Spokane voters should approve the city's Community Safety proposal and give elected leaders greater resources to improve conditions downtown.

The primary reason is simple: The problems in the core aren't getting better, and complaints about conditions have reached a fevered pitch. The sense of urgency is apparent, and it makes sense to give the city more resources to address those issues. 

If the tax hike is approved and downtown doesn't get safer and cleaner, it's equally as logical to use that power at the ballot box to find leaders who can affect change for the better the next time the opportunity presents itself. 

The proposed tax increase, which will be on general-election ballots as Proposition 1, would increase sales tax within the city by one-tenth of 1%, or $1 for $1,000 spent. As projected, that tax hike would generate about $7.7 million. Spokane County would get 15%, leaving about $6.5 million for the city. 

The city's share primarily would go toward reviving the neighborhood resource officer program, expanding traffic enforcement, sustaining municipal court programs, and enhancing fire stations. 

To ensure the money goes toward its intended purposes, Mayor Lisa Brown and Council President Betsy Wilkerson have proposed placing that money into a dedicated Community Safety Fund "to increase transparency and segregate the use of the funds exclusively for improving community safety." 

Assuming a dedicated fund is coupled with maintaining current funding levels for law enforcement, it's a positive step in the right direction. 

Spokane's voters should expect a higher level of accountability with the current tax-hike proposal, because we've heard this pitch before. Just five years ago, the city approached its citizens with a property-tax increase to fund the hiring of additional police officers and crime-reduction programs. The measure passed overwhelmingly, yet conditions worsened, and the city's structural budget deficit ballooned. While those three factors might not be related directly, one of two truths has emerged: Either the funds weren't used efficiently or throwing more money at the problem isn't the answer. We'll assume the former, in hopes that the current proposal leads to meaningful change by providing greater resources to hotspots like downtown. 

Regardless, it would be more difficult to support Proposition 1 without laser-focused attention to how that money is spent.

Brown and Wilkerson also have added a 10-year sunset provision for the tax increase. That sunset wasn't part of the original ballot measure, so it will be in effect by ordinance. In other words, it will be at the discretion of future city leaders either to sunset the sales-tax increase, extend it, or modify it some other way. 

We're disappointed that the sunset clause isn't part of the ballot measure and doesn't require voter approval to extend it 10 years from now, but the need for action requires us to move ahead with an indefinite endpoint. It should be noted that the late addition of the sunset by ordinance is a good-faith effort to address a flaw in the original proposal and shows a refreshing willingness from city leaders to listen to community feedback.

A series of changes need to happen to improve conditions in the city, and this is one change that could—and should—make a difference, if handled correctly.