Four the future - December 13

Access to Antoine Peak, Waste-to-Jobs, Spokane County jail, and inclusionary housing.

• Access still limited to Antoine Peak
  Source: Spokesman, 091213
  Summary: While Spokane County has received grant funding for Antoine Peak, access is still limited because a third and critical piece of the property acquisition has not been made.
  Opinion: With the arrival of the grant monies, purchase of this final piece is easier. And if Spokane County withdraws the mind-boggling offer to purchase the YMCA, they'll save an immense amount of money for appropriate uses, like acquiring this third parcel.


• Watching their waste
  Source: Spokesman, 091213
  Summary: Odessa Public Development Authority is developing a bio-digester at Fishtrap. In digesting 75,000 tons of waste, it will create fertilizer, generate enough electricity for 1,000 homes, and become Lincoln County's largest employer with 75 new jobs.
  Opinion: A great idea to deal with some of Spokane County's waste issues, but let's make sure there are no pathogens making it all the way into the resulting fertilizer. Good on Odessa PDA to look outside the box in being willing to place a site closer to Sprague than Odessa. With a little less provincialism everywhere, we'd all benefit with a little help from our friends. And look at that: Lincoln County's largest employer will be part of the green collar economy.


• Jail query: not where, why
  Source: Spokesman, 091213
  Summary: A letter writer tells her experience about how a public hearing about the new jail facility turned from where should the facility be built to why should it be built, and brings facts to bear.
  Opinion: An excellent question: what is it about this "family friendly" community that requires so much jail time? The fact is that the county commissioners already picked a site, the best one, too, but the two Republicans on the board don't have the courage to stick to their decision. Beware Knezovich's recurring bids to create his own little kingdom out on the west plains.


• Controversy surrounds Bellingham plan to require low-income housing
  Source: The Bellingham Herald, 091213
  Summary: The Bellingham City Council unanimously required a development to include 10% of the housing to be affordable to families making 80% of the Whatcom County median household income. There is disagreement over the appropriate method of ensuring the presence of affordable housing in an area. In Bellingham almost one-quarter of the cost of building a home is fees and sales taxes.
  Opinion: The fees argument is a red herring: who would live in a house that doesn't have access to roads, sewer, water, or schools? Or will fall down because it's uninspected? The question is: how do we ensure that there is a connection between the incomes in a community and the available housing stock. There are two ways: increase incomes for the least paid, or require that if incomes are low that there is housing stock available. Since there are so many people in leadership positions in this nation who hold the opinion that paying people well for their work is harmful to the economy (which is ridiculous because paying people IS the economy), the second must be pursued. What we need is to view affordable housing as a commodity, and create a market for it. Require all development to include a percentage of housing, including rentals, to be affordable, the percentage adjusted to the need in the region. Then, allow developers to transfer this requirement, if they wish, to other developers who would like to take advantage of government assistance. With protections to prevent affordable housing from being moved out of the local area and to prevent high concentrations of low income housing, a market is formed which is flexible and meets the needs of the region.