NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's unconventional perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Monday, July 29th, 2019

Dori Monson attacks NPI and bashes Seattle Times reporter Heidi Groover’s recent work

Last week, the Office of Financial Management (OFM) released its analysis of the fiscal impact of Tim Eyman’s Initiative 976, finding that more than $4 billion in bipartisan and voter-approved transportation investments would be wiped out by the initiative, gutting projects and services at the state, regional, and local levels.

Seattle Times reporter Heidi Groover was tasked with writing a story about the fiscal impact statement and did an excellent job summarizing the fiscal impacts and getting reaction from both sides — the no camp and Tim Eyman, the disgraced initiative promoter who is the author and chief proponent of I-976.

KIRO’s resident bloviator Dori Monson — who is one of Eyman’s staunchest allies and loathes Sound Transit with a passion — took notice of Groover’s reporting over the weekend, which appeared above-the-fold in Saturday’s print edition of The Seattle Times. The seemingly always grumpy Monson trashed Groover’s story at length on his show today, impugning it as “slanted” and not “balanced”.

“I don’t like to criticize The Seattle Times,” Monson began, before proceeding to do exactly that. He seemed particularly offended that I was quoted in the story.

Ranted Dori:

“They quote a far left group — Andrew Villeneuve, executive director of the Northwest Progressive Institute, which opposes the initiative — [who said] ‘The numbers are pretty devastating.’ Why do they never call me? Dori Monson, local talk show host, says the numbers are fantastic for taxpayers.”

Yo, Dori! I know how much you hate Sound Transit, dislike NPI’s work, and want this destructive Eyman measure to pass. But that’s no reason to attack Heidi Groover’s reporting. There was nothing wrong with Heidi’s story. It was factual. It was balanced. It captured the reaction of both sides — your side and our side.

What you really seem to be upset about is that the story wasn’t slanted in favor of your side like a segment on your show would be, or a Tim Eyman email would be.

This is a newspaper story about a statewide initiative’s fiscal impact statement. Appropriately, the story’s lede concerns what we collectively stand to lose as a society of more than seven million people if the initiative is implemented, as opposed to inappropriately repeating Eyman’s tired, very worn sales pitch.

It would be wrong if the story was written from your point of view. As you yourself conceded during your rant, you’re a commentator. You have a bias, which is continuously reflected in your dreary, unpleasant monologues.

We, the people, are the government of Washington State, and we deserve to know what the cost and consequences of an initiative like I-976 are before we cast our vote. That is why the law requires OFM to prepare fiscal impact statements.

The release of the fiscal impact statement was an important event in the battle for and against I-976. Recognizing this, The Seattle Times chose it for an installment of their ongoing Traffic Lab series, which is always worth reading.

Heidi Groover landed the assignment of writing the story. She did a good job putting it together. Your criticisms, Dori, are without foundation.

Eyman is quoted three times in the story, which alternates between presenting the opposition perspective’s, his side’s perspective, and the perspective of the people who are overseeing the work that the imperiled funding pays for.

Additionally, in the online version of the story, there are plenty of hyperlinks for context, so anyone can read further on the subject if they want.

This story is unquestionably solid journalism. It’s not the kind of piece I would write; I’m an advocacy journalist. But it is what I want and expect as a Seattle Times subscriber who depends on the work of our region’s biggest newsroom.

Oh, and by the way, Dori, I said the numbers in the fiscal impact statement were devastating because they are devastating. Implementation of I-976 would not just mean that Sound Transit’s Phase III expansion would be jeopardized.

This measure also threatens Amtrak Cascades, the delivery of new ferries, essential freight mobility projects, the State Patrol, Seattle-funded King Country Metro bus service, and local roads in sixty cities across Washington State.

You’re so blinded by your hate of Sound Transit and your opposition to paying vehicle fees that you haven’t really given this initiative much thought.

Have you even read the initiative? Or the fiscal impact statement?

I have. I went and connected the dots. For each section of I-976, my team and I analyzed not only where the money is coming from, but where it’s going.

The money raised by vehicle fees is going to things we need. Sidewalks. Police protection. The ability to get off one of our beautiful islands and reach the mainland, or vice versa. The filling of potholes. The resurfacing of decrepit, bumpy roads. Intercity train service that provides an alternative to clogged highways.

And yes… expansion of mass transit here in the Puget Sound region. Which you don’t want, but which voters here have repeatedly voted for.

Why don’t you and Tim Eyman respect the will of the voters, Dori?

And why aren’t you listening to the captains of industry that have warned that this initiative would be very harmful to Washington’s business climate?

Businesses throughout Washington oppose I-976 because they know it’s a threat to Washington’s future. Even the reliably anti-tax Association of Washington Business has come out in opposition to I-976. They understand that cutting $4 billion in bipartisan, voter approved transportation investments is utter foolishness that will injure Washington’s business climate and cost us good paying jobs.

At NPI, we believe we all do better when we all do better. We emphatically support pooling our resources through taxes to build the infrastructure and create the essential services that businesses and households need to thrive.

Unfortunately, you, Dori, do not share our cherished Pacific Northwest values. Instead, you and Tim Eyman represent the vices of greed and selfishness.

That’s the kind of thinking we need to reject by voting NO on I-976.

Adjacent posts

  • Donate now to support The Cascadia Advocate


    Thank you for reading The Cascadia Advocate, the Northwest Progressive Institute’s journal of world, national, and local politics.

    Founded in March of 2004, The Cascadia Advocate has been helping people throughout the Pacific Northwest and beyond make sense of current events with rigorous analysis and thought-provoking commentary for more than fifteen years. The Cascadia Advocate is funded by readers like you: we have never accepted advertising or placements of paid content.

    And we’d like it to stay that way.

    Help us keep The Cascadia Advocate editorially independent and freely available by becoming a member of the Northwest Progressive Institute today. Or make a donation to sustain our essential research and advocacy journalism.

    Your contribution will allow us to continue bringing you features like Last Week In Congress, live coverage of events like Netroots Nation or the Democratic National Convention, and reviews of books and documentary films.

    Become an NPI member Make a one-time donation

One Comment

  1. This is a simple comment. I live in King County, and have for all my life, 61 years of it. I have seen Seattle suffer, mostly from a lack of moving people, products and services as efficiently as possible. To say we are years behind the curve with infrastructure, transportation and missing out on more shipping ability is an understatement. It’s unfortunate that even the needs of many are lost is partisan blather, the new norm.

    If we continue to ignore our needs to move people, products and services as efficiently as possible we will pay the price, far and above what Mr. Monson or Eyman can calculate, businesses want to be in Seattle and the surrounding areas, growth of jobs comes with moving people to/from their businesses efficiently, thus services and products follow this same path of least resistance if infrastructure, bus, rail both heavy and light, roads dedicated to moving in/out of the port of Seattle.

    Mr. Monson, it’s not that all you say is wrong, it’s your partisan approach that’s more of the ‘same ole song and dance routine’ than the facts of our region needs. I-5 will never be any different than it is now, small, outdated and inefficient due to its geographical limitations.

    Mr. Monson, pandering to your listeners is good for you, financially, I’m sure, but not good for the region as a whole when you only give facts you want them to hear, rather than the big picture.

    # by Al Desart :: July 31st, 2019 at 5:52 AM