Anybody wanna talk us out of it?

We love voting. Haven’t missed an even remotely noteworthy election in my (cough, mumble) years of voting. But it’s unfortunate that, when we vote, we don’t get to explain WHY we vote. So since we have the luxury of this here blog – on the offhand chance any decisionmakers might stumble onto it, we’re going to take some pixels to explain why we plan to break with the 34th District Dems’ recommendations on three local issues. (And if anyone cares to explain why you think we’re wrong, wrong, wrong, the comment section is all yours. We vote in person, so it’s not too late to win us back.)

Seattle Referendum 1 — YES, for a simple reason. We are against commercial sexual exploitation (and the commercialization of graphic violence, for that matter, not that this measure has anything to do with that). Go ahead, call us “conservative”; on this point and a few others, we are.

Seattle Proposition 1 — NO. The projects are fine; our current taxes should be going toward them. We are not big fans of the Washington Policy Center, but they said it best:

Placing street maintenance on a special levy continues a trend in public budgeting, in which low priority services are funded through the regular budget while high priority services are neglected until the need is urgent. Placing core functions on special levies makes voters feel they must either agree to pay higher taxes or do without a vital public service.

Most people see maintaining public streets and bridges as a core function of government. Passage of the November measure would continue the trend of enacting special levies to pay for routine public work. Should the measure fail, elected leaders would likely be induced to re-examine priorities within the existing budget to determine whether street and bridge repairs could be addressed at current taxation levels.

King County Proposition 2 — NO. We don’t want more buses. We want mass transit, off the roads, like other major cities (Portland, San Francisco, etc.). We wanted the monorail and were perfectly happy paying gobs of greenery for that. We’ll be happy with Sound Transit light rail if it gets a little closer to West Seattle before we leave the planet. Tell us again why we ripped up the streetcar system? Oh, and tell us why Prop 2 doesn’t seem to include any money for the Water Taxi? We might change our mind if it did.

Wherever you stand, get out there Tuesday and take your stand. (If you vote by mail and haven’t sent it off yet, don’t forget – they’re pretty rigid about the postmark thing.)

Marge Carpenter November 4, 2006 (10:40 am)

You’re right, right, right… proceed w/o reservation :)

T. De November 4, 2006 (10:55 am)

I’ve already voted absentee ballot and am in lockstep with you, 100%.

pops November 4, 2006 (11:15 am)

I’m sorry there wasn’t more of a yard sign war over Ref 1. It would have been interesting to see signs go up for no other reason than to look out the living room window and says, “Gee, and all this time I thought he was just working late.”

More than the 4 ft rule I like the lighting regulations. Anything that makes a den of inquity as erotically appealing as a hospital cafeteria has my vote.

Kathy November 4, 2006 (2:36 pm)

I have no problem with your first two positions but disagree with your position on King County Proposition 2 (more Buses). Here’s why:

1. We need decent transit NOW to make real people’s lives better. Nothing wrong with mass transit (I was totally for the monorail too – can’t remember how many times I voted for it) but why make us wait for mass transit before we improve the bus system?

2. Look at other cities with good mass transit, such as DC or NY. The reason their mass transit works is that they have a good bus system to tie into the mass transit. Everyone can’t live withing walking distance of a subway/transit line or whatever. You have to have some way of getting them there and a bus systems is one of the ways.

3. I have used metro buses to get to and from West Seattle for 28 years and the service now is poorer (fewer routes with fewer buses on those routes) than it’s ever been in my memory. We have never recovered to the level of service since Tim Eyman got his 1st initiative through several years ago.

Buses are one pieces of a good transit system and we can improve that piece now. Let’s do it!!

The House November 4, 2006 (3:57 pm)

I’m brushing up on the refs this weekend and haven’t decided yet. I’ll weigh in shortly.
After reading Pops comment, am I the only one that said WTF?

eric November 4, 2006 (4:34 pm)

Ref 1. I thought it was telling that the Four Season’s folks seemed to have no problem with the Lusty Lady being right next door to their new 1,000,000+ per unit residences. I believe their spokeman said something like, yeah, we’re in the city….

Exploitation of women will continue whether or not we push it into alleyways or what have you. I see no problem with have some strip joints in town and the rules are basically designed to put these otherwise legal businesses out of business. But, what can you expect from a city where you can’t smoke in bars, get nabbed for crossing the street on a flashing “don’t walk” and all the other “civility” and nanny crap that “hizzoner” pushes on us.

I have never even stepped foot in one of these places, but they don’t bother me and the people that work there do so by their own choice.

Agree on the street levy – this is basic government services we’re talking about.

As for the transit one, I still need to read up on it. The fact of the matter is that buses can hit the street right now – any other solution will take years. Also, as a long-time bus rider, I think our city has a great bus system which could be even better with a little more focus.

eric November 4, 2006 (4:38 pm)

oh, and I disagree on the begining – voting straigt D…. but that’s Seattle for ya. Don’t think the Dems have any answers (as proven by our state, county and city government… all of which have been run by democrats since I was born). Where’s our transit system? Why do we have one of the lowest spending per student? Why can’t we make a decision on how to deal with our school closings, the viaduct, 520, etc… Politics are local and our local politicians haven’t done squat. But keep electing ’em!

I really think the city council needs to be elected by district – maybe West Seattle would have a little more say and get more than some speed bumps and painted crosswalks.

eric November 5, 2006 (11:56 am)

“But itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s unfortunate that, when we vote, we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get to explain WHY we vote. ”

Agreed – not that anyone would listen…..
As a long-time regular voter myself, I find it also unfortunate that I will soon lose the right to cast my ballot at a polling place. I recall the first time I voted, I was so proud to be taking part in the practice that makes this country great. I still feel a great sense of pride when I take a few minutes to stop by my polling place to make my voice heard. Voting by mail cheapens the entire experience for me. However, I guess that is a reflection of the value our society places on voting (well, that and the onslaught of attack ads from both sides).

chris November 5, 2006 (10:59 pm)

Seattle Ref. #1–I am voting no because I am not worried about the level of strip clubs in Seattle. But I don’t feel too strongly about it either. Legislating sex never works too well…

Seattle Prop #1–I share your feelings but I don’t know if there is the political will to restructure city government dramatically to have us vote on human services and neighborhood programs instead of roads maintenance. Mark me undecided still…

Transit Now–I agree with most of Kathy’s points. Let me ask you–how does voting against better bus service make mass transit come faster? This is a common sense transit solution until we can get rail built. Don’t worry, as soon as the rail line to the airport opens in 2009, we will see lots more happen sooner because everyone will finally want it. VOTE YES!

Keith November 6, 2006 (12:09 am)

How can you be waving a burqua around in your rant against Mr. Mars Hill Wacko and then be voting yes on Ref. 1? SoÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s bad for religious zealots to tell women how they should appear and act, but when women want to take such personal matters into their own hands (while keeping adult behavior in an adult setting) you say they need to do it under prohibitive rules and restrictions?

I’m a guy and I’m an adult (and hey Jiggers I *am* queer) and I’m voting NO on Ref. 1. I don’t need Nanny Nickels to tell me what’s acceptable behavior for adults, I’m mature and secure enough to figure that out for myself.

Sorry, comment time is over.