Spokane City Councilman Zack Zappone running for reelection
Zappone is one of two council members representing council District 3, which covers the northwestern third of the city stretching north from the Spokane River and west of Division Street, and after redistricting in 2022 also includes Browne's Addition. Councilwoman Kitty Klitzke is the district's other representative, and her term runs through 2027.
He already has two opponents: Meals on Wheels board member Chris Savage, who ran unsuccessfully against Zappone in 2021, and private cigar lounge co-owner and retired SERE specialist Cody Arguelles.
Asked for his priorities in the next four years, Zappone said he has learned not to predict what city government will need to respond to. But he did highlight behind-the-scenes efforts to bring forward a compromise version of a failed 2023 sales tax package to build new jails and other, often unspecified, public safety initiatives. Zappone was among those across the aisle in 2023 saying the $1.7 billion ballot measure lacked specifics.
"I think both the left and the right realize we can't make any meaningful progress without some meaningful collaboration and compromise to move forward," Zappone said. "It would likely be a detailed proposal to voters about what community health and safety would look like in the next decade or so in Spokane."
Zappone also said he was excited to see further reforms to encourage development, particularly residential, and reduce the burden of vacant lots and nuisance properties on neighborhoods.
Zappone is the first openly queer leader elected to the council and has spent much of his first term supporting reforms to increase housing density, advocating for pedestrians and bicyclists, trying to eliminate fare to ride Spokane transit, and reducing barriers for community festivals and fairs.
In an interview, he also highlighted his work to help secure funding for CHAS health clinics in low-income high schools and for neighborhood business districts, which fund investments to benefit local businesses.
Though the progressive politician has frequently publicly clashed with conservatives in city government, he has also on occasions worked with them on policy. He and conservative Councilman Jonathan Bingle have traded barbs on the dais, but the two have also co-sponsored legislation, such as to relax parking requirements for new development and potentially lower costs near bus routes. Zappone joined others on council to later expand that reform citywide.
He was the only left-leaning council member to join Bingle and fellow conservative Councilman Michael Cathcart in supporting the reinstatement of Proposition 1, the voter-approved ban on homeless encampments near schools, parks and day cares that was recently struck down by the state Supreme Court on technical grounds.
"I've been reflecting on my first term, and I think that one area I've really come to understand better to be effective as a council member, is it really does take a lot of compromise to do stuff," Zappone said. "Being an advocate or activist really pushing for a position, I think that's an important role, but I'm much more pragmatic than purist in my approach."
Zappone has also been accused of partisan gerrymandering after he drew the map of council districts that was approved by the City Council, notably drawing a liberal neighborhood into his district and theoretically making it easier for him to be re-elected.
A judge ruled in April 2023 that the map was not illegally gerrymandered — but also ruled that council members should not have that level of involvement in the process going forward. Voters in 2024 approved reforms to create more distance between the council and the boundaries of which voters got to elect them.
The district was fiercely competitive in 2021, with Zappone edging out his conservative opponent Mike Lish by 1.3%. Klitzke won her election in 2023 against Earl Moore by nearly 20 points, though redistricting that happened between those two elections appears unlikely to account for the majority of that shift.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24-07-2025
- Yahoo
Conservative Spokane council candidates attack liberal majority at church's candidate forum
Jul. 23—Voters got a better look Tuesday at some of the conservatives running for Spokane City Council at a forum hosted by Calvary Spokane, where they were asked about a wide range of topics, including the church's role in politics and whether buses are worthy public investments. The two candidates who attended — Chris Savage, running in northwest Spokane, and Jonathan Bingle, an incumbent running for re-election in northeast Spokane — railed against the council's liberal supermajority to an applauding crowd of roughly 100 packed into the spacious church. The conservatives criticized the majority's advocacy for the LGBTQ+ community, incentives to boost apartments and dense housing over single-family units, investments in bus lines and reforms to prioritize outreach over enforcement for homeless people camping in public. And though there are currently four members of the council majority coalition, and two more progressives running for a seat, Savage and Bingle focused almost exclusively on a single man: Councilman Zack Zappone, who Savage is running against. Bingle made no mention of his own opponent, abortion rights organizer Sarah Dixit. "Four years ago, we had a $4 billion surplus at the state level, and this year, they're asking for $17 billion in state taxes, something (Savage's) opponent supported ...and that's why Zack Zappone's got to go, right?" Bingle said. "... Zappone needs to be ousted from office," Savage said at another point. "He goes out there with his own personal agenda, trying to help out with the LGBTQ and all these small groups that really don't have a huge population here in Spokane, and wasting your tax dollars on stupid stuff like transgender bathrooms ..." The council has not approved any spending on "transgender bathrooms." Savage later clarified in a brief interview that he was referring to stray comments made during debate over an April ordinance Zappone sponsored that, among other things, guaranteed continued insurance coverage for gender affirming care for city employees; Bingle introduced a failed amendment to prevent transgender people from using the bathrooms of their choice. In an interview, Zappone rejected what he called "DOGE-like cuts" to state or local services in order to balance the budget and called Savage's comments troubling and personally hurtful. Zappone was the first openly gay candidate ever elected to the Spokane City Council. "That is, sad and troubling ... that Christopher Savage is talking about people, particularly minorities in our community, not mattering," Zappone said. "I believe that we've seen people under attack. I've personally been a victim of these sorts of attacks — I've had people throw things at me while I'm walking down the street holding my partner's hand." Private cigar lounge co-owner and retired Air Force instructor Cody Arguelles — whose last name moderator Pastor Drew Johnson first struggled to pronounce and later had Bingle say for him at every mention — is also running against Savage and Zappone. Arguelles did not attend due to a scheduling conflict, but sent in a brief video introduction discussing his background and platform. Alejandro Barrientos, chief operations officer for the SCAFCO Steel Stud Company and candidate for south Spokane running against former prosecutor Kate Telis, was originally listed as an attendee but did not attend the event for "personal reasons," he said. Ballots have already been mailed out for the upcoming Aug. 5 primary election. While all three Spokane council districts have a seat up for election this year, only the northwest district, where Zappone is facing challenges from Savage and Arguelles, has more than two candidates and will appear on the primary ballot. Homelessness Bingle and Savage argued that the city council had significantly watered down homelessness laws by prioritizing service provider outreach instead of enforcement, pointing to the package of laws approved by the majority in July to replace a voter-approve anti-camping law struck down by the state Supreme Court on technical grounds in April. "There is no real enforcement mechanism in our city laws anymore," Bingle said, arguing that many of the chronically homeless were suffering from a "brokenness of the human spirit" that required forced treatment and potentially jail to extract them from a death spiral. "Personally, in my family, I saw as a brother of mine who struggled seriously with addiction, jail is what got him clean," Bingle said. "Jail is what helped him get his mind right." He conceded that high housing prices were contributing to homelessness, but argued the first step to make housing more affordable was for the state to stop raising taxes. Savage argued the City Council should reinstate the exact language of the voter-approved anti-camping law and that the city, particularly downtown, would benefit from increased law enforcement presence and "harsher laws" to remove the homeless. "We need people coming downtown, patronizing our businesses and making sure that they are enjoying the downtown, because that is their downtown," Savage said. "It's not the homeless' downtown, it's theirs." The city should also change which nonprofit service providers the city works with, moving away from housing and shelter services like those provided by Jewels Helping Hands and Catholic Charities and toward providers like Adult and Teen Challenge, a year-long faith-based residential addiction recovery program, which Savage claimed had better rates of success for their participants. Bingle, meanwhile, argued the city should get out of funding homeless services altogether. "Government should not be in the homeless business at all, that should be done by other entities ... what government exists to do is provide for the public safety and provide for the infrastructure," neither of which the city does well, Bingle said. Public transportation Bingle alone was asked about funding for the Spokane Transit Authority, a regional agency which the city is a member of. "People have seen as little as three or four riders on a bus at a time, and they want to continue to increase funding for it — what's going on?" Johnson asked. Bingle noted that his district has the highest ridership in the city and didn't want to say "transit is bad," but argued the agency and advocates for greatly expanded public transit were living in the past. "There's a lot of people who are interested in infrastructure from 1910 for some reason — we're still talking about building trains in 2025, or light rail to there like an adult, OK ?" Bingle said. He argued that buses were inefficient and the central City Line's $82 million cost was wasteful. "I think we could probably save a bunch of money if we just contract with Uber and say, here you go, for our tax dollars," Bingle argued. "You don't have to stand at a bus stop in the snow or in the rain or, god forbid, there's somebody sleeping in (the bus)." Fund the police Both Bingle and Savage argued the city needed more officers, but didn't need to turn to a voter-approved tax increase last year to do so. "I opposed this measure, and the reason isn't because we don't need more police, we absolutely that doesn't need to be done through a tax increase," Bingle said. Both candidates argued that campaigners had misled the public last year when they pitched the sales tax, meant to fund police, fire and related services, arguing it lacked the promised transparency that would make it easy to follow how the money is being spent. Instead, they claimed the city had simply transferred the money into the general fund, implying it had turned into a slush fund. It is true that campaigners claimed it would be easy to track how the money would be spent, though Bingle arguably mischaracterized the purpose of the general fund transfer. City officials had argued earlier this year that portions of the tax spent on staff needed to be transferred to the budgets of the relevant departments, which are contained within the general fund, because salaries would inevitably increase faster than a sales tax, leading to layoffs. City spokeswoman Erin Hut provided documentation to The Spokesman-Review showing the positions the city anticipated funding with the tax for the next five years, which align with how the tax was sold to the public. Hut noted the documentation is available to the public and would be reviewed in upcoming budget discussions. Bingle also claimed that Zappone had signed a pledge in 2020 to "defund the police," but had since distanced himself from that pledge as it became politically inconvenient. Zappone did sign a June 2020 pledge created by progressive organization Fuse Washington that called for, among other things, no longer providing military equipment to the police and to "redirect police department funding to community-based alternatives." Zappone, along with the rest of the city council, approved on Monday a $430,000 purchase of a replacement for a military surplus armored vehicle that was totaled last summer during a high speed chase. He has also repeatedly voted in favor of budget and salary increases for the Spokane Police Department during his first term. "I've been in office for 3.5 years and that's demonstrably false, and the people trying to spread those lies are trying to scare people," Zappone said. Savage argued the city could significantly increase police staffing by cutting other costs in the city, starting with the city council office itself. He specifically called for cutting the positions of Lisa Gardner, the council's communications director, and Christopher Wright, the council's policy adviser. "We can look into our own budget and pass on those savings to help out more people and more officers become part of SPD, are understaffed majorly," Savage said. "We need more officers in the city of Spokane right now, and we can do that by also helping put people like myself on City need people up there that are backing up our SPD." Churches in politics The first question of the evening in Calvary Spokane was not about city policy, but about whether churches like Calvary should be involved in politics. "We get a lot of pushback at the church anytime we do an event like this," Johnson said. "People say the church shouldn't be involved in politics, we should stay in our own lane. What do you think about that?" Savage argued that churches should feel welcome to engage in politics "when they allow a bunch of other religions (at City Hall) to be practiced and freely done." Savage noted that the City Council has intermittently cut off people's testimony at meetings when they have begun to read Bible passages at length. "But come down there with the Quran or some sort of Buddhist sutra, they'd probably allow it," Savage claimed. It's not immediately clear if anyone has ever attempted, at least in recent memory, to read any other religious text beside the Bible at a Spokane City Council meeting. Bingle, a former pastor himself, argued that Christians have not just the right, but the responsibility to "represent your God at the ballot box," arguing their collective voting bloc could significantly sway elections from the local to state level. "I think one of the things you're going to see is that — church isn't getting more political, OK, politics is getting more theological," Bingle argued. "When they start saying that a boy is a girl and a girl is a boy ... that's not a political statement, that's a theological statement. They're attacking the very creation of God."
Los Angeles Times
21-07-2025
- Los Angeles Times
California sues Trump for blocking undocumented immigrants from ‘public benefit' programs
California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Monday over new rules barring undocumented immigrants from accessing more than a dozen federally funded 'public benefit' programs, arguing the restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law. President Trump and others in his administration have defended the restrictions as necessary to protect services for American citizens — including veterans — and reduce incentives for illegal immigration into the country. One of the programs facing new restrictions is Head Start, which provided some 800,000 low-income infants, toddlers and preschoolers with child care, nutrition and health assistance. Others include short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather conditions; soup kitchens, community food banks and other food support services for the elderly, such as Meals on Wheels; healthcare services for those with mental illness and substance abuse issues; and other adult education programs. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta's office said states have been allowed to extend such programs to undocumented immigrant families at least since 1997, and the Trump administration's 'abrupt reversal of nearly three decades of precedent' amounted to a 'cruel' and costly attack on some of the nation's most vulnerable residents. 'This latest salvo in the President's inhumane anti-immigration campaign primarily goes after working moms and their young children,' Bonta said. 'We're not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we're talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all.' The lawsuit — which California filed along with 19 other states and the District of Columbia — contends the new restrictions were not only initiated in an 'arbitrary and capricious' manner and without proper notice to the states, but will end up costing the states hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Bonta's office said 'requiring programs to expend resources to implement systems and train staff to verify citizenship or immigration status will impose a time and resource burden on programs already struggling to operate on narrow financial margins.' It also said that the impact of the changes in California, which has a huge immigrant population compared to other states, would be 'devastating — and immediate.' The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The states' claims run counter to arguments from Trump, his administration and other anti-immigration advocates that extending benefits to undocumented immigrants encourages illegal immigration into the country, costs American taxpayers money and makes it harder for U.S. citizens to receive services. About a month after taking office, Trump issued an executive order titled 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,' in which he said his administration would 'uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.' The order required the heads of federal agencies to conduct sweeping reviews of their benefits programs and move to restrict access for undocumented immigrants, in part to 'prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.' Trump cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 as providing clear restrictions against non-citizens participating in federally funded benefits programs, and accused past administrations of undermining 'the principles and limitations' of that law. Past administrations have provided exemptions to the law, namely by allowing immigrants to access certain 'life or safety' programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions. In response to Trump's order, various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — issued notices earlier this month announcing their reinterpretation of the 1996 law as excluding 'noncitizens' from more programs, including previously exempted ones. 'For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans' tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,' said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 'Today's action changes that — it restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people.' 'Under President Trump's leadership, hardworking American taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for illegal aliens to participate in our career, technical, or adult education programs or activities,' said Education Secretary Linda McMahon. 'By ensuring these programs serve their intended purpose, we're protecting good-paying jobs for American workers and reaffirming this Administration's commitment to securing our borders and ending illegal immigration,' said Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer. The Department of Agriculture also said it would apply new restrictions on benefits for undocumented immigrants, including under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. However, the states' lawsuit does not challenge the Department of Agriculture, noting that 'many USDA programs are subject to an independent statutory requirement to provide certain benefits programs to everyone regardless of citizenship,' which the department's notice said would continue to apply. Joining Bonta in filing the lawsuit were the attorneys general of the Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia.
USA Today
18-07-2025
- USA Today
Will your grandmother go hungry? Future of Meals on Wheels is uncertain.
Federal investment in programs like Meals on Wheels has neither kept pace with the skyrocketing demand from America's aging population, nor with the rising costs of food, fuel and labor. For 60 years, Meals on Wheels has ensured that older Americans get the nutrition they need in the safety and comfort of their home. But the future of this essential program is far from secure. Despite decades of bipartisan support, federal investment in programs like Meals on Wheels has neither kept pace with the skyrocketing demand from America's aging population, nor with the rising costs of food, fuel and labor. Today, one in three Meals on Wheels providers have a waiting list, and many others are being forced to reduce meal deliveries or cut back on visits. That's not just a service gap; it's a warning sign. Approximately 90% of our local providers rely on federal funding, and for 60% of them, that funding accounts for at least half of their budgets, underscoring the critical role federal support plays in sustaining one of the nation's most worthwhile and efficient programs. Despite serving 2.2 million older adults annually, the need has never been greater. The number of older adults facing food insecurity has quadrupled, emblematic of a growing crisis that demands immediate action. Federal funding is essential to keep the wheels rolling While donations and volunteers are essential to keep our wheels rolling, they simply cannot fill the widening gap left by continually insufficient federal support. Without sustained and increased investment, this indispensable safety net will continue to fray. In 1965, Congress passed and President Lyndon Johnson signed the Older Americans Act − the first federally funded nationwide program designed to preserve the dignity, independence and well-being of older adults. Opinion: Getting old doesn't have to be a pain. But we need to invest in aging Americans. For six decades, the law has provided for meal deliveries to shut-ins; adult day care and respite care for caregivers; transportation to doctors' offices; social connections, health and wellness activities at senior centers; and protection from elder abuse and fraud. But the lack of sufficient funding puts those services at risk even as the population of older Americans grows. Meals on Wheels provides food and social connection for older Americans We simply cannot continue to overlook the needs of older adults in this country or treat them as afterthoughts. Our country is projected to include more than 97 million people over the age of 60 by 2040 and, as our population ages, we need to scale programs that are trusted, proven and have withstood the test of time. Programs like Meals on Wheels keep older adults healthier, reduce strain on our health care system and support caregivers and families across every zip code in America. This powerful network of providers delivers nutritious meals and, perhaps as importantly, moments of connection to seniors throughout the year for roughly the same cost as one day in a hospital or 10 days in a nursing home. More than meals: Meals on Wheels keeps rolling at 50, bringing food, connections and sunshine to seniors This is just one example of the incredible return on investment made possible by this successful public-private partnership that also delivers care and compassion to people who may be socially isolated and lonely, which 56% of older Americas are. In fact, the Meals on Wheels staff or volunteer knocking on the door may be the only person a senior sees in a day, or even a week. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. These brief interactions can be preventative, often catching small health issues before they become critical and expensive medical emergencies, thus helping to avert unnecessary trips to the emergency room, hospital admissions and long-term care placements. Policymakers face a clear choice: invest in preventative, community-based solutions now, or pay far more later, in avoidable institutional and emergency care. The math is simple; the morality is even clearer. On the 60th anniversary of the Older Americans Act, let's do more than celebrate a legacy. Let's commit to securing its future by funding what works. Ellie Hollander is the chief executive officer for Meals On Wheels America. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
