Comments

1
surreptitious - I do not think that word means what you think it means
2
Without that amendment there's really no point in even putting the $60 tab fee on the ballot.

The anti-fee folks would be able to claim the Mayor -- whose word can not be trusted on transportation issues -- secretly intends to use it to build light rail to Ballard rather than fixing the potholes.

And no matter whether that's true or not, it alone will add just enough doubt be to undermine the already shaky proposition that people in a down economy will actually vote to impose a tax upon themselves The fee increase will never be passed. And you'll have screwed up everything else that the money would otherwise be used to fix.

This is dumb pointless battle for even the bright kids at the Stranger Urban Planning Labs to undertake.

If progressives could stick to passing what can actually get through instead of pushing ridiculously for every single one of your wet/pipe dreams to come true right away, we might have a shot at getting a couple things done around here for a change.
3
How is this "surreptitious"? Some of the council openly fear that if rail's not excluded the ballot measure will be left too vulnerable to anti-transit campaign machinations. Better to pass a good bill than fail a great one.

McGinn and O'Brien think there's a path forward that includes it (and yes, McGinn does keep hunting for some way to piggyback that campaign promise he made). But don't worry. No doubt the two will use their usual awesome powers of persuasion to win their case.
4
@2) I think McGinn's plan to use the lion's share of the car tab revenues for light rail by implementing a never-ending tax is quixotic, at best, and would collapse at the ballot.

But your point that McGinn's proposal would "build light rail to Ballard rather than fixing the potholes" is just false. All of the proposals on the table, from council members and the mayor, place revenues for transit and road repair in separate pots.
5
@3) Rather than taking McGinn head on--on his issue of long-term funding--this language would stealthily postpone planning until other projects have secured their funding. That's clever. But, like I say in the post, it's unclear what will happen. I suspect a final deal will be made on the dais.
6
@5, you think taking politicians "head on" is always done a la McGinn, with press releases and town halls? Nah. This is very straightforward: fund your campaign promise somewhere else, keep your mitts off our car tabs measure. Poor O'Brien came up with the $80 one and started working it his own way with his colleagues; then McGinn just had to step in and claim the $80 idea as his own and declare it should be open ended. That's O'Brien's reward for loyalty right there.
7
@3) You say:

Some of the council openly fear that if rail's not excluded the ballot measure will be left too vulnerable to anti-transit campaign machinations. Better to pass a good bill than fail a great one.


Council members do fear that--as I've written--but I think it's a misplaced fear. Seattle voters support rail; it's a winning argument for a lot of voters. What voters wouldn't support, I suspect, is the never-ending tax for an unfinished plan that McGinn has advocated.

But there's still a middle ground--a "good bill"--that caps the cost of the car tab fee at $60, gives it a sunset, but still allows the money to fund rail planning.
8
@6) "you think taking politicians 'head on' is always done a la McGinn, with press releases and town halls?"

Gus, please.
9
@7, I think we may be agreeing violently. Which is fun. P.S. Did you not set a Google News alert for "Tutor Perini"? I know it's the last day for ballots, but c'mon, it's juicy. Earthquake...collapse....implode....
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/…
10
This is not a ban on planning for future rail; the city could fund that outside of the $60 car tab fee if it so chooses.

I think most people reasonably expect that if they're voting to pony up another $60, the money be dedicated to fixing and improving EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE (including the SLU and soon-to-be-built First Hill trolley), that the city says it cannot now adequately fund.
11
@5, you're still wrong in so many crucial ways it makes my head hurt.

a) If the plain language is set out in an Amendment, that means by definition it's not surrepitous. Heck, the text was being passed around beforehand in such a manner that you were able to read it. In your favor, I'll concede that it's possible they were trying to be clandestine but just failed miserably.

b) This wouldn't be about funding rail; it's whether or not this specific fee could be used for planning purposes. Yes, the public would possibly be supportive (I've given up trying to predict off-year ballot measures) if actual rail was on the ballot, but that's not the case.

I have no objection for a short-term fee being used for concrete projects, and the language being clarified so it can be sold to the public that way.

It may be a slap to the face of the mayor, but he should be getting used to it by now. He's so close to being able to trademark 'leadership by uniting everyone against you'. Mayor McGinn has almost single-handedly subverted the Seattle Process thanks to his inability to get anyone but you & Mike O'Brien to support his agenda. We may actually get some things done in this city, even if the electorate may not thank him for his part in it.
12
So McGinn isnt going to get street cars to replace our existing fleet of green buses.

As far as his campaign pledges go, at least he's busy working on faster internet access, nude beaches and honoring the city councils decision to build a viaduct tunnel. 3 out of 4 aint so bad.

So he's not going to get street cars to replace our existing fleet of green buses.
13
I hate using MS Office to spell check, work wont let me install one for IE.
14
@11) You say it "wouldn't be about funding rail; it's whether or not this specific fee could be used for planning purposes."

Correct, that's why I wrote it could "postpone planning."
15
@4: Dominic, you'll notice I said,

"The anti-fee folks would be able to claim" that McGinn plans build light rail to Ballard rather than fixing the potholes, not that he does.

Reading comprehension FTW!
16
As a side note, I wonder if by this time tomorrow Dominic will have learned the difference between just "refuting false claims" and actually winning on a ballot measure.

I doubt it. But hope springs eternal...
17
@15) So your argument is that we should shape policy today--placing impertinent restrictions on revenue--because maybe, perhaps somebody could lie about it in the future.
18
@16) If only I had experience winning a ballot measure in this city.

PS -- I stand with the council on this vote. That said, the anti-rail Licata/Conlin amendment is silly--voters won't decide based on whether or not they have red tape on streetcar planning--but the moderate price tag and 10-year sunset has a better shot than McGinn's proposal for a never-ending tax.
19
Dominic, the Conlin amendment was an amendment to O'Brien's proposed amendment to Attachment A. It passed, but then O'Brien's amendment failed 5-4, so Conlin's amendment died with it.
20
This is just maddening. Seattle is the only place where every little thing has to be placed on a fucking ballot. It is a wonder anything ever gets done in the government here. It is the reason that our mass transit is 30 - 40 years behind every other large city.
21
I look forward to voting against this measure.
22
@19, thanks for that. They've posted it up so we can see for ourselves now:
Press release (PDF):
http://www.seattle.gov/stbd/documents/20…

Breakout of components:
http://www.seattle.gov/stbd/documents/vl…
23
@19) Thanks, tiodan. I've amendded my amendment about the amendment.
24
Gah, just pass the damned thing already. It's no big deal. The last time I got gas, the SUV in front of me dropped $80 in his gas tank, and will undoubtedly repeat himself next week. $60-$80 extra for car tabs is trivial.

Please wait...

and remember to be decent to everyone
all of the time.

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.