Print
Email
Let me kick off a discussion, among our writers and you readers, of the turning points of the past year, and where they may be pointing. We'll post subsequent thoughts in reverse order, with the newest ones topping the list. Please feel free to join the comment thread, and we'll pull some of the most interesting of those reader comments into the main story as well.
I see the past year as one of growing up, whether that means getting away from the sterile polarizations of the George Bush years or facing up to the contradictions of the recent decade of hyper-capitalism. Two recent elections help make this case for how we are getting serious.
The first was the election of 2007, when local voters chose solid experience for three key legislative bodies, over a unsolid mavericks that we had indulged in the years before. Thus, encouraging figures such as Tim Burgess on the City Council, Gael Tarleton on the Port, and Sherry Carr on the Seattle School Board (along with others) came into office. Now we will see if they can take hold. And also if the media can move beyond the juicy stories of screw-ups in the previous regime (particularly at the Port) and pay more attention to what these level-headed, experienced pragmatists can do about revitalizing their institutions. So far the City Council, thanks in large part to the smart leadership of Richard Conlin, the new council president, has made the most strides. I fear the School Board is about to come a cropper (as many have before) over the issue of school closures. The Port is playing from a weak hand, as its business declines and moves to other ports. (King County and the Legislature remain unreformed.)
The second election was this past fall, when the Obama effect joined with a get-serious mood. Tim Eyman's foolish initiative against modern transportation ideas was handily trounced (special thanks to Doug MacDonald), and the curse of indecision on rail transit was finally laid to rest when we voted in Sound Transit 2 (special thanks to Mayor Greg Nickels). Yes, we can move on! (Next test, the Viaduct.)
The sad irony in all this is that we are moving forward politically right at the time when the economy is collapsing, taking away the wherewithal to do much. And, with it, the confidence of our business leadership (those enablers of Washington Mutual's demise and Safeco's sale) is sinking. (Likewise, the state Republican Party.) We have fear itself to fear, at least locally.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Sun, Dec 28, 6:33 p.m. Inappropriate
David-
'Previous Regime', 'Experienced Pragmatists' - all what we need, but I'm still waiting to see it. Prove me wrong, but I'm doubtful - it all too often that the the so-called reformers are just the smartest of the scammers. There are certainly plenty of examples of that around here.
Building 'regimes' with people of integrity takes time.
You won't be one of those people Mr. Brewster, but, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Posted Mon, Dec 29, 7:43 a.m. Inappropriate
David - Please advise as to what would constitute reform in the legislature, in your opinion.
Posted Mon, Dec 29, 8:51 a.m. Inappropriate
It is more than a little distrurbing when a member of the State Legislature doesn't know what might constitute "reform" in her own body. You are right Deb, everything is just perfect, your party has controlled every aspect of State Government for the last couple of sessions and the Governors Mansion for over 20 years, at last we have Utopia! Need some change? getting away from the sterile polarizations of one party rule may help, but you would have to look to a Katrina like disaster for that to happen.
Posted Mon, Dec 29, 10:25 a.m. Inappropriate
Debo asks a fair question. I would start by having the Democratic caucus asset more independence of Speaker Frank Chopp, who now exerts a stranglehold on bills that can come to the floor for debate and vote. I'd create a bipartisan Greater Seattle caucus, including House and Senate, so that urban measures are worked out and have enough votes to stand a chance against the rural and anti-Seattle forces. I'd ask the leadership in both chambers to pull together a small set of clear and publicly stated priorities, so they are not just reacting to the Governor's budget or blaming the Governor for things they don't like. These should not be vast generalizstions (like jobs, education, transportation, the Chopp mantra) but much more specific and ambitious and quantitative. And I'd use the fiscal emergency to create a mood of "solutionism," which I define as a bipartisan, pragmatic approach to solving big problems that affect people in direct ways.
Posted Mon, Dec 29, 11:39 a.m. Inappropriate
Thanks, David.
(1) I'm not sure that Frank exerts a stranglehold so much as he's developed a process for bringing a bill to the floor. Bills that won't pass, due to insufficient support, don't get put on the floor calendar. Some people believe that the votes would CHANGE and votes in favor of certain bills would materialize, if only the bill was brought to the floor. I'm a great believer in public debate, but the processes in play in Olympia are a little more complex than the local city council meeting. I think Frank's process allows a more efficient way of doing the people's business and diminishes the potential for drama. That said, I was annoyed with a couple of the decisions made. But it's called a "majority" caucus for a reason.
(2) There are so few Republicans left w/in the "Greater Seattle" area (5th District comes to mind) that I don't see rural and anti-Seattle forces having much muscle. Could you give me an example?
(3) Leadership suggestion, for shared priorities. AGREED!!!! Especially the need for these priorities to be specific and quantitative.
(4) The current fiscal emergency doesn't call out so much for "reform", IMHO, as it offers us an opportunity to defeat - or at least seriously wound - some sacred cows. The small legislative task force working on basic education funding is a case in point. They've presented a way for us to move into a more merit-based compensation schedule for teachers (and thus, perhaps, an improvement in pay scale, long term), something that has been almost impossible to talk about for some years. Too, maybe we can talk about some of the more marginal tax breaks, instead of leaving them undisturbed because there will be a dust-up.
Deb Eddy
Posted Mon, Dec 29, 12:30 p.m. Inappropriate
Well, I'm not writer, but I'll take a swing at this "fair question".
Let's listen to Ross Hunter try to split the hair, as interviewed after the December 1st meeting of the Joint Task Force Local Financing Options for King County.
Right about the 4 minute mark through 4:30 is the icing on this cake, "There is no natural jurisdiction", said the STATE chair of the task force that was put together for this one issue.
listen to Ross Hunter here:
http://media.thenewstribune.com/images/blogmedia/users/ericwilliams/Rosshuntertalks.mp3
I give him a lot of credit for articulating his preference, and I agree with his preference, but it is just a preference and not any kind of cogent plan, process, or control by the directly effected communities. Why is Joe Zarelli even on that task force? The answer is that he is a caucus committee leader. . . from the 18th Legislative District.
from the Tacoma news Tribune here:
http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/sonics/2008/12/02/p34558#more34558
How did we end up with a task force? Ask Frank Chopp.
Pages SHB 2765?
SSB 6156?
Ring any bells?
Why does the mayor of Seattle joke about seceding from the county and state?
Frustrated by the state and federal gridlock on solving Seattle's transportation problems, Mayor Greg Nickels suggested secession at a Thursday luncheon.
"Our region should declare its independence," Nickels said.
The Puget Sound regional economy makes up 67 percent of the state's economic activity, he said. "If we were a country, [our economy] would be just a little smaller than Thailand. We would be larger than Colombia, Venezuela. We are held back because our state and federal government still believe our economies are driven by wheat farms and timber logging."
Nickels spoke as part of a CityClub round table at Town Hall with Bellevue Mayor Grant Degginger and Redmond Mayor John Marchione.
Nickels suggested the region start by putting the Puget Sound Regional Council "on steroids."
The 32-member board, Nickels said, should shrink and take greater control of how to spend state transportation funds.
Nickels spokesman Marty McOmber later said the mayor's comments at lunch — such as, "I am serious when I say we ought to talk about independence" — were meant to be tongue-in-cheek. The mayor was venting his frustration after the state opposed transportation projects and gun-control legislation he wanted.
"We have rural legislators making decisions on things like the viaduct and whether we can keep our city safe," Nickels said.
more here:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004357406_mayors18m.html
Why do we have all these commissions?
Gosh, I have no idea, and neither does the legislature.
BTW, Hunter doesn't mention the 2.5 million dollars in B&O; taxes the state gets from the business of the NBA in the state, the last franchise was here for 41 years, never mind the other 88% of the open dates that are non-NBA events do not generate as much revenue as they possibly could, distract Seattle haters and and anybody else withing ear shot with the evil 12% of professional men's sports, we are cows to be milked for the rest of the state as long as we are sliced up into single issues discussed in commissions and task forces at the state level with people that have zero vested interest in the local community, none.
I have 74 acres of decay in the middle of my city, a white elephant of an arena (say good-bye to the T-Birds this week), and for some strange reason Joe Zarelli is involved. Nothing against Joe, but I doubt he wanted to drive to Bellevue to hear Cougs whine about huskies.
Posted Mon, Dec 29, 12:38 p.m. Inappropriate
BTW, how about that Choppaduct. There is a fine example of Chopp participating in a process.
Posted Mon, Dec 29, 12:49 p.m. Inappropriate
Nickels, through direction to the multiple Sound Transit lobbyists working Olympia during session, vehemently opposed putting the Puget Sound Regional Council "on steroids" when we tried to discuss it in 2007.
Just to be clear: The city of Seattle comprises almost 600,000 people within the borders of King County. Last time I checked, I think there were well over 875,000 people in King County municipalities outside of Seattle. And we've not even begun to count the interests/population of Pierce and Snohomish County.
I've not yet listened to the tape, but my suspicion is that Rep. Hunter was alluding to this fractured state of affairs, the multiplicity of jurisdictions that constitutes our metropolitan region. There may not be any "natural jurisdiction."
Welcome to the conundrum that makes any regional problem harder to solve. Everyone wants their way, of course; a solution has to have sufficient political support that we can actually implement it.
Mayor Nickels' dismissal of agriculture as an element of our economy was, to say the least, unfortunate.
Posted Mon, Dec 29, 2:25 p.m. Inappropriate
No natural juristiction for local solutions, at every level is a problem to be solved, and not a "welcome to" destination.
I am not part of your inside "we", and find the contextural exclusivity offensive.
Do not completely miss the point, your argument about Nickels is an example within the Tri-county area, urban vs agra, expanding that same conflict of priorities to the state level is the same thing.
Why in the world is Joe Zarelli on a task force for King County Local Financing?
I watched the kickoff meeting on tvw, joe would just assume let those hotel taxes go away. I am glad he has that right to that opinion, but it's poorly formed institutional power is absurd.
Why not have Idaho have a vote on our budget, we might plan on something that involves possibly asking for federal money? Not a perfect example on an even larger scale, but similar enough for the skirted point.
Posted Mon, Dec 29, 2:45 p.m. Inappropriate
"We" means us. The citizenry of the state. I meant no contextual exclusivity; I'm sorry to have given that impression. We - all of us - are in this together. Now more than ever.
Joe Zarelli is on that task force because the constitution of the state of Washington puts all taxing authority in the state legislature, and much of state decision making is done (and has been done, historically) in a purposefully bipartisan way. The Republican leadership appointed him. That's all the justification that's needed. Whatever recommendations come out of the task force have to pass legislative muster, anyway.
Posted Mon, Dec 29, 4:49 p.m. Inappropriate
Republicans were not included in any meaningful way in the Budget Process were they Deb? You noted above that while the Republicans had a representative on the committee, there is no need to fear that they had any input because any recommendations would have to pass Legislative muster. Democrats own the process and quite obviously the horrific results. The "we are in this together" sentiment has be lacking at the State, County and most City levels for a long time. If you want reform, we need to start with new players and a willingness to reorganize and rethink the direction of the Government.
Posted Mon, Dec 29, 5:08 p.m. Inappropriate
Joe Zarelli is on the task force because he is a coucus leader, read the pages that formed the task force, he has no other connection to a hotel tax collected in Seattle, and in all of King County.
He was appointed, has no vested interest in the existance of the results of the task force, the priorities formulated by those that directly represent the actual location.
And not havingto justify that IS the problem. Mr. Brewster offers a caucus of people that are actually tied to the geographic location where the effects of the decisions take place.
Mr. Ross is quoted as saying that there is not natural jurisdiction for these decisions, that, again, IS the problem.
We are not in this together if they in the legislature does not have to justify to the effected parties, that' me in this case, how somebody that lives in Ridgefield (get a map) is setting Local Spending priorities in King County.
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 5:43 a.m. Inappropriate
Mr Baker
You might want to review a number of articles in The Seattle Times and The PI starting about 9/24/2002 and continuing for several months regarding Joe Zarelli. He is what in common parlance is known as a welfare cheat or an embezzler. While employed as a Washington State Senator, when the legislature was in session, he applied for and received unemployment compensation from the State by failing to reveal that he was a State employee. He also did this while on Active Duty with the military reserves. Being a State Senator has its privileges so the prosecution was dropped, this is particularly true for Clark County Republicans. That the Legislature continues to let lowlife deal with our money, let alone continue to serve in the legislature, is testament to their moral bankruptcy.
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 5:48 p.m. Inappropriate
"The Republican leadership appointed him. That's all the justification that's needed. Whatever recommendations come out of the task force have to pass legislative muster, anyway." - Deb
They appointed him by the way the qualifications were described. They do not have to justify anything, true, but the legislature that produces a task force member description does have to justify the a system that' has as it's primary responsibility of satisfying the parties ahead of the local interests.
As for the task force, Zarelli's recommendations are not particularly meaningful to me. If King County citizens do not like the priorities he has set then that's just too bad for King County, there are no consequences for Joe.
His only reasonable, potential, contribution is as a state representative, and that, as you have pointed out, have to pass legislative "muster". if that is done later, then Zarelli has no meaningful function at all.
ratcityprobate,
I do not care what Joe is, as party or person. His qualifications are two: he's in the legislature; he's a republican.
For some strange reason it did not occur to the legislature to require that a task force to focus on a "local" issue require a "local" connection.
This is ALL that was required:
Pages SHB 2765
NEW SECTION. Sec. 6015. A new section is added to 2007 c 520 (uncodified) to read as follows: (1) A joint task force on local financing options for affordable housing, arts, cultural, education, civic center, Puget Sound restoration and preservation, youth recreation, and community development projects within King county is established. The task force shall review only existing King county-specific revenue options to fund housing, arts, cultural, civic center, Puget Sound restoration and preservation, youth recreation, and community development projects in King county. Such options must include, but are not limited to, admissions, car rental, hotel/motel, restaurant, and other sources currently used to pay for the construction, financing, and mitigation of Safeco and Qwest fields and financing of the Kingdome debt. (2) The speaker of the house of representatives and the majority leader of the senate shall select members from each of the two largest caucuses in the house of representatives and each of the two largest
(ESHB 2765.SL p. 124) caucuses in the senate to serve on the task force. The governor shall appoint a representative from the governor's office to serve on the task force. The task force shall not exceed seven members in total. (3) The task force may seek assistance from members of the senate and house of representatives and other interested parties to provide advice and technical assistance. (4) Staff support for the task force study group must be provided by the house of representatives office of program research and the senate committee services. (5) Legislative members of the task force may be reimbursed for travel expenses in accordance with RCW 44.04.120. (6) The expenses of the task force must be paid jointly by the senate and the house of representatives. Task force expenditures are subject to approval by the senate facilities and operations committee and the house of representatives executive rules committee, or their successor committees. (7) The task force must report its findings and recommendations to the appropriate committees of the legislature by December 1, 2008. (8) The task force study group expires April 30, 2009.
He has no representative perspective of King County, he is, at best, an interested observer, with no direct, local, and long term vested interest in King County. His vested interest is state level, or the 18th district, or the republican party.
He may be a great guy, I don't know.
No 18th legislative district here:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/pugetsound.aspx
He's got no business being in my business at the local priority setting level.