It's not very popular.

David Miller
report this user
Nov 10, 2013 David Miller commented on The Four Horsemen of the Buspocalypse.
@27 El Steven, you're not correct. The TBD does not allow a percentage MVET. It is only a flat rate.

$500 Yugo? As much as $100. $30,000 Prius? $100. $200,000 Aston? $100.
Nov 10, 2013 David Miller commented on The Four Horsemen of the Buspocalypse.
After Seattle's try at a TBD, which I opposed, I went (as promised) to Olympia to try and win exemptions from the MVET for low-income people. Senator Frockt was a key helper in the effort, which was partially successful.

We were able to get an MVET rebate program inserted into the legislation. It was not what we asked for as we wanted it to be bigger and apply to people at 70% AMI, but we did have some success.

There is now a rebate of up to 40% of the "fee, tax, or toll paid for by the low income individual."

This applies to any household at 45% of AMI, adjusted for household size.

Any TBD encompassing 500,000 or more people is eligible.

We were not happy with the 45% figure, but it is what we had to put it at to get it through the GOP folks.

So while MVET is still regressive, it is not as regressive as it was in 2011.

David Miller
Oct 16, 2013 David Miller commented on The Stranger's Voters' Guide!.
Well, DP, if you don't like the map change it. Join the citizen's commission and redraw it to fit your particular politics. There are only three District elections before the map is re-drawn.

Truth is not everyone will like any map. That's why we open it up to rebalancing and redrawing by a citizen's commission after the next census.
Oct 16, 2013 David Miller commented on The Stranger's Voters' Guide!.
@4 - There would not be any need to change the Districts measure. The change would have to come from Prop 1.

Prop 1 only covers at-large seats. As Toby mentioned, Nick Licata tried to amend it.

Because of the state laws surrounding public financing measures, Council may (probably) would have to put an amended Prop 1 back on the ballot for voter approval.
Jan 28, 2013 David Miller commented on I Was at the Shooting at Twilight Exit.
@16 - Good point. Bet 99% of the folks in the bar were pretty glad to see them roll up.
Nov 14, 2012 David Miller commented on The Straight Dope.
I'm guessing a boatload (bongload) of people aren't aware you can't smoke weed in public and the ticket is $50.

I'm guessing that and no growing your own will be one of the biggest items necessary for the education campaign.

Dom, I assume the various indoor smoking provisions passed to prohibit tobacco smoke apply to marijuana, too?
Sep 20, 2012 David Miller commented on Why Did Bruce Harrell Weaken a Bill Designed to Clean Up City Elections?.
@18 - The data don't show we're wrong. It only shows what everyone has done in the past. I think both Dorsal and I wish we had started our campaigns earlier. I also think we're both against rolling over funds from the prior campaigns. The issue is when to allow people to start fundraising.

I think a year is about right, which places the start date July 1 of the prior year. If you're not thinking about your run at that point, you are already too late.

Starting Jan 1 leaves you not enough time to raise money ahead of the first endorsement interviews. The 6-7 months is not enough time to raise any serious money ahead of the primary.

If you're a challenger, you almost never get a donation on the first call. It takes meetings and multiple calls. If I can't make my first call until January, then I'm not going to see that check until February or March. An incumbent has an entire network of people that will write a check on the first call.

Sep 20, 2012 David Miller commented on Why Did Bruce Harrell Weaken a Bill Designed to Clean Up City Elections?.
@11 makes a good point. If you can only start fundraising on January 1, it really screws up the endorsement process for a challenger. Since the state and county insist on moving the primary earlier and earlier, the Jan 1 deadline is worse and worse for challengers.

If they really want to help, they should move the declaration date into March. It would help with endorsements and fundraising for challengers.
Sep 20, 2012 David Miller commented on Why Did Bruce Harrell Weaken a Bill Designed to Clean Up City Elections?.
I didn't say I lost because I started too late. If I had it to do over again, or if I ever decide to run for office again, I would absolutely start earlier.

The fact CM O'Brien sponsored this is irrelevant. I'd have the same disagreement with this legislation regardless of which of the nine CMs sponsored it. This is bad legislation that provides a meaningful advantage to incumbents while sounding like reform.

FWIW, splitting the different between Harrell's amendment and O'Briens original concept -- so a fundraising start date July 1 of the prior year -- is an alternative I would support. January 1 of the same year is unreasonable. July 1 of the prior year works fine for me. I doubt you and I are that far apart on this issue.

Sep 20, 2012 David Miller commented on Why Did Bruce Harrell Weaken a Bill Designed to Clean Up City Elections?.
I'm aware the overwhelming majority of challengers don't start until January 1. One thing I learned when I ran in 2009 is I should have started earlier. One reason challengers fail so often is they don't get out their early enough to start building name familiarity. At the very least, challengers should start July the year prior to their primary year, that way they catch a full year of events side-by-side with their targeted office holder.

The data shown in the article are accurate, but are merely a reflection of flawed conventional wisdom.

Limiting challengers to 7 months of campaign and fundraising before the primary is a terrible, terrible idea.
 
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy