P-I becomes obsessed with I-912 strategy
The Seattle P-I's fascination with Initiative 912 continues.
This morning, the P-I editorial board and Joel Connelly are offering those of us against Initiative 912 more advice on how to fight the campaign.
The interests and citizens opposing I-912 are already working on aligning themselves together for the campaign this fall, but the media can't seem to resist offering us some strategy advice.
The Stranger just published Eli Sanders' ridiculous piece, entitled "The Western Strategy" (which is a stupid idea if I've ever read one myself) and the P-I apparently wants to jump on the bandwagon.
First of all, I found most of Joel Connelly's suggestions were not helpful.
Having Governor Christine Gregoire call for a shutdown of the monorail project is entirely ridiculous. The process is working by itself - having the governor jump in and call for its removal won't accomplish anything except please critics who just want to see the monorail go away.
People who live outside of Seattle aren't going to reject the gas tax because of the monorail. They're not paying for it, and they're not involved in the fiasco, either.
I recently heard the Post-Intelligencer shifted its focus more heavily onto Seattle in a bid to sell more papers.
Well, I don't live in Seattle, and I think the folks at the Post-Intelligencer (Joel especially) may be too Seattle-centric in their thinking.
It's also ridiculous that Joel wants the governor to step in and force the city of Seattle to go along with a viaduct replacement.
Building another viaduct is a cheap, lousy solution. Seattle has a chance to reclaim its waterfront and solve its seawall problem at the same time with a tunnel. A tunnel would also be much safer in case of an earthquake.
Yes, the tunnel is more costly. But the tunnel (and the seawall replacement) are investments in the future. It's called thinking ahead, Joel. That's what "Team Nickels" is doing at City Hall.
Getting rid of a tunnel isn't going to make skeptical voters reject Initiative 912, either. All the things Joel is proposing - essentially, taking "shortcuts" - just aren't going to convince voters to mark "no" on their ballots.
Complaints from the other side of the state seem to be focused on Interstate 5, not the projects Joel is talking about. And many of the folks over there probably don't want Washington to pay for any of the viaduct options, period.
The debate isn't going to be, "Should we shut down the Seattle Monorail Project?", or "Which option should we pick to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct?"
Backers of I-912 want the tax repealed, period. For them the issue is simply the cost - they don't want to pay for investments in the future, even when the impact of making the investment is miniscule at best. (It's a few pennies - the cost shouldn't be the issue).
The P-I editorial board definitely had the better piece, but, still:
I can't say I make much of this "advice" - we know what the stakes are and what it will take to defeat Initiative 912 in terms of the vote.
They also said this:
Maybe the folks at the P-I would like to get out of their armchairs...er, office chairs...and join us out in the streets to fight Initiative 912. They certainly seem to be interested in seeing its defeat. But, so far, I'm not impressed or enthused by their advice.
This morning, the P-I editorial board and Joel Connelly are offering those of us against Initiative 912 more advice on how to fight the campaign.
The interests and citizens opposing I-912 are already working on aligning themselves together for the campaign this fall, but the media can't seem to resist offering us some strategy advice.
The Stranger just published Eli Sanders' ridiculous piece, entitled "The Western Strategy" (which is a stupid idea if I've ever read one myself) and the P-I apparently wants to jump on the bandwagon.
First of all, I found most of Joel Connelly's suggestions were not helpful.
Having Governor Christine Gregoire call for a shutdown of the monorail project is entirely ridiculous. The process is working by itself - having the governor jump in and call for its removal won't accomplish anything except please critics who just want to see the monorail go away.
People who live outside of Seattle aren't going to reject the gas tax because of the monorail. They're not paying for it, and they're not involved in the fiasco, either.
I recently heard the Post-Intelligencer shifted its focus more heavily onto Seattle in a bid to sell more papers.
Well, I don't live in Seattle, and I think the folks at the Post-Intelligencer (Joel especially) may be too Seattle-centric in their thinking.
It's also ridiculous that Joel wants the governor to step in and force the city of Seattle to go along with a viaduct replacement.
Building another viaduct is a cheap, lousy solution. Seattle has a chance to reclaim its waterfront and solve its seawall problem at the same time with a tunnel. A tunnel would also be much safer in case of an earthquake.
Yes, the tunnel is more costly. But the tunnel (and the seawall replacement) are investments in the future. It's called thinking ahead, Joel. That's what "Team Nickels" is doing at City Hall.
Getting rid of a tunnel isn't going to make skeptical voters reject Initiative 912, either. All the things Joel is proposing - essentially, taking "shortcuts" - just aren't going to convince voters to mark "no" on their ballots.
Complaints from the other side of the state seem to be focused on Interstate 5, not the projects Joel is talking about. And many of the folks over there probably don't want Washington to pay for any of the viaduct options, period.
The debate isn't going to be, "Should we shut down the Seattle Monorail Project?", or "Which option should we pick to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct?"
Backers of I-912 want the tax repealed, period. For them the issue is simply the cost - they don't want to pay for investments in the future, even when the impact of making the investment is miniscule at best. (It's a few pennies - the cost shouldn't be the issue).
The P-I editorial board definitely had the better piece, but, still:
Those working to defeat I-912 this fall must recognize two things. First, King, Pierce and Snohomish counties contain just over half of the state's voters and must be won by solid margins. Second, defending the tax increase will demand a tough, unconventional campaign that makes it dramatically clear to voters throughout the state just how much they'll lose to gain a few pennies per gallon.Can you spell - D U H!
I can't say I make much of this "advice" - we know what the stakes are and what it will take to defeat Initiative 912 in terms of the vote.
They also said this:
With Referendum 51, the Legislature asked voters what they thought of raising the gas tax by 9 cents. Not much. Only San Juan County supported the increase...R-51 was rejected by 62 percent of voters.Referendum 51 wasn't rejected just because of anger against a tax increase. Many progressives opposed it because it prioritized road funding and not other transit options. That was why it failed overwhelmingly. However, progressives support the package passed by the Legislature this year.
Maybe the folks at the P-I would like to get out of their armchairs...er, office chairs...and join us out in the streets to fight Initiative 912. They certainly seem to be interested in seeing its defeat. But, so far, I'm not impressed or enthused by their advice.
