I’m doing some system maintenance. If things go down, or look strange, don’t complain. Yet.
UPDATE:
Well how about that. WordPress 2.1.1 requires mySQL 4.0. Which I don’t currently have.
Anyway, everything should be back to normal. If it’s not, let me know.
Sen. Janea Holmquist (R-Hypocrite) makes a weasly argument for maintaining the 60-percent supermajority requirement on school levies:
Sen. Janea Holmquist, R-Moses Lake, said that Republicans are leery of making it easier to raise property taxes. She noted that the supermajority requirement stems from a 1932 citizen initiative.
And, um… of course, we should honor the will of these voters, despite the fact that nearly all of them are now dead.
I see this argument trotted out a lot — that because a measure was approved by voters by whatever margin however many years ago, its provisions are now somehow inviolate. But of course, this is just an argument of convenience to be used whenever it suits ones needs. For example, the 1932 property tax initiative that Holmquist venerates also capped levy rates at 40-mill, rather than the much lower 10-mill cap now in place. And it was just one part of a larger tax reform package that included a measure creating both a personal and corporate income tax… a citizens initiative that passed with 70-percent of the vote, but was thrown out a year later in a controversial 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
So I don’t suppose there’s something so special about that 1932 election that Sen. Holmquist would be willing to support an income tax and a 40-mill levy cap? Or that there’s something so insufficient about modern voters that they shouldn’t be given the opportunity to amend a provision passed by their counterparts 75-years ago?
Initiatives enact laws like any other law, and once the two-year moratorium is up, they can and should be amended to fix poorly thought out provisions or address changing times. It is true that initiatives are voted on directly by citizens, but then, so are our representatives.
Over on his blog, Postman asks “What really doomed Senate vote on school bill?” — and while he presents an interesting exploration of the politics that led to its failure, the simple answer is: Sen. Ken Jacobsen (D-Seattle).
As a constitutional amendment the bill requires 33 votes to pass. (It would then need to be approved by a simple majority of voters at the polls.) The bill failed 30-17 after Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown (D-Spokane) shifted her vote in a procedural move that enables her to recall the measure for a later vote.
Sure, the Republicans reneged on a deal that would have assured passage, but the only vote that really matters now is that of Sen. Jacobsen. A careful observer will notice that only 48 votes were cast, with Sen. Paull Shin (D-Edmonds) absent on a trip to Korea. One can reasonably expect that should the measure come up a second time, both Senators Shin and Brown will vote for the bill. Assuming no other senator switches sides, that leaves Sen. Jacobsen with the deciding vote.
Jacobsen says he’s holding out for a measure giving Seattle schools an extra $30 million, and no question I hope he gets what he’s asking for. But I’m not willing to scuttle our best shot at removing our ridiculous 60-percent supermajority requirement for school levies. And hopefully, when push comes to shove, neither is Sen. Jacobsen.
Time to start pushing and shoving.
The state House Finance Committee is considering two bills this week, and committee members need to hear from you immediately.
The first is HB 1827, a bill requiring a “tax expenditure report” to be part of the biennial budget process. What does this mean? Very simply it requires an accounting of all tax exemptions, credits, loopholes etc., so that legislators (and voters) can quantify what they are costing the state in lost revenues. Hard to argue with that… unless of course, you simply don’t want the public to know how much corporate tax breaks are costing us.
The second bill — and this one really gets my goat — is HB 2117, which would codify the one percent annual limit on increases in property tax revenues, that was recently tossed out along with Tim Eyman’s I-747. Let’s be clear… re-imposing this 1 percent cap would not only be incredibly harmful to local communities — particularly those in slow-growing, rural regions of the state — it would be downright cowardly and idiotic.
There may be a cap rate that makes sense, but one-percent is nonsensical and vindictive — it can’t even keep up with inflation, let alone growth in population or growth in demand for public services. All across the state local taxing districts are on the verge of insolvency, and face a potential collapse in essential public services (police, fire, EMS) unless something changes, and quick. I-747’s court defeat is an opportunity to reexamine the issue and create a reasonable cap, while targeting some real property tax relief to those who need it most. (Hmm… a Property Tax Homestead Exemption comes to mind.) But to simply regurgitate Tim’s bullshit would be a total abdication of legislative responsibility.
So let your representatives know that you want them to vote YES on HB 1827 and an emphatic NO on HB 2117. The Washington Tax Fairness Coalition has made it easier for you; just scroll to the bottom of this page and submit the form.
And do it now.
Liars! Liars! Liars! You guys are all liars!
City Councilman Nick Licata will be taking your questions over at the Seattle Times. Ask him about living in the PRAG house (nevermind, it’s ony viaduct questions).
Lee’s got issues with liberal bloggers writing posts about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Why, Lee? Are you a part of the conspiracy?
An update on what rural conservatives are spending your money advocating.
Does anyone know a good place to get a Reuben? I know one place, but I need to expand my Reuben universe. Put your suggestions in the comments.
Last week I publicly fretted that Governor Chris Gregoire might eventually paint herself into a rhetorical corner via public comments over replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct. I worried that the Governor’s increasingly adamant insistence that a rebuild is the only viable option could put her in the unenviable position of either defying the will of the voters, or appearing to cave to big, bad Seattle just as she prepares to head into what could be a tough reelection campaign. But in an exclusive interview with Lynn Allen of Evergreen Politics, the Governor has allayed my concerns.
[Is there] any way the surface and transit option would be entertained by the state?
Gregoire: Absolutely. We did entertain it earlier but couldn’t make it work. We have a set of criteria we have to meet. We have to maintain safety. We have to meet capacity for both moving freight and people in that corridor.
We’re not accommodating increases in capacity if we either rebuild the viaduct or build a new tunnel. There won’t be an increase in today’s capacity. It’s now somewhere in the neighborhood of 110,000 per day.
So, no matter what we do, we still have to maximize transit and surface. No matter what happens, there has to be a comprehensive transit component. We will need to be able to increase the capacity for moving the increase in population we are expecting.
Then, too, what we decide to do has to be fiscally responsible and friendly to urban design.
That’s why we’re working with Ron Sims. The state is saying, “Show me what you’re talking about here”. We’d like to see what the possibilities are.
As HA co-blogger Will points out, Gov. Gregoire appears to contradict herself in her use of the word “capacity” — but that’s the sort of verbal nitpicking I choose to reserve for Republicans. Taken as a whole, and in the context of the entire debate, the Governor is clearly leaving the door open to a surface solution. And I tend to agree with David Postman that this interview is entirely consistent with her prior statements, representing at most a clarification rather than a shift in position.
The Governor has repeatedly drawn a line in the sand, demanding that any Viaduct replacement must maintain capacity, a criterion some have supposed to rule out a surface alternative. But the key to accepting the surface option as both a transportation and political compromise rests on how we define the word “capacity.” WSDOT’s Environmental Impact Statement describes the purpose of the project as one that “maintains or improves mobility and accessibility for people and goods” — language the Governor clearly echoes in talking to Lynn about capacity.
As I wrote last week:
Hard-nosed rebuild supporters have mocked King County Executive Ron Sims as some kind of enviro-whacko hippie for stating that we should be focused on moving people, not cars — but that’s exactly the stated purpose put forth in the EIS. And that’s exactly the language the Governor needs, to join former tunnel supporters in support of a surface compromise.
It’s not a matter of redefining the word capacity — “mobility” was always the definition from the start, and accepting an alternative that improves mobility, while perhaps decreasing vehicle capacity, is perfectly consistent with Gov. Gregoire’s line in the sand.
That is what the Governor essentially told Lynn — she is focused on moving “freight and people,” and she is willing to work with Ron Sims “to see what the possibilities are.” I had been concerned that in championing a rebuild Gov. Gregoire might eventually paint herself into a corner, but by her own words, she has clearly reiterated that she is willing to consider a surface option, if she can be convinced that it maintains mobility. I can’t see how one can read this any other way. And no, it doesn’t represent a shift in position.
No doubt a rebuild overwhelmingly remains Gov. Gregoire’s preferred option. But if in the wake of a No/No March 13 vote Mayor Nickels can abandon the tunnel he’s championed, and campaign for a surface option without losing face (and the smart money is on exactly that,) then surely the Governor can give surface proponents the opportunity to persuade her that they can develop an alternative that meets the criteria set forth in the EIS.
And once Seattle voters speak, and the political food fight comes to an end, that’s exactly what I expect the Governor to do.
Lynn Allen gets an interview with Governor Gregoire. Here’s the Governor’s answer concerning the “surface plus transit” option:
We did entertain it earlier but couldn’t make it work. We have a set of criteria we have to meet. We have to maintain safety. We have to meet capacity for both moving freight and people in that corridor.
We’re not accommodating increases in capacity if we either rebuild the viaduct or build a new tunnel. There won’t be an increase in today’s capacity. It’s now somewhere in the neighborhood of 110,000 per day.
Gregoire says she wants to move “both freight and people.” She then cites the number of cars that use the corridor, not the number of people. I don’t know if Governor Gregoire knows the difference between moving cars and moving people, or why that’s important. Also, I have no clue how she can say that “we’re not accommodating increases in capacity” by rebuilding a viaduct or a tunnel. I don’t believe the facts bear this out.
Read the whole interview (thankfully, it’s not all about the viaduct).
Last night, at a meeting of his fellow architects, Seattle City Councilmember Peter Steinbrueck announced that he will not seek reelection this fall.
I first met Peter in the spring of 2003. I had seen an article in the Seattle Weekly about how the mayor had “targeted” certain councilmembers for defeat, and Steinbrueck was on the list. Peter was a very strong candidate; it was conventional wisdom that he would pose a serious challenge to Mayor Greg Nickels. While I liked Nickels for playing hardball (unlike previous mayors), I liked Peter more, and committed extra time to his reelection bid.
As it turns out, he was a shoe-in. Peter’s main opponent (husband of Deborah Senn, Rudi Bertschi) dropped out of the race, leaving only a token candidate (no offense, Zander). This turned out to be a great thing; I was an awful volunteer coordinator. But it was fun, and getting involved in campaigns is a great way for folks to make a difference. This is especially true in local races; you get the chance to meet and get to know the candidate.
Peter Steinbrueck will leave the city council to do what he has done during his time on the council; fight for his beliefs. He’s mentioned that he might yet run for mayor, or even Congress.
Congressman Peter Steinbrueck (D-Seattle)… I could get used to that.
State Sen. Janea Holmquist (R-Moses Lake) just introduced SB 6142, which very simply reads:
A member of the legislature may not introduce as prime sponsor more than fifteen bills during a legislative session, excluding committee substitute bills.
Hmm. Perhaps Sen. Holmquist has a point, considering this is the sixteenth bill she’s primed thus far this session.
The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Come join me for some hoppy beer and hopped up conversation.
In honor of Al Gore’s victory Sunday night at the Oscars, we’ll be screening An Inconvenient Truth tonight — the perfect antidote to the usual hot air that tends to emanate from us DL regulars.
Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.
Chris Mulick of the Tri-City Herald writes:
Longtime Richland state Rep. Shirley Hankins has repeatedly used the power of her office in the past five years to muscle state and local officials into directing business to her two daughters’ struggling tire baling company.
A Herald investigation shows the Republican lawmaker’s efforts to promote Northwest Tire Recycling have ranged from carefully indirect to downright blunt, and the tactics raise questions about abuse of power.
Hankins denies any wrongdoing or applying excessive pressure. Her hometown paper says that the work on behalf of the company included lobbying the state Department of Ecology.
Who do I think should run against Rep. Hankins in ’08? This guy.
Seattle is the sixth worst waterfront city, according to the Project of Public Spaces.
Seattle residents adore their scenic mountain vistas. But increasingly they are seeing them through windshields while stuck in gridlock on the Alaskan Way Viaduct, an elevated highway that divides downtown Seattle from the waterfront.
[…]
The situation is quite similar to what San Francisco faced in the aftermath of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, which finally led the city to demolish the elevated Embarcadero Freeway. San Francisco made a difficult decision: They did not rebuild this busy artery. Today they are reaping the dividends with the greatest waterfront renaissance in the United States. Seattle could also make huge gains by taking down the Viaduct along the waterfront, and investing in transit service instead. The waterfront now feels disconnected from downtown, but the removal of the viaduct would open up new links between people and Puget Sound. Public destinations that are floundering today would flourish.
But what the fuck do they know? They’re just a bunch of people who know a lot about
“environmental design, architecture, urban planning, urban geography, environmental psychology, landscape architecture, arts administration and information management. The staff also collaborates on projects with architecture, landscape architecture and engineering firms, graphic design firms, transportation consultants, retail planners and community organizations.”
But Seattle is different and more special than every other place in the world! Nothing that worked in any other city could work here! Besides, it’s a state highway! That’s all that should matter! State highway! State highway! State highway!
Come on… can anybody other than a newspaper editorial board or a stadium-struck state senator really take Sonics owner Clay Bennett seriously? Yesterday Bennett unveiled sketches of a proposed $500 million Renton arena, but….
Bennett said team owners won’t pay for any cost overruns [… and] he did not say how much owners would contribute…
So let me get this straight. The Sonics want a $500 million arena of their own design, financed by $300 million in state money, plus $100 million or so in land and cash from the city of Renton. Renton would own the arena, and be responsible for major maintenance and repairs, but the Sonics would keep all revenues from all events, and not be responsible for a penny of construction cost overruns. Of the remaining $100 million not covered by taxpayers, that would mostly be offset by naming rights, seat licenses and other such deals, bringing Bennett and his partners’ total contribution to… just about nil.
And Bennett calls a public vote on the proposal “problematic”…? No shit, Sherlock.
Given the political reality (you know… that state Sen. Margarita Prentice of Renton only has one vote,) you’d think Bennett might have tried to sweeten the pot instead of announcing that taxpayers would be stuck with the inevitable cost overruns. But then, I’ve never believed that Bennett ever seriously wanted to keep the Sonics in the Seattle area, but rather has always intended to move the team back home to Oklahoma City, where he will be welcomed as a conquering hero. In that admittedly cynical scenario the arena proposal must be just believable enough to keep gullible fans (and editors) in their seats until the Key Arena lease runs out in 2010, but outrageous enough to make the deal politically DOA.
That Bennett now says he might accept a public vote on his proposal fits in quite nicely with that strategy, dragging the process out even further while virtually assuring that such a grandiose act of corporate welfare is rejected at the polls.
So enjoy the Seattle Sonics while you can. That is, if you can enjoy a team that can’t be bothered to put a quality product on the court, even while supposedly in the midst of fight to gain public support for a new, taxpayer-funded arena.
TANGENTIAL UPDATE:
After a similar Sonics “announcement” a couple weeks back, I compared the contrasting coverage in the Times and P-I, much to the irritation of Times reporter David Postman, who accused me of being a wrong-headed, fatuous drunk.
I like Postman, and think he’s a great reporter. But he’s more than a little bit sensitive, and he took my critique as a personal attack on the Times and his colleagues. No doubt I preferred the editorial slant of the P-I’s coverage (I often do,) but whether Postman accepts my explanation or not, my main goal was to point out that different papers covering the same event often impress in readers dramatically different perceptions of the key issues at hand.
So considering our previous media criticism brouhaha, it is only fair to compare and contrast the Times and P-I in their coverage of yesterday’s Sonics “news.”
Seattle Times:
|
Seattle P-I:
|
Readers of the P-I were presented with a lede that pretty much tells the story Bennett wanted to tell: a politically conciliatory Bennett released architectural drawings that enable the public and lawmakers to envision the new, proposed arena. In fact, the P-I article never even mentions anything about cost overruns or owners contributions.
The Times lede is quite a bit more nuanced… and appropriately cynical. It too starts with the visual — the sketches of the new arena — but quickly dives into the political deep-end of the story: the team won’t pay for cost overruns or commit to a contribution, and legislators remain skeptical. While the P-I says the public “can now picture” the new arena, the Times ephasizes that “Bennett offered few new details.” And though the P-I leads with a propitiative Bennett quote, the Times merely describes the Sonics owner as having “softened his stance.”
My only formal journalism training occurred way back in high school, but I’m pretty sure the admonition to put the most important information near the top, hasn’t changed much these past twenty-five years. (A rule, by the way, which I often break.) Many readers never get past the first few paragraphs, so when it comes to the release of the architectural sketches, those who picked up the P-I this morning will simply learn what happened, while those who picked up the Times will learn what it all means. Score one for the Times.
As I’ve said before: one hearing, two newspapers, two ledes.
And all the more reason to keep this a two newspaper town.
The Tri-City Herald’s Chris Mulick digs up the dirt on state Rep. Shirley Hankins (R-Richland):
Longtime Richland state Rep. Shirley Hankins has repeatedly used the power of her office in the past five years to muscle state and local officials into directing business to her two daughters’ struggling tire baling company.
A Herald investigation shows the Republican lawmaker’s efforts to promote Northwest Tire Recycling have ranged from carefully indirect to downright blunt, and the tactics raise questions about abuse of power.
[… Hankins] denied she’s ever used her office to promote the daughters’ business […] but multiple interviews, letters, e-mails and other documents reveal that Hankins has actively promoted Northwest Tire Recycling in Olympia and the Tri-Cities.
Great reporting by Mulick, but will his paper follow up? Central WA blog The Other Side demands that both Hankins and the region’s editorial boards do the right thing.
The papers in the region should call for her resignation. And, of course, the only honorable thing for her to do……resign.
Hmm. I dunno. I mean, all Hankins really did was abuse the power of her office to benefit her daughters’ business, and as far as editorial-worthy scandals go, that pales in comparison to this session’s notorious Dogs-In-Bars Controversy.
As for my colleagues on the right — who fancy themselves watchdogs of government corruption — you just know that if Hankins were a Democrat they’d be screaming for her political necklacing. But I’m not gonna hold my breath waiting for cries of outrage from my friends over at (u)SP.
From the Times:
The trail would be designed as a “dual-use facility” that could accommodate a high-capacity passenger rail line sometime in the future, said one of the architects of the deal, County Executive Ron Sims.
If a final deal is reached in the coming months, the Port would pay $103 million for the rail line, then swap it with King County in exchange for county-owed Boeing Field.
The Port would also give the county $66 million to build a biking and hiking trail south of the Snohomish County line. Freight trains would continue to run between Woodinville and Snohomish.
The really important thing to remember here is this: before everyone starts arguing about what to do with the right-of-way, we had to acquire the right-of-way. Idon’t know if rail will be feasible, I don’t want the rail line eliminated in favor of a trail-only use. At least not right away.
Here’s what Goldy had to say about it back in January:
The pro-rail group wants the corridor to be converted to commuter rail now, using the existing tracks, but transit experts who have studied the route insist that it just isn’t economical. The tracks themselves have been neglected over the years and would require expensive upgrades, while current commuter patterns simply won’t support much of the route. Or at least, that’s what I’ve been privately told.
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!