Forum allows candidates to showcase differences
October 13, 2008
By Ed Farrell
There were few sparks, but noted differences on the Mt. Si High School stage Oct. 9 as all six Legislative District 5 contestants united for a candidate forum.
Incumbents Sen. Cheryl Pflug and Reps. Glenn Anderson and Jay Rodne and challengers Phyllis Huster, Jon Viebrock and David Spring fielded questions from both panelists and audience members before an audience of about 50.
The six candidates await questions at the Oct. 9 forum at Mount Si High School.
Candidate also greeted constituents before and after the forum, co-sponsored by the Snoqualmie Valley Chamber of Commerce and Snoqualmie Valley School District,.
On several occasions the incumbents and challengers split clearly across party lines as the Republicans praised each other’s efforts in Olympia, while the three Democrats openly questioned the opposing party’s effectiveness.
Questions focused on business and economic development, transportation, taxation, growth management and education. In some cases, the polarity of positions was evident; in others, the candidates offered nearly identical responses.
Among the most divided, however, were Rodne and challenger Viebrock, who clearly differed when asked what they would do to “help schools raise educational standards.”
Viebrock advocated revamping the Washington Assessment of Student Learning, or WASL, tests, while Rodne argued that a standardized test proving a mastery of basic skills was essential.
“The WASL must be seriously reworked,” Viebrock said. “Dumping a high-stakes exam on (students) at the end of their (high school) careers is terribly unfair.”
Viebrock also called for more school facilities to relieve overcrowding, and diversified education.
Rodne countered that Washington is currently “importing a lot of our brainpower,” and legislators need to “restore the alignment of our priorities.”
Greater emphasis on math and science were needed, Rodne said, calling such subjects “the bedrock of our economy.” He urged more support for early childhood education.
When asked to address future economic development in the Valley, Anderson and Spring offered different viewpoints.
Citing Seattle and Bellevue where more jobs are located, Anderson asked if Snoqualmie Valley residents “want that kind of growth? Large factories and strip malls are not what most people want,” he said. He said changes in zoning may have to be made for new industries to come here.
Spring countered that one key to a healthy community “is providing local residents with better job opportunities. We can keep our rural character and have highly-trained workers with good paying jobs.” Spring also supports work training via university satellites located here.
Pflug said her experience has led her to understand “there are tradeoffs,” in areas such as economic growth and the environment but that her constituents determine what they want in terms of that tradeoff. Her role is to “help them find (state) funding.”
Pflug said state officials need to “look closely at the science,” but she is always willing to listen, even if she finds herself at odds with the environmental community.
Huster proclaimed she has “spent my entire lifetime hiking,” and offered she has a problem with urban sprawl. Huster pledged she would ensure impact fees are spent locally, and offered examples, such as tax credits for telecommuting, as ideas she would back in Olympia.
“I’m not going to let real estate developers and big business rape our land,” Huster said.
Both Huster and Pflug agreed that a state income tax is not the way to go in Washington, at least not in the short-term future.
“Not yet,” Huster responded to a question of whether she supported such a move. “Let’s first fix what’s broken,” adding that “big business is not paying its fair share.”
Creative new ways “to tax higher-income people” must be found, Huster said, adding the current crop of legislators “are leaving a lot of tax revenue on the table.”
Pflug offered that she flatly opposed a state income tax, adding she was convinced the legislature could not pass such a provision.
“We don’t have a revenue problem,” Pflug said, “we have a spending problem.”
Rodne and Viebrock found common ground in opposition to the state’s Growth Management Act and local critical area ordinances that sharply restrict development in rural areas.
Such regulations, Rodne said, “add a couple thousand dollars to the cost of a new home,” and that “there must be a way to balance robust environmental stewardship with a thriving economic base.”
Viebrock said while he felt King County had “overstepped its bounds” with its critical area ordinance and that “affordable housing programs need to be continued and expanded,” he countered that some environmental issues, such as “problems with the Issaquah aquifer” were clearly development-related.
Of all the contenders, however, Anderson and Spring seemingly could find little in common.
When Anderson acknowledged a lack of expertise in the field of health-care coverage and deferred to Pflug as a knowledgeable source who had offered a plan he could support, Spring said he felt health care “is a basic human right,” and that greater governmental control was key to containing continued health care costs.
“Deregulation has led us to financial disaster,” Spring said.
Spring and Anderson exchanged heated barbs regarding the state’s role in funding a new high school, with both challenging the other’s grasp of the figures as well as each other’s integrity.
Anderson charged that his opponent’s calculations about state contributions toward school construction were “categorically false,” and only served to make a confusing subject more so.
“The public trust is fragile,” Anderson said. “We need to get that high school built, and Mr. Spring is making it a lot damn harder.”
“My opponent is a corporate lobbyist,” Spring told the audience, while proclaiming that as a political newcomer he himself took his responsibility for telling the truth “very seriously.”
Comments
Got something to say?
