Proposition 1 is as good as it's going to get
The roads-and-transit measure, expensive and flawed, is politically reasonable and pulls together the region. Defeat it and you have the same folks who cooked up this one producing Proposition 2. It's hard to see how a wiser expenditure of money is going to be formulated and approved.
Come election day, I'm going to take a deep breath and then vote for Proposition 1, the $18 billion (in 2006 dollars) roads-and-transit measure that has been tying everyone in knots. While I can well imagine a better package, I really can't foresee how the political players of this region could put Humpty Dumpty together again better, after a defeat. So if politics is the art of the possible, this proposal looks like the best possibility.
A first reason for supporting it is timing, a very big factor in all politics. We have a strong economy, so taxpayers are willing to vote to spend on things we normally put off, like infrastructure. There is a civic monkey on our backs from the defeat of the Seattle Monorail Project and plans for a waterfront solution to the Alaskan Way Viaduct, producing a desire to feel like the region can, at least once in a generation, actually do something big (besides building stadiums). We've got a Democratic hegemony in the state, which helps add some spending spine to the politicians and extracts money from the state and federal troughs. It's not going to get better than this, assuming we turn down the package and then try to pass a different one later.
My second reason, also psychological, is that passage of Proposition 1 will help create a good atmosphere for moving further along the line of sensible transit and other traffic solutions. The folks who brought us the measure after five years of hard bargaining ought to be encouraged, in my view. Certainly they rolled logs and hung ornaments on the Christmas tree. But that kind of regional brokering is a positive step toward more regional thinking and cooperation. It's been interesting to watch a new generation of political leadership emerge, figures like Julia Patterson of the King County Council, a resident of SeaTac who was raised on a small farm in South King County; Pierce County Council member Shawn Bunney, chair of the Regional Transportation Investment District; and Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg, chair of the Sound Transit board.
None is from Seattle, you notice. In fact, the one clear Seattle leader, King County Executive Ron Sims, having led the effort on Sound Transit and perhaps sensing how un-Seattlecentric it was becoming, jumped ship. At any rate, we're way past due for some effective regional politics to come to maturity and not just defer to Seattle's wishes, and this is Act I. Nor can Seattle expect, in the wake of a defeat of Proposition 1, to have any more clout, as its percentage of the regional population shrinks each year and its clout in Olympia keeps diminishing.
Paradoxically, the alternative ideas to the roads-and-transit measure will have a better chance of being adopted if Proposition 1 passes. Passage will make it a lot easier for this new land-validated leadership to incorporate the next steps in a more rational transportation policy, such as tolls, bus rapid transit, vanpools, and bike lanes. They might be able to resolve the two big battles left unresolved in the package – the Highway 520 floating bridge and the Viaduct. And once rail transit gets rolling, debates about the proper routes usually fall away and the public starts enjoying the ride, creating an appetite for more transit and better service. So I like the prospects for a positively reinforcing upward spiral, with the region pulling together, suburban tax base being tapped for urban projects like light rail, and neither the rail advocates nor the highway huggers lining up to sabotage future votes.
By contrast, defeat would be ugly, inducing a very different kind of spiral. Politicians, once they stick their necks out this far, don't get all sweet and forgiving when they are defeated. They behave like the South after losing the Civil War – looking for scapegoats, hating the victors, blaming everyone else, contemplating revenge. There would be a kind of demolition derby among the diverse opponents of Proposition 1 as they try to forge an alternative, with the sore losers egging on the food fights. Not good (though fun for the media), and likely to lead to many years before we get a new package to vote on.
It's hard to imagine that our politics, after such a monumental defeat, would move to the sunny uplands. One reason is that the same folks who brought us Proposition 1, with all its lumps and compromises, will be the folks who would fashion Proposition 2. The political realities won't change (except for the worse). The highways folks, steaming in traffic jams, still have a veto over the transit folks, dueling over their technologies – and vice versa. The Legislature still has the last say over authorizing taxes, and they still are as gunshy as ever about tax-revolt figures such as Tim Eyman (doubtless more so after the taxpayers say no). So these are the folks who will suddenly have the courage and statesmanship to start imposing tolls, slicing off service to Pierce and Snohomish counties, and gambling on a surface solution for the Viaduct?
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Thu, Oct 25, 6:15 a.m. inappropriate
Delay Sucks: Prop. 1 is large, but so are transportation problems in the region. David is right: Olympia won't fix things, and DC has other priorities. It is up to the region. The alternatives to Prop. 1 are bleak.
Joni Balter wrote a dreamy "what if?" column in the Times today complete with a whacky "word on the street" that Prop. 1 is going down. Balter is concerned about cost, ingnoring that failure now just makes everything more difficult and increases costs by roughly 4% each year we wait. Balter's preference for small fixes is an enormously costly alternative to a big problem. She obviously has trouble seeing much beyond her cobwebbed confines on a street called Fairview.
David has it right. Passage of Prop. 1 will do two things: 1. it will set improvements in motion that will serve the region for the next 100 years and 2. it will put the region in the best position to resolve immediate issues like the Alaskan Way Viaduct and the Evergreen Point Bridge, as well as tackle longer term challenges like congestion pricing and regional government reform. Some say something even better might happen: we can quit focusing civic leadership infrastructure on transportation, and focus on other priorities like: affordable housing, cleaning up the Sound and global warming.
For advocates of transportation governance reform, a No vote actually delays the day. Ditto for advocates of congestion pricing. And if you want to actually do something about greenhouse gases, the data show that moving things better, as they will under Prop. 1, produces less pollution and traffic, than doing nothing, which is the real world alternative.
People with personal alternatives to Prop. 1 need to be challenged to demonstrate how they will convince a majority of the rest of the region to find common ground with them, and in what timeframe. There are tons of good ideas out there - but none of them will solve a problem unless 50% plus one of us agree. The sad fact is that without the common ground required to act, alternatives are simply a mask for a status quo system in the face of more growth.
It is easy to defeat transportation tax measures. There's proof enough of that around here, and the results aren't pretty. One big example: a hefty tax package which attempts to fix many decades of backsliding.
It is about time we face up to it and move on.
Posted Thu, Oct 25, 8:01 a.m. inappropriate
Generational Transit: But it doesn't hold up.
The politics are tough, and from a backword looking perspective, you are completely right. But we need to look forward, not just to a better transportation future, but also to a better government. One, for example, not filled with liars out to fill their friends, and contributors, pockets.
We need to look forward - forward to a better plan and better people. The question is what can politically be done between now and the November 2008 election.
Again, the current plan is flawed - I support continued funding of light rail, but don't commit us to spending all of our discretionary tax revenues for the next fifty years for a plan that includes:
A segment between Sea-Tac and Tacoma that is not needed.
An expansion across I-90 that, due poor engineering, will never be able to reach the potential capacity of light rail that is its big selling point. (only one train can be on the bridge at any one time - 520 could be built to allow the benefits of light rail to be realized, eventually)
Bellevue may not actually want light rail, in spite of what a carefully selected 'appointed' official may state. I'd bet ten percent of my net worth that the citizens of Bellevue put a hell of a lot higher priority on the expansion of 405 - as 'evil' as some might say.
I was there when Julia Patterson was appointed (I was also there when UW Grad Student/Shorleine parent/nurse Maggi Fimia was appointed - someone Crosscut should publish) I believe it was a moderate republican with integrity, not a good ability at lying and pandering for profit, Doug Southerland who appointed her.
I was also initially impressed, but since those days her career has been managed - including a promotion to the KC Council and she has picked up the THREATENING and ABUSIVE behaviors of Jane Hague - including in response to responsible, positive, critics of Sound Transit.
I do believe John Ladenburg can help lead the way to a second submittal in one year. If he doesn't I'll be voting against him.
The time frame of transit planning is generational. Mr. Brewster this is perhaps the biggest legacy you and your cohorts can leave for the future. Will it really be step forward or is it really a step backward?
Time will tell, will it not?
Worst case is of course, allowing the scumbags to learn from the contributions of those that they F over.
Deadbeats are deadbeats, no matter how high sounding their ideas are.
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln Hill, Tacoma
P.S. Former Councilmember Jim Street was an early leader of Sound Transit - he would be good to hear from as well as Fimia and Southerland.
Posted Thu, Oct 25, 8:38 a.m. inappropriate
true: Yes, Prop 1 is pretty good. I'm voting yes.
I'm holding my nose on the amount of 405 widening. But I actually agree with 509 and of course we need to replace 520.
Mostly I'm a big fan of light rail as the spine of our transportation system going forward. Not only do I like the new lines, but the new lines will make the EXISTING line much more successful.
Speaking as a construction guy who's never worked with them, Sound Transit seems to have done an admirable job keeping cost in line, at a time when every construction customer has seen costs rise dramatically. I'm impressed that their bond rating just got upgraded, which is quite a statement.
Posted Thu, Oct 25, 9:04 a.m. inappropriate
Paragraph by paragraph, line-by-line, your advocacy of Prop 1 suggests why it needs to sink like a manhole cover in a lake.
You "can't foresee" something better? "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Proverbs 29:18. Blinders of the past and limitations of the "Seattle process" cloud your ability to see, hence think, outside a very small box.
Timing: It's never a good time to do a dumb thing. If Prop 1 is the best there is, then shoot us now and put us out of our misery; a "best" such as this is pretty awful.
Psychological: Yes, mental health therapy is in order. Why must we encourage log rollers and ornament hangers? That's not leadership, but pandering and pork pure and simple! The petulant and whiney Julia Patterson and the threatening John Ladenburg don't need encouragement; they need professional help. Shriekers and bullies need to be shown the transportation-planning door.
Seattle's clout: Right now any reason to dump Prop 1 is as good as another. If Seattle's civic nose is out of joint, I'll accept "no" votes on that basis. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But this underscores the feudal nature Prop 1: a cobbled-together hodge-podge akin to the worst of Articles of Confederation America. It's past time to chuck the notion that regional planning is the product of representatives from independent jurisdictions; a single, Pugetopolis-wide (per Mossback) transportation authority not beholden to parochial interests needs to be created by Olympia.
Consequences of Prop 1 defeat: Again, the politics of threat should never be encouraged. If regional "leaders" behave like sullen, post-Civil War Confederates, then reconstructively sack the lot. Different, regionally elected folks, need to craft a Prop 2. That Olympia or Tim Eyman hover about only serve to restrain the excesses of those who, if left to their own devices, routinely become drunk with excess.
The real world: Shall we be forced to forever wallow in the lowness of "the real world?" Or is it not our job, as my grandmother taught me, to rise above it? "Real world" thinking would have us still subject to the British Crown that, since the 40's, speaks German. Where are Lincoln's "better angels of our nature?" Browbeaten into submission by Julia Patterson's latest stomp-out-of-the-room tirade?
Sympathies and substance: Is it less a question that you "can't honestly see…" a better process resulting in a better plan, or that you won't? How can succumbing to the bad now result in something better later on? Where will the money come from for that later on better? How tapped out must we get before we rename the place Titanic?
Transportation policy should be about moving people and commerce, not subsidizing the arts or providing cosmopolitans luxurious lifestyles, etc. Elitist thinking like this will, by itself, provoke outrage among voters whose budgets force them to forego $2 movies at the Crest so their kids have school supplies and the rent money. What's next? Complementary white wine and brie for light rail commuters?
Choke points and immorality: A sop to the environmental lobby, and a slap to the majority who drive because they have to, need to, want to, will continue to because they're entitled as a matter of right to choose that option. And let's never mind herding us sheep into urban density pens thus negating our ability to get cheaper, congestion-free land and move our stinky, polluting, polar-bear-killing trucks that bring the goods necessary to maintain cosmopolitan lifestyle.
Torture: Want to know how not to torture? Dump Prop 1 and its drawing board, and then get a new one with new drawers who don't politically draw with Crayons.
A bad process cannot produce a good result.
The Piper
Posted Thu, Oct 25, 9:26 a.m. inappropriate
a suggested approach: David makes many great points, but I think his forecast for what will come next if RTID / ST2 passes is too rosy. I am wondering when we're going to see the revised forecast for the train station at Seatac? Did I miss it? I simply don't think the projections are going to hold up. The expert review committee said use 9% for construction cost estimates, not 5%. So let's think this through. 2-3 years from now, we're finally ready with a plan for 520. Meanwhile, we have more accurate info about the cost of rail. We have revised estimates for the projects voters have already approved. We have more info about the impact of global warming and the urgent need to reduce CO2. What will happen? I think there will be considerable voter frustration and we won't get a new 520.
So, here's the start of a better plan.
First, a brainstorming technique is to say "let's pick one problem and figure out everything we'd do to fix just that one problem. So one group picks CO2, another picks travel time, another picks freight mobility, another picks access to single family affordable housing." Each group comes up with solutions under two scenarios. Scenario 1: no new infrastructure, just use what we have. Scenario 2: new infrastructure allowed. What would we build? What would we need in terms of equipment? What would the total cost of ownership be.
I think this approach will focus us away from infrastructure and towards end to end solutions.
Beyond that,
I think we need to fix the worst first (520, viaduct, the 30+ roads that are in very bad shape but not funded).
I think we need a clear sense of what happens if the numbers don't come in at forecast.
I think we need taxes more closely connected to user behavior. Yes, this will be a challenge politically, but so is the sales tax. I think user fees are the the only way we're going to be able to ultimately build out the rest of our needs, and we might as well start now. I do not think congestion pricing will be easier once the sales tax increase is in place, I think it will be harder.
One of the main goals of light rail seems to be promoting transit oriented development. So, developers who benefit from the increase in property values should help pay the bill, just like the street car.
We need to think about end to end solutions that are true alternatives. Yes rail will be peachy keen, superwonderful, the greatest thing ever, if you live close to the station. But what about the rest of us? Realistically, how much will the shuttle buses cost, given that having big parking structures and having transit oriented development are mutually exclusive.
We need a clear sense of how we can reprioritize funds. Things change. Projects that make sense in our current context of gas prices, construction costs, etc may not make sense in a different context. For example, is Sounder Everett really worth several hundred million dollars? How much bus service would that buy? Unfortunately, it seems we're locked into that commitment for Everett to Seattle, never mind the cost. If the US enacts a carbon tax, decreasing the demand for roads, would we be better off buying more buses with the money used for the train? Unfortunately the structure we're locked into doesn't allow us to even consider that question.
Well, I do appreciate everyone who has worked so hard on this measure. Our political structure does not make this type of endeavor easy.
Posted Thu, Oct 25, 9:30 a.m. inappropriate
One more thing: Please, have a time limit on the taxes. My children are going to be stuck with massive bills for the accumulated federal deficit, for medicare, for social security, for environmental cleanup, for skyrocketing costs of their own health care, for dealing with global warming, for education, etc. Please GIVE THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY. 25 years max on the taxes. Not 50 years, or forever.
Posted Thu, Oct 25, 10:06 a.m. inappropriate
No. Prop 1 - No to the Cross Base Highway: While there are many other concerns for me about the overall proposal, it is the creation of the Cross-Base Highway across Fort Lewis that has cemented my vote against Proposition 1. Yes 520 needs to be replaced, yes light rail needs to expand, but the cost of obtaining those benefits cannot be the monster that is the Cross-Base Highway.
According to Conservation Northwest the proposed highway project would bisect one of the last remaining oak prairie woodlands in western Washington and destroy 162 acres of unique old-growth oak woodlands. Construction of the proposed highway endangers habitat for nineteen state and federal listed bird species and four prairie dependent species including streaked horned lark, Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, Mazama pocket gopher, and water howellia.
While Conservation Northwest is neutral on Proposition 1 (as they do not have the resources to evaluate the entire proposition), they suggest encourage voters to contact groups who specialize in transportation policy (such as Transportation Choices and the Sierra Club) to inform themselves on the costs and benefits of all the other projects in the RTID package. The Sierra Club has come out against Proposition 1.
Reject Prop. 1 and let your elected officials know that native habitat on Fort Lewis should be protected from development.
Posted Thu, Oct 25, 10:13 a.m. inappropriate
Split Prop 1 into 2 sane measures: There is no way I'm voting for this. David, sorry, you are not reading the tea leaves well regarding elected officials. State Legislators created the RTID monster and then tied RTIDs hands and sank their feet into concrete, before tossing the whole lot into polluted Puget Sound.
I will not be forced into paying for overpasses and other ornaments when Prop 1 doesn't fully fund our real priority, the 520 bridge. The rest of the roads deserve a Sierra Club-type NO. Polar Bears Against Prop 1!
The Sound Transit portion, ST2, builds rail where there are already rail alternatives, and doesn't take rail far enough into the one area where both housing and jobs are booming -- the upper Eastside. Sound Transit showed that they can construct quickly, on the elevated portions, south of MLK to the airport. The 4-mile MLK surface portion, which has nearly bankrupted hundreds of businesses, is more than a year behind schedule. An elevated ST2, with the occasional tunnel, is a better option. Those who demand tunnels, like downtown Bellevue, can pay the differential with local option taxes, in the manner of the nearly finished SLUT through Paul Allen's development corridor.
Just say no. Politicians bounce back. They always do. They always find better ways.
Posted Thu, Oct 25, 6:04 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Split Prop 1 into 2 sane measures: I guess all we can say is that there is no 'there' there. . . I am pained that what has resulted from political horsetrading is a proposal loaded with perpetual taxation. We all know that the cost of fixed rail and other projects balloon without end. That, in itself, doesn't mean that the need for mass transit should go unfunded. However the miniscule number of riders on light rail in places like San Jose, LA and even the beloved Portland are well under 1% of all commuting trips. This is a VERY steep price to pay for limited congestion relief.
Arguably, from a taxation POV, you want to make the gas tax horrendous enough to force people from their SOVs. That, of course, raises the ire of those who feel they need that independence that we've all become so DE-pendent upon and now shapes our landscape and lifestyle.
I was recently exposed to a 'fact' that goes unnoticed outside of those in transportation circles - the Seattle area has the most efficient bus system in the country. Whether or not there is verifiable certainty to that assertion deserves further exploration and, in the end, is likely a more sensible mass transit alternative. The BIG bucks proposed here should go to the highest priorty bridge/road expansion/replacements we have in the region.
On that happy note I can only take comfort in the words of M. Scott Peck in "The Road Less Traveled" - "Eternity is not some far off distant place. We are living in it now."
Posted Thu, Oct 25, 9:14 p.m. inappropriate
"Squander the money now because we can get the votes.": That's what the man said.
"A first reason for supporting it is timing, a very big factor in all politics. We have a strong economy, so taxpayers are willing to vote to spend on things we normally put off, like infrastructure."
Sorry, David, by itself that convinces me to vote 'no.' For one thing, citizens in our region hardly ever vote against infrastructure so your statement fails on it first premise.
Posted Thu, Oct 25, 10:45 p.m. inappropriate
Does it actually cost something?: The argument that we need to vote for this because, otherwise, our elected politicos will be upset is a very weak one and when someone as smart as David Brewster can't come up with anything better it shows how flawed this proposal actually is. David also misreads the political tea leaves pretty badly in my view. The cost of this measure, which David does not discuss, will be by my estimate well over $500 a year for many middle-income families, maybe more like $750, for what 20 or 25 years, or more? This is going to have a pretty big impact economically and politically -- remember, what got Tim Eyeman off the ground was the very high car tab fees of last decade. When voters see very little benefit for their money, it will very much jeopardize the Democratic tilt of the state (hardly a hegemony, after the Gregoire - Rossi squeaker) Meanwhile, we will have spent billions without addressing any of the really important transportation issues of our region.
In the past I have mostly supported big public works projects like this on grounds that building up our infrastructure is bound to pay off in the long run. But this one is just too wasteful. When I look at the current plan to extend the rail north to UW I'm amazed-- there's only one stop between downtown and UW Stadium. The train goes under very densely populated areas, but with no stops for riders to get on and off. I know of no other urban train system designed this way. With several miles between stops, we seem to be building a long distance train system, not a transit solution for a dense urban area. The ridership estimates for the trains are certainly not going to pan out if there aren't alot of stops to make it easy for people to get on and off the trains, like there are on other urban train systems. The proponents of this train system don't propose a cost-benefit analysis in support of their plan, because the costs aren't justified under any reasonable scenario of the number of riders especially if one considers the percentage of expected riders who are already taking buses.
The road plan seems a huge boondoggle, spending huge amounts without addressing any of the really important issues like the viaduct and 520 bridge. David urges that we pass this measure as a down payment on another plan to fix the big problems, probably including another levy of $500 or more per household. We're getting to some very big numbers here. If our boom of the past 20 years is repeated for the next 20 (hopefully, but hard to count on),construction will continue to boom in the private sector -- add in this multi-billion dollar public project and we're going to have a really overheated construction sector, with prices and costs escalating accordingly. And, if we pass this proposal, and yet another one for the really big projects, we're talking well over $1000 per household per year (perhaps even $1500) for a very long time. This is a big drain which will affect how much money is available for other public purposes (schools, parks, other infrastructure, etc.)
As someone (Joel Connelly I think) has pointed out, the underlying problem with our transportation planning in the Puget Sound area is a flawed political process that puts these decisions in the hands of a coalition of municipal and county officials, so we're guaranteed planning by committee, and a divided, inexpert committee at that. To vote for a poorly designed, overly expensive project that avoids the big issues, just to keep the momentum going for more similar projects seems to me the height of folly.
We could spend alot less on improved bus systems and traffic monitoring and control, for a much bigger benefit. If we're going to do big public works projects, they need to be the most important ones. I'm voting no on this flawed and overly expensive plan.
Posted Fri, Oct 26, 1:42 a.m. inappropriate
Fund "maximum rail" before "starter rail" is operating?: Some of the details of this Prop 1 deal turn me off. There are 13 pages of details in Prop 1 as printed in the County Voters Pamphlet.
Check out this gem from the Sound Transit portion of the details of Prop 1:
QUOTE
Section 6. The existing four-tenths of one percent sales and use tax, and the existing three-tenths of one percent motor vehicle excise tax approved by the voters as local-option taxes in 1996 shall continue to be levied or imposed for the purposes set forth in Resolution 75 and as provided in Sane Transit v. Sound Transit, 151 Wn.2d 60, 85 P.3d 346 (2004) notwithstanding the outcome of the election provided for herein.
UNQUOTE
I think this says, no matter how you vote on Prop 1, Sound Transit will keep collecting the taxes we approved in 1996 for the ten-year "starter rail" plan called Sound Move, known to lawyers as Resolution 75.
Why would Sound Transit put a statement like this into Prop 1, a ballot measure to be voted Yes or No? Seems like a trick...
And how about this:
QUOTE
Whereas ... Sound Transit ... has now completed or has under design most of the first-phase projects identified in Sound Move;...
UNQUOTE
This is an obscure reminder about the status of Sound Move, the ten-year "starter rail" construction program voted in 1996.
Indeed, Sound Transit does not have the first-phase Sound Move program beyond half completed, verified by looking at the revised and re-revised phase 1 ten-year capital budget, posted here.
For example, the Airport train is at least two years from completion. The "under design" light rail extension to Husky Stadium has not even officially begun its ten years of construction. These parts of "starter rail" committed in the 1996 vote do not require Prop 1 funding to be built, according to Sound Transit.
For me, the Prop 1 Question is framed by these devilish details, as follows:
Vote for Prop 1 if you like what Sound Transit is saying in the published details, and are ready to double your paid bet on a future of what the agency calls "maximum rail."
Vote NO if you want the region's citizens to consider funding "maximum rail" only after more of the 1996 "starter rail" program is built and operating successfully.
Posted Fri, Oct 26, 1:43 a.m. inappropriate
Prop 1. The Fleecing of the Lambs: With Prop 1. winners are developers, unions, property owners, big businesses (i.e., Microsoft) and city governments. Also winners are those who someday will live in expensive down-town condos or who now have cushy office jobs in downtown office towers. Unfortunately, these are not the people who are paying for most of the Light Rail Pork Barrel. Instead, we're spreading the cost across those who will make 96% of the non-light-rail trips in the region. Tax the poor and give to the rich. Crazy.
The Growth Management Act requires that growth pay for growth. In our suburban cities, we're trying to make developers and new residents do just that. But Prop 1. defies the GMA and seeks to push taxes on all of us. The millions who are supposedly coming to the region to live in the new transit-oriented developments sprinkled throughout the ST2 web should be paying for light rail. And the easy way to do that is to set the price appropriately. Light rail users are slated to pay less than 2% of the costs over 20 years (1.3% by my calculation) yet are being called on to pay only an average of $2 per trip. This suggests that the actual cost over the 20yr period will be over $50 per ride! Was there ever a cost-benefit analysis done for this Fiasco? Is there no cost too high for the Prop 1. zealot? Doesn't a potential of $150 billion in taxes for 50 years at $2000 per household worry anyone? Can there be any less rational decision in local politics than voting FOR Prop 1?
Realize that Roads and Transit is the evil spawn of a shotgun marriage. It's like a Shia/Sunni plan for spending oil revenue. Prop1 will allow congestion to get even worse in the region and will insanely spend the majority of Prop 1. monies on transit and not roads even though light rail is projected to server only 4% of the population. Probably all Sunni.
A Proposition 1 Plan B should not be hard to come up with. But don't bring another Proposition to the people until a clear plan exists to lower and limit expenses, to do the Viaduct and 520 completely, to limit taxes to 20 years, to tax the people who will gain most, to directly address global warming, to significantly fund with user fees, to do development in 10 years not 20, and to do true least-cost planning for various alternatives to the plan.
Posted Fri, Oct 26, 9:31 a.m. inappropriate
It's the cross BASE hwy: I'm am not unsympathetic to the need for the preservation of low elevation wild space/habitat.
I'll have to say though this looks like a case of knee jerk army/white male/america haters more than a substantive argument. I am certainly open to hearing more, but from this perspective, it looks like just another 60's era attack on those individuals who have risked their lives for the protection of this country, wisely led or not.
It is a BASE first - and if wilderness can be added as a part of the corridor FANTASTIC. How about just working to add wildlife passage to the road design parameters. It could turn out to be a very beautiful road, and a model for other urban perimeter highways.
FWIW, Ladenburg's positioning on the cross base is the one thing that makes me thing he will be a leader post Prop. 1 arena. I hope we see proposals that make sense to preserve this wilderness area - perhaps even as an on-base park??? - while also allowing for the improved access to this BASE and all of the AMERICANS that call it home.
FWIW, I've long been a supporter of low-elevation wilderness - starting with the wilderness segment of Oregon's Middle Fork of the Santiam, back in the late 70's. It is really pitiful how little wilderness river there is in either Oregon or Washington. The removal of the Elwha damn will do much to improve that situation. I don't know much about Puget Sound Prairie, but I'd certainly read more.
You haven't made your case, and your negotiating position looks weak.
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln Hill, Tacoma
Posted Fri, Oct 26, 9:33 a.m. inappropriate
Penumbras: Blame it on the Penumbra of alcoholic legal professionals....
-D.
Posted Fri, Oct 26, 9:41 a.m. inappropriate
Lean Math for the Numerically Illiterate: "Squander the money now because we can get the votes."
That says it all in single sentence. For more on a related topic see:
A Blog
-DT
Posted Fri, Oct 26, 3 p.m. inappropriate
The Piper
Posted Fri, Oct 26, 4:09 p.m. inappropriate
TIME TO REDEFINE INFRASTRUCTURE: I SAY VOTE NO . BEFORE WE BUILD NEW LANES, NEW ROADS, AND/OR EXTEND LIGHT RAIL, WE NEED TO FIX WHAT WE'VE GOT. THIS MEASURE DOES NOT FULLY FUND THE 520 BRIDGE, AND WE NEED TO REPLACE AGING BRIDGES AND CRUMBLING ROADS FIRST.
AND TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, I UNDERSTAND THE CAR TAB FORMULA THAT WOULD BE USED FOR FINANCING IS THE ONE THAT GAVE TIM EYMAN HIS FIRST WIN. DO YOU REMEMBER HOW THAT FORMULA DID NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL VEHICLE VALUE? I WISH THE POLITICIANS WOULD GET WISE AND USE 'BLUE BOOK' VALUATIONS.
FINALLY, WHY DO WE HAVE TO ASSUME THERE WILL BE A GAZILLION MORE PEOPLE HERE IN X-NUMBER OF YEARS?
Posted Sun, Oct 28, 8:19 p.m. inappropriate
oh well, the traffic here isn't that bad: My my, in this topsy-turvy world, David Brewster finds it in his heart to endorse Prop 1. A bit of a surprise, but welcome news anyway. My favorite line of the campaign, from a recent Slog entry:
Any package that is opposed by both Kemper Freeman and the Sierra Club must be doing something right.
How typically Seattle the anti's are -
Hate the traffic, but don't want to pay for improvements; Don't want light rail, Don't want more roads, It costs too much, It takes too long, It doesn't do enough, It doesn't do anything where I live ...
It's the same old story with any compromise - is there enough there for enough people to pass it? Light rail systems have had difficult births in other cities, and whether Prop 1 survives or is stillborn, we're sort of the same.
How we're different is that we're the last major city in the West without a functional mass transit system. We have a fairly high gas tax, a regressive tax system in general, and deteriorating roads and bridges that were designed for our needs 50 years ago. We also have the state's largest city which has a habit of expecting to get its way with the lege every year. In a way, Prop 1 is an end run around the morass.
Will it pass? I don't know, I was never comfortable with the earlier Elway numbers indicating majority support in the first place. I still think it's a tossup (the Forward Thrust rapid transit bonds of 1968 received 50.8% of the vote, even in the face of BART's concurrent construction problems), but I also suspect that Prop 1's saving grace may be that it's not all about Seattle anymore. It's a regional solution, it's been designed and marketed that way, and it seems some stuffed shirts are getting their thongs tied in a knot because of that. Which is a good thing, for entertainment value if nothing else.
If Prop 1 passes, it will be the end of an era, while we wait for the inevitable lawsuits to extend the agony. If it fails, the sun will still rise in the east, and we can all enjoy our traffic nightmare for another few years. As they say, it'll be all over but the shouting - until next time.
In the meantime, a similarly-sized city a few hours to our south, Portland, has the largest standalone light rail system in the country. Not only is it a roaring success, it's still expanding, 25 years after it's own difficult birth. Another few hours to the south is San Francisco, with BART, in operation for 35 years. I have difficulty imagining either Portland or San Francisco without their successful rail systems, and I have trouble imagining Seattle WITH one.
Seattle's trademark isn't the Space Needle, it's the lousy traffic here and the local masochists who don't know another way of living. Be it ever so gridlocked, there's no place like home.
Well, that's my concession speech if Prop 1 fails. For now:
YES on Prop 1
We've dealt with our Eisenhower-era transportation system long enough, and I've been shouting long enough. Just do it.
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 7:11 a.m. inappropriate
Sue Rahr and the KC Criminal Justice Council: If you weren't aware the Criminal Justice Council is an ad-hoc body comprised of 'leaders' in various segments of King County's various legal functions. It's only public existence that I've discovered is a press release by Larry Gossett, several years ago.
No doubt there are a few alchoholics among them - elected officials as well. I suspect Sue Rahr is not among them, but is certainly subject to their 'influences'. Sue needs to arrest Jane Hague for threatening her officers. Julia Patterson is not far behind her in that pattern of spoilage fostered by the gentleman Norm Maleng, but I suspect she has not yet risen to the point of criminal activity.
I certainly agree that alcoholic politics are as much a part of the problem as those in the legal profession.
FWIW, the police are justified in shooting non-responsive predators - in the presence, or absence, of any drug, including alcohol.
-Doug