On Tuesday, June 4, 2013, the Coeur d’Alene City Council will consider a proposed city ordinance intended to  “…prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations based upon sexual orientation and gender identity/expression…”

OpenCdA hopes that all members of the City Council have diligently researched already-applicable federal and state laws and, more importantly, that those council members have compared the quality of remedies already available under existing law with the remedies proposed by the ordinance.

And then, there’s the money to be made…

The proposed ordinance contains this wording:

The prohibitions against discriminatory acts as provided for in this ordinance are intended to supplement state and federal civil rights law prohibiting discrimination in the areas of employment, public accommodations, and housing. For complaints alleging discrimination on a basis proscribed under state or federal law (e.g. race, color, religious creed, ancestry, age, sex, national origin, and/or disability) the Complainant is advised of his or her right to file a report alleging a violation of Idaho Code section 18-7301 et. seq., and/or his or her right to file a complaint with the Idaho Commission on Human Rights and/or the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 as amended, or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as amended. [Emphasis and hyperlink mine]

That wording suggests that remedies at some level are already available under state and federal law.  For example, it is known that both the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have promulgated regulations addressing alleged arbitrary discrimination in housing, public accommodations, and employment.  Their interpretation of the various federal laws is that the arbitrarily discriminatory behaviors described in Coeur d’Alene’s proposed ordinance are covered in the “sex” discrimination prohibitions of federal law.

Has the Council determined from the Attorney General that the existing provisions of  Idaho Code § 18-7301 do not already allow the remedy proposed by Council?  Has Council obtained and examined (with appropriate permission from alleged victims) the written complaints to and the responses from HUD,  EEOC, and the Idaho Commission on Human Rights?  If not, why not?  Wouldn’t the complaints and the responses further guide the wording of the proposed ordinance?  Has the Council contacted the leadership of the Idaho Legislature to request and receive on-the-record responses about why proposed new legislation or amendments have not been considered by the Legislature?  If not, why not?  What is the deficiency in federal and state laws that shortchange the purported victims of arbitrary discrimination allegedly committed in Coeur d’Alene?

While it may be more convenient for victims to seek local relief, duplicating already available federal and state law and attendant remedies imposes additional burdens on the City.  Might the proposed ordinance deprive legitimate complainants of a more effective remedy already available under federal and state law?

Has the City considered that if it does pass the ordinance, it may be unintentionally subjecting itself to actions which may jeopardize continued HUD funding?  One of HUD’s requirements is that any local or state nondiscrimination laws must be enforced.  Has the City considered the possibility that if it continues its practice of selectively and preferentially enforcing its ordinances, a person aggrieved by the enforcement of the City’s new ordinance could lodge a complaint with HUD, a complaint which when sustained, could result in reduction or loss of HUD discretionary funding?  Passing this ordinance imposes a federal duty of uniform and consistent enforcement on the City.

And then, there’s the money…

In a city that touts the urban renewal racket as “economic development” at every opportunity, the proponents of the ordinance have been conspicuously silent in proclaiming the potential economic benefits of the ordinance.  Yes, there are potential economic benefits.

Coeur d’Alene has jumped into bed with the tourism industry, and the LGBT community spends money.  Community Marketing, Inc. regularly produce a Gay and Lesbian Tourism Study.  CMI has also produced an LGBT Tourism Demographic Profile.  To a city that has sold out to attracting tourism at any price, this quote from the Demographic Profile link is impressive:

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the travel and tourism industry in the United States generated more than $1.4 trillion in economic output in 2011. Based on this data and CMI sample demographics, we estimate that the annual economic impact of LGBT travelers is over US $70 billion per year in the U.S. alone.

Does anyone think that the Coeur d’Alene hospitality industry wouldn’t like even a small chunk of $70 billion annually?

Here is a link to an article written primarily for the hotel industry and titled Gay Tourism Spotlight:  New Tourism Statistics and a Case Study.  It provides a more industry-specific assessment of the economic benefit of courting LGBT tourism dollars.

Readers might reasonably ask why the Mayor,  Councilman Kennedy, and the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations  haven’t emphasized the potential economic benefits rather than conspicuously avoiding it.  For that matter, why hasn’t the Coeur d’Alene Chamber of Commerce publicly and vocally jumped on board?  It would be an excellent question to ask all of them, because if they haven’t considered the potential economic benefit to the community, they’re obviously incompetent.  If they have considered it but have made a political decision to intentionally withhold that consideration from the public, then they’re all being deceptive.

My opinion is that it’s the latter.  Deceptive.  I believe they knew that there would be a certain amount of objection from the community to the LGBT ordinance.  I believe they decided that the best way to marginalize that opposition would be to focus on the “every human has rights” side of the issue but consciously avoid the potential economic benefits.  Being able to whisper the allegation of homophobia can be almost as effective as being able to shout an allegation of racism about an opponent.  If proponents had honestly disclosed the potential economic benefits, suddenly their supposedly altruistic concern for human rights takes on a more crass undertone, one that might cause the public to wonder about their real motivations.

The proposed ordinance deserves the complete and careful attention of the Coeur d’Alene City Council.  The public needs to have time to consider all sides of the proposal in order to make their wishes knows to the City Council.   It does not appear as if the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney has done any original research into this ordinance.  It appears that (what’s his annual salary) Gridley has cut-and-pasted Boise’s ordinance.   While it might have been the right ordinance for Boise, the question has to be asked:  Is it the right one for Coeur d’Alene.

OpenCdA urges the City Council to postpone consideration of the proposed ordinance until all members of the Council have had an opportunity to fully educate themselves about all its benefits and pitfalls.  Then meet with community members out in the community to discuss it.