Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Not a Single Candidate Answered the Question

fizz28

1) At the start of last night’s Town Hall debate between the four Democratic candidates vying for King County Executive, moderator Cliff Traisman—a longtime environmental lobbyist in Olympia— promised the 300-plus people who crowded into the pews that this “was not NPR or KUOW” and the candidates would “mix it up,” and that he would ask the contenders to rebut one another (he threatened to jump in himself with pointed follow-up questions when he deemed it necessary).

That would have been nice.

For an hour and a half, the candidates—King County Council Member Dow Constantine, State Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48), State Sen. Fred Jarrett (D-41), and King County Council Member Larry Phillips—got away with not answering questions, not critiquing or addressing each other, and not giving the audience much of a show—or more important, not giving the audience much to go on when trying to differentiate between the four.

Constantine and Hunter did the best job establishing an identity—Constantine sent the message that he’s the guy who will take on the bad guy corporations (like Glacier Northwest and the entire membership at the Building Industry Association of Washington) and Hunter made it clear he will be a stern manager when it comes to going through the county’s bloated budget (surprisingly, Phillips, who for  my money typically dominates these executive debates with his energy and wonky specifics, was off his game and seemed to answer every question with Philip Glass repetion by referring the audience to a plan he’s written called his “Greenprint” for the future), but there was no mixing it up, no heat—and as a result, not much light.

However, at least these four candidates showed up. Republican Susan Hutchison, the former KIRO-TV anchor who’s leading in the polls, didn’t make it.

susan

A Phillips fan asks the night’s most pressing question.

I will file a full report on the debate—a night sponsored by a coalition of environmental and housing groups that focused exclusively on environmental issues—later, but for now I’ll report on the results of my post-debate attempt to get the candidates to talk in specifics. Traisman concluded the forum by asking each candidate to identify one thing they heard from any of the other candidates that they disagreed with. Not a single candidate answered the question. I managed to grab each candidate afterwards, repeat Traisman’s question, and ask them to answer it.

Only Constantine and Phillips complied.

Constantine pointed out that both Jarrett and Hunter punted when asked if we had to start cleaning up the Puget Sound now. “I disagree,” Constantine said, adding that we don’t have time to “fret” over policy squabbles. He recommended putting a barrel tax on petroleum—a move that failed in the state legislature this year (ahem Jarrett and Hunter) to fund the immediate cleanup.

Phillips said he disagreed with Constantine’s position that the BNSF corridor should not be reserved for a potential Eastside rail corridor. (Constantine wants to use it for bike trails.) Constantine was the only candidate who said during the debate that he didn’t think the BNSF corridor was the right one for Eastside rail. Phillips also pointed out that Constantine actually voted for dual use.

So, good on Phillips and Constantine for answering my  (Traisman’s) question.

Hunter and Jarrett not so much.

Jarrett simply stuck to the soundbite he’d been using all night about needing to “measure results instead of effort.” However, to his credit, he did belittle Constantine’s oil tax idea, saying it was another example of explaining how we could fund an effort without saying what specifically we’d do.

Hunter continued his attack on the county budget—laying the blame at current council members Constantine and Phillips’ feet—”both these guys are approving budgets, spending money in ways that’s not sustainable”—but he didn’t cite anything specific that either had said during the debate that he disagreed with.

2. The PI is not doing candidate endorsements this year.

3. PubliCola is winning an award from local progressive advocacy group Fuse tonight for our  legislative coverage in Olympia this session.

4. Sorry for repeating, but yesterday’s item on Richard McIver needs to be in the Morning Fizz.

This morning’s Morning Fizz brought to you by Transportation Choices Coalition:

goldenticket-v93



  • Paulish

    will Publicola be doing endorsements this year?

  • Paulish

    will Publicola be doing endorsements this year?

  • kurisu

    Josh, My understanding was that Dow supports rail on the BN corridor when there’s the land use to support it. The feasibility studies for commuter rail were not very promising in the near future. Rail banking it would allow it to move people right away, rather than letting the tracks lay fallow.

  • kurisu

    Josh, My understanding was that Dow supports rail on the BN corridor when there’s the land use to support it. The feasibility studies for commuter rail were not very promising in the near future. Rail banking it would allow it to move people right away, rather than letting the tracks lay fallow.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @2,

    Last night Dow said he did “not think it [rail] was the best use for that corridor.”

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @2,

    Last night Dow said he did “not think it [rail] was the best use for that corridor.”

  • seabos84

    thanks for the reporting.

    I’ve got no problem with horse race handicapping and editorializing – just don’t do what those village liars do, (adam nagourney, cokie roberts, george stephanoupolous, charlie gibso, katie, brokaw…)
    and pretend like the gossip around the horse races and the gossip of editorilizing is NOT a bunch of fascist lies. They’re market is shrinking, and that is, in part, due to people getting sick of being lied to about what is news and what is fabricated public opinion.

    I can read goebels or orwell on my own.

    rmm.

  • seabos84

    thanks for the reporting.

    I’ve got no problem with horse race handicapping and editorializing – just don’t do what those village liars do, (adam nagourney, cokie roberts, george stephanoupolous, charlie gibso, katie, brokaw…)
    and pretend like the gossip around the horse races and the gossip of editorilizing is NOT a bunch of fascist lies. They’re market is shrinking, and that is, in part, due to people getting sick of being lied to about what is news and what is fabricated public opinion.

    I can read goebels or orwell on my own.

    rmm.

  • Fred

    In regard to the repetition of Larry’s “Greenprint” plan, he was the only candidate that offered a substantive, detailed plan for our environmental future.

    Everyone else just floated “green” buzz words.

  • Fred

    In regard to the repetition of Larry’s “Greenprint” plan, he was the only candidate that offered a substantive, detailed plan for our environmental future.

    Everyone else just floated “green” buzz words.

  • D.C.

    There was no possible way for anyone to debate. Larry was the only candidate to put out any information in which would allow the other candidates to poke and prod. I took his bringing up of the Greenprint as a way to invite them to open up the beginning of his plans for criticism, which no one did. As far as I’m concerned, only Larry has put any thought into protecting the environment.

  • D.C.

    There was no possible way for anyone to debate. Larry was the only candidate to put out any information in which would allow the other candidates to poke and prod. I took his bringing up of the Greenprint as a way to invite them to open up the beginning of his plans for criticism, which no one did. As far as I’m concerned, only Larry has put any thought into protecting the environment.

  • AP

    i just learned more about susan hutchinson from reading that poster than from looking at her website.

  • AP

    i just learned more about susan hutchinson from reading that poster than from looking at her website.

  • AP

    i just learned more about susan hutchinson from reading that poster than from looking at her website.

  • Tjss

    @5: “…a substantive, detailed plan for our environmental future.”

    Anyone who has actually read the so-called “Greenprint” knows it’s just a campaign document full of the same “‘green’ buzz words” you reference in your comment. The specifics are ludicrous.

    Consider the $50 million for farms and forests. Phillips does not specify a funding source. The two revenue options typically used for such projects are two of three possible Real Estate Excise Taxes (REETs) and the Conservation Futures Tax (CFT). Neither tax can support Phillips’ plan.

    REET and CFT have already been bonded near capacity, and, as you might imagine in this economy, revenue generated from home sales (REET) and property tax (CFT) have been in significant decline recently.

    What revenue continues to be collected has already been dedicated to bonds funding conservation projects begun by Dow Constantine several years before he considered running for Executive. Dow did not wait for an election year to build his green credentials — Phillips is just late to the game.

    How’s that for detailed and substantive?

  • Tjss

    @5: “…a substantive, detailed plan for our environmental future.”

    Anyone who has actually read the so-called “Greenprint” knows it’s just a campaign document full of the same “‘green’ buzz words” you reference in your comment. The specifics are ludicrous.

    Consider the $50 million for farms and forests. Phillips does not specify a funding source. The two revenue options typically used for such projects are two of three possible Real Estate Excise Taxes (REETs) and the Conservation Futures Tax (CFT). Neither tax can support Phillips’ plan.

    REET and CFT have already been bonded near capacity, and, as you might imagine in this economy, revenue generated from home sales (REET) and property tax (CFT) have been in significant decline recently.

    What revenue continues to be collected has already been dedicated to bonds funding conservation projects begun by Dow Constantine several years before he considered running for Executive. Dow did not wait for an election year to build his green credentials — Phillips is just late to the game.

    How’s that for detailed and substantive?

  • Tjss

    @5: “…a substantive, detailed plan for our environmental future.”

    Anyone who has actually read the so-called “Greenprint” knows it’s just a campaign document full of the same “‘green’ buzz words” you reference in your comment. The specifics are ludicrous.

    Consider the $50 million for farms and forests. Phillips does not specify a funding source. The two revenue options typically used for such projects are two of three possible Real Estate Excise Taxes (REETs) and the Conservation Futures Tax (CFT). Neither tax can support Phillips’ plan.

    REET and CFT have already been bonded near capacity, and, as you might imagine in this economy, revenue generated from home sales (REET) and property tax (CFT) have been in significant decline recently.

    What revenue continues to be collected has already been dedicated to bonds funding conservation projects begun by Dow Constantine several years before he considered running for Executive. Dow did not wait for an election year to build his green credentials — Phillips is just late to the game.

    How’s that for detailed and substantive?

  • Trevor

    Congrats on the award from Fuse!

  • Trevor

    Congrats on the award from Fuse!

  • Trevor

    Congrats on the award from Fuse!

  • http://www.cascade.org/ David Hiller

    Josh:

    We interviewed Dow – and one of the questions was on the BNSF eastside right of way.

    I think the nuance you’re missing is that railbanking does protect rail access to a corridor in perpituity – as long as there’s a multi-use trail on the corridor. (16USC1247(d)) Further, the important thing Dow’s acknowledging is that two feasibility studies both show that in the near-term commuter rail on the corridor would serve very few passengers.

    So, we could protect the corridor for future rail use and make it useful for the more than 3,000 bicyclists who would commute on it daily – all for less than the price of the average highway offramp. Alternately, we could let it sit fallow – with rusting tracks and rotting ties – for the psychological reassurance that it’s a rail line. At a substantian percentage of the corridor which is held in easements would be subject to reversionary property rights – meaning we could lose them forever.

    Only one candidate would recognize the supremacy of federal protections and the outcomes of two independent studies showing commuter rail is a better medium term use than short term use – and that was Dow. Make of it what you will.

    David Hiller
    Cascade Bicycle Club

  • http://www.cascade.org/ David Hiller

    Josh:

    We interviewed Dow – and one of the questions was on the BNSF eastside right of way.

    I think the nuance you’re missing is that railbanking does protect rail access to a corridor in perpituity – as long as there’s a multi-use trail on the corridor. (16USC1247(d)) Further, the important thing Dow’s acknowledging is that two feasibility studies both show that in the near-term commuter rail on the corridor would serve very few passengers.

    So, we could protect the corridor for future rail use and make it useful for the more than 3,000 bicyclists who would commute on it daily – all for less than the price of the average highway offramp. Alternately, we could let it sit fallow – with rusting tracks and rotting ties – for the psychological reassurance that it’s a rail line. At a substantian percentage of the corridor which is held in easements would be subject to reversionary property rights – meaning we could lose them forever.

    Only one candidate would recognize the supremacy of federal protections and the outcomes of two independent studies showing commuter rail is a better medium term use than short term use – and that was Dow. Make of it what you will.

    David Hiller
    Cascade Bicycle Club

  • http://www.cascade.org David Hiller

    Josh:

    We interviewed Dow – and one of the questions was on the BNSF eastside right of way.

    I think the nuance you’re missing is that railbanking does protect rail access to a corridor in perpituity – as long as there’s a multi-use trail on the corridor. (16USC1247(d)) Further, the important thing Dow’s acknowledging is that two feasibility studies both show that in the near-term commuter rail on the corridor would serve very few passengers.

    So, we could protect the corridor for future rail use and make it useful for the more than 3,000 bicyclists who would commute on it daily – all for less than the price of the average highway offramp. Alternately, we could let it sit fallow – with rusting tracks and rotting ties – for the psychological reassurance that it’s a rail line. At a substantian percentage of the corridor which is held in easements would be subject to reversionary property rights – meaning we could lose them forever.

    Only one candidate would recognize the supremacy of federal protections and the outcomes of two independent studies showing commuter rail is a better medium term use than short term use – and that was Dow. Make of it what you will.

    David Hiller
    Cascade Bicycle Club

  • Danny Noonan

    I like how Phillips is raising the level of this debate to above “name calling”. Way to print a sign that says “Loves Jesus, Hate Atheists”, Is that his definition of the high road?

    Another fine Johnny-Come-Lately repositioning move by the Phillips campaign.

  • Danny Noonan

    I like how Phillips is raising the level of this debate to above “name calling”. Way to print a sign that says “Loves Jesus, Hate Atheists”, Is that his definition of the high road?

    Another fine Johnny-Come-Lately repositioning move by the Phillips campaign.

  • Danny Noonan

    I like how Phillips is raising the level of this debate to above “name calling”. Way to print a sign that says “Loves Jesus, Hate Atheists”, Is that his definition of the high road?

    Another fine Johnny-Come-Lately repositioning move by the Phillips campaign.