If by "slush fund" you mean the people who benefit paying in proportion to what they have to gain, then sure, fair property taxes coming to Seattle is the ultimate equalizer.

Of course, I would expect the phonies at SLOG, who are clearly in the pocket of the Downtown Syndicate to put it down, because you want to continue to rape the incomes of the middle class to the benefits of your Lords and Masters.

Shorter @1: "What about Building 7?!!!"

Halloween was yesterday. Nobody's using scare tactics, the increased tax is all math and so it's a very clear cut decision.

#2

What about Brubaker?

How about they actually let us vote on specific projects?

@5. How about we do representitive democracy?

This one was really difficult for us because we've always voted to fund roads and transportation in the past but have been increasingly unhappy with the completely unnecessary road projects the city has been spending our money on, particularly in our neck of the woods (West Seattle) and have very little faith in them to truly do what's needed rather than waste the money on more frivolous projects. Their actions just don't indicate that they know how to prioritize funds and it's frustrating. We have truly unsafe roads and bridges out there that they just aren't addressing. Is more money needed? YES! Will they spend it where it's actually needed? Probably not unless some major shakeups happen at SDOT. Never has a transportation measure been so tough a call. I'm feeling pretty powerless because it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of situation.

I never vote against these things but I did this time. If you're going to ask for money you need to say what you're spending it on. Also I'm sick of paying off-duty SPD shitbirds to stand around and direct traffic for these projects. Hire a flagger for fuck's sake.

The bike/ped bridge over I-5 lost the federal TIGER grant last week.

@7: Damed if you do/Damed if you don't always equals NO.

Sorry, but if you build more bike lanes, then all that does is invite more people to use them and soon we'll need to build more and more of them. The more cyclists we have, the more bitching moaning and whining we'll hear from them about how all the bike lanes were poorly designed.

I agonized over this one. As I'd commented in previous posts, I just couldn't imagine myself voting no. Instead I was going back and forth between (overcoming my reservations and) voting yes and just abstaining. In the end, I voted yes.

I understand the concerns of Baby Blue @7 about wasting money on frivolous projects. From my standpoint, I can see the project list; it's a good one; there's not that much frivolous in there; and I can't see myself using my vote to take out my frustration with SDOT for past frivolous projects.

Ultimately, for me it came down to two things:
1. Whether a yes would make it that much bigger a lift to come back to voters/taxpayers in 2016 to ask for more money for Sound Transit 3, which to me is potentially the transportation ballot measure we can't afford to reject.
2. Whether to trust that SDOT would do a good enough job of delivering on its project list.

As for 1, I just don't know. Probably no difference one way or the other. I hate being in a position where I feel I'm being forced to prognosticate about the effect of one initiative on another.

I'm more confident about 2. These are the sorts of projects that are entirely in SDOT's wheelhouse. Not exactly risky endeavors.

After many many years of voting for every levy, for the benefit of the people of Seattle, I'm voting no on this one.

I hate being on the same side as the Seattle Times no-taxers, but this just looks like it reflects the developers vision of how to create an environment that most benefits them, rather than any kind of overall vision for the citizens. But then, that is my take on Murray generally.

If you cannot get the progressive middle-aged ladies in the League of Women voters on your side then you probably do not have a very good plan.