 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Toby’s Views on the IssuesWe chose to live in Washington because it’s a great place to raise our families. We’re independent-minded. We love the great outdoors. We believe in living peaceably with our neighbors and respecting differences. But can we enjoy our blessings if we’re spending hours away from our families just getting to and from work? If both parents have no choice but to work because so much of our earnings goes to taxes? If we can’t afford a home or health care for our kids because of excessive regulations? Some people say there’s not much difference between the principles or ideas of the major political parties. I disagree! I invite you to read on to find out what I believe about some of the major issues facing us today, and decide for yourself if it’s the same old politics as usual. I’m happy to discuss these or any other issues with you any time — I know there are things you know more about than I do, and I’m anxious to learn from you! Let me know if there are topics you think should be included on this page that you don’t see; I’d be happy to write up a statement and post it here. Just click Contact Toby to find out how to reach me. Click an item in the list below to scroll to that topic.
Transportation and Traffic Congestion One of the most important things parents can give to their children is their time. Think about all your daily activities — what is the one thing that unnecessarily consumes more of your valuable, quality, family time than any other? Sitting in traffic! I want to improve our roads for both cars and buses, and get traffic moving again to give parents more time at home with their children. Increasing capacity on our highways and arterials will reduce overflow traffic cutting through our neighborhoods that endangers kids walking to and from school and playing. Reducing congestion will provide the predictable travel times that businesses require if they're going to choose to locate here or expand their facilities and provide more family-wage jobs. And we’ll reduce pollution of our air — still some of the worst in the country — by getting traffic moving at efficient speeds rather than idling and wasting fuel. We need mass transit alternatives for those who can’t drive or choose not to. But should we spend billions on inflexible light-rail systems that could never be a solution in areas of lower population density such as the 45th district? Imagine if we spent billions to get a light rail line to the Boeing plant in Renton — and then Boeing moved single-aisle plane production to Everett. Buses can be deployed at much lower cost, much sooner, and provide the flexibility we need to meet changes in population and employment. And if we do want a rail system, we should fully explore monorail and permanent magnetic levitation alternatives (such as LevX) before committing to 19th-century rail technology. We should also explore on-demand transit solutions (using the Internet or telephone to request service) rather than running nearly-empty large buses through neighborhoods on a fixed schedule. We must provide more and larger Park and Ride lots. And we should enable the private sector to also provide transportation services rather than depending entirely on a government-owned and -operated transit monopoly. But while pursuing these transit improvements, we must respect and accommodate the overwhelming preference of people for personal transportation, and recognize that without road improvements, buses will be stuck in traffic along with cars. How do we pay for these programs? First, the motor fuel tax, which is constitutionally dedicated to highways, should be set at a level that correctly reflects the fully-burdened cost of constructing and maintaining those highways. We should dedicate transportation-related sales tax revenue to road construction and maintenance, exempt road construction materials from sales taxes to stop the unconstitutional transfer of motor fuel revenue to the general fund, contract out, implement competitive wages, and privatize to reduce costs and stretch our transportation dollars. For example, we could raise more money for transportation and increase service by leasing out space in rest areas to private operators. We value our freedom. We don’t want to be forced out of the comfort, safety, convenience, and independence of our personal vehicles and have the government decide when, where, and how we travel. The Puget Sound Regional Council’s proposed transportation plan proposes no widening of major east-west arterials in the core of the 45th district for the next 30 years — none! We need leadership in Olympia that will ensure our transportation needs are met rather than pursuing implementation of a view that cars are evil. Our families need comfortable places to live, nourishing food, warm clothes, quality health care, and so many other things. But we all struggle to make ends meet — and often both parents have to work not by choice, but of necessity. Why? Because our taxes are so high! High taxes are built into the prices of everything we buy, and 40% or more of the typical family’s budget goes to taxes of various kinds. People should be allowed to keep more of their own hard-earned money and use it to meet the needs of their family rather than having it taken for bureaucratic government programs. I trust you to make you own spending choices; you know better than any bureaucrat in Olympia how to spend your own money. Struggling small businesses shouldn’t be forced to close by excessive business and occupation taxes that are due whether or not they make a profit. Property taxes are especially burdensome; many people who have lived in the same home for decades now pay more in property taxes than they ever paid in mortgage payments, and in most cases their incomes haven’t increased to allow them to pay -- and they’re being forced out of their homes. We should exempt the first $100,000 of value of every parcel from property taxes -- and eliminate the state portion of the property tax. We must reverse the growing shift of the property tax burden from business to residential property that is caused by the artificial constriction of the housing supply and the resulting balloon in home prices. I support requiring a supermajority vote for new taxes and for tax increases, both in the legislature and for public votes. Our tax system is too complex and hard to understand; we can help by eliminating special exemptions and broadening the tax base so we can lower overall tax rates. I support ongoing performance audits and analysis of special taxes, tax credits, and tax exemptions to ensure they are meeting their original goals. I want lower taxes for everyone, not to just create more special exemptions for the lucky few. I strongly oppose a state income tax. States with graduated income taxes are less globally competitive and thus have had slower economic growth than those states, like Washington, that do not have them. Not having an income tax attracts good jobs, investment, and people to our state. We can’t depend on promises from politicians to reduce sales taxes or property taxes after an income tax is created; if an income tax is added, it will just mean more taxes. So long as America continues to be dependent on imported fossil fuels for a significant portion of our energy needs, we will be at risk of economic disruption, out-of-control energy prices, and the need to protect our economic interests by sending our young men and women to intervene overseas. Technologies to replace fossil fuels as our primary energy source, especially for transportation, remain in their infancy and need to be nourished and encouraged with investments in research, development, and deployment, while we optimize use of domestic sources of petroleum fuels for near-term needs. I strongly support moving toward renewable energy and alternative fuels through tax incentives and targeted investments in the such areas as wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, biofuels, landfill gas, waste conversion, and more efficient hydroelectric generation, many of which promise not only energy independence and long-term security but also a cleaner environment and rural economic development. I support investments in hydrogen production and safe and efficient fuel cell technology. I support creation of standardized vehicle battery packs that will reduce costs and enable us to swap battery packs at service stations (like we swap our barbecue grill tanks for full ones) so that we can continue on long trips without needing to stop to recharge batteries overnight. I support expanded use of clean nuclear power, using the plentiful domestic sources of uranium and next-generation standardized safe plant designs, and ensuring we have an environmentally-friendly and safe long-term solution to storage, reprocessing, and disposal of spent fuel rods. I do not support mandating the use of particular alternative fuels or renewable energy sources, or setting a minimum amount that must be used or acquired. Such mandates risk picking a winner too early before the winnowing process of the marketplace has determined the most cost-effective solution, and also risk hurting in-state producers when distributors lock in long-term contracts with out-of-state producers. We must also be sensitive to the environmental impacts of various choices, such as the widespread rain forest destruction occurring in equatorial regions caused by the rush to provide commercial quantities of feedstocks for biodiesel and ethanol. We must not trade one set of ecological disasters and foreign dependencies for another. We must also insure that biofuels make economic sense, considering the entire production cost and impact on other segments of the economy (such as food cost). We all want to restore and preserve our salmon runs, which are such an important part of our Northwest heritage. There are many causes of declining salmon populations, including over-harvesting; the impact of growth, development, and hydroelectric dams on rivers and streams; and those fish hatchery practices which decrease genetic diversity and make fish vulnerable to predators. We should all be willing to do our part, but too often the burden has been placed entirely on those who own land that is close to salmon streams. While protecting and restoring habitat is important, our population continues to increase, and we must also ensure that affordable housing, schools, roads, and jobs are available as our children grow to adulthood. Our solutions for salmon recovery should be determined by us, not by Washington DC bureaucrats. We must first establish clear and reasonable goals for salmon recovery, to know when we’ve achieved success and salmon can be removed from the list of endangered species. Solutions must be based on sound, scientific principles, not guesswork or just for the sake of “doing something”. We must insure that all salmon are being counted, and not excluding some for arbitrary reasons. We must look at all causes of declining salmon populations, not just habitat protection — in particular, we must carefully manage all harvests including nets in our rivers and at sea, examine all other causes of salmon mortality at all stages of their life cycle, and update practices at fish hatcheries and hydroelectric dams to give young fish a chance to survive to adulthood. We should focus on local restoration projects, not dictates from far-away bureaucracies. And we must all be willing to share the cost when land use is restricted, and not force that burden to be shouldered alone by those who happen to own the land through which salmon streams flow. Salmon are important, but should not have absolute priority over people. Development should not be entirely stopped and families driven away by lack of affordable housing and by traffic congestion. We should not allow government control over your property and your life to be justified by intentional perpetuation of a never-ending “salmon crisis”. Irene and I are the parents of five children who are in or graduated from public schools. We’ve had kids in both advanced placement programs and in special education. I have first-hand knowledge of the impact of our public school system on students and parents. I believe that every child deserves a quality education appropriate to their capabilities — a broad, academic education that equips them to be informed and active citizens of a free country, not just compliant laborers who never question the actions or motives of government leaders. But some of the schools in our state are failing — particularly those in inner cities and in economically stressed areas. Students attend in fear of violence, and parents are dissatisfied with discipline and academic performance. Other schools are falling short less visibly but no less importantly to the parents and children affected. We know we can — and must — do better. Nobody has the right to tell a parent they must send their child to a bad school. I want to see more of our education resources in the classroom, not consumed by needless paperwork and bureaucrats: smaller classes in the grades where it matters most, and adequate pay to keep our best teachers from leaving to work in other fields. We must reduce or eliminate unfunded mandates imposed on our local schools from Olympia and Washington DC. Our school funding system must be made less complex and more predictable for school districts, so they can plan ahead — and the legislature needs to stop tinkering with it every year! I want to hold teachers and administrators accountable for the quality of education our kids receive, rather than micro-managing from Olympia. And I want to continue the ability for parents to choose among a wide range of education options for their children so that no child is ever trapped in a failing school. We are fortunate to have many excellent local schools; we need to ensure they are adequately funded and equipped to keep pace with changing educational needs and prepare our kids to be successful in a competitive worldwide 21st-century economy in which we cannot predict what technologies will exist when they graduate or what job skills will be in demand. Washington Assessment of Student Learning None of us want to return to the “bad old days” when too many of our students graduated without being able to read, write, or do simple arithmetic. I support having high academic standards, measuring student achievement of those standards including having a statewide standardized test, and withholding graduation from those who do not meet the standards. However, the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) has proven to not be a good way to measure achievement of standards. It is subjective and costly. It skews the curriculum to a limit set of subjects, and bright students are bored out of their minds by the repetition. We should return to rigorous, fact-based, teacher-administered tests, and re-institute standardized academic testing such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills so that we can compare our overall performance to other districts across the state and across the country. I strongly support providing multiple ways to measure student achievement of our high academic standards, so long as those methods can be consistently and objectively administered statewide. Student tests should be used to measure individual achievement and diagnose where students need help to get up to standards. I oppose the use of aggregate test results to label schools as “failing” and to withhold funding (as required by the federal “No Child Left Behind” act), particularly when applied to magnet schools that have large populations of medically fragile special education students or students who are new to this country and still learning English. I’m also opposed to using the 7th grade test to “grade” junior high schools and the 10th grade test to “grade” high schools, when those schools have only been teaching those students for a few months. We must also recognize that not every student learns (or takes tests) the same way. While we must provide ample opportunities and encourage every student to achieve their maximum potential, no student should be branded a “failure” just because he or she is not on track to enter a four-year university program. Teacher Compensation and Strikes Providing our students with the quality education they need to achieve the high standards we expect means we must hire and retain the best teachers. We must understand the competitive marketplace for teachers, considering compensation and opportunities in other states and in other industries, and pay enough to attract and retain the very best teachers for our kids. I support allowing for teacher salary differences across Washington based on cost of living, and also paying more to the most effective teachers and to those in areas of great need such as special education, math, and science. We need to streamline the top-heavy administrative bureaucracies at both the state and local level, put more money in the classroom, and let the teachers teach. As the beginning of each school year approaches, parents around the state wait with apprehension to find out which districts will be targeted by the state teacher’s union for strikes. And when the inevitable strikes occur, it is often only after days or weeks of disrupted lives that a court finally issues an injunction, declaring the strike illegal and forcing the union to let the teachers go back to work. The union has never appealed such an injunction, fearing that a precedent-setting appeals court decision would disarm them in future negotiations. In 2006, the Attorney General of Washington issued a clear and unequivocal statement affirming what many parents have thought all along – that strikes by teachers or -- indeed, by any public employees -- are not permitted under state law. However, there are currently no automatic penalties for striking, and until penalties are enacted, strikes are likely to continue. I strongly support the establishment of penalties of up to $10,000 per day against union organizers who incite illegal strikes, and against school districts that engage in illegal lockouts. Let's keep our kids in school learning! Each of us wants the comfort of knowing that if we or a loved one are sick that we’ll receive the quality health care and prescription drugs we need at a price we can afford. None of us wants to wait on long lists to get important tests or surgery. We want the freedom to choose the health care provider we want. Time and time again around the world, health care systems have failed because of bureaucratic and political mismanagement. I want to restore and preserve the best health care system possible, with quality care, with the widest range of choices, and at affordable prices — and that is best achieved by less regulation and more competition, not by government control. I want to reduce the cost of health care and of medical insurance by removing mandatory coverages that limit competition and drive up prices, to encourage people to get and maintain insurance while they’re healthy, and to lower the tax burden that is built into the prices of all medical services. I want to encourage insurance policies that are portable and independent of any particular employer. I also want to see refundable health savings accounts and other incentives for people to practice preventive medicine and shop for the most cost-effective services in a free and open market. We do not need government micro-management of health care, with bureaucrats and politicians deciding when we can receive health care services rather than those decisions being made by you and your doctor. And we certainly don’t want a Canadian-style “single-payer” plan with the health care system effectively owned and operated by the government. After all the well-publicized failures of DSHS, do you really want them making health care decisions for you and your family? Legislation has been repeatedly introduced proposing a requirement that large employers such as Wal-Mart be required to pay a “fee” to the government equal to the amount less than 9% of payroll that they spend on employee health care, ostensibly to offset the cost of providing government-funded healthcare to some employees of those companies. The sponsors of the legislation call this a “Fair Share” plan. This fundamentally-flawed “Fair Share” concept is based on the assumption that employers have an obligation to provide health insurance for their employees. No such obligation exists. Employer-provided health insurance is an aberration caused by government wage and price controls during World War II. The resulting linkage between health insurance and employment is what causes many of the problems associated with our health insurance system today, including lack of portability, a disconnection of the customer-provider relationship between patients and doctors, and unfair tax treatment for health insurance purchased by individuals. The idea that health care should be a universal free commodity is damaging in that it leads people to seek care for minor ailments and drives up costs by reducing the incentive to stay well and to shop for the lowest-cost provider for the treatment they need. Instead of the current system of comprehensive first-dollar prepaid healthcare (it is not really “insurance” now at all), we should return to a system in which individuals directly purchase true health insurance to cover unexpected catastrophic events, like we do for automobile insurance, life insurance, and homeowners insurance. Car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, and homeowners insurance doesn't cover light bulbs; health insurance shouldn't cover routine, expected "health maintenance expenses" either. People should pay for routine health care expenses out-of-pocket at the provider of their choice, making informed purchase decisions like they do for other routine services. Instead of being any kind of a solution to our health care problems, the Fair Share concept would expand and perpetuate what is bad about our current system, and move us more toward a socialized single-payer system instead of toward a truly competitive free market in health care services. Regulation and Government Reform Too many people are having their dreams shattered and jobs destroyed by unelected bureaucrats creating and enforcing regulations that go far beyond the intent of the laws passed by our elected representatives. Family farms and businesses struggle under the load of regulation, and fail in the face of competition from government services and facilities that don’t pay taxes and avoid the rules that are strictly enforced on private enterprise. Government programs expand every year without having to justify their reasons for existence, and never go out of business because they fail to provide good service or a product people need. Companies and jobs are leaving the state because of the oppressive regulatory burden; many spend more on the cost of complying with regulations than they do on taxes. State government increasingly intrudes on free enterprise, stifling innovation and creativity. The attempt by the Department of Labor and Industries to impose untested, expensive ergonomics rules on all businesses in Washington is a vivid example. I want to preserve and expand jobs in Washington by reducing the burden of regulations. I want the legislature to stop agencies from overstepping their bounds, to void rules and regulations that exceed legislative intent, and to stop driving families out of business with over-regulation. I want to look to private enterprise first to offer services, and to limit the government to its proper role so that it can focus on doing a better job at the essential tasks we ask it to do. Regulations must be based on sound scientific principles — and, for a start, could be tested at government agencies before being imposed statewide. I want to strengthen and support the comprehensive independent performance audits conducted of every agency on a regular basis, to insure accountability for how state government spends our money. I strongly support the Priorities in Government process, and want to require every government agency and program to justify its continued existence on a biannual basis rather than simply asking for an increased budget. We must fully fund creation and maintenance of a detailed comprehensive searchable online state budget web site that enables every interested Washington resident to understand what every government agency does and how much it costs; we deserve to know exactly how our hard-earned money is being spent. Over the past few years, election system failures in Washington and in other states seriously impacted confidence in the security, accuracy, integrity, and transparency of our election system. We’ve made significant strides in improving the system, including requiring identification to vote at the polls, requiring a voter-verified paper record be produced by touch-screen voting machines, standardizing procedures for curing mismatched signatures, prohibiting modification of a voter’s ballot by election officials, increasing the penalties for election crimes, matching the voter registration database against other databases, clarifying and strengthening procedures for voter challenges, increasing access to voting for people with disabilities, and moving the primary election earlier to provide more time for ballots to reach overseas military voters and be returned in time to be counted. As ranking member of the House committee with responsibility for election laws, I had a major part in forging bipartisan agreements on these important reforms. More remains to be done. We need to strengthen processes to insure only qualified citizens are registered to vote, and that a person presenting themselves to vote is who they claim to be. We must insure that the voter registration database contains accurate and complete information, and contains records only of voters who are qualified to vote under current law. Since the vast majority of voters now cast their ballots by mail, we need random audits of the accuracy of optical scan ballot counting machines and of the mail ballot signature matching process. We need to reform the composition of the county election canvassing board to insure that it is free of even the hint of political bias when it adjudicates the validity of voter registration applications and challenges, provisional ballots, voter signature matches, voter intent on ballot markings, and other election-related disputes. And, perhaps most importantly, we need to fully enforce the election laws we already have, and not let anyone get away with illegal voting or other election-related crimes without any punishment at all. Until these additional measures are implemented, many voters will continue to question whether government officials at all levels are legitimately elected and whether ballot measures have been fairly enacted. The Right to Referendum and the Emergency Clause The people of Washington reserved to themselves in the state constitution three very important powers by which they can directly deal with a legislature that is out of control or fails to act: the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. While the power of initiative and recall remain largely intact (although the initiative power is constantly under attack by legislators who want to take that power away from voters), the legislature has robbed the people of the right to referendum far too often by inappropriate use of the “emergency clause”. The constitution says that any law is subject to referendum, except those “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions.” The legislature often declares laws to be emergencies simply to eliminate the people’s power of referendum, or to set an effective date sooner than ninety days after the end of the legislative session. The people are rightly angered when one of their fundamental constitutional rights is so easily and frequently taken away. We should require a bipartisan consensus –- a two-thirds vote -– to override the people’s power of referendum, just as we do to override a veto by the governor or to amend an initiative during the first two years after its passage. And we should make it possible for the legislature to establish earlier effective dates on bills that need them, without at the same time eliminating the possibility of a referendum on those bills. The combination of these two constitutional amendments would ensure that the referendum power is overridden only when consensus exists that there is a true emergency. “The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.” So says the preamble to the Washington state Public Records Act. Having the trust of the people is essential to government being able to accomplish its purposes. Such trust is not easily earned or retained, and is based on the ability of the people to verify that they, and not unseen forces, are in control of the government, and that public officials are acting in the interest of the people and not for personal gain. We have constructed a framework of laws that enable that verification, in areas including ethics in government, campaign finance, elections, open lawmaking and rulemaking, open courts, open public meetings, and open public records. Unfortunately, recent court decisions and lax enforcement have eroded the public’s ability to keep an eye on the government. We have had far too many cases of government waste and corruption covered up by officials concealing records, and the assessment of penalties is so low that agencies just pay them as a cost of doing business. Personal accountability for those who break the rules is unheard of. The 2004 state Supreme Court decision in Hangartner v. City of Seattle allows virtually all communication between government agencies and their attorneys to be kept secret, and the 2007 Soter v. Cowles decision went even further in encouraging agencies to direct matters through their attorneys to enabled them to be concealed. Public-sector attorneys are public employees, too, and they must be held accountable for their work just like all other public employees. Indeed, the public has a right to know if agencies are asking for legal advice when they should, whether the advice received is timely and accurate, and whether or not the agency follows the advice –- and if not, why not. Keeping all communication between agencies and their attorneys secret, even when no lawsuit is in progress, is a recipe for bad and unaccountable decision-making and for potential corruption. We must increase penalties for willfully and knowingly violating the open public meetings act and public records act, including significantly increased financial penalties that must be paid by the individual who chooses to illegally withhold documents or take part in closed meetings that ought to have been public – and jail time for the most egregious violations. And we should return to state law as it existed prior to Hangartner, allowing communications between public sector attorneys and agencies to be kept private only when it pertains to courtroom strategy and other aspects of an actual threatened or active lawsuit. Public officials must not be permitted to keep meetings or documents secret just because they are politically embarrassing. I fully support the legislative agenda of the Washington Coalition for Open Government and will work for enactment of the entirety of it.
We’ve all felt angry and invaded when someone knew personal information about us that they shouldn’t. We expect our private information to be kept private! But often this information is obtained from the files of government agencies, which regularly exempt themselves from the rules imposed on private enterprise regarding use of private information. That’s not right — especially since, in a competitive free market, we can choose to go to private companies who commit to keep our private information confidential and avoid those that do not, but we have no choice but to deal with the government and disclose our most intimate information. I would require all private companies to make known and easily available their policy with regard to use of information about us, so that we can choose for ourselves whether or not to do business with them. And I would require the most stringent standards be imposed on government itself: to stop the collection of data not essential to an agencies’ mission, plug the leaks in government databases that contain personal information about private citizens, and protect us from those who would target marketing information or steal our identities using information that can be accessed or purchased from government agencies. We have a right to know in advance how information about us that is in the hands of the government is being used, and to a reasonable amount of control over that use. We all want representatives in government who are responsive to our needs and listen to our concerns. We deserve to know how political campaigns are funded, and to know who might expect special attention from our representatives as a result. We don’t want money taken from us for one purpose to be redirected into political campaigns for those who don’t support our views, while preserving our right to personally contribute to whom we wish. We must preserve the right of every citizen to support the political candidates and issues of their choice, with full and immediate disclosure of all political contributions on the Internet. While I fully support the right of employees to belong to labor unions, I also respect their right to be politically independent and not forced to follow the dictates of union bosses in political activities. I would strictly enforce the right of union members and agency fee payers to request that their mandatory dues and fees not be used for political purpose. And I strongly oppose public funding of political campaigns using tax dollars, and will work to repeal the recently-enacted law that allows local governments to enact such public funding. Eminent Domain and Property Rights Under the power of “eminent domain,” the government can force individuals to give up their property against their will in exchange for “just compensation” –- fair market value determined by an objective appraisal or a court decision if necessary. Traditionally, this power has been used only for important public or utility facilities such as roads, transit lines, schools, fire stations, pipelines, and power lines, in which the public actually uses or has access to the facilities. In recent years, however, some jurisdictions around the country have used eminent domain for purposes of “economic development”, forcing people to sell their homes or other properties and then reselling the land to developers to build shopping malls, office complexes, or other projects. While these projects do not involve “public use”, it was argued that they result in a “public benefit” due either to the elimination of “blight” or the increased taxes paid by the newer properties. Many felt that this new definition of “public use” went beyond the power granted to the government by the people. In Kelo v. New London, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that, under the federal constitution, just about any “public benefit” is a “public use” and qualifies for taking under the eminent domain power, but that states were free to limit the use of eminent domain further. In the wake of the Kelo decision, many property owners in Washington expressed concern that their property could be taken by developers using the government as a confiscatory tool. Some scholars pointed out that the state constitution is already more restrictive than the federal constitution, but the fact is that the state constitution still leaves the decision as to what constitutes a “public use” up to judges –- and judges don’t always make decisions in the best interest of individual property owners. Two recent cases in Washington demonstrate this concern. First, in HTK v. Seattle Monorail Project, the state Supreme Court decided that a government agency can take more property than is needed for a project, with the expectation of selling off the excess for a profit –- effectively, enabling government agencies to engage in land speculation. Then, in Sound Transit v. Miller, the state Supreme Court decided that an agency can take someone’s property with no more notice than an obscure reference several pages deep on the agency’s web site –- not even a letter to the owner before the decision is made. There are a number of other cases around the state that demonstrate the importance of the people making it absolutely clear to judges the circumstances under which we’re willing for our property to be taken under eminent domain and the protections we reserve. We should allow taking of private property under eminent domain only when the public will actually own, occupy and use the physical property, and not for economic development purposes where the property is transferred to other private owners for purposes of creating jobs or increasing tax revenue. We should prohibit public agencies from acquiring more property than needed for a project, speculating that the excess can be sold at a profit. We should allow the original owner to reclaim their property for the price they received plus inflation if the property is not used for the purpose it was originally acquired, and not allow the agency to resell the property to other developers for a healthy profit. We should require proper legal notice to property owners at every step in the proposed use of eminent domain to acquire their property. And when regulations substantially reduce the value of someone’s property in pursuit of a benefit to the general public, the public should be willing to share in the cost and compensate that property owner for that partial taking of the use or value of their property. Since statehood in 1889, the Washington state constitution has included a provision that enables the residents of an area desiring to become a separate county to petition the state to create the new county. However, the constitutional provision also requires the passage of a law of statewide application defining the process for creating new counties, including the just division of assets and liabilities. In the more than 116 years since statehood, the legislature has failed to pass a law to enable citizens to exercise the power to create counties that they reserved to themselves in the constitution. I strongly support the passage of legislation, either in Olympia or as an initiative, to define the process for creating new counties either by dividing one or more existing counties or by merging existing counties. And I also support using this new law to separate East King County from Seattle, so that we may govern ourselves according to our own interests instead of being governed by a county council dominated by members from Seattle who are completely unaccountable to the people who are most affected by their decisions. Surveys indicate that on average over 8,000 people in King County are homeless every night, and over 24,000 people are homeless for at least part of the year. 18% of the homeless are families with children. A number of factors contribute to homelessness, including mental illness, chemical dependency, domestic abuse, housing affordability, unemployment, and aging out of foster care. A permanent solution to homelessness will take concerted effort by government agencies, non-profits, churches, charities, and community groups. We need to relax regulations that make housing so expensive, including permitting construction of affordable single room occupancy apartments. We need to reform the shelter system and make it work for people who are striving to find stability and get back on their feet, including reserved spaces, secure storage, spaces for couples to be together, and accommodation of people who work night shifts so they have a place to sleep during the day. We need to make it easier for the homeless to obtain the basic things needed to find and hold a job, including valid identification and a way to be contacted through community voicemail and mailbox services. We must provide a coordinated system of case management and counseling services, and insure that needed medications and substance abuse treatment are available. And we need to increase services to prevent homelessness, including help to stop eviction and utility cutoff for those going through temporary financial difficulties. Tent cities are not the way to do it. The fact is, tent cities as used in King County are not about providing housing or about “solving” homelessness. They are not about helping people get back on their feet. They are about making a political statement, trying to make suburban residents feel guilty about homelessness, to cough up even more tax dollars, and to establish permanent tent cities on public land to get them out of neighborhoods. The tent cities in King County do not even allow many volunteer organizations to come in and help the homeless find jobs, get counseling, or the other things that would really help them enter mainstream society. They are all about facilitating homelessness as an ongoing lifestyle, and preserving it as a useful political tool. There will always be those few individuals who make the choice to avoid the responsibility of having a permanent home, and they have the right to do so -- but we do not need to help or encourage them in that pursuit. Churches have the constitutionally-protected right to conduct ministries to the poor, the homeless, the sick and the afflicted as guided by their principles and doctrine. At the same time, cities have the power, in the interest of protection of their citizens, to allow temporary, time-limited exemptions to zoning laws. When a tent city is not a conforming use of property, the conditions under which a temporary exemption is granted, including the duration of the exemption, should be a local decision made by the city council and not overridden by the state. I support continued efforts to reduce and eliminate the impact of drug abuse on our families and communities. We must protect our children from those who would sell or give drugs to them, protect our neighborhoods from drug dealers who would endanger them with drug production using dangerous chemicals (meth labs), and protect our society from those who would drive under the influence or engage in behaviors that endanger others. But our current drug control policies don’t seem to be very effective at reducing the impacts of drug use. We can’t even keep drugs out of our prisons, much less out of our schools. I support a thorough and objective performance audit of our drug control efforts, which must include establishment of clear goals and success metrics. It will take sustained and innovative approaches to reduce and control the problems caused by drug abuse; I will continue to support effective solutions and not just a “do something, do anything!” approach. In the meantime, I call upon Congress and the President to allow Washington state to fully implement the medical marijuana initiative, I-692, that was overwhelmingly supported by the people and is even more widely supported today, and support state legislation to clarify our state medical marijuana law so that it is consistently and reasonably applied across the state. I also call on the federal government to rein in the Drug Enforcement Administration’s overzealous interference in the ability for doctors to prescribe the type and amount of medications for their patients, especially those who are terminally ill or suffering from intense, chronic pain. In both of these areas, the federal government should butt out and enable physicians to provide the treatment that their skills and training indicate will be most effective. In 2005, the people of Washington by a substantial majority passed Initiative 901, which bans smoking in all places of employment statewide, except for those on tribal property. I opposed this initiative. While I strongly dislike tobacco smoke, avoid establishments that allow smoking, teach people not to smoke, and strongly support banning smoking in publicly-owned facilities, I believe that it should be up to the owner or operator of a private business to decide whether or not to permit smoking on their private premises. Businesses that permit smoking should be clearly marked with signs, so that prospective employees and customers can make a fully-informed decision on whether to patronize or seek employment at that establishment. I also feared that non-tribal casinos, bars, and restaurants would be adversely affected by competition from tribal venues where smoking would continue to be allowed. Since the initiative passed, we have seen a number of problems with its implementation. I support amending the smoking ban law to allow nursing homes and assisted living facilities to create safe and secure indoor smoking rooms for their residents, protected from the weather instead of forcing them to go outside, so long as the smoking room is on a separate air filtration system and so long as no employees are required to enter the smoking room while anyone is smoking there. I support allowing smoking inside businesses whose entire existence is dependent on smoking or tobacco, such as cigar shops and hooka bars. And I also support allowing bona-fide religious organizations that use smoking as part of their religious practices to do so inside their buildings. These common-sense amendments will help alleviate some of the most serious problems with the initiative. I abhor unjust discrimination. As a child, I personally experienced discrimination, harassment and ridicule on the basis of my family’s financial situation and my physical condition. My children have endured harassment because of their religious beliefs and other conditions. While our experience does not begin to approach that of others who have suffered under much more intense discrimination for many generations, it is an issue with which I am familiar and about which I care deeply. I believe that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. At the same time, people whose moral convictions or religious principles instruct them to not associate with others who engage in what they see as immoral conduct should not be discriminated against because of their views. We all have a constitutionally-protected right to freely exercise our religion, as well as a right to freedom of association –- to choose to associate or not associate with anyone, for any reason or no reason. Such conflicts between individual rights -- the right to not be discriminated against, and the rights to practice one's religion and choose with whom one associates -- are difficult to resolve. But one thing is clear: the government must not discriminate against any citizen so long as they do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of others. Corporations, as creatures of government established for public purposes and which have no natural rights, can also be required to not discriminate as a matter of public policy (and most already have strong anti-discrimination policies because it is good for business and employee recruitment and retention). But individuals possess natural rights that predate the existence of government, and those rights ought not to be infringed no matter how much we might disagree with how they are used. I unsuccessfully sought to incorporate respect for all individual rights into the anti-discrimination bill that passed the legislature in 2006 (HB 2661). Left with a bill that infringes individual rights, I voted against it. I did so with a heavy heart, knowing that some people would see it as a vote in favor of discrimination, which it was not. The question is not whether or not people should discriminate (I believe they should not); the issue is the circumstances under which government should use force to compel an individual to associate with someone else, contrary to their most deeply held moral and religious convictions. I firmly believe as a Christian that we are called to love all and hate no one. Just as I strongly supported legislation requiring our schools to have anti-harassment policies and programs (see my remarks on that subject on the floor of the House here), I will continue to seek to bring people together, reconcile differences, and teach love and respect for all. Abortion and Reproductive Rights As a husband, father of five children (three of whom are girls), and the son of a strong-minded mother who lives with us, I am acutely aware of women’s health issues and controversies. Like most people, I continue to struggle with how we balance women’s individual rights, the rights of parents to make critical care decisions for their children, the rights of medically-viable but unborn children, and my own personal beliefs, with what is the proper role of government with regard to these rights. Because of my personal convictions, if I were asked for advice on the matter by someone seeking guidance on whether to have an abortion, I would personally advise against having an abortion except to save themselves from grave physical harm. But the public generally supports the Supreme Court’s decisions on women’s reproductive health. In respect for the will of the people, I do not seek to prohibit early term abortions. However, taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay for any elective medical procedure, including abortion, but only in cases of medical necessity. The continued practice of late-term “partial birth” abortion flies in the face of the heroic lifesaving measures medical professionals now offer parents of prematurely-born infants, and I would vote to end its use. Unborn children capable of living independently outside the womb should not be aborted except to save the life of the mother, when other means such as surgical delivery are impossible. It is also inappropriate for government to trample on parents’ rights. I trust parents to respect the needs of their children, and I would vote to require parental permission for minor children to receive an abortion, just as is required for any other invasive medical procedure. Permission from a court should also be available in cases where parents are absent or abusive. Women victimized by rape or incest should receive our utmost sympathy and sensitivity. They should definitely have the ability to choose to have an abortion. However, I do believe they should make that decision before an unborn child is capable of living outside the womb. Firearm Safety and Accountability The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, guaranteed to us by both the federal and state constitutions. I believe in safe and responsible firearm ownership. However, every right carries with it important responsibilities, and I also believe in strong personal accountability. Those with young children in their homes should use trigger locks, gun safes, or other devices to insure that children do not have unsupervised access to guns. In 1997, Washington voters, by a two-to-one margin, defeated a proposal to require a trigger lock be included with every firearm sold. That’s a pretty clear voter message, and we should respect that voter decision. It’s tragic when anyone, especially a child, is killed or injured in a firearm accident. But simply owning a trigger lock or gun safe will not, in and of itself, protect anyone. Neither will more words enacted into laws. What I believe will help protect everyone is to strictly enforce our existing laws, including continuing to apply the reckless endangerment law to negligent firearm storage. We must hold people personally accountable for firearm safety and storage. We all want to be safe in our homes, to not live in fear of intruders and other dangerous criminals. I want to increase the safety of families and children by taking real criminals off the streets, preserving and strengthening “three strikes you’re out” and “hard time for armed crime” laws, and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals while preserving the freedoms of law-abiding responsible citizens. | |||||||