarify for the voters what the vote will mean. The Legislature passed this law, it was signed into law by the Governor and then it was immediately challenged by fundamentalist religious groups. She reviewed the list of benefits that would be extended to registered domestic partners. R-71 is supported by business leaders, Microsoft, Boeing, PSE and the greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce which said “diversity and inclusiveness in the workplace are core values in our business community”. It is supported by the Urban League, the Washington State Bar Association and the Washington Association of Churches and many others. The reason for bringing it to the Council for Resolution is that the language of the ballot is confusing. Voters could make a mistake if they do not read carefully. Bellingham has a proud history of supporting diversity. According to the City's Human Resources director, it will not cost the City of Bellingham anything. Rejection would eliminate the ability of Bellingham employees from taking leave from work to care for critically ill partners. It would prevent partners of public employees from getting pension benefits and eliminate the rights of a person in a committed domestic partnership to visit a sick or injured partner in the hospital. The Legislature did the right thing and it is up to us to give it our stamp of approval.
Bruce Deille: No position. This is about the topic of morality. The University library is open to the public on Sunday and one can read a book regarding Christian guilt regarding use of the atomic bomb by Leinholt Leiber who authored the serenity prayer. He wrote about moral ambiguity among all righteous people in history. No one really knows. It has nothing to do with Christianity.
Nick Milhoan: Supports R-71. Urged Council to support the resolution. He is a gay male who has been with his partner for six years and is chair of the Bellingham Pride Festival. He sees every year how many families are affected by discrimination. Many students at Western have experienced discrimination first hand. This measure was signed into law by the Governor and Legislature - the representatives of the people. A small minority of people are trying to overturn it. There are public employees, police and firefighters putting their lives on the line everyday to protect us and our rights. They would lose their rights if they are injured or killed in the line of duty. Support equality for every person, every family.
Larry Hildus and Karen Weill (married couple): Support R-71. Got married in 2000 in California the same year as Prop 22 was passed, the predecessor Prop 8. They felt guilty that they could be married but their friends could not. It is a myth that somehow marriage is supposed to be weaker if gays can marry but this not so. A marriage is only as strong or as weak as we make it ourselves. Feels their marriage is stronger if everyone can be married. Everyone should have the privileges to step forward publicly in the eyes of the law and make a commitment to another person for the rest of their lives. Everyone should have these rights. Gay and lesbians love each other just as much as straight people. Please support the resolution.
Pat Rose: Supports R-71. Thanked Council for holding the public hearing and proposing the resolution. She and her partner are registered domestic partners and proud to be parents, business owners and community members who accept their responsibilities in a committed partnership. They would like to have the privileges that married people have. Urged Council to adopt the resolution in support.
Dean Tuckerman: Supports the Resolution. It is a resolution to support basic human rights. The people that are for it don't have the agenda, the people against it have the agenda. They want to get rid of gay, lesbian and transgendered people. They say this puts us on the way to marriage. This resolution it is more important than that. The vital elements of R-71 are for people getting access to pensions earned by their partners and visitation rights. Thanked Council for putting this on the agenda.
Marian Beddill: Supports R-71. Supports the Resolution to emphasize for the voters, that the language could be confusing causing people to accidentally vote incorrectly. Emphasized that that voters should vote “Approve” for R-71. She read the statement of equality and dignity from the resolution. She stated that she believes that is the philosophy of the people of Bellingham. If her partner of 12 years, Ruth Ashworth, were still alive, she would stand with her and also ask Council to support the honor and dignity of every person.
Arsen Dalavaccio: Supports R-71. He is transgendered and gay. He came to Council on behalf of his mother who would like to get married and for himself who would like to someday be married. His family represents every branch of the military and he has been watching the gay marriage issue. He has spoken with people opposed to gay marriage and though he doesn't agree, he can see their point in attempting to save the culture that is important to them. He felt that people would support this measure since it did not grant marriage status to gays. He is concerned to hear of those who do not want to allow the rights without the marriage. He heard arguments about damage to children. He pointed out that adoption does not have anything to do with marriage. He urged Council to adopt the Resolution.
Stephanie Kountouros: Supports R-71. Thanked the Council and public. She reported that Referendum 71 is polling at 51% and urged Council to protect and preserve the rights of all couples: gay, lesbian and senior domestic partners. She pointed out that seniors choose not to marry on purpose for good reasons. Persons over 62 will lose their former spouse's benefits if they remarry. Yet if they don't marry, they cannot be with the one they love when they become sick. No one should be forced to make that decision. The partners of police and firefighters who die in the line of duty should get benefits no matter what their gender is. If her partner becomes ill, she should be able to take sick leave to care for her partner no matter what gender. It is not about marriage. Urged Council to support the resolution.
Dan Larner: Supports the Resolution. Feels pride for his community and the Council. If one person's rights are diminished, the rights of all of us are diminished. We cannot rest secure until the rights of everyone are secure. The fight for civil liberties never stays won. This is a profound step in the right direction.
Scott Chambers: Opposes the R-71. This is his first time at a Council Meeting, he always thought that one voice would not make a difference and trusted that good people were serving as representatives and making good choices. He came for this particular subject. Has nothing to do with the good people here. Feels strongly about religion. God loves us all but does not love all the choices we make. He works with youth. He teaches them by taking it to the extreme. For example in discussing legalizing Marijuanna. If everyone smoked it, would the community be better or not? It would be terrible. This is the same. If everyone took that choice of lifestyle would society be better? Feels strongly that it would be worse. There are eternal truths. Some things cannot be voted on it. Voting on gravity would have no effect. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If this is passed Marriage would be constituted as “partners”. Urged Council to vote against the Resolution.
Janice Walwerth: Supports R-71. Sexual orientation is not a choice. No amount of punishment under the law would change anyone. Educating children that homosexuality is wrong will not change their sexual orientation. This country was not founded on the moral principles of any one religion. The Founding Fathers wanted freedom for all. No one religion should take away rights. NY times estimated the difference in the cost of marriage between heterosexual couples and gay couples was almost $500K. The best case difference was $40K. It is an issue of fairness and equal rights. Please support this Resolution in support of R-71
Rayanne Ellman: Asked when it became the American way to discriminate against someone for the way they believe or the way they are? We were founded on a separation of church and state. Religions pushing beliefs is not the way we were founded and should not be taken into consideration. It is about fairness and for equality under the law. This is how the Declaration was written. She urged Council to vote for the Resolution.
There being no further testimony, President Buchanan closed the public hearing.
Terry Bornemann shared a quote from Rev. Michael Denton. “Although people have the right to believe what they are called to believe, this does not include the permission to impose those beliefs on others. The efforts to deny same sex partners and seniors the legal protection of domestic partnership in an effort to deny the rights of one group of people in order to impose the religious sensibilities of another group of people on everyone in the State of Washington is not right. To protect the rights of domestic partners harms no one. Removing those rights would be immoral and unfair.” This comes from a press release from 85 religious leaders and clergy from faith communities and faith based organizations from across the state. We should not have to vote on civil rights. Will be supporting the Resolution.
Louise Bjornson stated her support as this is an issue of fairness. It is the right thing to do. Everyone should vote to approve R-71.
Jack Weiss stated his disappointment that people were able to sign petitions anonymously. Civil Unions are different than marriage. Civil Unions should give couples the right of any couple in the state. Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be reserved for religions. Where we go wrong is to mix marriage into state law. Marriage should all be civil unions. Level playing field for everyone. That is what it should be nationally. Will support the Resolution.
Stan Snapp stated that he is conflicted. This was all done quickly with no discussion by the Council. I-1033 has a direct effect on the city and its ability to perform its responsibilities. Council has a role in informing the public of the effects on city services. Referendum 71 is a very personal issue. Everyone has his/her own views. Feels it is inappropriate for Council action and will abstain from the vote.
Terry Bornemann disagreed and explained why it is a city issue. The City has taken a stance on previous issues like this because it affects our employees. Many city employees are in domestic partnerships, who are not straight and we support them. This is a measure to stand up for our city employees this circumstance. It supports policies Council has already put in place to recognize the rights of those employees in relationships to be allowed benefits.
BR/BB MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. The motion carried 5-0-1. Gene Knutson excused; Stan Snapp abstained.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:13 PM.
Barry Buchanan, Council President
ATTEST: J. Lynne Walker, Legislative Coordinator
APPROVED:
| This is a digital copy of an original document located at Bellingham's City Hall. The City of Bellingham specifically disclaims any responsibility or liability for the contents of this document. The City of Bellingham does not verify the correctness, accuracy, or validity of the information appearing in this document. |
