Goldy

Do the folks in the Seattle school district responsible for closing schools due to snow actually live in Seattle, because down in my SE Seattle neighborhood we’ve seen barely a flake, and the roads are clear and dry.  Same holds true for a friend in the Mt. Baker neighborhood, who left an angry rant on my voicemail this morning: no snow, clear roads, and clamoring kids without childcare arrangements.

The kid in me still reflexively cheers at the mere prospect of a snow day, but the adult in me understands what an incredible burden it is on single- and two-working-parent families… the vast majority of households with school age children here in the 21st Century.  By closing the schools out of fear it might, just might snow a little later today, the Seattle, Mercer Island, Bellevue and other school districts have not only disrupted our children’s education, they’ve created an unnecessary hassle for thousands of parents, in some cases costing them a day’s wages, or even their job.

It’s pretty damn ridiculous.

The weather’s not going to get any better between now and the end of the week, so if this is all it takes to twitch their itchy school closure finger, they might as well just cancel Thursday and Friday now, and let us all start the Winter break a few days early.  At least that way we could plan ahead.

Idaho state Rep. Stephen Hartgen (R-Twin Falls) is considering drafting legislation that would make anonymous blogging illegal, a bill that would be just as unlikely to achieve its stated goal as it would be to pass constitutional muster…

“Anonymity takes away the responsibility to say things in a civil and accurate manner. It provides a cover for the ugliness we see in the debate today. It’s hard to read political blogs any more because they are so inflammatory.”

What a fucking douchebag.

See, I’ve never blogged anonymously, and I have absolutely no problem sticking my name on a post, no matter how uncivil, ugly or inflammatory.  So suck on that, Rep. Hartgen, you fascist, freedom-hating sack of shit.

Now, I know that there are those in the political and media establishment who would prefer that credibility be limited to those writing under a prestigious masthead and in the familiar, suffocatingly polite manner of the traditional family newspaper.  But here in the new media we earn our credibility through the content of our words, not the number of letters in them or the byline above them.  That’s why I am free to address Hartgen’s idiocy with the foul-mouthed blue streak it deserves, and without damaging my own credibility… because I’ve earned that right over four-plus years of providing accurate news reporting and thoughtful analysis, however salty my language.

But even if I had never attached my real name to my screen name—even if “Goldy’s” true identity had remained a mystery until this very day—my credibility would still not be diminished, because my nom de plume is as much a valid signature on my body of work as my actual, legally binding chicken scrawl.  On the flip side, the bulk of the anonymous trolls in my own comment threads have no credibility at all, because they simply haven’t earned it, and when you write anonymously you start from nothing.

This is the irony that the sniveling, cowardly Hartgen misses entirely:  anonymous discourse is often the most honest of all, because it is judged entirely on the quality of the content rather than the presumed reputation of the name on the label.  (Here’s a thought experiment:  put Mr. Cynical’s byline on Ted van Dyk’s columns, and see how eager the oh-so-respectable editors at Crosscut would be to publish his rambling, incoherent posts?)

But perhaps the worst thing one could say about Hartgen’s proposal is not that it is merely assinine, unconstitutional, unnecessary or even mind-numbingly stupid, but that it is downright unAmerican—an unpatriotic insult to the proud pseudonymous tradition of Publius, Anonymous, Mrs. Silence Dogood and other founding fathers.

If these great pamphleteers were alive today, they’d be bloggers all, and I’ve no doubt they’d join me, anonymously or not, in asking Rep. Hartgen the question that should be posed to all those who threaten the essential freedoms ensconced in our First Amendment:  why do you hate America?

I’m not really sure why I still bother to read him, considering nobody else of influence seems to bother to read him much these days, but I couldn’t help but be amused by our friend Stefan’s conspiracy theories about “Blagojevich-style quids pro quo in the elections director race.”  Stefan obsesses on efforts by state and county Dems to consolidate support around a single candidate, ultimately current elections director Sherril Huff, and not surprisingly determines the process was criminally corrupt:

The “read between the lines” understanding among people who are familiar with the discussions is that Osgood and Hansen were promised jobs to get out of the race and Baker was promised help with a bid for Seattle City Council.

Oh no… unnamed sources “familiar with the discussion” (but not actually present), “read between the lines” to conclude that Osgood and Hansen were promised pay to not play!  Quick, call the FBI!

Still, I have sources too, first hand at that, and I’m even willing to name some of them.  KC Dem Chair Suzie Sheary, one of the participants at the meeting in question, simply laughed off Stefan’s speculation as “a hoot,” while Jason Osgood, who Stefan essentially accuses of taking a bribe, sarcastically sighed “And here I am thinking people are starting to take me at my word…”

“No machinations. I woke up, read that Huff was running, called her to confirm, congratulated her, told her she was the right person for the job, and bowed out. I heard about the Tuesday meeting after the fact. I haven’t spoken to anyone who participated.”

Say what you want about Jason, but he’s nothing if not a true a believer.  With his accumulated name ID coming off his recent run for Secretary of State, and his unquestioned devotion to election reform, he would not have dropped out of the race if he wasn’t convinced that Huff was both qualified and, in a better position to win.

Jason’s take on the process?  “Play to win and know when you’re beat.”

Of course for Stefan, Jason and Suzie’s denials only prove his suspicions:

Naturally, folks who were at the meeting claimed that “They weren’t pressured into bowing out and weren’t offered anything for doing so”. What would one expect them to say even (especially) if there were pressure and inducements to bow out? But why would these folks go to a meeting to discuss this at Democratic Party HQ in the first place?

Yup, that’s the sort of journalistic rigor and “when did you stop beating your wife” kinda logic we’ve come to expect from WA’s preeminent righty blogger, relying on speculation from unnamed secondhand sources to charge conspiracy, while tautologically proffering the alleged participants’ firsthand denials as incriminating evidence.  But, then, you know… anything related to King County Elections brings out the very worst in Stefan, so I guess we should cut him some slack.

So what really happened at last Tuesday’s meeting?  Dwight and Suzie kicked the GOP’s ass, that’s what, consolidating support around a single, viable candidate, while the Republican faithful will largely split between armed and dangerous Pam Roach and David Irons and his dangerous hands.

Political horsetrading is neither illegal nor unethical; candidates are pressured all the time to bow out of races with promises of future support and/or threats of political retaliation.  And if that’s what was necessary to clear the field for Huff, then the Democratic leadership deserves kudos for their efforts to bring a semblance of sanity to this stupid and irresponsible no-primary, low-turnout special election.

So to raise the specter of Blagojevich-style corruption under these circumstances, based on secondhand conjecture, is not only silly, it ultimately serves to minimize real corruption, like that of the real Blagojevich.  Someday, Stefan might dig up an actual scandal, but given his boy-cries-wolf track record, how would we know?

Over at the P-I’s Strange Bedfellows blog, Joel Connelly reports that King County Executive Ron Sims is being vetted by the FBI, an indication that he’s up for an appointment in the Obama administration, an intriguing prospect that would produce an audible sigh of relief from political friends and foes alike, across the political spectrum.

For our county’s swarm of executive wannabes, tired of waiting their turn to measure the drapes, yet too timid to challenge a popular incumbent, a Sims appointment would be a dream come true, setting the stage for an old fashioned political free for all this coming November.

Likewise, I’m sure I’m not the only Sims supporter who kinda sorta dreads the prospect of a run for a fourth term.  Executives are different from legislators, in that they tend to accumulate blame and enemies, eventually wearing out their welcome with voters and constituency groups.  Third terms are difficult enough to win, while four-term mayors, governors and the like are nearly unprecedented outside the safety of a political machine… the kinda machine we definitely don’t have here in WA state.

I’d hate to see Sims end his career losing to a lesser challenger, simply because voters tired of him, and thus I would welcome a high profile DC appointment both as a reward for Ron’s years of principled leadership and public service, and… well… as an easy out from a potentially heart breaking political defeat.

But… I’m guessing a lot of qualified folks are being vetted by the FBI these days, so for now it’s all speculation.

TPM reports that the Al Franken camp is now genuinely optimistic about their prospects for coming out ahead in the Minnesota senate recount, once all challenged and erroneously rejected absentee ballots are tabulated.  Sound familiar?

The fact is, Democrats tend to gain votes in recounts, regardless of the jurisdiction or the party running the elections office, because the Democratic Party tends to overly represent the extremes of society—the youngest, the oldest, the poorest, the wealthiest, the least and the best educated—and four of those six groups tend to have more trouble casting ballots than the average voter.

There are Republicans who argue that voting should be difficult, and if you can’t follow instructions and fully fill in an oval or connect a line, your vote shouldn’t count, but that’s not the way the law is written in most of the nation.  Both Washington and Minnesota are “voter intent” states, and when conducting a hand recount it is the obligation of the canvassing board to determine the voter’s intent, when possible, even if the optical scanner can’t.  So if more voters intended to cast their ballots for Franken, then he should ultimately be declared the winner.

So knowing what I know about recounts, I think Franken has good reason to be optimistic.

Tonight’s King County Democrats elections director candidate forum has been canceled due to the weather.  That’s a shame, but I myself don’t particularly want to be on freezing roads with native Northwest drivers unaccustomed to driving on ice.

I believe we’ll try to reschedule for after the freeze, and likely, after the holidays.

The Seattle P-I editorial board doesn’t want to cut off talk of a tunnel option to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct:

We fear that eliminating any talk of a tunnel will lead to a political confrontation in Olympia that will favor another elevated monstrosity. Potentially, that would even reinvigorate the possibilities for House Speaker Frank Chopp’s overwrought, multistory highway-park-stores- and-offices mega structure, which the planners rightly intend to eliminate from further consideration.

[…]

Major surface and transit improvements must be in place when the current viaduct comes down, no matter what permanent plan is pursued. And, even with impressive recent enhancements for Interstate 5, the surface option is the cheapest. So, we hope Gov. Chris Gregoire, King County Executive Ron Sims and Mayor Greg Nickels will agree on the surface solution as their basic strategy.

We also believe, however, that the three leaders should reopen the idea of a compromise embracing the surface option with some sort of a commitment to studying a tunnel. The compromise wouldn’t have to be exactly the “hybrid” proposal favored by business groups. But it should include at least some traffic speed and volume metrics that would provoke a tunnel study if the surface streets and enhanced transit capacity prove less effective than supporters expect. After all, we think a surface-and-transit solution will work quite well for traffic, the environment and the economy, but we don’t know for sure.

I’m not sure how building the surface/transit alternative eliminates the possibility of a future deep bore tunnel, should technology improvements make it affordable and traffic demand it.  But I see no harm in building in a committment to explore the possibility at some point in the future.  After all, talk is cheap; it’s actual action for which our region has trouble coughing up the cash.

It’s not just the old media that is struggling to maintain political coverage, as newcomer PolitickerWA has reportedly shut its doors as part of a company wide purge that saw the closing of 12 of Politicker’s 17 state sites.   Bryan Bissell made a good go at it here in WA, and it’s too bad to see the experiment fail.

The future of journalism is online, but you still need deep pockets or not-for-profit support to survive for the moment until the revenue model catches up with the business reality.  Speaking of which… I’m looking for some angels to help me continue and expand my political and news coverage here on HA, so if you’re interesting in getting in on the ground floor of an innovative and exciting local media venture, drop me an email.

It is nice to know that at least somebody is willing to speak honestly and openly about both sides of the budget equation:

The chairman of a legislative task force exploring how to improve the way the state pays for K-12 education says a tax increase is the responsible way to pay for the roughly $3 billion worth of ideas in the group’s final report.

Dan Grimm, a former state legislator from Puyallup as well as a two-term state treasurer, said Thursday that he was inspired by a phone call and letter from Gov. Chris Gregoire to propose an extension of the sales tax to services. That would make things such as doctor’s visits and financial advice subject to sales tax.

On Tuesday, the task force voted to approve a proposal that asks for more state money to pay for things such as a longer high school day, smaller class sizes in the younger grades and regionally adjusted pay for teachers. Cost estimates range from $2 billion to $3 billion over each two-year state budget cycle.

[…] Grimm said Gregoire made it clear in their brief phone conversation that if task force members suggested a plan for raising taxes she would support putting that proposal before the voters as a referendum.

Too often we’ve had a one-sided conversation when voting on budget issues, with a rash of statewide initiatives over the past decade that have either mandated new spending or cut existing taxes, with little or no debate about the budgetary intersection between the two.  And recently, editorialists have pressured legislators and the governor to ignore the revenue side of the equation in attempting to close our state’s looming $5 billion shortfall.  But it’s time to start treating voters like grownups, and have a grownup conversation about education funding and other budget priorities.

The fact is, we spend too little on basic education, and the sorts of increases the panel is suggesting would prove widely popular.  But the money has to come from somewhere, and while I don’t dismiss the notion of re-prioritizing existing funds as part of the solution, it would be totally irresponsible and fantastical to attempt to address this issue without at least discussing the revenue side of the equation.

Extending the sales tax to personal and professional services is certainly a reasonable proposal, as year over year these activities make up a larger portion of our economy as opposed to the sale of goods, the ever shrinking segment on which we currently rely for the bulk of state revenues.  Raising taxes is never popular with voters or politicians, but if we’re going to talk about increasing spending on education, increasing taxes needs to be part of the conversation.

And perhaps in this context it is also time for elected officials to start talking about an income tax, as either a dedicated tax or part of a broader restructuring that both increases education funds while lowering the overall tax burden for the vast majority of Washington families.  For example a Graduated High Income Tax of 3% on joint incomes over $200,000 per year ($100,000 for individuals), and 5% on incomes over $1 million, would raise about $2.6 billion per biennium, while exempting 96% of households. (Yet it would still leave us with a highly regressive tax structure that largely favors the wealthy.  Imagine that.)

The point is, there are two sides to the budget equation, and it is both silly and childish to insist on talking about one without talking about the other.  Any substantial tax increase or restructuring is going to come before voters, one way or another, so if the anti-tax folks truly represent the sentiment of the majority, they have nothing to fear from an open and honest debate.

An advisory panel has narrowed the replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct down to two options, and surprise… neither is state House Speaker Frank Chopp’s mile long Suicide Park Mall.

One is an elevated-bypass hybrid that would run along the waterfront on two independent bridge structures side by side with two lanes in each direction. It would connect to the Battery Street tunnel on the north and a new intersection on the south near Qwest and Safeco fields. Alaskan Way would be placed under the elevated structures. The cost estimate is $2.3 billion. When construction costs, traffic mitigation and related projects are added, the cost would be $3.5 billion.

The other option is a surface/transit scenario, which would create a pair of north and southbound streets along the waterfront. Alaskan Way would become a one-way southbound street with three lanes and a bike lane. Western Avenue would become a one-way northbound street with three lanes and a bike lane. The cost is estimated at $2.2 billion. With construction and traffic mitigation and related projects, the cost would be $3.3 billion.

An “elevated-bypass hybrid,” huh.  Back in the 1950’s, I think they called that a “viaduct.” 

If I were a betting man, I’d bet on the surface/transit option.

Oops.

The Seattle Times editorial board warns against deficit spending:

Washington already borrows billions for capital projects such as roads, ferries and university buildings. These are expensive assets that last many years, and borrowing spreads the cost over the generations.

Borrowing to build a university hall is like borrowing to buy a house. Borrowing to pay salaries of state workers is like taking out a mortgage to buy groceries.

Yeah, well, it depends on what those state workers are being paid to do.  For example, if they’re being paid to educate our children, well, that’s a long term, expensive asset that lasts many years too (13 to 26 years to fully educate, a half century or so of productivity).  So it kinda makes sense to spread that cost over generations as well, doesn’t it?

For example, study after study shows that investing in universal preschool and early, comprehensive intervention for troubled children and their families, pays off huge financial dividends down the road in the form of higher wages and lower costs.  Same holds true of investing in preventative health care.  So really, how is borrowing money to pay for a teacher or a vaccine any less justified than borrowing money to pay for a school or a hospital?

Again, I’m not ready to argue that the state should necessarily borrow a couple billion dollars to help ease the pain of this economic downturn, but the knee jerk arguments against it aren’t very conducive to an informed debate.  The issue is not nearly as black and white as the folks at the Times want to make it out to be, and I hope our legislators adopt a more nuanced approach.

A couple weeks back, in writing about our incredibly stupid special election for King County Elections Director, I urged Jason Osgood to drop out of the race in favor of a more viable candidate if the alternative would mean throwing the election to a partisan, career politician.  Well, yesterday, Jason did exactly that, throwing his support behind current Elections Director Sherril Huff.

Jason Osgood, a previously declared candidate, announced Tuesday he was dropping out of the race and throwing his support to Huff, whom he called “the most experienced and best-qualified candidate.”

I doubt you will ever meet anybody more passionate about election reform than Jason, and he deserves a ton of credit for such a gracious and responsible move.

FYI, I will be moderating the King County Democrats candidate forum on Monday, December 15th, 7-9 PM, at the Renton Carpenters Hall, 231 Burnett Avenue North in Renton.  All candidates who file by Friday’s deadline will be invited to participate, and I urge them all to do so with confidence that I will be tough but fair.

Bad kitty.

The Downtown Seattle Association, along with a who’s who of the city’s most prominent retail and residential real estate developers, has sent a letter to various state and local officials, all but laughing at the economic viability of “Option E,” state House Speaker Frank Chopp’s preferred alternative to replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct.

“This alternative relies on an economic premise that we believe is fundamentally flawed — that there is a market for nearly a mile of new retail development under the highway structure.”

No shit, Sherlock.

Chopp’s plan would call for a mile long, triple decker structure with a retail mall on the ground level and a four-lane sorta elevated tunnel above, capped with a pedestrian park.  The “genius” of Chopp’s plan is that above the basic cost of building the freeway, rents and development rights would pay for the park, the retail construction and other promised amenities.  Talk about a great deal.

Well, not so much, according to the folks who actually do this kinda stuff for a living, the very developers  Chopp is counting on to make Suicide Park Mall a reality.  Amongst the problems envisioned is the lack of demand for 600,000 square feet of new retail space, particularly at this location… you know, with all that “noise, lack of parking, and stigma of being under a freeway.”  One developer commented that the project would be too risky in a boom economy, let alone our current economic bust.

The developers also cited “engineering uncertainties” that make the project “unfeasible from a yield to cost perspective” (translation: impossible to make a profit), including the challenge of placing below-grade foundations within the highway right of way and the waterfront’s “well documented geotechnical conditions,” as well as the need to physically isolate the retail construction from the highway in order to minimize noise and vibration.

“Failure to accomplish this isolation would render the space below unacceptable for commercial occupancy.”

Given these and other inherent risks, the developers make it clear that the estimated rental income simply doesn’t offer a reasonable return on investment.

“It is our firm conviction that this scenario does not offer the commercially attractive or viable opportunities that are essential for funding the amenities that are suggested.  We strongly believe this scenario should be dropped from further analysis and consideration.”

And that’s not just some dumb blogger or activist (or mayor) talking; that’s the opinion of the chief officers of eight of the region’s most prominent developers.  Chopp can argue with the developers if he wants, but considering his project is entirely predicated on their investment, it’s the firmness of their conviction that counts, not its accuracy.

I know that given the political necessity of securing the Speaker’s cooperation whatever alternative is ultimately selected, everybody is afraid to criticize Option E as the utterly ridiculous “impractical and unachievable” fantasy it truly is, but criticizing Chopp and criticizing Chopp’s plan are not the same thing.

Chopp has done an admirable job building and maintaining a large Democratic majority in the House (using it, well, we’ll see how the coming session goes), and with a few notable exceptions he’s proven himself an effective and progressive (if sometimes too pragmatic) Speaker.  But Option E… it’s kinda crazy… economically, architecturally and politically… and it’s time somebody Chopp trusts tells him so.  All this polite beating around the bush… you’re not doing Frank any favors.

So now that the people with money have given everybody a little political cover, it is time for some prominent elected officials—including members of Chopp’s own caucus—to thank the Speaker for his creativity, but offer a very firm “no thank you” to a mile long mall that simply isn’t viable.  Otherwise, we’ll all just continue to fritter away time, money… and Speaker Chopp’s credibility.