A couple months back I questioned how David Irons could possibly provide effective leadership in King County when he refused to take a stand on the most important issue on the November ballot: Initiative 912. While he had declined to publicly state his position, sources told me that he had privately assured members of the pro-business Alki Foundation that he opposed the anti-roads initiative.
That post started a week-long vigil that ended when the Seattle P-I took up the fight and finally got Irons on the record opposing I-912. Sort of. Irons’ statement was a muddled equivocation that ineptly attempted to straddle both sides of a barbed-wire fence. And so a couple days ago the P-I once again took a poke at Irons, demanding that he show some of those vaunted leadership skills he likes to tout… and this time Irons finally spoke somewhat clearly.
“After reading your paper’s editorial,” Irons e-mailed us, “I obviously have not succeeded in reaching everyone on the importance of defeating I-912. Transportation is a cornerstone of my campaign and passing I-912 would be a tragedy to our community.”
In a subsequent telephone interview, Irons reiterated that he has been “consistent” on the issue. “I oppose I-912, for a litany of reasons,” said Irons. He also says he’s encountering more people who understand the negative implications of the initiative.
Uh-huh. Yeah Dave… there are a lot of things you haven’t succeeded at in life (businesses, family relations, etc.), but I think I can help you pin down why you failed to communicate your position on I-912. It’s got something to do with this technical thing us writers like to call “words.” For example, take a look at the statement you originally gave the P-I.
“In principle, I believe all major tax increases should go to a vote of the people. Personally I am voting no on Initiative 912. This is not the package that I would have put together. I believe it should have done more to reduce congestion. That’s why we need new leadership in King County that will advocate for more congestion relief.”
Great campaign “cornerstone” Dave… it’s a crappy transportation package, but you’re voting against the initiative that would repeal it, because… um… I guess it would be a “tragedy” to repeal such a crappy package. You call that “consistent”…? Consistently muddled.
But then consistency has never really been your strong suit. The gas tax should go to a vote of the people, but it’s repeal would be a tragedy. You campaign against the Critical Areas Ordinance, yet as a councilmember you push for stronger enforcement. And you mail out campaign literature promising to kill Southwest’s “ridiculous proposal”, while e-mailing a proponent of the deal that you are “open to this concept.” And how did you defend that last piece of flip-floppery?
Irons, a county councilman, said yesterday he has been consistent on the issue. He’s willing to consider a Southwest operation at Boeing Field, but only if it pays for road improvements