A potpourri of conversation ideas for your consideration

Burt Talcott

guest columnist

There are many local issues that deserve more conversation, to better understand how our government relates to our individual interests and relationships.

Each issue deserves a full column, but I don’t have enough columns remaining in my stint to devote a full column to each; so I offer two ideas in one.

Billboards (off-premise signs) are an ugly abomination to our streets and highways — particularly in our scenic region. They are the only form of advertising which unceasingly affronts our sense of sight every moment of every day of the year. We can toss newspapers and magazines; we can press the “off” button on the radio and TV. But billboards are intended to distract the attention of drivers from the road — a safety factor of untold proportions. I call them “litter on sticks” — for good reason. Billboards are classic parasites; they couldn’t exist without highways, yet they pay no “highway taxes.”

The state Department of Transportation provides ample inexpensive signage for useful traveler information (nearby hotels, food and fuel) prior to appropriate off-ramps from state highways.

The “outdoor advertising” industry is one of the most well-financed and effective lobbies — always pressing for more and larger, higher, brighter and gaudier signs. Billboard owners pay one of the lowest of all business and property taxes — by formula set by the state, not by local taxing jurisdictions. They trim or remove trees which obstruct the view of their signs.

The “outdoor advertising” industry snookered Lady Bird Johnson’s Highway Beautification Act by initially, and prominently, supporting the legislation restricting billboards, junk yards and tire dumps along Interstate and primary highways; but later, by quietly opposing appropriations to pay the federal share for removing the offending billboards and junk yards, they thereby nullified the Highway Beautification Act.

Gig Harbor has valiantly resisted the billboard lobby, principally by the yeoman work of the city officials and the Peninsula Neighborhood Association and Citizens Against Litter — volunteers who labored to maintain the magnificent beauty of our peninsulas and even devoted thousands of hours to plant trees and pick up the trash of others to keep our highway corridors clean and attractive. I applaud this special, selfless, sustained service to our communities.

Next, consider the irrationality of electing a sheriff.

The sheriff, like the Assessor-Treasurer and Coroner, is an administrative official — not legislative, judicial or advocative — and should not be discordant or divergent from the County Council or executive. The sheriff simply “enforces the law without fear or favor;” the Assessor simply “follows the state laws without deviation.” There is no reason to elect either; there are many reasons for not electing a sheriff.

The best method for selecting a sheriff is by “nomination” (not “appointment”) by the executive after an extensive (even nationwide) search and thorough vetting for the best-available candidate based on education, experience, reputation, personnel and managerial skills and integrity. The nominee should then be “confirmed” by a majority of the council, after hearings open to the public and media for inquiry and comment.

After the “nomination-confirmation” process, the sheriff’s performance should be immediately and carefully monitored by the council and executive — their political future may depend on the sheriff’s performance. He can be dismissed at any time for any reason; no need to wait years for the next election to allow the electorate to fire or re-hire him — with little or no performance information.

No selection or performance system is perfect; there have been corrupt “nominated-confirmed” as well as “elected” sheriffs; but the former is more likely to have better qualifications and experience. The electorate has relatively no resources or skills for researching or vetting the qualifications of multiple candidates — or their obsequiousness to special interests or police unions.

Elections of a sheriff are discordant. The sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer of the unincorporated areas; each incorporated city has its own law enforcement department, chief of police, police officers and particular jurisdiction — separate from the county. Nevertheless, all city voters are also permitted to vote for the sheriff — and they may outnumber rural voters. This double vote is grossly unfair, discriminatory and probably unconstitutional — if any rural citizen had the resources to litigate the issue.

After considering this issue, are you content with Tacoma residents electing the sheriff for our unincorporated areas?

Burt L. Talcott is a guest columnist for The Peninsula Gateway. He can be reached at 253-851-7955 or by e-mail at burt@talcott.org.