The Stranger Election Control Board faced tough choices this
endorsement season: Concerned Women for America lackey Tim Burgess or
certifiable dolt David Della for Seattle City Council? Trial lawyers or
insurance companies? And the most strenuous brain bender of
all—should we give the thumbs up to 50 miles of light rail even
though it comes with 182 miles of roads? Ultimately, we decided we
didn’t want a Big Gulp with our salad on that one, and
advise
rejecting the $17.8 billion package.
The SECB hasn’t faced such vexing choices in years. Usually, it’s
been pretty easy for us: Yes monorail, Yes monorail, Yes monorail. But
this year, we were forced to rack our brains in earnest. It got so
bad—Jesus, even the picayune state measure on inmate labor is a
mind fuck—that in the end, after all the intellectual debate, we
were forced to take out some sheets of notebook paper and make pro and
con lists to decide. (Except in the clear-cut Sally Clark vs. the
Anti-Statues Lady race.)
The SECB is Erica C. Barnett, Josh Feit, Tim Keck,
Jonah Spangenthal-Lee, Eli Sanders, Dan Savage, Ari Spool, and
Annie Wagner. We do not make endorsements in uncontested races like the
Tom Rasmussen race (where you should vote for the gay guy).
Sound Transit/RTID
Proposition No. 1
VOTE NO
The joint roads and transit ballot measure shackles expansion of
Sound Transit’s popular light-rail system to a massive
roads-
expansion package that could never have passed on its
own.
After road proponents realized they didn’t have voter support for a
stand-alone roads package (a major roads-expansion proposal died at the
polls in 2002), legislators in Olympia linked roads expansion to light
rail. This proposal is an attempt to use urban voters to pass a
suburban agenda. Rather than letting compromised politicians tell us
what’s possible, the people should tell the leaders what’s needed: more
light rail without massive roads expansion. It’s time to flex some
urban muscle. Seattle voters shouldn’t have to fund roads on the
Eastside in order to get light rail.
But by voting No on 50 miles of new transit, wouldn’t Seattle’s
pro-transit voting bloc be cutting its nose to spite its face? No. By
unwisely voting Yes on 182 miles of new roads, including four new lanes
on I-405 to accommodate an extra 40,000 cars a day, they would be.
Supporters of the roads and transit package love to talk about all
the light rail we’ll be giving away if we don’t vote for the $17.8
billion package. The SECB sees it differently. If we turn roads and
transit down, the invaluable transit side of the package can come back
next year (which would be great given that Democratic Party turnout
will be huge), or else in 2009, when the light rail track from Sea-Tac
Airport to downtown will be rolling out and making the on-the-ground
case for expansion. True: Voters turned down a rail package in 1968.
But this isn’t 1968. This is 2007. Global warming is an international
crisis, Al Gore just won the Nobel Peace Prize, and Sound Transit is
already building a $5.7 billion line that will demand expansion in its
own right.
For roads, this package is the last gasp. No one in his right mind
looks at the environmental realities we’re currently facing and says,
“Let’s build hundreds of miles of new roads!” But that’s exactly what
this package would do—152 new miles of new general-purpose lanes,
30 miles of HOV. If we pass this package, we’ll have wasted our last
chance in a generation to do light rail right. Yes, we’ll get light
rail to Microsoft and Tacoma (by 2027) but we’ll also get a 43 percent
increase in miles driven in this region. The new roads will just fill
up, as roads do; they’ll contribute more to global warming than light
rail takes away; and they won’t do anything to reduce congestion
without further investments in transit in the future. But we won’t be
able to make those investments, because we’ll be committed to paying
for a compromised light rail system for the next 50 years.
There are other problems with the package. The light rail in this
proposal would be paid for with a regressive sales tax instead of user
fees (like tolls). The line itself (through a low-density area) may
feed sprawl in south King County, instead of promoting the dense urban
development that will grow alongside light rail stations in North
Seattle. Meanwhile, the roads in the package are not, as supporters of
the package claim, necessary investments in safety and maintenance: The
biggest investments in the package include a massive expansion of a
suburban freeway (I-405), new connections between sprawling exurbs and
an already overtaxed I-5 (SRs 509 and 167), and a highway that will
serve sprawl and pave over some of the last remaining oak prairie in
Western Washington (the still-on-the-table cross-base highway.)
The SECB wants light rail, but we can do better than a package that
shackles a transit solution to a transportation disaster. Vote No on
Proposition 1.
Seattle City Council Position No. 1
VOTE JEAN GODDEN
Both candidates in this race have solid liberal credentials. Back in
August, we endorsed Green Party activist Joe Szwaja, because we wanted
to see an eloquent challenger with a firm commitment to the
environment, social responsibility, and police accountability on the
general-election ballot. However, incumbent Jean
Godden has been impressive in her first four-year term
(particularly last month, when she stood up to Mayor Greg Nickels by
short circuiting his oafish nightlife crackdown).
Godden deserves
a second term.
When David Della refused to take on leadership of the energy
committee, newcomer Godden stepped in to fill the challenging role.
Eventually, her committee lowered electric rates more than 8
percent—significantly more than the mayor requested. She
supported a tax on commercial parking that now helps pay for
transportation maintenance around the city. She stood up for cyclists
when the powerful industrial lobby wanted to eliminate the planned
“missing link” from the Burke-
Gilman Trail in Ballard, and she
says she’ll fight to restore a bike lane on Stone Way. And she has
fought hard for her budget priorities, including libraries, crossing
guards for schools, and community health-care centers.
On priority issues for the SECB—getting drunk and naked
ladies—Godden has been outstanding. Seriously, Godden’s feminist
candor (when she spoke out against Nickels’s strip-club crackdown) and
her political smarts (when she torpedoed Nickels’s nightlife license)
cast her as the council member with perhaps the keenest civil-liberties
sensibility.
Godden’s popularity with her council colleagues has been key to her
success. In her second term, she says she hopes to chair the powerful
budget committee. We look forward to seeing what she accomplishes. Vote
Godden.
Seattle City Council Position No. 3
VOTE VENUS VELÁZQUEZ
The SECB is nervous about losing progressive council member Peter
Steinbrueck, who’s been an advocate for the poor, an environmental
champion, and an outspoken check on Mayor Nickels. Most notably,
Steinbrueck reformed Nickels’s downtown rezone legislation to extract
more public benefits from developers. After 10 years of good work on
the council, Steinbrueck is stepping down.
We believe Venus Velázquez, a public-affairs
consultant whom Steinbrueck has endorsed, will be a forceful,
independent, and effective voice on the council. Her social-service
advocacy on behalf of clients such as CASA Latina, her no-nonsense
approach to negotiating issues, and her firm commitment to social
justice and working-class people convince us she has what it takes to
fill Steinbrueck’s shoes.
The race between Velázquez and her opponent, private attorney
Bruce Harrell, has been ugly. Harrell accused Velázquez of
exploiting race, of being a Republican (not a chance), and of illegally
colluding with a PAC on her campaign. Meanwhile, Velázquez’s
campaign accused Harrell of being a bad father to his son from a past
relationship.
In an interview with the SECB that was frequently punctuated by
name-calling and petty snipes (Harrell: “I couldn’t make heads or tails
of what she’s agreeing to”; Velázquez: “Let me speak! I’m not
interrupting you”), when the two actually got around to the issues,
Velázquez emerged as the stronger candidate. Unlike Harrell,
Velázquez cited several specific agenda items, including
targeting families and education levy dollars where they’re needed,
putting resources into neglected areas like the Duwamish and South
Park, and loosening zoning restrictions in industrial areas.
We do worry that Velázquez, whose campaign is expected to get
a big boost from a pro-business PAC called Forward Seattle, will be a
bit too cozy with the business interests that lobby city hall. We’re
also concerned that someone who talks out of both sides of her mouth on
housing (blaming restrictions on new multifamily housing for Seattle’s
affordability crisis in one breath and declaring that “we still
have a lot of capacity” to build
in multifamily areas in the next)
won’t be
a champion for density, Steinbrueck’s signature
issue.
Harrell is a likable but odd guy with a tendency to say juvenile
things (“Do you guys smell that?”) when his opponent makes a point he
doesn’t like. More importantly, he’s vague on the issues, sidestepping
positions with promises to consult experts, and he tends toward
platitudes (“I’m the real deal in terms of getting power to the
people”) instead of solutions. Vote Velázquez.
Seattle City Council Position No. 7
VOTE TIM BURGESS
In case you haven’t figured it out from our 24/7 Slog coverage:
Tim Burgess kind of freaks us out. His past work for right-wing
groups like (anti-gay, anti-woman) Concerned Women for America and
(anti-sex, anti-birth control) Food for the Hungry gives the apostate
progressives on the SECB the willies. What swayed us into the Burgess
camp is this: He’s in the right place on some of our most important
issues, including nightlife and the environment. Sealing the deal:
Lightweight incumbent David Della—a seat-warmer who never met an
environmental policy he liked—simply isn’t intellectually fit to
be on the council.
On the issues: Burgess wants to fully implement the city’s Bicycle
Master Plan, and opposes watering it down by removing bike lanes, as
the city has done on Stone Way. And he strongly supports the
surface/transit option for replacing the viaduct—a big contrast
with Della, who was the loudest proponent for a rebuild. A former cop,
Burgess also gets it on nightlife and public safety.
Certainly, we remain a bit shocked by Burgess’s work for the CWA and
his past statements about the “sacredness of marriage between a man and
a woman,” as well as his assertion that people of faith, like him,
“don’t like abortion.” But we believe him when he says he “made a
mistake,” and that he “fully supports marriage equality” and a woman’s
right to choose. So do high-profile gay leaders like Rep. Joe McDermott and former Lifelong Aids Alliance leader Tina Podlodowski,
who have endorsed him.
Della has spent his four years on the council avoiding hard work and
responsibility. He defeated incumbent Heidi Wills by calling her “Rate
Hike Heidi” and promising to take the lead on electric rates. Then,
when he got elected, he turned down the chance to chair the City Light
Committee. He was unrepentant about this sneaky dodge during his
interview with the SECB, telling us “the voters don’t care.” Meanwhile,
he headed up the park committee where—among other gaffes—he
failed to do the important groundwork necessary to get the parks levy
on the ballot, and he fumbled citizen efforts to build a premier
skatepark at Seattle Center.
Della has also been terrible on environmental issues. In addition to
supporting the viaduct rebuild, he opposed the extension of the
Burke-Gilman Trail, and backed the controversial Woodland Park Zoo
garage because “families don’t ride the bus to the zoo.” Big surprise:
Environmental groups don’t support Della—not, as he claimed
desperately last week, because they’re racist, but because he’s totally
out of step with environmental values. Vote Burgess.
Seattle City Council Position No. 9
VOTE SALLY CLARK
Judy Fenton has one campaign issue: She wants to get rid of naked
public art because she thinks it promotes pedophilia and,
apparently, lesbianism. Piss her off by
reelecting the only
lesbian on the council. Vote Sally Clark.
Statewide Measures
There are six statewide ballot measures this year. They range from
significant (preventing insurance companies from stiffing consumers) to
picayune (tinkering with higher education bonds).
On the significant side (as in, you must vote No) is Tim Eyman’s
Initiative 960. Eyman’s attempted comeback—like Britney
Spears’s disastrous VMA performance—is a sign of desperation.
Sorry guys, the microphone was formally unplugged on this tired GOP
trope in last year’s election. I-960 would require a two- blah blah
blah thirds majority of voters of the legislature blah blah blah to
pass any tax increase. Look: Revenues to fund basic government
responsibilities—enforcing laws, maintaining roads, running
schools, protecting consumers—should not require extraordinary
measures. Vote No.
Another significant measure is Referendum 67. You should
vote Yes to prevent insurance companies from gaming the system
by unreasonably denying claims. Currently, if your insurance company
denies a claim, you have to take them to court. And if you win, the
insurance company only covers the original claim—no damages. This
means insurance companies don’t have anything to lose by denying claims
and forcing consumers to lawyer up. R-67 fixes this by bringing our
laws up to speed with the 45 other states that allow consumers to
collect the claim and collect punitive damages if they prove
their carrier denied the claim unreasonably. Vote Yes.
Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 8206 is also a big deal. The
legislature passed a constitutional amendment requiring the state to
establish a “rainy-day fund”—setting aside 1 percent of revenues
each year. Legislators could only tap the fund in emergencies (like
natural disasters) or by a hefty supermajority vote. Tough-as-nails
Democratic House Budget Chair Helen Sommers dissented because the
legislature already budgets with a reserve fund ($1 billion right
now)—which they can tap if needed. The SECB agrees with Sommers.
It’s a bad idea to lock up additional money ($430 million subtracted
from next year’s budget if this measure passes). The two-thirds
threshold would jeopardize the state’s ability to cope when a “rainy
day” actually does come along.
Let’s stop micromanaging our
legislators. Vote No.
The other big-deal statewide measure is House Joint Resolution
(HJR) 4204, a constitutional amendment that lowers the threshold
for passing local school levies from a two-thirds vote of the people to
a simple majority. The amendment finally passed after last November’s
Democratic sweep. Thank them for this pro-education legislation by
voting Yes.
There are two other constitutional amendments. One, HJR 4215,
gives the state more options when investing money in higher education.
Vote Yes. Another, SJR 8212, means well—it’s an
attempt to help rehabilitate and reintegrate prisoners by allowing
private firms to use prison labor so inmates can earn some much-needed
money. Unfortunately, the language doesn’t provide enough safeguards
against labor abuses (the reason the practice has been prohibited by
our state constitution since 1899.) Vote No on this
constitutional amendment.
King County
Prosecutor
VOTE BILL SHERMAN
The interim King County prosecutor, moderate Republican Dan
Satterberg, is a nice, competent guy. However, his Democratic opponent,
King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Bill Sherman, is a
dynamic, creative attorney who’s raring to bring much-needed change to
an unimaginative and overcautious office.
The KC prosecutor’s office is failing to lead in an era when
rehabilitation is poised to revolutionize law enforcement. Looking to
expand drug court (bringing felonies into the mix, for example), expand
mental-illness court, and remodel juvenile court, Sherman (who cites
reform models from Los Angeles to Missouri) wants to go proactive.
He also wants to start an environmental-crimes task force, slash the
layers of bureaucracy between trial-level prosecutors and the King
County prosecutor’s desk, and bring back the assault-weapons ban (which
Satterberg’s GOP let expire in 2004). And, citing race and class
disparities in prosecution of the death penalty (and the latest wave of
DNA exonerations), Sherman declares: “As a policy matter, I am against
the
death penalty. I would call for a gubernatorial
moratorium.”
Satterberg, chief of staff for his mentor and former KC prosecutor
Norm Maleng since 1990, boasts that he has the experience.
Unfortunately, that experience rests on a static status quo. Sherman’s
experience? He has served as domestic-violence prosecutor for King
County; done securities fraud work (and the Exxon Valdez case) at Davis
Wright Tremaine; and was a staffer for former secretary of the interior
Bruce Babbitt. That experience screams liberal values,
youthful energy, and change. He’s a perfect fit for KC prosecutor. Vote
Sherman.
Seattle School Board
From the sloppy school closure process to the Manhas meltdown, the
school board has been an unaccountable, unchecked, unruly mess for too
long now. And the incumbents—the two who chose to run again,
anyway—are likely to get massacred this November. That’s a lucky
break for one challenger, Sherry Carr, who the SECB thinks is an
overrated PTSA mom who stumbled on our basic questions about
high-profile issues like intelligent design and student free speech.
Incumbent Darlene Flynn is kind of a bruiser, but that’s exactly
why we think she needs to stay on the board. Flynn is a stickler with
budgets and hyper about racial disparities and most importantly she’s
willing to bring a necessary brusqueness to the board’s retarded
bimonthly meetings. We want change on the board too, but we also think
the board would benefit from an anchor like Flynn. Vote
Flynn.
The current board is overrun with loopy members, so having
straitlaced business types like Steve Sundquist—a former
managing director and CIO of Russell Investment Group and a board
member from enviro group Climate Solutions—will help keep the
unwieldy school board (prone to tangents about recess and vending
machines) in check. Sundquist, notably coherent in comparison to this
year’s batch of school-board candidates, laid out clear proposals for
getting families invested in schools—through teacher-student
interaction outside of the classroom—and he brought the
International Baccalaureate program to Chief Sealth High School to
challenge students. It’s a drag that this year’s other good candidate
is his opponent, Maria Ramirez. Had Ramirez—the savvy and
organized community activist—been running for one of the other
school-board seats, the SECB would have given her the nod. But we just
couldn’t pass on the opportunity to put Sundquist to work. Vote
Sundquist.
One bum that should be booted from the school board is Sally
Soriano. Soriano’s a kooky hippie who backed parents in suing the
district over the necessary school closures—while on the
board!—and she suggested that classes in ballroom dancing could
be an antidote to freak dancing. We’re endorsing smarty-pants consumer
attorney Peter Maier—who was behind two big school levies
in 2004 and 2007—in the hopes that his by-the-book lawyering will
balance out some of the loopy-di-doops on the board. Vote
Maier.
We’re also reluctantly endorsing Harium Martin-Morris. Why
are we endorsing a candidate who told us he doesn’t have a problem with
intelligent design in schools? Because he’s not mentally ill. We
couldn’t endorse Martin-Morris’s opponent—David
Blomstrom—whose website is loaded with conspiracy theories about
teacher suicides and the “Seattle Mafia.” So, we’re giving our vote to
Martin-Morris, who is former education consultant and president of
Nathan Hale High School’s PTA. Vote Martin-Morris.
The Port of Seattle
It’s rare that a qualified, badass Democrat steps up and runs for
the Port of Seattle. Don’t pass up on security expert and Democrat
Gael Tarleton, challenging Port incumbent Bob Edwards. It’s a
nonpartisan seat, but Edwards may as well be a Republican. He’s an ally
of (and recipient of massive donations from) the port’s corporate
puppeteers, such as SSA Marine. And like the GOP, he’s not much of a
stickler for ethics: Edwards was directly implicated in the crass Mic
Dinsmore retirement payout scandal. Voters should replace him with
Tarleton—a stern advocate for accountability and financial
success who brings a level of excitement to Port issues we haven’t seen
since they started importing grain. Vote Tarleton.
The other race features challenger Bill Bryant and incumbent Alec
Fisken. This is not a case where the incumbent needs to go. And
Fisken definitely shouldn’t be replaced by Bryant, who actually
is Republican—judging from his donations to Dino Rossi,
Mike McGavick, and the Republican Central Committee. Fisken is a
watchdog on the inside. Let’s keep him there. Vote Fisken.
King County Council District No. 8
VOTE DOW CONSTANTINE
Very liberal Dow Constantine was a punk rocker when he was a
little younger and should run for mayor, but won’t because he’s from
West Seattle and doesn’t want to embarrass his friend Greg Nickels.
Keep him on the council. Vote Constantine.
King County Assessor
VOTE SCOTT NOBLE
Vote for Democratic incumbent Scott Noble. Singular. The
other guy’s a Republican asshole who helped kill the monorail. Vote
Noble.
King County
Initiative 25
VOTE NO
Initiative 25 is a vote to vote on whether or not King County
should vote for its director of elections. Yeah, it’s just as stupid as
it sounds. Vote No against frivolous voting.
King County
Proposition 1
(Medic One)
VOTE YES
Proposition 1 renews taxes to fund Medic One. Vote Yes for it unless you really hate life.
Seattle City Charter Amendments
Charter Amendment 17 adds a preamble to the city charter
stating the charter’s purpose (basically, as far as we can tell, to
ensure that city government doesn’t suck). Charter Amendment 18 is an ineffectual but
harmless alteration that would change the
official date of the mayor’s State of the City address and officially
require the mayor to present a budget address to the council; both
aspects of this amendment merely
codify what’s already being done.
Vote Yes on both. 
