Posted Thu, Jul 7, 11:40 a.m.

If anything, tunnel opponents are underselling the problem with tolls. The authors are completely wrong on this point. The State needs to finance $400 million in bonds with tolls; for at least 30 years, the State will set toll rates at the level necessary to pay the debt-service payments. Tolls ...

Posted Wed, May 13, 10:42 p.m.

Why not have elections for local councils? If we truly were to devolve power to neighborhoods, an independent council comprised of councilmembers representing the entire city would still more necessary than ever. We would want oversight. I certainly haven't though any of this through---just exchanging ideas.

Posted Wed, May 13, 4:02 p.m.

The City Council will still be the city's sole legislative body, and funding will still be filtered through various executive agencies under the Mayor's control. As far as I can tell, Action Seattle's proposal does nothing to devolve actual decision-making power or funding decisions to districts. Maybe the idea is ...

Posted Mon, May 11, 5:27 p.m.

J.R., You say McGinn will raise taxes? Nickels has promise to spend $930 million of Seattle citizens' money to help pay for the $4.2 billion tunnel plan---and Seattle's contribution would likely go up when the inevitable cost overruns come in. How is that not a tax increase? I still don't ...

Posted Sun, May 10, 11:31 a.m.

David, I enjoyed reading your analysis. But your readers deserve to know why you think none of the current entrants are "strong candidates," and why you think a Nickels victory in November is "likely." After all, Nickels' approval ratings are at Bush-esque levels. Rather than simply assume none of the ...

Posted Wed, Mar 18, 10:19 a.m.

In the long run, rail rapid transit within the City of Seattle should be our core transportation infrastructure. But we will need and want to supplement that infrastructure with a dense network of bus routes, streetcars (yes), bike lanes, and sidewalks. In the short term, however, investments in bus service ...

Posted Sat, Jan 31, 10:36 p.m.

On further review, I got this partly wrong. Sorry. With a nudge from the King County Assessor's page (very helpful, at http://www.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/NewsReleases.aspx#jan292009), I now remember that assessments don't determine property-tax levels. Still, I think it's relevant that voters decided to raise the levy lids because they apparently value the services ...

Posted Sat, Jan 31, 9:15 p.m.

Michael is right; the original Seattle Times article and your post are misleading: the absolute amount of property taxes did go up, but the property-tax rate went down. Assessments are the reason that tax bills are up. Also, what do you propose as an alternative to these levies? Close more ...