We should never let our guard down, but given that it's around a dollar/signature and he only has 200k for the effort, isn't he a bit short, or is there the assumption that someone will step up and add more funding?

In any case, fuck Tim Eyman.

Eyman has absolutely no interest in doing anything that benefits anyone but himself. This Initiative would not only drastically curtail expansion of light-rail in the region, but would have the added effect of putting even more cars (mostly single-occupancy vehicles) on the roads while simultaneously removing a major funding source for the improvement and maintenance of our transportation system. So, basically commutes would get longer, congestion would get worse, pollution - and all the associated health and environmental downsides - would increase, but Eyman still earns a fat paycheck at the expense of credulous low-information voters whose cognitive dissonance can't let them see that starving transit and transportation funding doesn't make their lives better, it makes their lives demonstrably worse.

Regardless of what Eyman does I think ST3 is in trouble. There is a growing feeling amongst people I know, who are normally reliable voters who never met a levy they didn't like, that the Mayor and the City Council and area politicians are far too concerned with high priced projects that benefit developers or the Port, or focused on promoting an ideology* or promoting themselves, than they are with doing the things that make the city run correctly. The schools remain a mess. The surface streets are full of potholes, the police force remains a force of malevolence, and the homeless are everywhere.

ST3, as much as I want to vote for it, feels like a levy too far. Property owners in the city are already bearing the burden for far too many things in the city. In NYC the mass transit system is paid for, in part, by the businesses whose employees use it to commit to work. I'm voting against it because I want a better deal, one that asks area businesses to also pick up some of the tab. I'm also voting against it, and all future levies not directly benefiting the schools, the libraries, or the focused on paving Seattle's surface streets, because I don't think the Mayor or the City Council are focused on the right things. Too much ideology going on downtown when, at the end of the day, city governance is really just about making sure the basics like paving the roads, educating kids, keeping the police from abusing its citizens aren't happening.

* I'll add that I find myself a fan of both Sawant and Burgess, somehow at the same time. $15 minimum wage is a great idea. Pre-school for all is a great idea too. Those are things the City Council and the Mayor SHOULD be focused on, rather than grandstanding about one ideological fight or another, or positioning themselves to run for higher office in the future.

Excellent. Every defeat for Tim Eyman is a victory for civilization. Congratulations, WA, on demonstrating your capacity for self-governance.

I do find the new initiative name "We Love Our Cars" somewhat ironic. If it were up to Eyman, we'd be so dependent on our cars and be forced to spend so much time in them sitting in traffic jams, we'd all grow to hate our cars.

Eyman knows that he's going to get a more favorable electorate in 2017 than in 2016. I'd love to see the legislature stop allowing statewide ballot initiatives in odd-numbered years.

Eyman should try giving up on breathing or something equally as beneficial to the residents of Washington State.

@4 Yeah this is a smart move by Eyman. His initiative will be the only major draw in 2017, and odds are very good that young urban voters won't get around to voting that year while the angry car people will be out in droves to support it.

Even if you do "love our cars", his initiative is still stupid and counterproductive. A more robust transit system will get more people using public transit, which will in turn result in fewer cars on the road, which will mean less traffic for those who DO drive cars.

As someone who mostly has to drive, I will happily vote in favor of any public transit. Even if I never set foot on the light rail, the light rail will still reduce traffic and make it easier for me to get around. Win-win.

Eyman, as always, is an ignorant, self-serving dumbass.

@2: ST3 is not a property tax. It's a sales tax (75%) and motor vehicle tax (25%). The Legislature has never given Sound Transit an effective means of taxing employers. But taxing motor vehicles (despite Tim Eyman) makes sense, because those who don't have cars don't pay it, and those who do benefit from transit freeing up the roads.

@8 Its a sales tax, an MVET, AND a property tax (with the biggest share of those three coming from an increase in the regressive-as-hell sales tax). Car tabs, which already jumped up to over $150 last year (thanks to 2014's Prop 1) will go up by another $80 annually for a car valued at $10k. And that's not including the multitudes of property taxes we've approved lately to cover the business tax cuts we gave to Boeing.

As much as I want this, I want a better deal. All of our "progressive" wants and needs are increasing the city costs so much that people are leaving because of taxes.

No, I don't "love" my car. I have a motor vehicle because it is the only practical way of getting out into reasonably wild areas, thanks to urban sprawl greatly increasing the distance of such areas from the city. If urban development were more compact and it were still possible to take an interurban train to go hiking or camping (as people commonly did in the USA 100 years ago), I'd gladly ditch my vehicle and its associated costs (both to my personal finances and the environment).

Taking odds on a punch in the face or a night in jail in response to writing FUCK TIM EYMAN as big as possible across the fullest signature page I can find.

So it would slash excise taxes on cars AND remove tolls from 2 highways. How many times will this dude write initiatives that address 2 separate issues, and have them struck down for addressing 2 separate issues. AT this point, he KNOWS this is bound for the courts.

He doesn't write Constitutional laws, and when he does, he violates the initiative process' rules, which even I KNOW BY NOW. This is nothing but Washington State Court Spam. That's all he does now. There's a law against frivolous lawsuits - when will there be a law against frivolous, bound-to-be-illegal initiatives?