Senate votes to punish chatting drivers

By Doug Nadvornick, Spokane Public Radio

The Washington state Senate today (Friday) voted to make driving while talking on a cell phone a misdemeanor.

The infraction would not apply to “hands-free” cell phones.

South King County Senator Tracey Eide says a New England Journal of Medicine article compares the dangers of driving while holding and talking on a cell phone to driving while drunk. Eide believes a great majority of drivers agree.

“PEMCO did a 2005 Northwest insurance poll here in the state of Washington,” she says. “Ladies and gentlemen, four out of every five Washingtonians believe there should be some law.”

Eide says her bill would allow the drivers of emergency vehicles to use hand-held phones and it would allow drivers to use a hand-held phone to report a crime or call for emergency help.

The bill would be classified as a secondary offense, meaning police officers couldn’t stop drivers only for talking on a hand-held phone.

The vote in the Senate was 28-to-19. Several Republicans rose to protest the bill, one calling it “creeping socialism”.

East King County Republican Cheryl Pflug says the bill would hurt parents who can’t afford to buy a phone with a head set. She says it would be illegal for them to answer a phone call.

“And so, therefore, you don’t know that your daughter’s going to be standing out there in front of the school at four o-clock, or four-30, in the dark, alone, in the winter.”

Pflug says, “I think that’s unfair. And I think that’s absolutely as much of a safety hazard as saying that some people aren’t going to have the good judgment to know when they can use the phone and when they can’t.”

A similar bill was approved by the Senate last year, but never received a vote in the House. That’s where this version is headed next.

Senate vote on removing abuse lawsuit limits coming

By John Vlahovich, Spokane Public Radio

A measure lifting the statute of limitations on civil lawsuits over claims of sexual abuse has cleared the Washington Senate judiciary committee. It now awaits a vote by the full state Senate. The Washington legislature has already lifted limits to prosecuting criminal sexual abuse cases.

At present, civil lawsuits involving sexual abuse must be filed within three years – whether from the date of the incident, or from the date the victim determines he or she had been sexually abused.

Abuse victim Mark Mains Thursday told senators it had taken many more than three years before he was able to publicly talk about what he had gone through.

The bill awaiting Senate action completely does away with time limits in civil legal actions.

Seattle Attorney Tim Kosnoff represents abuse victims, including some who’ve sued the Spokane Catholic diocese. He says without a civil lawsuit statute of limitations many more victims would come forward, meaning more abusers would be identified and their abusing halted.

“I know this because I get the emails, I get the phone calls. I hear the stories,” says Kosnoff. “Was your father every arrested? No. Was he ever prosecuted, anything like that? No. Was your abuser, do you know, has he ever been caught? He was never caught. By the time I was able to come forward, the criminal statute of limitations had expired. The police told me there was nothing they could do.”

Some skeptical senators, including James Hargrove of Hoquiam, worry that lifting the civil statute of limitations opens the floodgates to frivolous abuse lawsuits, although Hargrove concedes plaintiffs may actually believe their stories of being victimized.

“In fact, some of the people may have been counseled into believing they are accurate when, in fact, they really weren’t accurate. And that’s been proven out on the criminal side,” says Hargrove.

Despite such misgivings, Judiciary committee members passed the measure to the full Senate with a “do pass” recommendation.

Albi Committee looking for money

By John Vlahovich, Spokane Public Radio

The committee studying the future of Spokane’s Joe Albi stadium concludes it would cost far more to demolish the structure than to keep it operating. The committee also found that operating costs are about double the revenue generated by stadium events. Conclusions from their five-month study were made public Thursday.

The Albi citizens’ advisory committee was formed after former Mayor Jim West and city councilman Brad Stark suggested selling the half-century old stadium.

Its chair, city council President Joe Shogan, says that after crunching the numbers, members decided to spend a year finding additional revenue-producing events to balance the stadium’s operating budget.

Shogan says, ‘At the end of that year, if the facility is not paying its own way, that a separate entity should be found to operate the facility. The entity that’s got the most expertise in running a facility like this would be the public facilities district.”

Except that public facilities district officials have already said they aren’t interested in taking Albi over. And Shogan says he doesn’t know of any other potential managers waiting in the wings.

‘I know the Friends of Albi certainly would like to be in that position. I don’t know if they’re there right now,” says Shogan

An engineering firm retained by the committee found that the stadium does not meet disability act requirements, and a number of areas need repair. But engineers say that with proper repair and maintenance, Albi could continue to operate indefinitely. It would cost the city 2-point-6 million dollars to demolish the aging stadium.

Another of the advisory committee’s recommendations is that the promised sports complex should be developed at the Albi site as originally planned.

Proceeds from the city’s sale to Wal-Mart of property near Holland Road were set aside to build the sports complex. But nearby neighbors, fearing congestion on their neighborhood streets, are fighting construction.

The advisory committee’s report is now on the desk of Mayor Dennis Hession. It can be read at the city web site.

Hazy victory in field burning lawsuit

By Elizabeth Wynne Johnson

A settlement’s been reached in an ongoing dispute over field burning in the Inland Northwest. People who suffer breathing problems because of the smoke will receive money from bluegrass farmers. But there are no clear winners.

The field-burning issue is still smoldering in the Idaho State Supreme Court. Opponents this week asked the court to find that the state Department of Agriculture acted capriciously in deciding that there is no economically viable alternative to torching the fields. In addition, two lawsuits are pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Fourteen year old Alexandria Heisel lives in Post Falls. But every summer, she and her mother are forced to leave while her father stays behind. Summer is the time of year when bluegrass farmers burn their stubble. Alex has cystic fibrosis. The smoke gets in her lungs and destroys more of what little good tissue she has left. She was in the court room to hear a judge approve the settlement of a lawsuit on her behalf.

ALEX/ACT I don’t really know what they said. It’s a lot of big words. I don’t understand it. [Father: We’ll probably have a conversation on the way back to school.]

The conversation will be about how farmers will have to pay. Children and adults with illnesses such as cystic fibrosis and asthma will share in 600-thousand dollars. But Alex’s father says he has mixed emotions about the settlement.

HEISEL/ACT We didn’t stop field burning, and that was our ultimate goal. But the recognition of the fact that it did hurt Alex and it does hurt people is a good step, a positive step in that direction.

Attorney Peter Erbland represents the grass farmers. He says the judgment is nominal: a cost of doing business. The important thing, he says, is that the state’s high court has upheld the farmers’ right to rely on field burning. Farmers contend it’s the only economically viable way to clear their fields each year.

ERBLAND/ACT They are pleased with the Idaho Supreme Court’s affirmation of their right to practice this part of their agricultural heritage.

Heritage is the key word here. Ultimately, Erbland says the real threat to farming may have less to with lawsuits and more to do with the rising price of real estate.

ERBLAND/ACT The irony of it all we think is that the changes that will occur will not be brought be legal action, or legislation, but more by economic forces that cause the farmers to choose to sell their land to developers rather than continue to practice agriculture and to farm.

Patti Gora of the group Safe Air For Everyone doesn’t want to wait for suburban sprawl to put an end to field burning. And this settlement isn’t enough either. She promises more lawsuits, and hopes for new legislation this year. One proposal is to change an Idaho state department of agriculture policy of not disclosing the exact time and location of the burns.

GORA/ACT The only thing left for asthmatics, heart patients, CF patients is to run for their lives. … So what’s the harm in letting the public know where exactly and when burning is going to take place?

The skies are clear for now: the field burning season won’t pick up again for several months. All parties leave the courtroom this day knowing it’ll be business as usual this summer.

Copyright 2006 Boise State Radio