Give credit to Ron Sims, he does know how to make people talk. Beyond that, however, it's difficult to be so charitable to the specifics of his op-ed.
Now, reasonable people can disagree about the merits of Roads and Transit with great vigor and vim. That's what we do in this lovable region on such matters. Yet, that doesn't make his position as enunciated any less odd.
One could raise questions about Sims's newfound fondness for fiscal conservatism - hardly a trademark of King County governance or Sims's personal politics. One could also raise questions about the logical policy conclusions of opposing even the mass transit portion of the package because it doesn't do enough to combat global warming. One could even quibble with some of the objections to the transit plan itself, such as Sims saying light rail gets to the Eastside via too indirect a route. Where's it supposed to cross Lake Washington, via 520? As if that project needed another controversial variable to gum up the works.
In the end, however, the key objections to Sims current position are at a higher level:
1) Sims is on the Sound Transit Board and as past-Chairman plays a not insignificant role in its decision-making. Where was Sims's public voice as Sound Transit spent years considering, debating, amending, and approving this plan? Where was his vocal opposition based on what appear to be some very heartfelt and serious concerns? If the plan is really as flawed as Sims proclaims, where was his voice when the Sound Transit Board - including Sims - voted unanimously to send it to the ballot?
2) Sims calls for "bold solutions that offer immediate relief." Consider that for a minute. Sims has spent years in the Puget Sound political scene, which at last check is famous for its inability to accomplish "bold solutions" for anything, let alone in a timely manner. What crystal ball is he holding that leads him to believe that political climate will suddenly do a complete 180?
On a related note, recall that the RTID/Sound Transit joint-ballot is a creation of Olympia. The very taxing authority contained in the measure is granted by state government. Specifically, the Legislature created RTID after the Nickel Gas Tax increase of 2003, before even the 9.5 cent increase of 2005 and resulting I-912 debate. Candidly, the Legislature in 2003 refused to pass a package that met the long overdue roads construction needs of the central Puget Sound region, so it punted to the locals. After that it took four long years to even get a measure on the ballot. This after nearly a decade of Olympia failing to act decisively on road construction and congestion that has long plagued the Seattle area. If Proposition 1 fails, the responsibility for cleaning up the mess falls back on the Legislature.
Based on past history, not to mention the inevitable fear of dealing with anything as controversial as Puget Sound transportation policy in an election year, does anyone (including Ron Sims) think Olympia will act quickly with "bold solutions"? Look at how quickly the Viaduct didn't get resolved after last year's advisory vote. Is this the track record upon which Sims is hoping for rapidly implemented "bold solutions"?
Not to say such a message has any resonance whatsoever with the voting public. Elway's latest poll confirms large majorities believe something else will be proffered up for the electorate to choose from if Roads and Transit goes down to defeat. Nothing anyone says will change that belief.
At the same time, elected officials well aware of political realities and the history of this issue have no excuse for such optimistic happy-talk. Ron Sims is one the most well-meaning, most dignified public officials around. He's exceptionally bright, whatever political disagreements one might have with him. But his call for "bold solutions that offer immediate relief" in the wake of a defeat of Proposition 1 is a joke, plain and simple.
UPDATE: Do take the time to read this latest version of the P-I's news coverage of the Sims story. Needless to say, an interesting look at the conflict Sims was wrestling with for some time. It makes his delay in stating his position more understandable, though given the article's reference to the same Viaduct mess I cited, it's exceedingly difficult to see where Sims honestly believes there is some immediate light at the end of the tunnel for the solutions he seeks if Proposition 1 fails.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 27, 2007 07:58 PM | Email ThisMore to your other points, if he had come out with this position months ago I would hardly have anything to say about it, especially if he had voted against sending Sound Transit 2 to the voters. Between that and his "bold solutions" line it's just too much. No person who has watched the process of transportation debates in this region can believe there are "bold solutions that offer immediate relief" anywhere in this area's future.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 27, 2007 09:25 PMI'm sorry, but I do not trust him. I have seen him do to many things that have been wrong and some I think he did wrong on purpose.
Posted by: Dengle on September 27, 2007 09:51 PMIt was my understanding this "big bully" was trying to get light rail and/or buses to pudge's house somewhere in Snohomish County. But that was going to be the next ballot measure and wasn't in this one.
Eric, I like reading your analyses. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I don't, but I always love them. When asked today which way you were leaning on the ballot measure, you were quiet. Since I know you have been a strong supporter of the "mission" of ST, I was surprised you didn't opine.
As for the measure, I'm for it, though I'm not entirely thrilled with it. I just don't spend a lot of time talking about that position here because it would be predictably received by most of the readership.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 28, 2007 07:39 AMHowever, I would like to at least respect the other side's position. My current disrespect is how can an elected or board member with a straight face say this is a good measure? My opinion is based upon what appears to out of control planning, overzealous environmental cost additions and rotten initial cost estimates (when the estimators said they had lots of cushion when they passed the initial ballot).
That is just me, but I could have a little understanding if I really believed in the mission. I still struggle with that. For my lifetime or yours, I don't think it is a good mission, but after me, will the light rail infrastructure be the end all that we expect today? That is my struggle and so far, it is NO.
Posted by: swatter on September 28, 2007 07:57 AMTrue. I really don't understand your support for this measure, in what's otherwise sensible commentary.
will the light rail infrastructure be the end all that we expect today?
Emphatic NO from this voter. The numbers just don't add up. It's fiscal insanity, for very little regional benefit.
When the ridership on the still unfinished light rail line falls below expectations and traffic congestion is not any better, it won't even be worth writing "I told you so". Too easy.
Posted by: Palouse on September 28, 2007 08:34 AMHave you ever heard of Seattle Monorail Project? Just to see if you have ANY idea what RTID/ST2 is really all about, try to identify any taxpayer protection terms in the ordinances the voters will be voting on in November that would protect them from the kinds wild spending plans SMP sprang on the public two years after that vote in 2002.
Maybe you like how limitless billions of highly-regressive sales taxes would be confiscated from your neighbors, and the far less well off people and families who make up the majority of this region. Those taxes would hit those who could least afford them the hardest. Those tax impacts would occur completely irrespective of the extent to which anyone uses or benefits from the trains or particular highway projects that decades from now are supposed to be built.
Maybe you like how voters could not vote smarter or more frugal leaders onto the board of Sound Transit. Have you no idea what a quagmire light rail construction became? You should come visit Seattle, and take a look at the Beacon Hill construction sites. Things are not well there. Light rail trains were supposed to be operating from 45th Street in the U-District to SeaTac last year.
Nice to know you are well left of Ron Sims when it comes to flogging tax and spend boondoggle plans.
I would have never expected this in a million years. The best I can come up with is perhaps this is a political ploy that he is in the middle of.
Perhaps Simms sees that Queen Christine is vunerable and is looking at staking out his own "moderate" position to try to unseat her in a Primary. It is no secret that Ron Simms has wanted to be governor for quite some time.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on September 28, 2007 10:53 AMFrank Ciallo: I am from Massachusetts, and I've been envisioning a remake of "Charle on the MTA" about the RTID ...
Lyric suggestions welcome!
Hm, maybe this should be its own thread.
Posted by: pudge on September 28, 2007 01:00 PMJust out of interest, what public relations or government agency are you a flack for?
That post was a pretty good. I'm kind of wondering how many billable hours you spent on it.
Posted by: Johnny on September 28, 2007 04:54 PMIt's not. Especially on I90. IF LR is to go to the east side, go around the lake. Go up thru Renton (thousands of Boeing jobs). Stop at/near Eastgate. Have a Rapid/Express Bus that takes you from Eastgate across I90 (the road) into Seattle, and right into the tunnel.
If I want to go from Tukwila to the east side, WHY WOULD I WANT TO GO THRU SEATTLE?
Light Rail will only work if you take the folks from where they live to where they work. And ALL stations need LOTS OF PARKING!
A Renton-Bellevue link could service Southcenter, Boeing/The Landing, Newcastle, Factoria, Eastgate/Bellevue Community College, and points beyond. And it would get lots more riders than the Airport-Seattle link or a Seattle-Bellevue link.
Posted by: Seabecker on September 28, 2007 05:48 PMSims is probably trying to burnish his credentials for a potential Cabinet position should a (D) win the White House in '08. It has already been shown that he can't even get a primary win among Washington Democrats -- let alone in a general election.
You'll note he is, even with the advanced-schedule campaign for the Nov. '08 elections, come out and endorsed any one of the (D) candidates.
Think about it. He hires some hack from the East Coast to take on this new 'greenhouse gas' emission information requirement that he sprung on developers - that he didn't even bother to tell anyone about until the last minute. He suddenly, regardless of how you feel about ST2/RTID, does a 180 on his pet project because it is tied to massive, and from this former Angeleno/San Diegan's perspective, long-overdue roadway infrastructure (all that carbon emissions) improvements to the highway system (never mind how much pollution is being generated by cars stuck in traffic), and, iirc, he's indicated that he isn't running for C.E. again.
My 0.02? He's sticking a finger in the wind, realizing that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of following his K.C.E. predecessors into the Governor's mansion, and is looking to 'go national'.
Posted by: FT on September 29, 2007 08:18 AMInstead of applauding Sims for a principled stand
you are off calling him names.
Far better would be to see the RTID issues Sims is raising ... accountability, predictable taxation, addressing needs .. those ought to be real issues.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 29, 2007 06:46 PMSound Transit will be back with a modified version. There is room for a compromise in the light rail portion - delete the light rail north of Northgate and south of SeaTac, which would considerably lessen the cost and all make it possible for additional funding for roads - enough to finish the 520 bridge, which Prop. 1 DOES NOT provide. I don't want to theorize why Sims came out against it, just to say that he explained most of the right reasons. That is not to say that there aren't ulterior motives.
Posted by: KS on September 30, 2007 02:23 PM