Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Prop 1
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 3, 2014 at 5:10 pm #811272
wakefloodParticipantDoes Judd’s article imply that a result of Prop1 failure would be the automatic termination of the elephant program?
Are these things directly connected? Or just insinuated? And why would the success of Prop 1 possibly prevent the citizens from making this go away?
The answer of course, is it wouldn’t.
Ok, so I read his short article and it does IMPLY that prop1 failure equals termination of the program. Less funding for the Zoo AT LARGE means the program goes away. That’s misleading as it gets. He may be against Prop 1 but that argument is a red herring.
August 3, 2014 at 7:19 pm #811273
wakefloodParticipantAlso read the Times Ed Board “NO” statement. I’d like to ask these consistently out of touch with their own readers (the few remaining) a simple question. If the Prop1 Board was constructed identically to Tacoma’s, would they then endorse it?
You tell me what you think they’d respond to that with? I suspect I know and it would still be no, for some other reason.
August 3, 2014 at 10:25 pm #811274
TanDLParticipantI’m not on the Board of the Times, but I’ll respond to that question for myself… Yes, I WOULD support it if it were structured more like Tacoma’s. As for the zoo, I don’t read that implication into Judd’s piece at all.
August 4, 2014 at 1:29 am #811275
JoBParticipantWake ….Reluctant concession describes my attitude fairly well on most votes cast these days…
Skeeter… I would love to see you on the oversight committee
August 4, 2014 at 4:47 am #811276
wakefloodParticipantTanDL – “Ergo, the best remaining way for local taxpayers to control what happens to public money handed to the zoo is to simply stop providing it.”
This, directly after several paragraphs about the elephants.
I don’t know how that DOESNT directly imply that voting NO means the best way to make elephant shenanigans stop. There’s also no reason to think that it will. Especially if they derive revenue from the practice. In which case it’s actually MORE likely to continue if you pull funding. Think it through, Ronnie.
Do I like having a zoo in the city limits? Absolutely. Do I want to subsidize it. Sure. Do I agree with every expenditure for ANY subsidized City entity? Nope. Will that ever change? Nope. Will that prevent me from voting to tax myself for things like Parks and other infrastructure? Nope. I take it case by case and this one is good enough.
Nothing about governance is immutable. We can change it if we find it lacking.
August 4, 2014 at 4:49 am #811277
wakefloodParticipantAnd Skeets, I’d gladly second your nomination!
August 4, 2014 at 3:37 pm #811278
TanDLParticipant“Think it through, Ronnie.” I don’t know who the heck you think you’re talking to Wake, but there’s not anyone named Ronnie here, so you can stop it anytime. Mr. Judd and I are just as entitled to our opinions as you are… and we CAN think it through to different conclusions than you have come to, thank you very much.
And if nothing else comes of this line of reasoning, maybe our liberal, love-all-the-animals city will finally wake up to the abuse going on at the zoo and force them to deal with their elephants in a humane manner for a change. There was a flap awhile ago about it, but it has died down and still Seattle’s elephants are treated poorly. Sorry, but I don’t think handing the zoo even more unaccounted for tax dollars via Prop 1 is the way to go.
Seattle Times editorial this morning: http://seattletimes.com/html/editorialsopinion/?from=stnv2
August 4, 2014 at 3:57 pm #811279
wakefloodParticipantTanDL – I never suggested anyone wasn’t entitled to their opinions, nor was I attempting to be disrespectful to you.
I suggested there was faulty logic at play in Mr. Judd’s assumption.
But, as always, take it any way you feel inclined.
August 4, 2014 at 4:02 pm #811280
wakefloodParticipantAnd since you brought it up…
I stated that I thought that Mr. Judd’s voting NO suggestion directly implied it was the best way to make the elephant situation go away, you said…
“As for the zoo, I don’t read that implication into Judd’s piece at all.”
So, when I quoted him in the article, you apparently conceded that point to take issue with something else. That something else being the tone of my note.
Okee dokee…
Sounds like a case of agree to disagree. :-)
August 4, 2014 at 4:06 pm #811281
TanDLParticipantOK then… we can agree to disagree. :)
August 4, 2014 at 5:24 pm #811282
JoBParticipantIs there currently any citizen oversight committee for the zoo?
If so… What stops them from being effective?
August 4, 2014 at 6:11 pm #811283
wakefloodParticipantGood question, JoB. I’ve wondered that as well.
August 4, 2014 at 6:15 pm #811284
auParticipant“I have no evidence to support that our money’s been unwisely used (and just exactly who gets to make THAT determination?) or what’s REALLY going on with the Parks but I’ll force you to prove a negative anyway!”-wakeflood, who are you quoting here, yourself?
passive/aggressive?innuendo? Is that how you debate the pros and cons of a proposition by calling someone passive/aggressive?
So what? what I say is innuendo but all your arguments are facts?
The facts of Prop 1 is in the RCW for a Metropolitan Park District. Either you feel it beneficial for city council to gain that amount of power and authority over our parks or you see it as detrimental. Personally, I read this proposal as most detrimental to our parks. I see it as relinquishing the last bit of say we the people have for our parks. I see it as a way to get the public to pay for some fantastical waterfront park that won’t be for everybody but only those who can afford it. I see it as a way to get private contractors in our park system. These are my perspectives on what I believe can happen with a MPD controlled by the city council.
I am not a *whiny baby nor passive aggressive because my view is different than someone else’s.
I think it telling when one side feels the need to resort to childish name calling tactics.
*a term used by the writers of the stranger and promoted by the ‘yes for prop 1’ in their mailer campaign.
August 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm #811285
wakefloodParticipantau: “Perhaps what really is wrong is the way the money was spent.”
That is, by definition, innuendo.
But whatever…
August 4, 2014 at 6:54 pm #811286
wakefloodParticipantLook, you can be against Prop 1 for any reason you want, but if you want to publicly attempt to provide reasons and attempt to sway others, you open yourself up to having your position responded to.
And with that, I’m out of this thread.
August 4, 2014 at 7:43 pm #811287
skeeterParticipantWell I just filled out my ballot and sealed the envelope. I’ve gone back and forth on Prop 1 about six times. I feel like a great weight has been lifted now that I’ve made up my mind. So I, too, will be counted amongst the 35% of us who will help decide our city’s future.
I ended up voting “approve” on Prop 1. I have faith that our city council will make wise choices for our parks and will be respectful of the oversight committee’s input. With a long-term funding mechanism in place I’m hopeful the city will be able to plan and execute a great city park system.
Not trying to sway others. Vote whatever you think is best. I have more faith in the will of the many than my own decision-making skills.
August 4, 2014 at 7:45 pm #811288
skeeterParticipantWake, please don’t leave this thread. At a minimum, please provide your readers with your analysis and comments on the results.
August 4, 2014 at 8:02 pm #811289
wakefloodParticipantSkeets, I’ve said my piece, and likely a bit more than was required. ;-)
I’ll be interested to see how it plays out. I’m expecting that, like the Transit vote (and almost everything else now that I think about it), we’ll need a Plan B for funding Parks.
Look for another low-ball levy vote coming your way in November and April and November…
But hey, maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised?
August 5, 2014 at 7:20 pm #811290
elikapekaParticipantThanks to all for the good discussion on this issue. I had a tough time on this one, and this thread helped. On my way to drop off my ballot!
August 5, 2014 at 10:47 pm #811291
acemotelParticipantThe zoo is managed by the nonprofit Woodland Park Zoological Society, which has a board of directors: http://www.zoo.org/page.aspx?pid=1998
August 6, 2014 at 2:51 pm #811292
wakefloodParticipantGoing to be interesting as the late ballots get counted over the next few days, eh?
August 6, 2014 at 4:36 pm #811293
skeeterParticipantI’m quite curious how voter turnout was. Half (or more) of the voters don’t vote so basically my vote counts double.
August 6, 2014 at 5:15 pm #811294
wakefloodParticipantGood question. The COUNTY (King) currently estimates 22.8% voter turnout. But some of those obviously didn’t have Prop 1 on the ballot.
Doing some back of the envelope math, if you figure there was a fair amount of late voting on this one, maybe you track closer to 30%-35% all in?
If you figure that something on the order of 2/3 of residents in the city limits are eligible – and that’s probably high? – you’d expect to have a total pool of around 350,000 – 400,000 possible voters?
The current vote total is right around 100,000, which means maybe there’s another 50,000 votes or so left to count, max? Maybe more like 25 – 30,000, depending on total turnout? This is an important number, as the bigger it is, the more opportunity the current loser has to make up the difference.
If that 30k in the ballpark, the late returns have to run something like 58%/42% against to make up the current 5k vote difference.
Likely? Maybe not. Possible? Absolutely. Just depends on the trending of the late voters..
August 6, 2014 at 5:58 pm #811295
skeeterParticipantFrom the Times:
“Slightly less than two-thirds of the votes have been counted, based on King County Elections’ projection of a 38 percent turnout.”
Even though ballots could still be in the mail, I think the County can compare ballots to date with previous elections and accurately forecast total turnout.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024248079_elexparksxml.html
August 6, 2014 at 6:10 pm #811296
wakefloodParticipantOK, so my back of the envelope was off for total voters and turnout by a bit but the total votes is within the ballpark? Say 135,000 total votes, give or take a few thousand, if I read that right?
So, that 58%/42% against ratio is pretty close. More like 57% and change.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.