I fully agree with Van Dyk on Prop 1, the $60 car tab increase. It is just the latest front on McGinn's war on cars in Seattle. Tax cars and waste the revenue on b.S. like road diets, curb bulbs, bike lanes and planning streetcars. This is an obvious NO vote. No on Prop 1.

However, I disagree with Ted on 1125, the state-wide tolling initiative. The great thing about 1125 is that it will prevent toll revenue from going to transit projects, like light rail. This alone makes 1125 a good idea. It is true that it does some things that are not ideal. I don't know why it prohibits variable tolls, for example. But, just the fact that it prevents toll revenue from being spent on transit projects is reason enough to vote YES on 1125.

And, as an added bonus, voting YES on 1125 might stop light rail across the I-90 bridge. I think Van Dyk agrees that stopping light rail across the I-90 bridge would be a good thing.

I hope Ted reconsiders, and votes YES on 1125.

Washington was one of the first states to adopt Prohibition, and never really gave it up. I'm old enough to remember when women weren't allowed to sit at bars, beer couldn't be sold on Sundays until after church was out, and there were even laws governing how many windows a tavern could have (many big windows required) versus a bar (few if any tiny windows). This is the late 1970s we're talking about here, not the 1930s. And let's not forget that the repeal of the 3.2% beer law gave us the vast benefits of the craft beer movement. The state has no business being in the liquor business.

Thanks for this article. Well written (but a few spelling errosr--does no one proofread any more?) Have to agree on all of them. Glad I don't live in Seattle--these local measures are simply obnoxious and way too costly.

In terms of Eyman's initiatives, people need to realize this is his business. It makes no difference to him if the initiatives are written well or not. If the courts throw them out, no big deal--he just goes back to the well to his supporters for more $$.

Sure hope 1183 passes. The anti- arguments are worse than the reefer madness arguments against weed. No substance whatsoever. I hope people realize they are being lied to.

However, what is the reference to boeing and microsoft? they haven't co-opted the ballot for their own purposes that I can tell. the unions are 10x worse than business interests (except maybe kemper) for going to the ballot for the things we cannot afford--see 1163 as a perfect example.

Ted, please tell me one thing the no campaign on 1183 has said that is not true or accurate.

The initiative will increase the number of stores selling hard liquor by at least 500%. Studies by the CDC indicate this will increase consumption and problem drinking. The Liquor Control Board has found that private stores fail 25% of the time when minors attempt to purchase alcohol. The mini-mart loophole in the initiative is real. And 1183 will enact a new 27% tax, in addition to the mark up added by the private stores that will at least replace the state mark up.

That's our argument and it is 100% accurate.

Thanks for your early comments. Lincoln is correct that I think light rail is not justified on the I-90 bridge. But, on the overall measure, I remain opposed.

Breneman and I agree that the state has no business being in the liquor business. Let's raise a glass to that.

Apologies to Seattledeadhead for the spelling and other gremlins (words running together, etc.) that have crept into my recent copy. I sent a note to editors just today vowing to proofread my copy before transmitting it. I don't expect them to catch small stuff which annnoys readers (and me too). Boeing and Microsoft have no ballot measures currently on the table. However, they have contributed in the past to other ballot-measure
campaigns and have used their political juice with governors and legislators to get some walloping tax breaks and subsidies which less favored companies and sectors do not receive.

I would prefer that we elect public officials and, then, reelect them if
they appear to serve the public interest or reject them if they prove to
be rubber stamps for single- and special-interest groups. Ballot measures allow elected officials to duck tough votes and, then, to nod and wink as they pass the buck to well financed players whom they know will get their way via a ballot measure. Representative governance is imperfect but fosters greater accountability.

1183 will NOT "enact a new 27% tax".

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/edcetera/2016290350_does_i-1183_add_a_27_tax.html

To Chris Vance: Your comment crossed mine, otherwise I would have responded to you above. I did not know you were the author of the anti-1183 media campaign. You might want to watch it with fresh eyes and
decide whether or not it seems misleading and off-the-wall. Keep state stores or, otherwise, teenagers will get liquored up and run amok after buying booze at private stores! C'mon. Scare tactics. Underage drinkers appear to get liquor in our state, despite the state-store monopoly. Do you have data indicating that there is less liquor consumption by minors in the 42 states which operate via a private system? Opposition to 1183 comes mainly from those in the industry who see their margins being cut if Washington eliminates state stores.

I am part of the campaign team and I stand by our message. Ted, I would ask you to respond to the studies by the CDC and the WSLCB. More stores selling this producet means more consumption and easier access for teenagers.

And if you want to talk about motive, ask yourself why Costco is spending $11 million on 1183. They are the only funder of this campaign.

My congratulations to Mr. Vance for running the sleaziest and most mendacious political campaign I have ever seen - that's really quite an accomplishment.

To Seattledeadhead, before you point out misspellings from someones story you might want to check your spelling first! Just saying...

Chris, I wonder how you reconcile the CDC study given that it wasn't an actual CDC study, but a recommendation by a volunteer task force that didn't even use current data, or focus only on hard liquor?

http://www.washingtonstatewire.com/home/11928-a_whole_state_of_boozers_claim_in_liquor_campaign_has_an_unsteady_foundation.htm

The real question I have for the anti-1183 campaign, aside from how much money the beer & wine distributors are pumping into your group- is why not just push for prohibition, or go to all alcohol sales be handled by the state?

If we can't trust a private store to sell alcohol to minors, why do we allow them to sell beer, wine & malt liquor? Not sure about you but most highschoolers go to keggers- Pretty sure kegs generally hold beer.

The fact that the bill steps up enforcement and fines will increase the likelihood that people are careful about checking ID's, reducing the likelihood of kids getting alcohol.

The fact that the only people this is bad for is out of state distributors makes this a total no brainer.

More money for the state, better prices for consumers, better access for consumers, better selection, better enforcement, stiffer fines, better for in state wineries, breweries & distilleries? check, check, etc.

Personally, if you want to campaign against it, be my guest, but running non-sequitor ads about drunk drivers who got drunk in a bar, and then bought beer at a private store? Give me a break.

Why don't you just take a couple clips from The Simpsons of Helen Lovejoy shouting "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" and get it over with?

I agree with -Lincoln on 1125. The cross allocation of toll revenue from one project to another promotes extravagance on projects like the Montlake termination of 520 and encourages the type of backroom deals that resulted in the tunnel.

The "Swiller Madness" campaign is disingenuous.

The initiative process has a valid role to play in Washington politics. Issues that the legislature is unwilling to review (I'm thinking Death With Dignity) have an opportunity to be debated by the voting public. Of course, initiatives to the people have the sticky problem if not being open to the amendment process that in an invaluable part of legislating.

Initiatives to the people are the most popular route taken by initiative sponsors, but there is a second option, initiatives to the legislature. Under that system the legislature can pass the initiative as written, sent it directly to the people for a vote or write a competing measure that is sent to the ballot along with the original initiative. This process allows for the give and take of the legislative process and the amendment process.

Unfortunately, the number of signatures needed to validate an initiative to the legislature is exactly the same as the number needed to send an initiative directly to the people. Under the current system, initiative sponsorship have no incentive to use the initiative to the legislature option. This should be corrected by upping the number of signatures needed to get an initiative to the people on the ballot. This would preserve the ability of the people to exercise direct democracy (as enshrined in the state constitution), but it would direct all but the most popular initiatives to the more deliberative process that is an initiative to the legislature.

A better idea would be to reduce the number of signatures needed to get an initiative to the legislature. That way everyone can get a clear map of who supports what before going forward with really contentious issues. It would compensate for the absence of any real news component serving this purpose for the voter, and it would be good for the legislature to have a way to show voters that they really are willing to do more than just rubber stamp lists from special interests.

Bicycles are here to stay. Would I pay $60 to help prevent me from hitting them? Yes. I hope that's the plan and not more recreational areas. If I'm wrong, let me know. Perhaps I'm one of the few who understands that to protect our future requires some sacrifice now. I am not a cyclist. Nor is McGinn. But he is a common-sense visionary.

Why do you hate unions? They are ordinary people trying to make an average living. You don't trust legislators. You don't trust unions. Who do you trust?

Finally, I can go either way on the sale of booze. But, it is a convenient way to keep some money in State coffers. Microsoft; Boeing and Amazon - the parts that aren't abusing workers elsewhere; casinos; and soon-to-be booze. That's our economy folks.

Ted, Chris Vance is bought and paid for by Protect Our Communities (barf). Check the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission. Who is bankrolling Protect Our Communities? The Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America. How does holy roller Chris Vance reconcile that? Beer and wine are sold at minimarts. How does holly roller Chris Vance reconcile that. He reconciles it with the fee he receives. Chris Vance is an unprincipled, bought-and-paid-for charlatan.

Chris Vance is a holy roller in the 21st century. He takes the Anti-Saloon League, Temperance Union, The Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of Americia, and Pastor Joseph Fuiten seriously.

One final response to comments. I'm a bit perplexed when I get comments such as Benson's: "Why do you hate unions?" I am from a strong union family and have worked closely with unions over a long career in policy and politics. For many years labor unions were at the forefront of constructive economic and social change in the country---in particular,
leading in the fight for civil rights.

As many aging institutions, however, unions increasingly have moved from
their advocacy of policies benefiting the whole society to those focused on their own interests. We have seen this during the economic downturn as public-employee and teachers unions, in particular, have demanded pay and benefit increases (and sometimes gone on strike)---and refused concessions on costly pensions---while public budgets have been strained and other people are sacrificing.

I am from a working, dirt-poor family which owed a great deal to the union movement. But that movement has changed a great deal in recent years. I have no doubt that, eventually, it will return to its larger-minded roots.

Erik Smith of washingtonstatewire.com investigates Chris Vance's "100% accurate" claim about the alleged CDC study:

http://www.washingtonstatewire.com/home/11928-a_whole_state_of_boozers_claim_in_liquor_campaign_has_an_unsteady_foundation.htm

1 of 3

Two posters above in this thread say they like I-1125, ostensibly because it would prevent “cross allocation of toll revenue from one project to another”. State law ALREADY contains that prohibition; I-1125 wouldn’t add anything new to the law in that regard. RCW 47.56.820(2) states “All revenue from an eligible toll facility must be used only to construct, improve, preserve, maintain, manage, or operate the eligible toll facility on or in which the revenue is collected.”

Here’s a link to I-1125’s text:

http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i1125.pdf

Nobody should think about voting for I-1125 unless and until they’ve read it through and become convinced it would set good new policies.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, Eyman is a fake-opponent of Sound Transit. He is flying a false flag when he says he is looking out for the interests of taxpayers and drivers who would be tolled.

Sound Transit’s lawyers drafted all the litigation-ready terms in I-1125, just as they drafted the litigation-ready terms in I-776 and I-1053. If this thing passes the special interest group that gets rich off bond sales would be back in front of the justices in a year, suggesting they act dirty again. THAT’s what this initiative is all about. I-1125 was drafted as a tool to prod the justices into providing that interest group with more abusive case law designed to harm the public financially.

I-1125 is a Trojan Horse. If it is approved it won't lead to lower tolls, it won't lead to WSDOT not being able to transfer the I-90 corridor highway infrastructure, and it won't lead to any of the other "subjects" it embraces. It will lead to lawsuits, almost immediately. Then the dishonest judiciary gets to suck up to its favorite special interests (beneficiaries of taxing and bond-selling schemes).

2 of 3

If anyone who matters in politics in this state truly believed the passage of I-1125 would prevent the proposed WSDOT-Sound Transit infrastructure handover that deal already would have been done. Hammond would have declared the infrastructure surplus, and she (as WSDOT head) and Sound Transit’s board would have signed off on the “airspace lease” the term sheet contemplates.

Those steps would be done already because that’s how a contract to accomplish that property transfer would be formed. If such a contract were to be formed, any subsequent legislation wouldn't be able to adversely impact it (per the “contracts clause” of the constitution).

That’s how everyone can tell the terms in I-1125 that supposedly would prevent the I-90 corridor infrastructure handover are considered essentially meaningless by the political leadership: Hammond and ST’s board haven’t already formed the “airspace lease” that would render that part of I-1125 moot.

3 of 3

The litigation that would start up if this initiative passes would provide a convenient excuse for the years of delays Sound Transit’s management now wants. The lawyers behind this initiative also must believe the justices again will act dishonestly and provide unwarranted case law relating to Article II sec. 40. That’s evident from the litigation-inducing clause used six times in I-1125:

“all revenues from such tolls may only be used for purposes consistent with the eighteenth amendment to the Washington Constitution.”

Anyone want to try explaining what that means? Good luck.

The courts around here are corrupt. When parties oppose Sound Transit – including when Eyman’s entity sued in the I-776 litigation – the justices lie about the claims raised, ignore the controlling law, and hand unjustified case law to the financial beneficiaries of that taxing district. Here’s a thread discussing details of how the justices abused their powers in six different appellate proceedings:

http://tinyurl.com/3lp8tey

I-1125 was drafted to provide material for lawsuits that Sound Transit’s lawyers will control. That’s what Eyman’s prior initiatives did as well. The idea is to use what it says to get up in front of the justices and again give them the opportunity to hand broad and unjustified case law to that taxing district.

I-1125 also suffers from the multiple topics problem of other Eyman's initiatives. I'm in agreement with Crossrip, it's designed to pass at the polls and fail in the courts. And I'm also in agreement with him as to why.

On I-1183, I don't see how the state makes more money unless Costco et.al. sells more hard liquor. Currently the state makes money on first the 50% mark up, and then on the tax. I assume that it will take fewer Costco employees to sell the same amount of bottles, there will have to be someone at the in store case to keep the kids out, but the checkout cashiers are already there.

As for kids drinking, they get the stuff where every kid gets it, out of their parents cabinet, or they get an older kid to buy it for them.

The state's interference with what brands of liquor get sold here smacks of either cronyism or outright bribery. That I'd like to see end, so do I trust Costco et al to sell the stuff when they appear to do a fine job with beer and wine, yeah. So the philosophy, should the state run a retail business wins out, because "no" is the obvious choice.

On the $60 vehicle fee:

Yes bicycles are here to stay, and the riders are increasing. Better to plan for the growth and put some paint on the roads so that cars and bicycles can share the space.

Ted, you should feel lucky not to live in London where they charge you for the privilege of just driving into the city. The space that is devoted to cars has a cost, and cities are now trying to reallocate the expense of that to the users of that space.

Glad to hear that this issue of toll allocation may already be addressed in state law. I’m not surprised by your concerns about the courts or the nature of this legislation since much of our system has been subordinated by special interests.

So hammer away…what better use of forums like this can there be?

Ted's criticism of Prop 1 being regressive is strictly, narrowly correct in that everybody pays the same fee regardless of their ability to pay. But that ignores the fact that our entire transportation structure forces people (rich or poor) to own cars. There really isn't a choice. If you want/need to get around you've got to have a car. Which means you've most likely got to go into debt to get a car and then you have to pay insurance, maintenance, fuel. Our transportation system is already way more regressive than the $60 car tabs. If the money collected is going to create more transportation alternatives then ultimately it will reduce the inherent regressivity of our current transportation system. I think that makes Prop 1 worthwhile.

Why I'm not voting for the CostCo initiative:

Instead of trying to directly bribe me for my vote, they are giving the huge piles of $$$ they are spreading around to overpaid consultants and the media. And I could use that money. If CostCo just gave me the money. I'd seriously consider voting for it. But otherwise, I have no incentive. Perhaps its time to cut out the middle men in campaign finance. If a campaign is going to spend more than $1 per voter, they need to give the money directly to the voters.

"We have seen this during the economic downturn as public-employee and teachers unions, in particular, have demanded pay and benefit increases (and sometimes gone on strike)---and refused concessions on costly pensions---while public budgets have been strained and other people are sacrificing. "

Unions were never about the broad common good. They were always about fairness and decent wages and working conditions. How you can say that unions are the problem when you look at the degree of disparity between union workers and government policy which provides tax breaks to send jobs out of the US and CEO's which used to make 50x the average workers' wage and is now 500x and blame public service workers because they stand for the ethic that you've forgotten is beyond me. And, I repeat, Truman added trade union protection (private and public) to the Constitution and Germany is thriving today because they have honored all their people rather than making scapegoats of them. Yes, good public policy has been maintained because of regulations and controls. That anyone can blame unions for the debacle that banks and Wall St. have perpetrated on the world is stunning.

BTW, name one public sector union that has demanded increases even though they deserve them.

Sorry for the poorly worded posting. Government policy and corporations have hurt American workers. Not unions. Unions provide balance and, considering the low status of the NLRB, not much indeed.

There is a consequence of this initiative that gets no mention in urban media, one which is important to me as a resident of a rural area near Port Townsend. My visits to the state liquor store in PT are infrequent, but with a purpose, to purchase inexpensive, little-known but pleasing brands, usually cognac or rum. For Port Townsend, a town of a bit more than 8000 residents, the variety offered by the liquor store is impressive. I very much doubt that any of the local supermarkets will carry the brands which I favor, and Costco, which is hoping to be the liquor capital of Washington, is an hour away. I assert that it's in the best interests of rural residents to vote against this initiative in order to maintain the variety which they enjoy in both state and contract liquor stores.