I'll be at the 164th St. Martha Lake Park and Ride on Ash Way and 164th St. SW in Lynnwood tommorow morning from 6 to 9, distributing and collecting Initiative 912 petitions. There will also be people at the Park and Ride tommorow afternoon from 3 to 6. I believe that the Lynnwood 44th Ave. Park and Ride will be fully stocked with petitions tommorow morning and afternoon as well. No doubt so will a lot of other places--see this page for locations to pick up the petition, at least, around the state.
If you've got petitions to pick up or drop off, stop by and say hello!
(Cross posted at The Flag of the World.)
Posted by Timothy Goddard at June 09, 2005 07:51 PM | Email ThisI am getting a number of them at Kinko's in Silverdale Saturday and could drop one off at your home/work on Monday if you would like.
Posted by: Janet on June 9, 2005 08:58 PMAlso, read the arguments put forth by the campaign itself here. There are plenty of us who are willing to look seriously at road maintenence--but this is not the way to go about it.
Posted by: Timothy Goddard on June 9, 2005 10:10 PMConsider what 11,000 people who signed the NoNewGasTax page as volunteers who are P'd off and motivated when their voter approved I601 spending limits, voter approved 30 dollar car tabs, voter disapproved Gas Taxs, voter disaproved election of a governorship and no voter input at all Property rights (CAO) are completely run over by Olympia politicians in this session.
Take those 11,000 volunteers, arm them with initiatives, and then multiply them by the number of citizens they can reach that are angry about any one or more of the above issues and willing to send Olympia a very very clear and consise signal of disgust on their massive Tax happy rampage of a legislative session.
Especially led by a governor, that continually campaigned on NO NEW TAXES.
I see many many highly motivated people who are going to produce the necessary signatures to put it on the ballot. We will ask the citizens whose pockets they are so willing to pick continually what they think of their flag ship massive Tax increase.
Once on the ballot this will easily pass in Novembers election.
Volunteer and get initiatives on NoNewGasTax.com.
Be part of a movement that will achieve in record time a feat which could not be done without thousands of motivated citizens in this state working on a single important cause.
Keep Posting on Sound politics the happenings of this great effort. Thanks to Stephan and Timothy for their support of these efforts.
But the key here is, fund those basic services first, and if you don't have enough to do that, then ask for a tax increase. My understanding is that your state funds a lot of frivolous stuff, things like the Arts Commission to put up pig art in downtown Seattle, the Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises, Mobile Home Relocation Assistance, monorails, and any number of other things that may have, to reasonable people, lower priority than maintenance of basic infrastructure. Those things in themselves may or may not be vaulable/useful, but should have a lower priority. Why not make at least an honest attempt to eliminate those things before saddling an already tax-burdened citizenry with yet another tax?
Bring it down to your family level. If you need money to keep the heat on in winter (and where I live that is important), you pay that bill first, even if it means you don't buy a CD or go out to eat that month. Don't ask for a new tax to fund roadways. Fund the roadways first, and then ask for a tax increase to fund the pig art. What's that you say? Won't do it, won't work? Why not? Oh, that wouldn't pass. I see. Well, in that case, maybe there is value in this initiative process after all (unless the dictat..., uh, governor, and legislature, thwart the will of the people again).
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 10, 2005 05:53 AMI wonder if that was deliberate
Posted by: Jim L on June 10, 2005 08:24 AMLike, animals will know how to use find and use the brigde? Will there be a PR blitz and public forum to train, oops, educate the critters?
This is all the more reason that we must deprive the DoT of the funding so that they can appropriate the money wisely, if that is ever possible.
1) I’m not thrilled with the gas tax either, but saying chucking the gas tax is a good way to express anger about a lot of topics (the repeal of I-601, a bloated state budget, the governor's election fiasco, etc.) is silly at best, and incredibly poor public policy at worst. The backlog of road projects, both for safety and congestion, all over this state is so severe it is illogical to use this issue to punish Olympia. That punishment would be best expressed (with a vengeance!) beginning in the 2006 elections...and 2005 if you want to include the King Co Exec's race.
2) If we're going to have this debate, let's at least have it with accurate facts.
For example, the oft-repeated line I've seen and heard is that there isn't enough spent on roads in this package: to that, please see http://hdc.leg.wa.gov/issues/transportation/2005_transpo_summary_final.pdf (I regret the source of the webpage, but I've seen the document floated in Republican circles so don't think the website is the original source…it’s just the first place I could find it with a web search this morning). Page 4 breaks down the source of funding, the overwhleming share of which is clearly the gas tax, which by law goes only to roads, and state ferries which are part of the state highway system.
Another good example of inaccurate facts is the glib means by which some opponents toss around wildly incorrect statements as holy writ. Such as the http://www.nonewgastax.com/issues.htm saying 405 “receives little money.” In reality it is receiving $972 million, on top of the nearly $500 million it receives from the nickel gas tax – and those original 405 projects can be completed quicker now with the additional funding. That makes the subsequent statement on the same page of “Not one project will add significant new capacity to clogged highways” laughable. I’m unclear if anyone can have an honest debate with someone who thinks adding new lanes up and down huge chunks of 405 will somehow not add new capacity to one of the most congested freeways in the state.
3) It seems some opponents are obsessed with the imperfections of transportation funding in this state as a whole. Arguments like “Sound Transit stinks so no one should pay more taxes for transportation until it is reformed,” or “there needs to be more accountability before I’ll trust them with my taxes,” etc. I understand the root of those complaints, but we need to accept something: we live in a Democrat leaning state, and most readers hear live in the even more Democrat-dominated Puget Sound area…thus we are never going to get a perfect package. If we wait until that happens, the Viaduct will have collapsed, 520 will have sunk, we’ll be paying for parking by the hour to sit on 405, and Chelsea Clinton will be running for President against the Bush Twins.
If you don’t like Sound Transit, fine, campaign against it and the RTID package when they come up in the future. If you insist on more accountability improvements for state transportation funding that what has already been accomplished in the last several years (which, as much as I too want to punish Olympia, has at least on this topic been significant), then I suggest you move to a different state. You never get everything you want in the legislative process, even when you have a strong majority…which we certainly aren’t blessed with here.
I think the list could go on, but that’s enough to make my points about the need for a real debate on this issue rather than campaigning on simple perceptions and inaccuracies. I welcome what Tim might put forward in future posts as he noted, I respect his ability to communicate rationally whether I agree or disagree.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 10, 2005 08:39 AM
Follow the link to the WA leg page, it breaks down by weight, not gross weight, each class of vehicle. It starts on 7/24/2005
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/6103-S.PL.htm
Posted by: Jim L on June 10, 2005 09:03 AMIt's not enough for the government to take money from the public and say "just give us the money and we'll let you know how much it's all going to cost." That's NOT responsible government. And the track record of this state government has not earned that trust.
Posted by: Palouse on June 10, 2005 09:14 AMThese increases are 14.5 cents - a 63% increase over the tax just three years ago. If so much money was needed for these things, where has the 23 cents been going?
Page 8 of the transportation summary tells us: "Hopes that the federal government would bear a major share of the Viaduct and seawall replacement costs were dashed recently; it's now clear the state and region will pay most of these costs. Federal funds are still expected to finance most of the seawall portion of the project."
Where are Senators Murray and Cantwell in securing federal funding to assist in some of these projects? If they could be even half as successful as Kerry and Kennedy were with Boston's Big Dig, the funding would be less of an issue.
But I think some of us take issue with the prioritization of the projects. Why start with the viaduct? I-5 is the major conduit from Canada to Oregon and Seattle is the worst choke point in moving goods north to south. I-5 will have to take a large portion of the viaduct traffic while it is under construction - the current I-5 will not suffice for that. So, in order to improve congestion, we must put up with even worse congestion for the next 20-25 years.
That's my 3 cents (7/1/2005)
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 10, 2005 09:47 AMAs I understand, the Viaduct and 520 are the exceptions to the rule as far as projects being fully funded. For those two projects, the sheer size of them, and in the case of 520 the early stage at which the project is at as far as planning & design, preclude funding them fully now. My understanding is the the legislature's intent is for the RTID process to complete the funding for those two. Not ideal obviously to have to raise local taxes in the Puget Sound area in addition, but an understandable compromise given opposition in other parts of the state to statewide taxes paying the full cost of such "mega-projects."
As to the actual budgets of the specific projects, this site seems like a decent start:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Funding/2005/default.htm
Seems like a good overview, in addition to the link I provided earlier. Specifically, the "More Funding Package Information" section at the bottom seems to have links to specific project-by-project info you're looking for.
Most importantly, the improvements to I-405 don't include the two new lanes in either direction from the worst section of the S-curves from Renton to Bellevue. This little piece of construction will cost BILLIONS more. For those of us (including me) who live on the eastside south of I-90, there is no real transportation package that does not include this. And of course, the additional cost or revenue source to actually build these lanes is not identified.
What we're talking about here with this package is a HUGE leap of faith in DOT and in both local and state government. I, for one, don't have it.
Posted by: Palouse on June 10, 2005 11:08 AMThis isn't about Left vs. Right
This isn't about Liberal vs. Conservative
This isn't about Republican vs. Democrat
This IS about Right vs. Wrong.
This IS about the rest of the State vs. the LEFTIST PINHEADS OF Seattle
This is about not getting conned into starting a money-sucking project that is really about beautifying the Seattle Waterfront at the expense of the rest of the State.
SCREW THE LEFTIST PINHEADS!!
Do not be afraid to talk with Democrats about this. Many, many are on our side!!! This is not about getting even with Gregoire. This is about doing the right thing.
Talking to Dems not only will get you signatures now, but will also get you voters once the Initiative is on the ballot.
Fear not my friends!
Restaurants are a GREAT place to put these petitions...as well as shopping malls.
Fear Not!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 10, 2005 11:19 AMAs to 405, page 22 of "Projects by County" at the link noted in my previous post shows where the money is going to provide the very improvements you cite. As you'll note, it requires the regional match through RTID, but the good part about 405 is assuming the match comes, all 405 improvements from the last two tax increases are intended to be completed by 2009, before construction begins on the Viaduct and 4 years earlier than envisioned with just the nickel package.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 10, 2005 11:26 AMTake a Valium
Posted by: swassociates on June 10, 2005 12:25 PMwhat you don't get is that we conservatives feel disenfranchised, disrespected by the majority Democrats in this states and we will do anything we can to fight back. It's just that simple. We're sick and tired of the big government, out of control spending on everything but essentials, and this initiative will be aimed at fighting that which we conservatives hate so much.
Posted by: manco on June 10, 2005 12:53 PMMaybe when the liberal governing (for now) elite decide they should listen to the dirty masses (AKA their employers - the people) this wouldn't happen. How many times do the people need to tell them? I601, the multiple no gas tax vote, etc. etc.
Posted by: fred on June 10, 2005 01:07 PMIt's a collosal waste of time and effort with a result that will only make our traffic situation worse.
Please do the right thing and don't sign the petition.
PS Even many republicans figured out this is the right thing do do and voted for it.
PPS Palouse...paving from renton to bellevue is a big mall owner's dream....you work for one by chance?
Posted by: Tom Purcell on June 10, 2005 01:18 PMIt's a collosal waste of time and effort with a result that will only make our traffic situation worse.
Please do the right thing and don't sign the petition.
PS Even many republicans figured out this is the right thing do do and voted for it.
PPS Palouse...paving from renton to bellevue is a big mall owner's dream....you work for one by chance?
Posted by: Tom Purcell on June 10, 2005 01:18 PMFire_one, do you believe you automatically get what you pay for? Do you send your bank account information in response to Nigerian e-mails? Buy "stuff envelopes at home and make $10K/month" packages on e-bay? Are you getting what you paid for with Sound Transit or the Monorail project? If you buy any of these, you are a naive little bunny.
3) It seems some opponents are obsessed with the imperfections of transportation funding in this state as a whole. Arguments like “Sound Transit stinks so no one should pay more taxes for transportation until it is reformed,” or “there needs to be more accountability before I’ll trust them with my taxes,” etc. I understand the root of those complaints, but we need to accept something:
Eric, you don't buy that argument with Social Security. Why would you accept it in relation to WSDOT? Any person who understands politics in this state understands that we have a gas tax package because of the Viaduct. Fully 25% of the total package immediately goes to fund a project wholly existing in the Seattle City limits. Besides, this isn't a list of the projects that WILL be funded; it's a list of the projects that MAY be funded. These projects also require another vote next year to increase taxes.
The 520 project($500M) equally benefits Seattle and the Eastside.
This list includes $185M for ferries (again, primarily Seattle) $279M for "safety projects," which we know may include wildlife crossings on I-90 to the tune of $150M. Another $108M for "environmental," whatever that means; $740M for public transportation, rail, etc.
This is a poorly disguised transportation pork package for Seattle. You may choose to ignore that, but please don't insult my intelligence by minimizing it as mere "imperfections."
Posted by: South County on June 10, 2005 01:22 PMThat said, more money flows out that is taken in in Seattle. That has always been the way. It's the only way things would get done in South County, Pasco or Wenatchee.
That's ok...though it's a bit like welfare (why does the rest of the state get to welsh off Seattle anyway -- and why do conservatives allow/champion that? isn't that 100% against the conservative way -- shouldn't they say to Zillah: you want a highway, you pay for it! don't complain, work harder! instead of taking the money from the puget sound region).
Posted by: Tom Purcell on June 10, 2005 01:29 PMKeep in mind that the line item "environmental" is in addition to the 30+% of construction costs that goes to environmental remediation and studies, as well as the "wildlife crossing", which is also an environmental boondoggle, as well as other environmentally motivated pork. I think that if you could actually trace the money being siphoned into non-functional environmental distractions, whether swamp restoration, or bike lanes, or whatever, it adds up to well over 50%.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 10, 2005 01:40 PMNot to mention that it's just part of the design that will expand I-90 to 6 lanes in that area. Anyone who's travelled to Pullman for an Apple Cup game or done any travelling over the mountains knows what a pain it is with just 2 lanes both going slow because you've got truck-trailer combos and semi's in the right lane, and grandma in the left lane going just a bit faster, but both doing under the speed limit.
Posted by: DustinJames on June 10, 2005 01:45 PM
Seattle also seems to blur the distinction between Seattle and the Puget Sound region. The 2000 census pegs the Seattle population at less than one-third of King County; Seattle is just 18% of the tri-county area. I can understand this is a sweet deal for Seattle, but you haven't explained why I should pump my tax dollars into beautification projects for the Seattle waterfront.
If wildlife doesn't use the correct crossings, will someone ticket them for jay walking?
Our growth (Seattle, Eastside, Snohomish, Pierce) is directly tied to Seattle's viability.
Did you know Topeka, KS and Bellevue, WA are in the same general ballpark when it comes to population?
Yet, outside the two states, *everyone* has heard of Topeka and *almost nobody* has heard of Bellevue. Topeka stands on its own...Bellevue is a tethered step-child.
Bellevue exists entirely because of Seattle -- the two are linked inexplicably. As Seattle goes (and has gone), Bellevue goes (and has gone).
Don't throw out the baby here...
Posted by: Tom Purcell on June 10, 2005 01:57 PMThat was an excellent response to the point. If the best you can do is critisize a "simple human error", the point is made...
Posted by: fred on June 10, 2005 02:06 PM
The Viaduct is the primary route between Seattle core and West Seattle.
Also, my support for reform of Social Security is rooted in the evolution of the program from its original intent to the now unsustainable future the current program faces. In contrast, your comments about the WSDOT are reflective of a now overly zealous movement opposed to taxes because of lack of trust in government. Of course, there is a reason there has had to be so much reform of DOT and transportation spending at a state level by the legislature in recent years – because it was long overdue (and of course more still could be done). Yet, when people have specific complaints about an agency/program and they get addressed, then at some point ongoing complaints no longer take precedent.
Now as to a couple of your comments on specific projects, regrettably they appear to promulgate more myths rather than facts as I criticized the “No” campaign for in earlier comments:
1) The state ferry system benefits a lot more than Seattle. Even the routes that include Seattle at either end heavily benefit residents on the west side of the Puget Sound.
2) Criticizing the package for including the Viaduct is like a mass-transit zealot in Seattle complaining because too much of the money dedicated outside of the metropolitan Puget Sound is for roads. You build where the needs are – and the Viaduct is a serious need. Without it, immense traffic volume pressure would be put on I-5 & 405, which harms residents of the Puget Sound region as a whole and further impairs the movement of freight – a major concern to the non-Puget Sound area economy in our state.
3) Areas of our state outside the Puget Sound have been subsidized for years in the amount of gas tax they receive back to their communities to build important road projects. Even this latest increase spares those non-Puget Sound area citizens in a way by leaving it to us urban/suburban citizens to tax ourselves more to finish large projects which are abstractly worthy of full state funding.
4) Between the point I just noted above and a full look at the project list for this package, and that for of the nickel package for that matter, it is completely inaccurate to claim “this is a poorly disguised transportation pork package for Seattle.” Make that claim if you’d like when the RTID puts a package forward – maybe it will be correct. But for this subject it’s wrong, and an insult to those for and against the gas tax interested in an honest debate.
I, like you I think, want to see notably more road construction that is long overdue in this state. But if we wait until circumstances are perfect, it will never happen, and we'll have the quality of life (and economic harm) to show for it.
I can take a joke, but you still haven't responded to the original point. It seems like you are trying to "joke" your way out of a response.
Posted by: fred on June 10, 2005 02:24 PMElitist A$$holes like you Tom will keep people in poverty, keep them dependent and then force them to pay for your PET projects and pipedreams like a beautified Seattle waterfront disguised as EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS!! Isn't that the strategy of the slaveowners?
Bad Try===No Sale Tom
I think it meant "inextricably"? Or is there some deeper meaning?
Posted by: Dogbert on June 10, 2005 03:00 PM
Sound Transit, the Monorail and this tax package are all public programs. They each depend upon a common factor, credibility. The monorail board admits they cannot meet time and cost promises, and the gap grows by the month. The moral...salespeople will overpromise and underdeliver if they can get away with it. It's not my money, so I will let Seattle spend it as they please.
I'm outside of Sound Transit area also, so it's not my money. I remember the sales pitch, and what's being delivered is in no way comparable. If it wasn't government doing the ripoff, someone would be in jail.
So...I'm supposed to believe that this funding package will be any different? Why? The trumph of hope over experience?
WSDOT is not suffereing from a credibility gap...they are suffering from a gullibility gap.
Social Security is an apt comparison. Those who want to leave the system as-is say that the money they are paying in will fund a good retirement. That much is true. But that money invested in SS will not provide that retirement. Aiming funding at a problem without thought to the vehicle (SS and WSDOT) is throwing money at a problem. Bureaucracies can always waste money faster than you can increase funding.
anybody know?
Posted by: Andy on June 10, 2005 03:17 PM
On a number of trips basis, Seattle is the primary and overwhelming beneficiary of ferries. It's a lifestyle thing, you see. Ferry ridership in Spokane and Bellevue is down.
No, you don't build "where the need is," you tie projects to funding. There is no good reason for Washington State to subsidize Seattle's champagne taste and beer budget. Funding "where the need is" has given us a regional bus system primarily funded outside Seattle, primarily benefitting Seattle.
I mind when I'm forced to subsidize someone's lifestyle choice; it really refries my beans when I'm then lectured on my failure to do the same. Let them build what they will; let the budget of the project be informed by the willingness of the beneficiaries to pay for it.
Posted by: South County on June 10, 2005 03:23 PM
For voters, it's now about credibility, and being unwilling to finance Seattle's wet dreams. Agree or not, as you will; Sound Transit will never win another funding proposal. It's not just the original rip-off; it's the way Ron Sims has rubbed salt into the wounds.
It's not a coincidence that this package was passed as an emergency measure.
I really have no idea on the proportions, but is it really so far out of whack compared to the population distribution?
Posted by: fred on June 10, 2005 03:48 PMPopulations:
Seattle 560,000.
King County 1.7 million
Pierce County 700K
Snohomish County 600K.
One could probably find numbers for product sold in a given area, but I don't know what that would indicate. Take a person who commutes from Tacoma to Seattle; where do they buy their fuel, and where is most of the time spent?
According to the population numbers, the tri-county area has about half the population. My rough reckoning of the projects and numbers suggests fully half the package is dictated by or directly benefits Seattle, an area with approximately 10% of the population. I believe the per-person consumption of gasoline is less in Seattle than outside.
Posted by: South County on June 10, 2005 04:02 PMWhy?
Posted by: CandrewB on June 10, 2005 04:28 PMI do, however, agree with a couple of your core arguments.
If you've reviewed a project list for the 2005 package and the nickel package and you still believe they are Seattle-centric then we're going to have to agree to disagree. The number of projects clearly favors non-Seattle road construction, inside the Puget Sound area and out. Just because there is not a comparable mega-project necessary elsewhere in the state doesn't make your Viaduct analysis valid. I think you’re hung up on the spending number involved in a single project that is physically in Seattle, which as I noted above, has serious implications for the broader metropolitan region.
The whole issue of what replaces the Viaduct, how much that costs, and who pays for it in full are issues worthy of their own debate. Indeed, perhaps me might agree on more points in such a detailed a discussion - but I think we fundamentally disagree about including the Viaduct in this package. Without it, Seattle legislators would have noted no. But with a bigger slice of the money going to it, it would have died for lack of support from legislators outside Seattle - a great example of political compromise between factions, as ugly (and perhaps frustrating) as it might be.
I also strongly disagree with your argument on ferries. The analogy with Spokane & Bellevue is unserious given the ferry system is part of the overall state highway system that is largely, and obviously, dominated by roads serving the whole state. Money for US 395 in Spokane or US 12 in Walla Walla don't relieve congestion where it's worst in the Puget Sound but they're worthy to be funded. Meanwhile, ferry routes (picture them as highways if you want) from the west side of Puget Sound to the east allow westside residents to access jobs across the Sound, while conversely allowing those seeking recreation (including many non-Seattle residents) to access the eastside of the sound, the San Juans, Victoria, etc.
Related to differences between parts of the state, I did a quick web search and was able to find two statistics off hand that show non-Puget Sound taxpayers get more back from the gas tax: one state study showed between 1994 and 2003 between $500-600 million more was spent on highways outside of urban areas than was received in gas taxes. Another showed that prior to the nickel increase, Eastern Washington was paying 18% of the gas tax but was getting 22% of the state spending on highways.
Lastly, as much as we might like to see more reform of WSDOT and overall accountability, the steps taken thus far are concrete…and in fairness, were finally supported by many Democrats because of years of Republican pressure on the issue. A link I provided in my first comment had a section on accountability, but for quicker access, see:
http://hdc.leg.wa.gov/news/20050508_transpo_final_summary.asp (scroll down to “Accountability”)
If you’re argument is that you don’t want to subsidize someone else’s lifestyle, without trying to be rude, I suggest moving elsewhere. Even on the best day for Republicans in this state, stereotypically Democratic initiatives (GMA, mass transit, etc.) will have a place in Washington life – especially in the Puget Sound area. I accept that fact, and think Republicans and/or fiscal conservatives would be better served maximizing our gains within that reality rather than simply being the party of “No.” We’re watching the Democrats nationally do that on Social Security, et. al. It is a truly pathetic display I would hate to replicate here on the other side of the aisle.
You an always go to a Kinkos, and get a blank form for 34 cents. While you're at it, you can see if you can fill it up.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 10, 2005 07:25 PM
You keep trying to add the nickel package in to the total; I don't believe it belongs. The current debate and initiative addresses the 9.5 cent tax increase, which was voted in by a Dem House and Senate, and signed by a DEM Governor. The whole premise of my argument is that DEM governments disproportionately fund Seattle projects, that this package passed because Seattle wants funding for their Viaduct tunnel.
You point out that the package wouldn't have made it through the DEM legislature without the disproportionate Viaduct funding. That may be true. However, I think it's a given that this package will not survive past November. I predict the final vote will be in excess of 60% to repeal.
You mentioned disproportionate spending versus funding in Eastern Washington, 18% taxes raised versus 22% spent. That means spending was 20% higher than revenues, for a total of 4% of budget. This Seattle-centric spending package, by my estimate, allocates FIVE TIMES the tax collected, a 400% difference, or 40% difference in the entire budget. The disparity is ten times the magnitude you consider to be unacceptable when it favors Eastern Washington.
Let's run some population numbers again. In 1970 Seattle represented 16% of the state population; in 2000 it represented 9.5%. During that time Washington State gained 2.5 million residents. Seattle gained 33,000.
The DEMS are on a heck of a bender, and they will have a serious political hangover. The election fiasco in King County in 2004; the social agenda being pushed (gay marriage); a tax increase that disproportionately favors Seattle; an outrageous number of bills passed with emergency clauses. We will roll back the gas tax and institute performance audits by initiative. We will also run a referendum or initiative to reform voting procedures. It will be done as as end-around the DEM party. The DEMs cannot do what they've done and avoid punitive political backlash.
Look for initiatives or refernedums in the future to amend the GMA and CAO.
This will require nothing on the part of Repubs.
It may have been true at one time that there were two choices-adjust or move. Liberal policies are not acts of nature, and I need not accept them as facts.
Moreover, your bias toward the cost of one given project is unreasonable. Seattle area projects will almost always be pricer because of topogrophy, traffic volumes, population density, cost of property, etc. than say adding highway lanes or building a new bridge in eastern WA. In addition, the regional implications of the Viaduct, as I've discussed, make it worthwhile. Using your thinking, I suppose someone could argue that the population in Eastern King County doesn't merit the nearly $1.5 billion that will be spent on 405 between the nickel package and this year's, but that would be an equally poor point given the importance of such construction.
More importantly perhaps, your logic of spending by portion of the state population smacks of quotas. I thought Republicans/conservatives where the party of market forces where we want the resources to flow to where they are needed, not simply to where they would provide equal outcomes in a properly proportioned distribution. That kind of politics has been tried in Europe with their welfare states, which as we all know hasn't worked out that well.
I think based on the depth of the philisophical and functional disagreements we have on a number of issues in even attempting to have a debate on this issue we'll simply have to agree on a firm handshake of disagreement.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 11, 2005 09:48 AMRaylene
Posted by: Raylene on June 11, 2005 12:10 PM
I believe 405 is a highway of regional importance because one travels through several cities. While I might concede the Viaduct is in some sense the same, you still haven't addressed why the rest of the state should be taxed for Seattle waterfront beautification.
While Seattle (and west side) projects may be pricier, it still doesn't follow that the rest of the state should pay disproportionately for them. Priorities and needs are always different when you're spending someone else's money. I aim to see that Seattle runs out of everybody else's money.
I'm not following your statement that market forces dictate that Seattle get disproportionate spending. If anything, following the market would mean that you decide what you want to pay for, and pay for it yourself.
As to Seattle beautification, I don't want to get into an argument about what should and shouldn't be used to replace the existing structure. I don't even have a firm opinion on that. But given the location of it, and the potential economic development impacts, it would be silly not to analyze the overall impact of the replacement to improve the waterfront/downtown economy, aside from traffic impacts. Besides, since Seattle area taxpayers will likely be on the hook for the remainder of the project, they would be the ones funding the "beautification" as you describe.
All these points put together are really an extension of Thomas Hobbes' theory of social contract. By agreeing to the contract and not living in anarachy, we accept acknowledge we no longer have 100% of our rights (right to kill, steal, etc.) and thus accept we will not agree with all of government's actions. In this case, you don't like the cost of potentially replacing the Viaduct, and because you have a problem with Seattle liberals (understandably) you don't want non-Seattleites to pay for it. However, short of Seattle becoming its own state, that isn't going to happen. The Viaduct has regional and statewide relevance in the abstract, and even without that it is necessary to include for political purposes to pass a package that funds other necessary projects around the state.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 12, 2005 01:27 PMYour analogy more closely fits Marx...from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
It's not possible to discuss the funding package without discussing the total cost of the project, plus the source of additional funding. Greg Nichols has said he's currently looking for the remainder of the funding. It's his intention that Seattle will not directly pay for any of it.
Those who speak of "social contracts" are usually trying to convince someone they're committed to something they would have never voluntarily agreed to, a one-sided pact. Legally speaking, of course, contracts must be voluntarily agreed to. Also, contracts to be legally enforceable must show benefit to both parties. What are some recent examples? Lifetime employment was one...SS was another.
I'm still amazed at the sense of entitlement "Seattleites" show, their robust arrogance. This is not true of all who live in Seattle, of course; I'm talking about the mindset. They think they're friggin' Rome.
Imagine, if you will, me getting a few of my buddies together (I live in SE King County) calling a public meeting in Ballard, and announcing we're going to be putting restrictions on their yards.
I give you nothing but credit for daring to defend the status quo. Shame on me if I buy it...agreeing to live in civilization has now evolved to giving Seattle whatever it wants.
I'm not sure that your getting your hands around my points in the least based on your last post. For one, social contracts are in fact key elements of the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers as expressed also by Locke, Paine, etc. The party that holds truest to those principles today is the Republican party, in which despite my quirks I firmly fall. You misunderstand political science, relevant history, and my comments by attempting to described my comments as you have.
Greg Nickels intentions really have nothing to do with the points I've made, he would no doubt disagree with a lot of what I've said.
At this point, I think you're too consumed with the notion that Seattle = bad and you don't want to pay for anything in it. I'm not saying that position is not without cause, I'm just saying it's an irrational premise from which to mold policy for the region or the state.
With that in mind, I'm signing off from this discussion. Entertaining and thoughtful though it has been, I think it has run it's course.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 12, 2005 10:00 PMI never stated that I-405 did not get some improvements. However, these improvements won't do any good for one of the worst stretches of I-405 that I stated earlier.
If you look at this link:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8F60D669-4335-45F5-9A65-E017D8C241FD/0/2005ProjectsStatewide.pdf
Here is the key section:
"This project is the state's match to potential Regional funding, which is required to
complete the overall project. Ultimately the SR 169 to I-90 project will include
construction of two additional general purpose lanes in each direction and transit
improvements including park and ride expansion and HOV direct access ramps. This
section of I-405 is a major choke point on I-405 due to the existing roadway being
one lane narrower than I-405 north of I-90."
There is $150 million for this. That isn't even a "drop in the bucket" for this project. It is expected that effort will cost several BILLION dollars. I'm willing to pay for transportation improvements, but this 9.5 cents won't do anything for one of the WORST commutes in our region.
And no, I don't work for a mall - I'm just a commuter on that stretch pretty frequently who does not have the fortune of having someone else in my office who lives anywhere close to me that I can carpool with...
Posted by: Palouse on June 13, 2005 09:05 AMElger Bay Grocery Store & Gas, Camano Island
(This store is on the way to the State Park)
Tyee Store, Camano Island
Huntington Store, Camano Island
Terry's Corner DOL office, Camano Island
Stanwood -76 Station
Stanwood -Exxon
Stanwood -Napa
Stanwood -Arco
MadDog Paintball,Stanwood
The Hardware Store, Stanwood
The Computer Store, Stanwood
The Texaco, exit 212 (Stanwood Exit)you may also pick-up petitions here.
This is an effort to send a big message to Olympia with just two words, John Hancock.
Posted by: Christa on June 17, 2005 11:23 AMWe shouldn't avail ourselves of the (terribly tenuous) democratic process of citizen input, for our gov. officials are the best money can buy!!
Posted by: Ian Carr on June 18, 2005 12:10 PM1) USE SIGNAGE. IT WORKS!
What percentage of the population listens to conservative talk radio or watches TV news for that matter? Now, what percentage of the populace
puts gas in their cars, drives the highways and shops for groceries and merchandise? Everyone, or close to it? Enough said.
SIGNAGE. IT WORKS WONDERS AT TURNING BOTH HEADS AND STEERING WHEELS--AND MAKES THE MOST OF GETTING EVERY SIGNATURE WITHIN VIEWING DISTANCE--ALL THE WAY FROM THE MAIN ROAD--TO YOU!
2) REGISTER PEOPLE TO VOTE!
Getting qualified people (18+ AND a U.S. citizen) registered to vote makes them immediately eligible to sign your I-912 petition or any other WA. Initiative or Referendum.
(ALWAYS PUT AN ASTERISK ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE LINE NUMBER TO SPECIFY AS "NEWLY REGISTERED" AND TURN IN COMPLETED* REG. FORMS [*SIGNED IN BOTH PLACES--WITH A PHYSICAL ADDRESS IF THEY HAVE A P.O. BOX]--ALONG WITH THE PETITION PAGE SIGNED BY THE NEW VOTER.)
REG. FORMS AND "REGISTER TO VOTE HERE" SIGNS ARE AVAILABLE AT ANY POST OFFICE OR LIBRARY OR YOU CAN ASK TO MAKE A COPY OF THEIR "REGISTER TO VOTE HERE" SIGN AND ENLARGE ON COLORED DAY-GLOW STOCK OR PAPER--AND YOU'RE READY TO GET "CIVIC!"
People and activity draw interest, attention--and MORE people--and MORE activity. Ever filled up 10 pages in a day? Well, you can!
* Place one or two professional looking sandwich-board signs (2'x 3' or larger) near you--AND out at the main road or intersection where you're gathering; (if you've done a garage sale--you know the drill). And the bigger they are, the better they draw attention and the easier they are to read. And that's the purpose. Make sure your effort is an effective one!
Not everyone has their radios on--or listens to 570 or 770 for that matter (that probably should) when the annoucements are made about signing or petition locations, etc.--but are FOR I-912 nevertheless (some "D"s included).
But, odds are: "If they see your sign--they will come"--and sign--and tell their friends where you're at.
So, in the biggest, boldest caps you can fit onto the paper for best possible legibility at a distance (and spacing between lines is important); your sign should read or include:
NO NEW GAS TAXES!
SIGN I-912 HERE!
NO NEW GAS TAX.COM
REGISTER TO VOTE HERE
Make your signs as visible, bright, eye-catching and legible as possible. They WORK like magic--and will do most of the work for you!
What and where:
Kinkos--the same place you get the initiative forms--has blueprint copiers that can run off poster size or larger copies (including from fax or internet doc.s). Go with as large a sign as you can out at the main road. But two 11" X 17" (for upper and lower on both sides) can be made on a standard copiers and will fit onto a standard 2'x 3' pre-cut plastic signage board that's weather proof, cheap and available at any local sign shop (hinge at the top with ties , connect with string at the bottom). Laminate to protect and weather proof the printed text (yes, go the extra mile; it'll keep your signs looking sharp, readable and effective). Just attach with clear shipping tape (3M is best)--and you're set.
Without question, the addition of these two simple, very effective elements alone will help shift the I-912 effort into over-drive. And by word of mouth, ingenuity, a little technology
and an all volunteer effort, we can sprint to the finish line with signatures to spare to ensure this measure makes the November ballot. And in doing so, send a clear message to "Queen Christine" and her post-judiciary merry band of surfs in Olympia that the line is drawn--again, and in historic fashion: that government "business as usual" in this state is in it's proverbial final days.
The constitution says:
"a government of the people, by the people and for the people...".
That's what it says. But the reality is--and has always been: it's our responsibility to make sure it both is--and remains that way. The government IS us.
See ya'll out there--and happy, productive POWER petitioning.
David in Woodinville
P.S.
"The basics":
A) Always ask prospects if they're currently
registered to vote in Washington; if not, register or update those eligible (i.e.--register or re-register anyone who didn't vote in the last presidential election--who've fallen off the voter roles);
B) Always state or make sure that those with P.O. Boxes also include their physical address--or their signatures won't count;
C) You can legally fill-in any required info.
missing from the form--except the signature (don't touch);
D) ONLY GIVE NEW, UNSIGNED SHEETS TO ANYONE WANTING TO "SIGN AND BRING BACK" THE PETITION;
E) Have atleast 2 voter registration boards--and keep reg. forms under all petitioning boards;
F) Always have atleast 4-6 petition boards with pens at the ready for those sudden "stampeds" that happen (plus people may be interested--but don't always want to wait to sign...).
Otherwise, have some fun out there, remember the lasting difference you're making for all of us--and GO I-912!