TagGift of Public Funds(7)
-
2025-06-01The Gift of Public Funds Bogeyman
★ 32This 2025 Washington Law Review article argues that Washington State's 'gift of public funds' doctrine—which prohibits governments from giving away public assets—is widely misunderstood and far less restrictive than most officials believe. The authors, both attorneys in Washington's Solicitor General's Office, explain that modern court interpretations allow governments broad flexibility to fund programs serving legitimate public purposes, and note that no appellate court has struck down any government program under this doctrine in the past 45 years. The article urges public officials and lawyers to stop letting unfounded fears about this doctrine block innovative policy solutions to problems like homelessness, childcare, and climate change. -
2025-06-01
The Gift of Public Funds Bogeyman
★Noah Purcell (Washington State Solicitor General) and Michelle Saperstein (Assistant Attorney General) argue in the Washington Law Review (Vol. 100, No. 2, 2025) that Washington’s ‘gift of public funds’ doctrine under article VIII, sections 5 and 7 of the Washington Constitution is systematically misunderstood and over-applied by public officials and government lawyers. The article analyzes -
2024-02-23
MRSC: Gift of Public Funds
This page provides information about the Gift of Public Funds doctrine in Washington State and how it applies to the local and state governments. On this Page [hide] Overview Origins of the Doctrine What is Prohibited? Why the Prohibitions? Permitted Actions Avoiding a Violation What Happens if a Violation Occurs? Overview The Gift of Public -
2023-01-13Match requirements prevent rural and low-capacity communities from accessing climate resilience funding
More than 60% of federal resilience funding in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires a local match, with an additional 13% requiring a match under certain conditions. Requirements for matching funds have been included in federal funding programs to promote economic efficiency and ensure communities have “skin in the game.” In practice, however, they can impose insurmountable burdens on communities, -
2013-11-25
Lane v. Port of Seattle BNSF GNP RLY (2013)
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. Arthur LANE; John Allerton, and Kenneth Gorohoff, Appellants, v. PORT OF SEATTLE; King County; BNSF Railway Company; GNP RLY, Inc.; and City of Redmond, Respondents. No. 69157–1–I. Decided: November 25, 2013 David Florian Jurca, Bradley H. Bagshaw, Helsell Fetterman LLP, Seattle, WA, for Appellants. Lori Marie Bemis, McGavick -
1966-10-25Official Voters Pamphlet, State of Washington, 1966
This is the 1966 Official Voters Pamphlet for the State of Washington, published by Secretary of State A. Ludlow Kramer, covering 14 state measures on the November 8, 1966 general election ballot. The pamphlet includes ballot titles, explanations, and arguments for and against three citizen initiatives, three legislative referendum bills, and eight proposed constitutional amendments. Topics addressed include tax sharing, Sunday blue laws, freight train crew requirements, school facility bonds, and various constitutional changes — but the document contains no content related to Sea-Tac Airport or aircraft noise policy. -
1966-10-25Official Voters Pamphlet, State of Washington, 1966
1966 Official Voters Pamphlet for the State of Washington November 8, 1966 general election, published by Secretary of State A. Ludlow Kramer. Contains official ballot titles, full explanations, statements for and against, and complete texts of 14 state measures: Initiatives 226 (cities sharing sales and use taxes), 229 (repealing Sunday Activities Blue Law), and 233