Election 2012

[Seasun]

I'm watching the governor's debate...I really like the moderator - great authoritative voice - I haven't figured out who he is. I really don't think Rob's eyeglasses do him in any favors - kind of accentuate the squinty eyes.

[cameronrex]

I think the glasses work. Inslee is bugging me for some reason even though tend to agree with him more. I think he comes off as more arrogant than McKenna.

[cameronrex]

Also like the focus on our schools.

[Matt the Engineer]

Inslee was the only politician to show up for a fundraiser I helped put on for my niece's double lung transplant (sucessful, by the way, she's doing great). This was well before he threw his hat in for govenor. It couldn't have been purely political - there was no press there. Just a good guy.

Sure beats a Gangnem Style dance in my book.

[cameronrex]

Originally Posted by Matt the Engineer

Inslee was the only politician to show up for a fundraiser I helped put on for my niece's double lung transplant (sucessful, by the way, she's doing great). This was well before he threw his hat in for govenor. It couldn't have been purely political - there was no press there. Just a good guy.

Sure beats a Gangnem Style dance in my book.

Good to hear your niece is doing great! And thanks for the post. Helps make Inslee seem more real.

[D Green]

Old news now, but this disturbs me not because of the lack of education on the topic, but because the level of conviction these people respond with. They answer with such confidence as if they know exactly what's going on.

[RMacherat]

Forget about the race and politics angle to this. You could do some realty nifty Psychology experiments on how people simply don't pay attention.

[mSeattle]

How can people pay attention when the trend of both corporations and government is to have a one-way mirror where they know everything about us be we know little or nothing about them? That's the reality we're in and it started before Obama. It's tough but we have to face the fact that the U.S. hasn't been a real democracy (if ever) for a long time. We have duopoly and plutocracy with the theater of democracy.

I learned on Democracy Now! that the non-partisan League of Women Voters used to run the presidential debates, but the DNC/GOP fought against them and now have a mutually agreed upon private corporation running the debates. Why? The LOWV wouldn't agree to restrict third-party candidates with significant support (there's a quantifiable calculation that I can't remember) or other restrictions. The DNC/GOP require a debate contract with restrictions that prevent third-party candidates, state the setup of the event and many other things. Third-party candidates (Constitution/Green/Liberty etc.) get arrested at debates... It's a mess.

Certain players have always had powers and voice not available to the rest of society (corporate lobbyists esp. natural resource/weapons/military, and for better or worse the electoral college), and we have powerful secret groups some of which are even unknown (or pretended to be unknown) by elected officials. That's not transparency or knowledge to have an informed citizen or a good gov't of the people, by the people, for the people.

[D Green]

Yes, America's political system sucks, I hear you on that one. But I was wondering what you meant by "real Democracy." I understand part of that phrase, meaning a government where the citizens are the real participants and beneficiaries, not banks, corps, or lobbyists, but at the same time I'm not sure what you mean in terms of practice.

A democracies' greatest element, as well as greatest flaw, is majority* rule. Majority rule, in terms of nat. gov. level politics, completely ruins the Democratic Party's Line which stands up for individuals whose voices are easily drowned out by majority rule. It also favors conservative parties, who simply have more voters by national numbers.

And politicians will argue for big sponsors and donors, their campaigns as they are now are not cheap. However, it also allows favoritism and pork-barreling. In order to completely change the way politicians run for office, run the office, and pass the baton, we would need to completely change how campaign finance works.

Also, lobbyists would need to be completely included (as is now) or completely excluded (kicked out), there is no middle ground to accept some and reject other lobbyist groups and the gov. should not be making calls on who gets lobby privileges and who does not. (Abramoff anyone?)

I think politicians talk about campaign reform. They talk about limiting lobbyist power. They talk about transparency. But until we see some action its nothing but smoke and mirrors (as you point out well).

*sometimes romantically referred to as mob rule.

[mlemour]

Originally Posted by Fran55k

I think the Republicans have a good candidate,

I agree. I think they do....

In other unrelated news... Well according to Arizona CBS channel Obama already won

http://patdollard.com/2012/10/distur...s-to-38116216/

[alexjonlin]

It's a conspiracy!

[skysdalimit]

What are everyone's thoughts on the seawall initiative? I definitely think it needs to be done, especially since a failure to do so could result in disaster, but not sure if it should be funded through a property tax increase (30-yr bond).

My thoughts are that there should be a special tax district for properties who would directly benefit from the revamped seawall, an additional tax on hotel (since mostly tourists wander the waterfront), an additional tax on car rental (again, due to the tourists), and an additional tax on cruise ship passengers who dock on the waterfront. Not sure if the entire city should have to foot the bill of such a small area which isn't even used by many city residents.

[mhays]

It's a major necessity for the whole city -- Alaskan Way, Highway 99, and our largest collection of utilities including a massive data spine.

The subgroups you're talking about are a small part of it. Ferry riders are another big one.

Your approach would drive cruise ships away, killing the goose.

[skysdalimit]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's a major necessity for the whole city -- Alaskan Way, Highway 99, and our largest collection of utilities including a massive data spine.

The subgroups you're talking about are a small part of it. Ferry riders are another big one.

Your approach would drive cruise ships away, killing the goose.

Regarding the cruise ships, if it's a surcharge for all passengers, I don't think it would impact the docking of cruise ships at all. People who want to cruise to Alaska will still cruise to Alaska whether or not there's a $10 surcharge on their ticket.

I personally do not feel that it's appropriate to fund this work with a property tax surcharge. If Seattle residents are charged, then people throughout the entire region should be charged since it's a regional draw, not just a city draw. In fact, I would argue that more people who utilize the waterfront are from outside the city limits (ferry passengers, tourists, etc.).

[cameronrex]

I think the way to think of this is like roads. Just because I don't use the roads in north or south Seattle doesn't mean I don't help to keep them repaired through my taxes. Actually this shouldn't even be up for a vote. I mean seriously, what if the vote is 'no'. Will the city let the sea wall crumble into the bay?

Visitor and tourist taxes already go into the city coffers. The sea wall should be prioritized like any other capital expenditure. And, in case it's not clear, it will be a negative to the economics of the entire city if the waterfront collapses.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by skysdalimit

Regarding the cruise ships, if it's a surcharge for all passengers, I don't think it would impact the docking of cruise ships at all. People who want to cruise to Alaska will still cruise to Alaska whether or not there's a $10 surcharge on their ticket.

I personally do not feel that it's appropriate to fund this work with a property tax surcharge. If Seattle residents are charged, then people throughout the entire region should be charged since it's a regional draw, not just a city draw. In fact, I would argue that more people who utilize the waterfront are from outside the city limits (ferry passengers, tourists, etc.).

We compete with Vancouver for those cruise ships. Even $10 would be taken into account, along with other expenses. Further, it would only raise $4,000,000 per year.

Waterfront users (cruise ships and everything else) plays a big part in our economy, and now they have to face years of construction. That's a problem! And now you want to charge them too? It would be more fair to pay them during construction, then charge them when the actual benefits started arriving after completion of the various projects in 2017 or so. I'm not suggesting this...but it would make more sense than adding a fee.

[skysdalimit]

Originally Posted by mhays

We compete with Vancouver for those cruise ships. Even $10 would be taken into account, along with other expenses. Further, it would only raise $4,000,000 per year.

Waterfront users (cruise ships and everything else) plays a big part in our economy, and now they have to face years of construction. That's a problem! And now you want to charge them too? It would be more fair to pay them during construction, then charge them when the actual benefits started arriving after completion of the various projects in 2017 or so. I'm not suggesting this...but it would make more sense than adding a fee.

Most Americans who go on an Alaskan cruise depart from Seattle while most Canadians depart from Vancouver. Due to the cost of Americans flying to Vancouver (much more expensive than domestic flights) or the cost and time of renting a car from Seattle to depart from Vancouver, you won't see many (if any) people making that kind of effort to avoid a $10 surcharge. I don't think any sort of surcharge would have any effect on the cruise business in Seattle.

The bonds that are suggested are 30-yr bonds. For the median home in Seattle (median value of $360,000), the annual cost would be $59. $59 x 30 years = $1,770, which of course does not account for the annual increases that would match inflation and increases in home values over time. Over 30 years, we wouldn't feel it as much, but still, that's a significant amount to ask Seattle residents to pay.

Anyway, as I suggested previously, the cruise passenger surcharge would only be a piece of the puzzle to raise funds for the seawall project. I just don't think it's acceptable to expect Seattle residents to fund a project like this when many parties outside of the city use the waterfront to a greater degree.

[mhays]

The vast majority of waterfront activity is locals, by a giant margin. Even without 99 that would be true. Yet you haven't talked about charging the average commuter on 99 far more than you'd charge the occasional visitor. Figure a buck per day? And what about the regional data usage, much of which travels along the waterfront...what's your surcharge on employers and your own internet connection?

Your point about fees not being relevant to the cruise industry is counter to how business works in general, and specifically how the cruise competition works. Nuances matter, and there's no question that Seattle and Vancouver compete, in sizeable part based on those nuances. Same with many industries.

I'm guessing this will pass. The 60% requirement is tough, but there's no organized opposition, and Seattleites are generally willing to go for necessary things. The only risk is they don't get the importance of this measure, including how it affects them. Part of my optimism is that we're civic-minded...just like we vote overwhelmingly for schools despite geneally not having kids, we tend to vote for common good.

[skysdalimit]

Originally Posted by mhays

The vast majority of waterfront activity is locals, by a giant margin. Even without 99 that would be true. Yet you haven't talked about charging the average commuter on 99 far more than you'd charge the occasional visitor. Figure a buck per day? And what about the regional data usage, much of which travels along the waterfront...what's your surcharge on employers and your own internet connection?

Your point about fees not being relevant to the cruise industry is counter to how business works in general, and specifically how the cruise competition works. Nuances matter, and there's no question that Seattle and Vancouver compete, in sizeable part based on those nuances.

I'm guessing this will pass. The 60% requirement is tough, but there's no organized opposition, and Seattleites are generally willing to go for necessary things. The only risk is they don't get the importance of this measure, including how it affects them. Part of my optimism is that we aren't selfish...just like we vote overwhelmingly for schools despite geneally not having kids, we tend to vote for common good.

How do you classify a "local"? Someone who lives in Seattle proper? Someone who lives in downtown Seattle? Someone who lives in the Puget Sound Region? I'd be interested in seeing statistics regarding the origin of people who use the waterfront, because most of the people who I see walking along the waterfront are tourists or commuters.

Comparing the seawall project to schools in terms of funding is not an equal comparison. Every city around the country uses tax revenue to fund schools because every city around the country has children. Alternatively, not every city in the country has a seawall like Seattle that caters predominantly to tourists and commuters. Putting that tax burden solely on Seattle residents is wrong due to the fact that we would be paying for the benefit of tourists and private businesses while receiving minimal to no return. Do you think it's fair for someone who lives in Madison Park and works in the U-District and does their shopping in Northgate to pay an excess tax for an area they never even visit, while a commuter from Bainbridge or a cruise ship passenger headed to Alaska gets by without contributing any funds? I don't think that's being selfish, I think it's only fair for those who use it to pay for it.

[mhays]

You got in right before I changed selfish to civic minded!

I'm not getting why you think our data backbone, 99, multiple streets, and a big chunk of our local economy aren't useful to Seattle residents in general.

Tourists will pay, because the businesses they spend money on will pay.

The state, the port, etc., are sharing costs for 99 and direct mitigation. The City's share in the combined projects is relatively limited.