Voters in the Puget Sound area are being asked to support another Transportation Funding package this year that will increase sales tax rates by about .5% for fifteen years. It will raise $17 billion to pay for a bunch of projects in King County, a couple in Pierce County and a couple in Snohomish County.
Sound Transit Board members are wildly in favor of this measure and lead us to believe that it will solve our regional transportation problems.
I’m a pretty radical guy so the information I read is probably not credible, but it is my understanding that the best case scenario for light rail is that it will carry about 5% of the predicted commute load in the areas it serves.
I think about light rail system as a public works boondoggle that will produce a product but not one the majority of us really care about. It will provide employment for many workers in the construction trades for many years. It will trigger significant investment in land areas around the stations.
If you are one of those people who works along the service corridor of the train, you might see some value in the system, but it only magnifies the problems already existing with transit systems; the system doesn’t offer service from where workers live to where workers work. In addition, with an expensive rail system, there is no second guessing or re-evaluating where the better route might be like we can with a bus system.
Former State Transportation Secretary Doug McDonald has been traveling with Tim Eyman this fall promoting the “no vote” on Initiative 985. I have listened to their patter on a number of radio and television broadcasts. Over the years I have disagreed with McDonald on a number of issues, particularly when he was the State Transportation Secretary.
After listening to him talk about the issues with Eyman, I started to come around to McDonalds way of thinking a little. In the course of investigating him, I discovered a lengthy piece he wrote this summer outlining why we should “vote no” on the Sound Transit issue. The three part series he wrote can be found on Crosscut.com.
For lay people who generally have only common sense to guide us, it helps to get credible information from generally reliable sources to give us confidence to make critical decisions like this one. Doug McDonald makes a compelling case for us to vote “NO” in November.
For me, I prefer to focus my attention on making Snohomish County less reliant on King County or anyone else. If we develop our own tax base and transportation plan that positions us to work toward our border with King County as a partner rather than a poor step child, we can negotiate from strength rather than weakness. Our current situation puts us at a distinct disadvantage.
In the early 1990’s, when I was working with our peer cities and the county as the Snohomish representative to Snohomish County Tomorrow, we regularly had presentations from Puget Sound Regional Council staff outlining the regional plans and how our County fit into their plan.
Those meetings left me convinced that if we throw in with their plan, we will forever play a third class role in the region. At that time the plan was called Vision 2020. Now it is called Vision 2040. The map shows Seattle as the center of the universe and everything else emanating from the center. It called for all the best things to happen in King County and if there were any crumbs, the little people could fight over them.
I cannot name too many people that would choose for our county to look like King County. Our vision for our county needs to be fleshed out by people making the investment to live and work in Snohomish County, not in King County. What happens in Snohomish County can be a product of our efforts to inspire investment in a transportation plan that works for us.
Approving a Transportation plan that sucks hundreds of millions of dollars out of our county doesn’t make sense. We need to have our County Council members go out into their districts for community meetings to gather public input on a Transportation plan that serves the needs of local communities, not a King in some far off land.
The people in Stanwood, Arlington, Granite Falls, Lake Stevens, Snohomish, Monroe, Sultan and Gold Bar might have a different perspective on this issue than Edmonds or Mountlake Terrace.
There are 17 billion reasons to “Vote NO” on the Sound Transit issue. Let our voices be heard.
Vote NO on Initiative 985 too; Doug McDonald says it’s the thing to do.
No Loss for Words 
YES on I-1000
by Steve DanaOver the years, I have not found too many reasons to agree with Booth Gardner, but this year he is pitching Initiative 1000 that would allow terminally ill individuals the option to take their own lives and I think under certain circumstances, people should have that choice.
This issue is like the dilemma of “Pro Choice” or “Pro Life” in the abortion debate. Religious beliefs should not be the basis upon which the law is written. Individuals should have the right to make these deeply personal decisions without interference from people with different beliefs. This issue is not about making you do anything; it is about allowing you to choose.
State law should be written with language that protects individuals who are not capable of making decisions for themselves. The potential for abuse is addressed in the text of the initiative.
The thought that a person could end their own life at a time of their choosing is foreign to many religious people. If you have those deep religious beliefs, this program is not one you would participate in.
If your personal beliefs do not prevent you from considering this course and you have a painful chronic terminal illness, all you want is relief from the physical pain for you and the emotional pain of your family as they watch you in agony. Pulling the plug early succeeds in ending the pain for both parties.
There is something to be said for that.
This initiative is not advocating that medical professionals decide when it is time for terminally ill people to die; it is advocating that individuals proactively express the desire to terminate their own life a couple of times over a period of time. If individuals with a progressive terminal illness can express their desires to recognized authorities, they should be given that option.
Whenever people make the decision to interfere with nature, there is a public outcry. I am not suggesting that I would choose this path for me, but I would appreciate having the right to make the choice.
Life is a hard enough struggle. We shouldn’t make dying tougher than it needs to be.
Posted in Political commentary | 2 Comments »