Goldy

Hey Chris… what the hell is up with that headline?  Um, “so far, so good” for whom?

So far, so good on anti-gay rights measure signature check

The secretary of state’s office said Monday evening that it has completed its second day of checking signatures on Referendum 71 – the attempt to repeal Washington’s “everything but marriage” same-sex domestic partner law.

So far the error rate is low, 12.31 percent.

R-71 proponents turned in 137,689 signatures – 14 percent more than the minimum needed to be placed on the November ballot. Whether Referendum 71 will ultimately qualify is still unclear.

As of Monday state election workers had checked 11,502 signatures, and 10,087 have been OK’d with 1,415 rejected, mostly because the person does not show up on the voter rolls.

Okay, let me explain this for my friends in the media one last time. Juxtaposing a 12.31 percent invalidation rate versus that widely quoted 14 percent cushion tells the reader absolutely nothing. In fact, it misinforms by implying that signatures are being invalidated a full 1.69 percent below the maximum rate, when in fact the actual maximum invalidation rate beyond which the measure fails to qualify for the ballot, the signature cushion divided by the number of signatures submitted, is 12.43% (17,112/137,689).

Math matters.

In fact, math matters so much that it can give us valuable insight into the true prospects for R-71… prospects which, given the latest batch of numbers, don’t look so good so far for R-71’s sponsors.

Without adjusting for the exponential increase in duplicate signatures as the sample size increases, the invalidation rate on the first batch of 5,646 signatures was 11.34 percent, while the invalidation rate on the second batch of 5,856 signatures rose to 13.35 percent… not exactly what R-71 backers were hoping for. I’ve yet to see a breakout of duplicates in the second batch, so I can’t refine our 3 to 3.25 percent projection of the duplication rate for the entire universe of signatures, but when adjusting the combined 12.31 percent rate from the 11,502 signatures checked thus by the number of duplicates projected from the first sample, we’re now looking at a total invalidation rate in excess of 15 percent. Which would be pretty typical for a petition drive using a mix of volunteer and paid signature gatherers.

To put that in perspective, should these trends hold up, R-71 would fall short of the 120,577 minimum by over 3,500 valid signatures, or nearly 3 percent.

Failing by 3 percent is a lot different than passing by 1.69 percent, dontcha think? Like I said, math matters.

Speaking of which, it doesn’t take much more data to declare R-71’s failure a near statistical certainty, whatever the final margin, and Darryl will run some simulations as the next few batches come in. But honestly, this measure is toast.

UPDATE:
The SOS has broken out the dupes from yesterday’s batch: 16… which is roughly along the lines of what would be expected, as the percentage of dupes increases with the total sample size. (There were 7 dupes in the first, slightly smaller batch.) Darryl’s simulations are more accurate, but my rough calculations now project a roughly 2.4% duplication rate. Combined, this comes to about an adjusted 14.5% invalidation rate across the two batches, well above the maximum 12.43% rate needed to qualify.

The headline on the Seattle Times front page asks “137,689 names later, gay community asks: How did they do it?” in regards to Referendum 71, while over on Slog, Dominic Holden looks at the apparently low invalidation rate on the first batch of signatures and declares “This (Probably) Means War!“…

In case you haven’t heard, a preliminary check of signatures for anti-gay Referendum 71 shows the measure may qualify for the ballot. Some quick math: Elections officials scanned 5,646 petition signatures and found that 4,991 were valid as of last Friday, says secretary of state’s office spokesman David Ammons. That’s a 11.34 inaccuracy rate (which is unusually low compared to a standard inaccuracy rate for Washington petitions of only about 18 percent). Referendum backer Protect Marriage Washington submitted 137,689 total signatures, which would give them a 14 percent cushion. But they’re beating that cushion by nearly three points. If they keep it up through the rest of the signature count, the religious bigots will succeed at putting domestic partner rights of gay couples up to a public vote in November.

Geez… doesn’t anybody read HA on the weekends?

First of all, even if the invalidation rate was as low as 11.34%, they are still not “beating that cushion by nearly three points,” for the media (aided by a lack of clarity on the part of the SOS) is comparing the invalidation rate to the wrong number. R-71’s sponsors submitted 137,689 signatures, 17,112 (or 14.20%) more than the 120,577 minimum required. But since the invalidation rate is calculated against the signatures submitted and counted, so to must the so-called cushion, coming to a 12.43% (17,112/137,689) threshold for invalid signatures beyond which the measure fails to qualify for the ballot.

So based on the raw data from the first batch of signatures processed, R-71 is squeaking by, but by little more than a point.

But, as I explained on Saturday, the reported 11.34% invalidation rate on the first batch of 5,646 signatures is deceptively low because such a small sample cannot reflect the true percentage of duplicate pairs within the total universe of 137,689 submitted signatures. The reason, if you think about it, is obvious, but rather than trying to explain this again myself, I’ll just let the Secretary of State’s Office do so in its own words, from a 2006 FAQ regarding the rejection of I-917:

Duplicates play an important role in the state’s formula that determines the rejection rate on a random check.

In the normal course of events, finding duplicates in a random sample bears directly upon the size of the sample being done.

For example, a random check of 100 names out of 266,006 would not be expected to find any duplicates, but a random check of 200,000 names would be expected to find duplicates. Thus, the size of the pool increases exponentially the likelihood of duplicates.

Finding duplicates in a small 4% sample suggests that the number of duplicates that exists in the entire pool is exponentially larger.

The mathematical algorithm adopted by the state contains calculations designed to account for this dynamic.

Thus, the state is not able to finally determine the rejection rate on a particular initiative simply by looking at the signatures approved and rejected. The formula also calculates the acceptable number of duplicates for the sample size.

The SOS doesn’t specifically share its algorithm for projecting duplicate signature rates, but from the data provided in the I-917 FAQ, one can make a pretty good guess. The SOS reported 24 dupes found amongst 10,819 signatures sampled out of 266,006 submitted, yet projected a 5.45% duplication rate… exponentially larger than the 0.22% rate within the sample itself.

So how did the SOS come up with that larger number? They appear to be dividing the number of dupes by the sample ratio (sample size over total submitted), and then dividing the quotient by the sample size, as in:

( 24 / ( 10,819 / 266,006 ) ) / 10,819 = 5.45%

Run the data from the first batch of R-17 signatures through the same equation and rather than the current 0.12% duplication rate, you get:

( 7 / ( 5,646 / 137,689 ) ) / 5,646 = 3.02%

Now, separate the 7 dupes from the other 633 signatures rejected in the first batch, and you get a projected total invalidation rate of 14.23%… not at all bad by historical standards, but nearly two points worse than what is needed to qualify.

So… how reliable are these projections? It’s hard to say. The sample size is pretty small, and we have no reason to believe the first batch was particularly random. Furthermore, while I’m no statistician, the formula above does strike me as rather unsophisticated. (That said, Darryl ran his own simulations on the same data and came up with a slightly higher projected duplication rate of 3.25%.)

What I can say with absolute certainty is that the duplication rate is dramatically underreported in the first batch, and that it will steadily rise as the aggregate sample size gets larger, increasing the total invalidation rate with it. Thus, while the press may hope for the contentious R-71 to qualify for the ballot and continue to generate headlines, in answer to the Times’ question, “How did they do it?”, the most likely answer will be:  “They didn’t.”

Speaking of editorial endorsements, the Seattle Times endorsed Pete Holmes today in the Seattle City Attorney race, marring my near perfect record on predicting their editorial endorsements over the past few cycles.

Well, sorta marring my record. In contrast to my other unwavering predictions, here’s what I wrote last week:

As for City Attorney, I’m guessing some on the board are tempted to go with Holmes, if only to show they’re willingness to toss out an incumbent (there’s that predictable unpredictability) but I’m betting they stick with Carr.

So I successfully predicted that this was the race in which they might go for the more liberal, less establishment candidate, but I failed to predict the ultimate outcome of their internal debate. A qualified miss on my part, but a miss nonetheless. Damn it.

Here at HA, where the motto is “politics as unusual,” we take pride in doing things a little differently, so this primary election season, rather than joining the parade of candidate endorsements, we’ve decided to march to the beat of different drummer and publish our list of unendorsements. (And when I say “we”, of course I mean “me.”)

While I think I know who I’m voting for in all the races, the choice sometimes involves splitting hairs, but there’s little question of whom I’m not voting for. So here is a list of candidates near the top of the ballot for whom I definitely won’t be filling in the box… HA’s first annual Candidate Unendorsements:

KING COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Thank God for Susan Hutchison. Had this race merely been a battle between the four D’s—all of whom I like, and all of whom are qualified, if in different ways—my unendorsement might have come down to something petty and personal like temperament or height or legislative voting record, but Hutchison is what we call a bright-line distinction. Unqualified, out of touch and arrogantly unopen about her stance on nearly every issue, Hutchison is the clear unchoice in this field of otherwise experienced, if unexciting public servants.

SEATTLE MAYOR
I suppose I could unendorse James Donaldson for his bizarrely inept campaign (and his ineptly bizarre campaign manager), or maybe Jan Drago for her uninspiring calls to bring old blood into the mayor’s office. And of course, it’s awfully tempting to unendorse Mike McGinn, if only to provoke his inch-wide/mile-deep base into a passionate, bike-crazed fury. But something just sticks in my craw about T-Mobile exec Joe Mallahan, a man whose candidacy would be taken only slight more seriously than Norman Sigler’s, if not for the $200,000 he sank into his own campaign. I understand he’s a nice guy and a successful businessman, but I’m not all that sure how that has anything to do with being mayor. And listening to Mallahan on the trail, apparently neither is he.

SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY
It’s one of those low profile races folks tend not to pay much attention to, and quite frankly, neither had I, despite challenger Pete Holmes’ earnest outreach. But when incumbent Tom Carr started publicly challenging Holmes’ legal qualifications for office, weeks after the deadline for filing a legal challenge had passed, he earned both my ire and my uncoveted unendorsement. Pushing a homegrown version of the birther controversy, Carr insists that Holmes six years providing legal council to the OPA Review Board doesn’t actually count as practicing law, which, assuming he believes what he says, either makes him a crappy lawyer for missing the deadline to file a challenge, or a crappy lawyer for not understanding the law. Or, he doesn’t actually believe what says. You get the point.

REFERENDUM 1 – PLASTIC BAG FEE
Honestly, I’ve always been a little conflicted about the bag fee. On the one hand there’s plenty of environmental justification for limiting the use (and thus waste) of plastic bags, and this is exactly the kind of issue on which Seattle is able to provide national leadership. On the other hand, I reuse my bags, particularly the paper ones, which, double-bagged and lined with newsprint have become an integral part of my efforts to comply with Seattle’s strict food waste recycling mandates. (I just dump the whole, compostable bag into my yard/food waste bin. No clean up, no mess.) But in a display of political douchebaggery, the plastic bag industry has dumped $1.3 million into a cynical, astroturfed “No” campaign, more than earning my unendorsement, and a big, fat “Yes” vote. Hmm. Maybe next year we should put a douchebag fee on the ballot… that’ll really cost the American Chemical Council some money.

Coming up, the Seattle City Council unendorsements… that is, assuming I ever get around to it.

I just noticed that the Seattle P-I no longer looks like the Seattle Times. About time.

I’m not sure yet whether I like the new redesign, but I like it better than the old design.

The Secretary of State’s office is posting totals to its blog from the signature verification of Referendum 71, and reports that the first day’s totals show the signatures to be relatively “clean” thus far.

During the first day of signature-verification for Referendum 71, over 5,000 voter signatures were scrutinized and the error rate was 11.34 percent.

The State Elections Division crew turned up 4,991 valid signatures out of the 5,646 they reviewed. A handful were duplicates or the signature didn’t match the voter registration card. Almost 600 petition signers were not found on the roll of registered voters.

The early error rate — the count could take the better part of a month at the current pace of checking by about 20 crew members – was running cleaner than the historic average of 18 percent. Sponsors, a campaign group called Protect Marriage Washington, submitted 137,689 signatures. That is roughly 14 percent more than the bare minimum, 120,577, required to secure a place on the November ballot.

Taken at face value that should be encouraging news to R-71 backers seeking to put our state’s recently expanded domestic partnership rights before a vote of the people. But, well… I’m not one to simply take such things at face value.

First of all, at 11.34%, the reported error rate is actually a lot closer to the threshold than it first appears, for while it is true that sponsors submitted roughly 14% more signatures than the bare minimum, the actual maximum allowable error rate is (137,689 – 120,577) / 137,689, or 12.43%.

On the basis of this first batch of signatures, R-71 would appear to be skating by on the low end of the 11% to 16% rejection rate typically seen on all volunteer signature drives, but the raw error rate on such a small sample is deceptive as it does not account for the exponential increase in duplicate signatures as the universe of data expands. That’s why when performing a statistical sampling of submitted petitions, the Secretary of State’s Office attempts to adjust for duplicates using a complex but straight forward algorithm as defined in WAC 434-379-010.

Breaking down the data, of the 655 signatures rejected in the first batch, only 7 were duplicates, yet even this small number plugged into the statistical sampling formula suggests that R-71 would not qualify for the ballot. If we assume that this first batch of signatures, roughly 4.1% of the total submitted, represents a random sampling (and this is not a safe assumption), then it appears that R-71 would likely fall one to two thousand signatures short.

Of course, that margin is still awfully close, and we’re dealing with a very small data set. But for the moment at least, I’m cautiously optimistic that R-71 will fail to qualify for the ballot.

As Seattle Transit Blog reports, a Who’s Who list of sore losers and usual suspects have filed suit against the state, seeking to prevent it from allowing Sound Transit to use the I-90 bridge center lanes for light rail.

Their argument is simple: They claim that if the I-90 express lanes were paid for with gas tax money, they can’t be used for transit.

Really? Is that their argument? That once gas tax money is used to build a piece of infrastructure, Article II, Section 40 prohibits it from being converted to transit in perpetuity? What a load of crap. If there is an Article II, Section 40 violation here it was when the state used highway funds to help build center lanes it understood and agreed would be permanently committed to transit.

Just another delaying tactic from hypocrites like Michael Dunmire, who fervently defend the will of the people only when the people agree with them.

Way back in June I predicted the Seattle Times would endorse State Sen. Fred Jarrett for King County Executive, and a month later they did, along with State Rep. Ross Hunter. So flush with victory and armed with the knowledge that they would be doing dual endorsements, at least in crowded, high profile primary races, I stuck my neck out and made another prediction: Joe Mallahan and Mayor Greg Nickels in the mayor’s race.

Lo and behold:

For the primary, voters should back Greg Nickels — yes, even with legitimate concerns about his handling of the transportation department — and Joe Mallahan, a T-mobile executive yet to demonstrate why he should hold the city’s top job.

See Bruce, it’s just like I told you… you guys are predictable even when you think you’re being unpredictable.

Anyway, enough of the celebrating and back to the prognosticating, which gets increasingly difficult the lower the profile of the race. But here goes: Conlin, Bagshaw, Licata and Royer in the City Council races, and a big, fat, libertarian “No” on the Seattle Plastic Bag Fee measure. If they do dual endorsements in Council Districts 4, 6 and 8, throw in Bloom, Israel, and here’s the reach… Forch. As for City Attorney, I’m guessing some on the board are tempted to go with Holmes, if only to show they’re willingness to toss out an incumbent (there’s that predictable unpredictability) but I’m betting they stick with Carr.

Those are my predictions, and I’m sticking with ’em.

She seemed nice enough, so at first I felt kinda sorry for Emily Heffter when the Seattle Times overtasked her with covering local politics. Then I got angry as her sloppy, irresponsible reporting in the race for WA-08 potentially cost Darcy Burner the election. (Yes, Darcy did indeed graduate from Harvard with a degree in Computer Science and Economics, Heffter’s refusal to understand how Harvard grants degrees notwithstanding.)

Now I’m just wondering why Heffter still has a job at all?

The information in this article, originally published June 24, 2009, was corrected July 31, 2009. The person Heffter interviewed by telephone, and who initiated the contact, was in fact Edward Seeto of Seattle. A previous version of the story referred to the source as Carl Hoeflick, owner of a Duwamish-area manufacturing company called Katskill Engineering. After an inquiry from a reporter from The Stranger newspaper who was trying to reach Hoeflick, Times editors determined that neither that person nor his business exists.

I suppose there could be extenuating circumstances, but for a journalist, isn’t this a fireable offense? I mean, either she didn’t check out her source, or she just made stuff up. Or a little of both. But regardless of motive or intent, either way she once again allowed a complete fabrication to influence public opinion in the midst of a contentious policy debate and election campaign.

And just so you know I’m not taking this out of context, Publicola’s got a link to the text of Heffter’s piece as originally published, and the non-existent person and business were quoted in the lede:

Jun. 24, 2009 — Seattle’s “head tax” costs Carl Hoeflick less than $1,000 a year — $25 annually for each of the employees at his Duwamish manufacturing company.

That’s not a lot of money, but still the tax infuriates him. He sees it as a sign the city doesn’t show small-business owners enough support.

“The amount is not significant, OK,” said Hoeflick, whose company, Katskill Engineering, makes gaskets for vehicles. “But it is the idea of the city sticking it to us, having no clue and having no concern. … It is an unnecessary burden on us.”

Yeah, but then again, any tax comes off as an unnecessary burden… when you don’t exist.

The Seattle Times credibility largely comes from the fact that it is the Seattle Times, and it doesn’t take too many incidents like this one to tarnish the reputation of all of its reporters. And Heffter, whether she’s making up sources or misrepresenting Darcy’s education or plagiarizing city websites or lying about being “physically dragged” out of a closed-door city council meeting… well… she’s certainly racking up more than her fair share of embarrassing incidents.

You’d think, with all those unemployed journalists out there, the Times could hire a better political reporter than Heffter. And possibly even one willing to work as cheap. That is, if the Times really cared about getting this stuff right.

Over on Post Globe, Philip Dawdy writes about Cal Anderson Park, “the park you can’t play in,” whose attractive water features, extensively used during the recent heat wave by overheated dogs and humans alike, are officially off-limits to bathers and waders.

“You’re not supposed to be in it at all anywhere,” said Joelle Ligon, a Parks spokeswoman. “It wasn’t designed as a water feature to play in. It was designed for visual enjoyment.”

Yes, the City of Seattle has literally created a park you can’t play in.

Yeah, kinda. But as Dawdy noted, the signs and occasional patrols haven’t stopped park goers from enjoying the cooling stream and pond, even during less severe weather. Nor should it. “Keep people and pets out of the water and don’t climb on the fountain. Thank you!” the tiny plaques say, and while this oh-so-politely phrased prohibition doesn’t include a parenthetical “wink-wink,” it’s pretty much understood.

These are the way things work in real cities, where we humans often find ourselves packed uncomfortably on top of each other, and rules are imperfectly created in an effort to strike the proper balance between private liberty and the public good. I suppose the police could ticket violators for wading in a public fountain on a 103 degree day, but really, unless there was some imminent threat to public safety or the public peace, why bother?

The rule is there in case it needs to be enforced (and I’m guessing, to protect the city from liability), but it doesn’t need to be enforced just because it can. And most grownups—including the police and park officials—understand that.

In fact, I’d argue that you can’t really avoid being a scofflaw from time to time in civilized society, and there’s nothing ethically questionable or social destructive about it. Almost all of us drive at least a few miles over the limit from time to time, and indeed, at times (such as passing a slower moving vehicle on a two-lane road), safety can demand it. Even in uptight Seattle, most of us have jaywalked (a way of life in other cities).

As for me, I routinely violate the city’s off-leash laws at a small park where dozens of local dog owners routinely take their four-legged companions for an illicit swim in the lake. We all know that we risk a hefty fine, and occasionally, Animal Control shows up to hand them out. But you know what? It’s worth the risk, with only one legal dog beach in the city, and that one being a half-hour drive away, and the park being virtually abandoned but for us for nine months of the year. As long as we do no harm (and in keeping the beaches clear of goose poop and the park clear of drug dealers, I’d argue we do some good), there is no public harm in tolerating us.

Yeah, I know, it sounds like I’m arguing for selective enforcement of the law, which is generally a bad thing in concept, but what I’m really talking about is context, which is the prism through which many rules and laws are viewed in places where folks tend to crowd together. The rule against swimming in the water feature at Cal Anderson Park is there to be enforced when and if it needs to be enforced, but if folks continue to violate it wisely and discretely and without conflict, well then… wink-wink.

And that’s just how big cities work.

UPDATE:
Judging from some comments and email, perhaps I was being obtuse, so, shorter Goldy: people play in the park you can’t play in. So what’s the problem?

It was a split decision today in the Seattle Times endorsements for Port of Seattle commissioner, with the editorial board coming out for the best qualified candidate in one race, and in total union-bashing mode in another.

On the bright side, the Times endorsed Rob Holland, an all around stand up guy and former 37 LD Dems chair, who deals with port issues for a living, over David Doud, a Bellevue real estate broker… despite the obvious drawback of Holland’s labor connections.

For Position 3, our choice is Holland, who is labor-backed but not representing exclusively a labor interest. Holland lives in Seattle and is a great-nephew of former Seattle City Councilman Sam Smith. He works at Seaport Energy in the fleet-fuel business, and knows the Port as a customer. Holland stresses that the Port’s mission is “to support trade, and maritime and industrial jobs” and says he would work to keep Seattle competitive.

Yeah, Holland is “labor-backed” but as the Times painstakingly points out, not “exclusively,” which I guess is their way of justifying going for the guy with the knowledge and credentials over the one who just views the Port as a taxpayer financed real estate development firm.

“Holland’s view is more suited to a public enterprise,” the Times grudgingly admits. How civic-minded of them.

But in endorsing Tom Albro for Position 4, the Times editors just simply couldn’t hold back their anti-union bias:

For Position 4, our choice is the business-backed candidate, Albro. He is an entrepreneur who runs the company that operates the Seattle Monorail. He has also been a civic volunteer, serving as chairman of the Municipal League from 2000 to 2002. Like Holland, he is for preserving industrial and maritime land uses.

So is his opponent, Max Vekich, who was once a Democratic representative in Olympia. Vekich was a solid labor vote, and is now a member of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. Vekich knows the waterfront, but his close identification with organized labor makes him a risk for this post.

Hear that? Like Holland, Albro is for preserving industrial and maritime land uses… though unlike Holland, he has no actual professional experience as to what these industrial and maritime land uses might be. I mean, he runs the Seattle Monorail, which, whatever its potential might have been, is little more than a glorified amusement park ride.

Vekich on the other hand, he not only shares Holland’s passion for preserving the Port as, you know, a port, he also shares Holland’s firsthand experience of the daily grind along a working waterfront. The Times even admits this, but dismisses his superior qualifications because “his close identification with organized labor makes him a risk for this post.”

Huh? Vekich’s close identification with organized labor makes him a risk of what…? On the Waterfront style mob violence and corruption? If not for Vekich and his union connections, Terry Malloy coulda been a contender?

I mean seriously, if the Times is worried about corruption and mismanagement at the Port, they should be more concerned with Albro, a self-financed candidate whose political base was apparently inherited from the disgraced Pat Davis/Mic Dinsmore regime. Meanwhile, Vekich is running as part of a well publicized reformist slate with Holland and respected incumbent John Creighton, while Albro is essentially running as part of a secret slate with the similarly unqualified and business-as-usual-backed Doud.

So I guess my question for the Times is, if not for his membership in the ILWU, would the clearly more qualified Vekich have been a less “risky” choice? And if Holland had been in the employ of a dreaded union, would your endorsement have gone to the less qualified Doud? Are you really making the argument that a “close identification with organized labor” should disqualify one from public office, while a close identification with the developers and shippers who have profited most from the Port of Seattle’s documented mismanagement and corruption (and who have largely financed the Albro/Doud campaign) is a feather in a candidate’s cap?

Huh. Considering the Times’ longstanding and unwavering support for the disgraced Davis, perhaps it is Holland, not Vekich, who has the most to lose from today’s endorsements?

The structural flaw in the Boeing 787 wing design turns out to be worse than first reported:

The wing damage that grounded Boeing’s new composite 787 Dreamliner occurred under less stress than previously reported — and is more extensive.

An engineer familiar with the details said the damage happened when the stress on the wings was well below the load the wings must bear to be federally certified to carry passengers.

In addition, information obtained independently and confirmed by a second engineer familiar with the problem shows the damage occurred on both sides of the wing-body join — that is, on the outer wing as well as inside the fuselage.

And you know who I blame? The unions!

I mean, honestly… how can Boeing engineers possibly design a wing that won’t snap off mid-flight, distracted by the knowledge that assembly workers have the right to strike when their contract is up? If Boeing can’t secure major concessions from the unions, they’ll simply have no choice but to move 787 final assembly to South Carolina, if only for the safety of passengers.

The Washington Legislature’s Joint Transportation Committee is meeting this morning to hear testimony from an independent expert hired to determine what, if anything, Sound Transit might owe the state for the right to cross the I-90 bridge, and I’m guessing some legislators aren’t gonna like what they hear.

Over at Seattle Transit Blog, Ben Schiendelman has a great recap of the issue and the consultant’s preliminary report, but the takeaway is this: Sound Transit owes the state squat. Under the terms of agreements signed by federal, state and local authorities, “the I-90 center lanes have been permanently committed to transit use since 1978,” and would only be used for cars until a transit agency needed them. Furthermore, the consultant determined that WSDOT only contributed to 2.5% of the cost of the relevant, impacted portion of the I-90 corridor, and thus any claims for compensation would be limited to that.

But as Ben points out, even that 2.5% figure may be a stretch:

Whenever Sound Transit builds an improvement, such as an HOV lane, on WSDOT property, some portion of the value of that improvement is ‘land banked’ — such that if Sound Transit needs highway right-of-way, it can draw from this land bank rather than have to actually pay. Sound Transit has quite a bit in this land bank, and that as well as the Sound Transit contribution to R8A could both be considered credits if WSDOT were able to charge for use of I-90.

The Land Bank Agreement considers full payment as the value of 20 years of use. While the land bank agreement may not apply to this particular transaction, it’s still interesting here: as the center lanes have been used by “highway vehicle , including single occupancy vehicle, travel” (pg. 26) for over 20 years, it’s also arguable that the state investment for the center lanes may have already been fully returned.

The report doesn’t bode well for legislators hoping to slow or kill construction of the voter-approved East Link light rail line, or for, say, House Speaker Frank Chopp, who reportedly hoped to extort a billion dollars or more out of Sound Transit to help offset the outsized costs of his Mountlake Tunnel. It’ll be interesting to see how legislators react.

That’s it, I’m fed up with Mayor Nickels!

First the December snow storm, and now this record breaking heat wave… I mean, I don’t ever remember the mercury topping a hundred degrees when Paul Schell was in charge. And while throughout the campaign Nickels’ challengers have talked an awful lot about the weather, isn’t it time Seattle finally elected a mayor who could do something about it?

That’s why HA is officially endorsing Halle Berry for mayor.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate Mayor Nickels’ impressive record on the environment, but after watching X-Men, it just doesn’t compare to Berry’s psionic ability to control the weather with her mind. I mean, think back to last December’s nearly unprecedented snow storm—sure, rock salt and snow plows would’ve been nice… or Berry could’ve just cleared our streets with a thawing wave of her hand. And ask yourself, unlike Nickels, would a Mayor Berry have allowed her beloved (and un-air conditioned) city to suffer through yesterday’s 103 degree heat? I don’t think so.

Yeah, Mayor Nickels sure looks sexy in that hot, skin-tight, black leather body suit of his, but Berry ain’t too shabby in that department either. And, she can control the weather. With. Her. Mind.

Vote for Halle Berry for mayor.

Around this time every year my daughter and I fly East to visit family in hot and humid Philadelphia, and spend a week or so baking in the sun at the Jersey shore… which is really kinda stupid, because this time of year is typically the most beautiful time to be in Seattle. Warm, sunny days, low humidity, cool nights. Not too hot, not too cold. Perfect weather.

So 102 in the shade? I mean… WTF?!

Yup, welcome to not just the hottest day of the year, or the hottest day for this date, but the hottest day in Seattle ever… both the highest high and the highest low (71 degrees) recorded for any day of the year since records started being kept back in 1891. And also, one of the most humid days I’ve experienced in my 17 years in Seattle.

This. Really. Sucks.

I never thought I’d say this, but I can’t wait until we head East next week to get a break from Seattle’s oppressive heat and humidity.

UPDATE:
The National Weather Service just reported that it hit 104 degrees at Boeing Field at 5:53 PM.