I'm guessing somebody will have a really new poll on Initiative 912 out before long, but there are some just-now-released results of a Sept. 22-25 Elway Poll. It was an independent survey done by phone, with live interviewers, of a random sample of 405 registered voters statewide. KOMO-TV had this report, today. Bad news for proponents of the gas-tax-hike-rollback measure: 48 percent of those polled are against it, 41 percent for it and 11 percent undecided. Margin of error was plus or minus five percentage points.
The KOMO report failed to note the results were a month old, but that's what we're here for. I just spoke to Stuart Elway, and learned when the poll was taken. When I asked why the news just came out today, Elway replied, "I think somebody must have faxed it around this week."
I should note that Elway Poll results have always had a way of leaking out, from subscribers. The only media who get the report directly from Elway Research are the ones who pay for it, like other subscribers. Anyway, it's interesting that I-912 opponents - a group which includes some regular Elway Poll subscribers - held the data back so long. Coming as it does now, it may give their campaign added momentum. Late September, when this latest round of polling on 912 was done, was BEFORE the big business community blitz against the initiative had begun to kick into high gear.
It's the third round of polling on I-912 by Elway Research. The measure got 55 percent support in the first round of polling, in June. It appears the latest (pro-gas-tax-hike, anti I-912) results cannot be explained by a Democrat-heavy sample; Elway told me that 28 percent of those polled identified themselves as Ds, 29 percent as Rs. Forty-three percent said they were independents, or declined to give party affiliation (love those Washington voters!). One-third of respondents were frequent voters ("three of fours" of higher), and two-thirds were less frequent voters, but, noted Elway, there were no real disparities in the results between the two different types of voters.
Elway told me he thinks Hurricane Katrina TV coverage may have helped swing public sentiment against I-912, in these latest polling results. He noted we're particularly attuned to the potential impact on public infrastructure of natural disasters here - earthquakes, in our case - and that "night after night of horrific video" from New Orleans and adjacent areas showing "failed public infrastructure" may have left many Washington voters feeling that now is "maybe not the best time to start under-investing in infrastructure."
Elway added that support was never really as strong for I-912 as some thought. The huge number of petition signatures gathered in a short time to get the measure on the November ballot tended to obscure the fairly modest 55 percent support expressed for it in the first round of polling, Elway said. "Fifty-five percent in June isn't that high for an anti-tax measure," he added.
Large amounts of money are being pumped into the anti-912 campaign now by business interests, but then, biz here has done that before to support more road-building taxes. It didn't work on Referendum 51 a few years ago; that got shot down hard despite the big bucks.
The "Yes" on I-912 crowd still has a chance, but will just have to work harder. Its leaders and followers must reach a broader audience than just the usual conservative strongholds and elite discussion forums. They must engage in less government-bashing, self-congratulatory preening, vitriol, and snarkiness. Most of all, leaders of the "Yes" campaign would really help their cause by biting the bullet and offering a detailed alternative plan on what to do if and when I-912 passes. Passage would mean the 9.5 cent per gallon gas tax hike approved by the legislature earlier this year - and thus $5.5 billion in planned roads project spending statewide - is rescinded. If I-912 supporters don't offer an alternative, they risk looking like unconstructive gripers, and the campaign's fortunes could slide further before Election Day.
UPDATE, 10/19/05: 623 likely Washington state voters were polled by Survey USA's robo-callers on 10/11 and 50 percent told the dulcet-voiced robot they'd vote for for I-912 to repeal the spring '05 gas tax hike passed by legislature, while 42 percent said they'd vote against the initiative. The rest were undecided. (Margin of error, plus or minus 4 points).
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 18, 2005 04:58 PM | Email ThisWith all that said, a question that wasn't asked, or even brought up, is how many people supported having I-912 on the ballot and maybe signed the petition even yet aren't going to vote for it.
I'm one of them and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I do have pause to wonder how the chips will fall with the pro tax media blitz . However I was among those out collecting signatures and spoke to WAY more voters than the Elway polsters.
1 in 100 voters want this tax. 99 out of 100 voters believe (passionately) that the legislature screwed the pooch this session. I had trouble filling my petitions because most had already signed.
As Covey would say- the legislature and Gregoire have very little capital in the emotional bank account of voters right now. I doubt that cloud is going to lift anytime soon.
Posted by: Andy on October 18, 2005 07:16 PMI firmly believe there is a mixup among poll responders as to supporting the initiative or supporting the tax--or alternatively being against the tax versus being against the initiative. Remember that the last initiative regarding gas taxes was to RAISE them not to REPEAL them.
Hopefully they aren't confused when they actually vote. If they aren't, I think the initiative passes with big margins. I have no doubt that the majority is against the tax and in favor of the initiative.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 18, 2005 07:23 PMContribute whatever you can to the $100K program John Carlson is promoting to match the communists media lie campaign against I-912.
That’s where action can be meaningful.
What the yes crowd needs to do is emphasize that they will promote a smaller gas tax increase - with more efficiency in projects and additional revenue sources for this special cause as opposed to the inefficiency and additional burdens of the 9.5 cent gas tax increase over 3 years. It is true that new infrastructure is needed soon, and it is conceivable that a new tax package could be approved by the PEOPLE, not the Legislature like this one was by next November and the proponents of I-912 should vow to move forward but more efficiently. Transfer the pork from DSHS to the real need - rebuilding roads for one. That will be more likely when I-900 passes.
Posted by: KS on October 18, 2005 08:23 PMVoters in King, Sno. and Pierce Counties: if this measure loses, RTID and it's unlimited taxes will be on the 2006 ballot for you, with the following proviso: vote for RTID's onerous taxes, or all of the gas tax increase money (that I-912 would prevent from being collected) actually will go to some other set of projects that the ruling transportation cabal at the time will deign to select.
Posted by: Mr. Mustard on October 18, 2005 09:02 PMReflexively saying "no" is neither intelligent nor creative, and it only works for so long. At some point civic duty trumps narrow self-interest. Or it converges -- as when, for instance, one realizes that the viaduct pancaking on one's spouse or child is a less desirable outcome than paying a few cents extra tax per gallon of gas.
It's also amusing that the Rs here scorn their otherwise natural allies in business on such an issue (as they likewise do on anti-gay bigotry and affirmative action, for instance). Golly, aren't you the folks that constantly trumpet the rock hard rational calculus of bizness sense as manifested by our Captains of Industry? What's gotten into the minds of Boeing, Microsoft, et al. to make them become such wobbly liberal pantywaists?
Posted by: bartelby on October 18, 2005 09:24 PMWhy do you insist on posting these "Liberal in RINO's clothing" threads?
Come out of the closet for what you truly are....
I thought this was a conservative blog?
You post liberal spin under the guise of some veiled conservative bent....And you post this crap way too much on the front page instead of hiding some in an extended story link....
The PI has nothing on you...
What are you up to?
There was enough money to fix these "safety" issue projects in the budget--- the legislature simply chose not to prioritize them as such for the past 3-4 years since the earthquake.
The earthquake was years ago---the damage was known as was the approximate cost of repair. So why would Gregoire PROMISE no gas tax increase and then welch on that promise in her first month in office?
We see lips moving- but all that comes out is lies and noise. The pancaked women and children can be Locke and Gregoire's legacy...not the voters.
Posted by: Andy on October 18, 2005 10:12 PMNovember 1, 2004:
Stuart Elway had Christine Gregoire beating Dino Rossi by 8 points.
Nuff Said
Posted by: T.J. on October 18, 2005 10:34 PMWell, reflexively saying "yes" to every tax increase strikes me as being neither intelligent nor creative as well.
As for pancaking viaducts, the argument sounds strikingly similar to neglected levees in New Orleans.
It would seem local politicians would rather polish their bloated over-budget light rail wet-dream, instead of spending the dollars on required safety repair/upgrade of the viaduct.
Posted by: Shaun on October 18, 2005 10:49 PMAlso...I love how Bill Gates has donated to the anti 912 campaign. He gives millions to Africa and other third world nations (where most of the donation was probably ill used) but when it comes to changes he personally wants to make here, where he and a great deal of his employees live...he gives money to make others pay for what he wants...How sad. Basically he's giving money to a campaign to take money out of my wallet. Thanks Bill. I used to be a big supporter of yours. Gas taxes hit the poorest people hardest. I guess he doesn't care about the cleaning staff at Microsoft.
Posted by: Mark D on October 19, 2005 03:18 AMRight on! I too have grown weary of Matt's postings. Matt isn't a Rino...he's a leftist social engineer. Most of his posts on social issues are liberal, anti-family garbage. The Republican tent is large, but how big do you want it? Should anyone calling themself a conservative be allowed in?
Don't get me wrong. This is an excellent topic for discussion, and yes, fiscally responsible conservatives should avoid complacency on I-912. But let's not go about quoting unscientific polls conducted months ago as evidence the sky is falling. If you're looking for attention, Matt, post this BS on horsesass. If you want to contribute, do your homework like Stefan, Jim and Marsha.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 19, 2005 05:38 AMI just don't understand why the ultra rich and big business want to force us little guys to pay more taxes.
Posted by: Brent from Clark County on October 19, 2005 07:14 AMThe story seemed to be a poster-child for the waste of taxpayers' dollars and mismanagement of yet another transportation project...but would be in direct contradiction to the Times stated opposition of Initiative 912.
There was no follow up to this story, and no letters to the editor published concerning it. Is the Times mismanaging the news again?
Also, the story was very careful to ensured that prominence was given only to "Former Metro, federal and state transportation official", "then-Seattle City Councilman", Former King County Councilman", "former King County Councilwoman", but with the longevity of politicians in King County and Seattle City politics, one must wonder what current elected officials were being given cover by not being mentioned.
No one is accusing Boeing, Microsoft, et al. of being wobbly liberal pantywaists like yourself. They are accusing
Boeing, Microsoft, et al., of siding with corrupt Democrat liberal pantywaists like yourself against the public interest
for short term benefits.
While being pro-business is not ipso facto pro-corruption, being pro Democrat is by no means anti-corruption.
You obviously favor huge tax increases on false pretenses that do nothing to help our region.
Corporations will benefit from the same short term inveiglement, but in the long run they win no matter what
because they get fat contracts and simply pass on the increased costs of poor transporatation systems to us,
while you and I lose all of the way around.
Apperently you take everything you hear on faith so long as it matches your simple minded liberal prejudices.
How do you suppose Boeing, Microsoft, et al. will benefit from fixing the Alaskan Way viaduct you friggin' dim wit?
Why would either care in the least about mass transit? How stupid are you?
The BIGGEST difference between you and I is that you refuse to see the truth.
Further proof that Democrats will believe anything, so long as there are absolutely no facts involved.
Perhaps if Democrats, who alway compain about corporate welfare, asked corporations to contribute to their precious viaduct instead of sticking it to the little guys they pretend to represent, they wouldn't look so hypocritical.
Posted by: pbj on October 19, 2005 11:47 AMAnti-912 signs are showing up all around the North Sound, including in my off the beaten of Stanwood.
Matt- as for the Katrina coverage, conservatives are just coming around to what was really exposed there. True, the government failed those people, but that's because Louisianna is run by people who think government is the solution to every problem. The same groupthink that compounded the Katrina aftermath cannot be allowed to take root here!
So, here's what you all need to do today:
1) write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, and take a populist approach (read: big business wants us to foot the tax bill)
2) stress why we want to repeal the tax (read: sending a message to Olympia)
3) The anti-912 people are saying that 912 won't fix the highway/parking lot you are trying to navigate during your commute. Emphasize that the Dems have had the past 20 years to fix transportation, and we won't let 5 billion more of our tax dollars go to the blackhole!!!
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on October 19, 2005 02:01 PM"Within Seattle, a typical HOV lane serves twice as many people as a general-purpose lane during peak commutes, according to a 2002 study by the Washington State Transportation Center at the University of Washington."
"Local HOV ridership grew 17 percent between 1998 and 2000. One of every 25 freeway users switched from single-person trips to some type of ridesharing during the two years, the center found."
"Nearly all of the articles in the Seattle Times either misquote statistical information in order to skew the facts or lie altogether for politically partisan reasons, and because this is so they are entirely useless as an authoritative source of information (except for similarly biased liberals)."
"Illegal use of the HOV lanes rose by an average 38% over the period between 1989 and 2004, the center found."
Just the facts:
The National Observer trumps the Seattle Times.
"How the new gas tax would be spent
The 9.5-cent gas tax would raise about $7.1 billion for state transportation projects.
$3.3 billion: Roadway safety, including replacing the damaged Alaskan Way Viaduct and work to reduce collisions
$3 billion: Choke points and congestion relief, including new highway lanes, ramps and interchanges
$541 million: Freight mobility, including new rail lines, railroad overpasses and highway improvements for truck traffic
$186 million: A new state ferry and ferry-terminal work
$108 million: Environmental work, including erosion control, noise reduction and storm-water management
$95 million: Multimodal improvements, including railroad work and King Street Station track improvements
$500,000: Preservation, to repair unstable slopes in Mason County"
Source: Washington State Department of Transportation
One project would build new ramps in Renton where Highway 167 and I-405 intersect, a spot the Department of Transportation says is one of the three worst bottlenecks in the state.
Other I-405 projects would add one lane in each direction between the Highway 181 and I-5 interchanges in Tukwila, and a general-purpose northbound lane between Northeast 124th and 160th streets near Bothell. That would extend the extra lane that now ends at Totem Lake to the Highway 522 interchange.
In all, the new tax would pay for six miles of new general-purpose lanes and ramps on I-405."
"Other highway-expansion projects in the tax package include:
Clark County: Adding one lane in each direction on Highway 502 from I-5 to Battle Ground.
Grant County: Expanding a three-mile segment of Highway 17 from two lanes to four, completing the corridor from Interstate 90 to the Grant County International Airport.
King County: Building northbound and southbound transit/HOV lanes on Highway 99 from North 145th Street to North 165th Street; adding a third lane on eastbound Highway 518, and extending HOV lanes from Auburn into Pierce County.
Kittitas County: Beginning construction on a new section of I-90 from Hyak to Keechelus Dam to move the freeway away from avalanche areas.
Pierce County: Building HOV lanes on I-5 from 38th Street to the Port of Tacoma Road; widening Highway 410 in Buckley, building two additional lanes; building direct HOV connectors between Highway 16 and I-5.
Snohomish County: Widening and improving seven intersections along Highway 9 from Clearview to Arlington.
Thurston County: Designing and purchasing right of way for a new four-mile, three-lane corridor on Highway 510 in Yelm."
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 19, 2005 06:48 PM"Initiative supporters say the state needs to add general-purpose highway lanes to handle the growing number of cars and trucks."
"The state agrees to a point, and the 9.5-cent gas tax would pay for 115 new miles of general-purpose lanes at a cost of $1.2 billion."
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 19, 2005 10:05 PMSo....you are trying to show us that you are a sound-bite for the Seattle Times? Are you implying that what the Times reports is factual? Where do they get their data?......
No one trusts the state to do ANY of the projects they are reporting in their effort to derail I 912! No one!
It's just smoke and mirrors. A combination of marketing and fear mongering....Just what the liberals are famous for!
By contrast Spokane, which is 7% of the population, only gets 2.5% of the outlays. Is it any wonder why they want to secede?
I guarantee you if you break it down by legislative districts the numbers are even more obscene.
Anyone non-contractor who votes against this initiative outside of King County is a moron.
I'm all for making improvements--this does not include HOV lanes--to infrastructure.. but it's not right to make people in Spokane pay for I-405.
It should be paid for with local sales taxes.
Posted by: Jim on October 20, 2005 06:58 AMA little secret.. the others who post in here are not a whole heck of a lot more 'conservative' than he is. They seem to all live in the cities or suburbs around Seattle and the eastside. My guess is they are going through some real inner turmoil with Harriet Miers.. I bet they really cringe (or possibly just sneer) when Mini-Me plays up her evangelical Christianity.
Posted by: Jim on October 20, 2005 07:13 AMLet's have the neocons design the transportation system in Washington State.
They've done such a good job in Iraq.
We could have a roadside bomb lane!
Posted by: Doigenese on October 20, 2005 08:36 AMUpfront: I'm voting for 912. You mention the disparity in spending by counties, but it is my understanding, and I welcome correction here, that King and Pierce counties, along possibly with Snohomish and Spokane, ie, the urban centers, have historically been the cash cows for the rest of the state on transportation spending. Is this not the first measure that reveses this subsidy from the urban to the rural areas?
Related, and again, help me out here, if the passage of 912 paves the way for transportation districts, ie for the local spending of gas tax revenues, won't that work against the rural areas of the state.
Posted by: Mike Davis on October 20, 2005 01:47 PMprove to me that King County generates fully 60% of gas and sales tax revenues for the entire state and I might go along with your premise.
Plain and simple the legislation is predatory.
Posted by: Jim on October 22, 2005 12:20 PMYou proved your whole point for eveyone that the dogmatic repetition of baseless lies to the minds of liberal idiots equals "facts."
Yes indeed, keep it up. I-912 is going to pass big time!!!
You guys crack me up. Did you cry like this when the GOP congress passed its massive $286B highway bill in August? Nooo, because that's BORROW & spend.
You cry a lot about local corporate giants opposing I-912. But not one peep about the out-of-state corporate giants charging WAY more than a dime extra per gallon, reaping record profits & siphoning all that money away forever. You think that's NOT a tax? How much of that money fixes our roads?
Face it: Roads -- explicitly mandated by the US Constitution -- won't build or maintain themselves. And your anti-govt ideology & obstructionism simply won't get the job done.
Is the gas tax a magic wand? No. But it IS a step in the right direction, fixing the transportation funding pothole left behind by the short-sighted passage of I-776.
Posted by: casual observer on October 28, 2005 11:46 PM