1. The question I submitted was that I am interested in his take on ST running express busses between the Tacoma Dome and 9th & Commerce in Tacoma. 1,700+ service hours annually for bus service that 100% duplicates the Tacoma Link light rail route.

Posted by: JDH on April 26, 2005 02:18 PM

2. Here is my question to the Speaker:

Seldom does a day go by that there isn't at least one
article in each of the local papers lamenting the
budget "crises" that practically every government
agency in the area is currently experiencing. What I
see is not so much one budget crisis after another as
one leadership crisis after another. These agencies
continue to be headed by wastrels who throw the
citizens money down one rat hole after another for no
apparent benefit. A case in point is the continued
operation of Express bus service by Sound Transit to
10th & Commerce when the service is made redundant by
the Tacoma Link Light Rail. My best estimate is that
this uses up over 2500 service hours that could be
better used serving other places. These buses also
clog traffic and tear up the City streets with buses
that are not providing a tangible benefit to the
citizenry. Rest assured I do not object to buses being
operated on the City streets, but I do object to them
being so operated when there isn't any benefit to
doing so. Some of these buses do serve the County City
Building as well, but the riders who use this stop can
walk a few blocks to work, it will do them good.
Weather permitting, I walk over two miles to my job in
Renton after getting off the Sounder in Tukwila.

Posted by: JDH on April 26, 2005 02:28 PM

3. i asked, "what items did you actually cut (not just reduce spending increase) on before you decided to raise taxes?

Posted by: Righton on April 26, 2005 02:49 PM

4. Why is it that each and every spending cut and tax cut is considered in terms of impact upon the government, but each and every tax increase never seems to be considered in terms of impact to the taxpayers?

Every tax cut is met with the question "How will we pay for it?" Yet every tax increase never gets the same treatment: "How will the taxpayers pay for it?" Will that question ever be considered by the Legislature?

Posted by: MES on April 26, 2005 05:10 PM

5. Why was the legislature in such a headlong rush to certify an election when there were so many questions outstanding about the validity of it in the first place? Why not take some time to investigate and actually do the work of the people rather than just the work of one party?

Posted by: christmasghost on April 26, 2005 06:31 PM

6.

Being that I am still a newcomer to Washington, I'm having trouble trying to get some things straight.

If I am getting this right; the citizens REJECTED a tax increase proposed by the legislature in 2000, then the legislature passed a 5.2 cent gas tax anyway in '02, then the citizens rejected another tax increase on the ballot and so the legislature aided by elected republicans counter attacked by imposing the latest tax increase AND put a rider on the bill forbidding the citizens to challenge their vote in a legal referendum.

AND..

If I have this right; the Gubernatorial election was determined by nefarious means in the county with the largest population that has the only unelected Director of elections in the state. And that that same county gives responsibility for appointing elections officials to the party that got the most Presidential votes in the last election - REGARDLESS of who actually became President!

and... that county now wants to take over control of 65% of private property with no compensation...

..is that about right?

Posted by: Baynative on April 26, 2005 06:36 PM

7. Baynative,

Regarding the political party of the elections officials appointed to run each polling place, it's Washington state law, applicable to all counties:
(4) The county auditor shall designate the inspector and one judge in each precinct from that political party which polled the highest number of votes in the county for its candidate for president at the last preceding presidential election and one judge from that political party polling the next highest number of votes in the county for its candidate for president at the same election.

At least the law doesn't quibble about the partisan nature of the people appointed to administer the election at polling places. Almost everyone is partisan, so it's good that the law makes it clear to the casual observer who's who.

Posted by: Micajah on April 26, 2005 07:39 PM

8. Well said Baynative........now welcome to political hell, we need all the critical thinkers here that we can get.....as you can obviously see.

Posted by: christmasghost on April 26, 2005 07:39 PM

9. Baynative, welcome to the Queendom of Taxusallbillions Gregoire. The land of plenty os spending, and fradulant elections. You hit on all your points correctly, and we welcome you to our land. We expect and get nothing from this government except more taxes, and if asked they will tell you they have not raised any "General Taxes". Just every fee and tax in the state. Queen Taxusbillions Gregoire has not veto's or said no to a singly item or tax that her spendbillionscutnothing court secnd her way. It even seems like some of the Republicans in the court have lost their way in this last session, as some crossed over to the dark side.

Anyway welcome aboard!

Posted by: gs on April 26, 2005 08:09 PM

10. Baynative,

I am a native of the Seattle area and have spent all of my life here ('cept for the year-and-a-half in Idaho). If I'm forced to leave you can have my "native" status.

Actually, I wonder if I'd be able to auction that off on eBay... yeah, that should help mitigate the relocation costs.

Posted by: Editor on April 26, 2005 08:53 PM

11. I would have liked to have asked Speaker Chopp whether he would encourage the former Attorney General to step down from the governor's position in view of the fact that the Mayor or San Diego has done so, in the following situation (reported inn today's LA Times:

"In December, [Mayor] Murphy was declared the winner in his bid for a second term only after a judge ruled that several thousand ballots cast for write-in candidate Councilwoman Donna Frye were invalid because voters had not darkened the oval on the line where they had written her name. If those votes had been counted, Frye would have beaten Murphy.

"It just never went away," Kern said of the controversy.

In his resignation statement, Murphy acknowledged the damage done by the way he won the election. "I now believe to be effective, the city will need a mayor elected by a solid majority of the voters and with a clear mandate," he said.

So, there is a precedent.

Posted by: Mac on April 26, 2005 09:24 PM

12. Baynative welcome. You have the jist of it, but there are many others. Perhaps you were alluding to it, but we had initiative 601, which put spending limits in place, and the Dems deep-sixed it. Years ago, we removed the sales tax on food. Legislature put it back on. We took it off again.

And so it goes. Car license fees (now limited by initiative). Sales tax always going up. B&O tax.

One I always liked was to spend millions and take 10 years to add one lane to a freeway. Which is then dedicated for HOV. And then turn around and add another lane hundreds of millions of dollars and 10 years later. Add two lanes at once? We couldn't do that, we don't need it yet.

Or take billions of dollars and years to build a transit system so that the same 14% ridership can now go in shiny new, expensive, and more breakable vehicles than the old buses.

Then there was the "Urban Villages" and Lowry care.

It's a matter of living inside the reality TV show "When liberals go bad..."

Somehow we cope.

Posted by: scott158 on April 27, 2005 12:16 AM

13. I didn't bother, he wouldn't answer my question. My question would be simple:

"Do you guys have a death wish? I mean, seriously. You barely win a couple of swing districts to take control, steal the Governor's mansion after 2 recounts, and then spend the entire session raising taxes and increasing spending. Do you actually expect to survive 2006 like that?"

It's an honest question. They are either mindbogglingly short-sited or so in bed with their interest groups that they can't even take a leak without permission.

Posted by: Cliff on April 27, 2005 01:17 AM

14. '92 and '94.

Old dog, no new tricks.

Posted by: scott158 on April 27, 2005 12:50 PM

15. Didn't realize this was going on. It would have been fun to challenge my old "nemisis" once again. I had so much fun doing so at out debate last October. Seeing that vein pop out of his forehead when this "sophemore" (as he so elequantly refered to me one day for challenging his "throne") caught him in a conundrum was classic campaigning at its best.

Posted by: markgriswold on April 29, 2005 04:35 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?