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.

Another Update: Burgess' Tax Plan

Just got back from City Hall, where council member Tim Burgess—who, along with Richard Conlin, is pushing to repeal the so-called "head tax," $25-per-employee tax charged to employers whose workers commute by car alone—told me more about his plans to replace the tax with other funding sources.

The most interesting aspect of Burgess’ plan, which is still very much in the preliminary stages, is that it would create a dedicated fund to pay for projects in the city’s bike and pedestrian master plans, neither of which is fully funded. The pedestrian master plan alone could end up costing as much as $800 million. "When SDOT presents its funding plan every year, we ask them, ‘Are you going to give us a specific list of projects?’ and SDOT waffles on that," Burgess said. Creating a dedicated funding source for bike and ped projects would give the council some control over which projects get funded, Burgess says.

One possible glitch in Burgess’s plan: Of the four potential new tax sources Burgess has identified, several have already been identified as possible funding sources for other projects. For example, the city has talked about paying for its share of the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct by doubling the parking tax to a total of 20 percent. The transportation benefits district, a fee of up to $20 on car licensing, has been discussed as a funding source for both the vidauct and to pay for any transit shortfalls King County Metro can’t afford to make up. If those two options were taken out of play, that would reduce the total potential funding to just over $4 million—not even enough to replace the money that will be lost when the head tax is repealed.


  • http://www.friendsofseattle.org/ Friends of Seattle

    The goal should not be to merely replace the dollars lost by getting rid of the head tax, but rather to get serious about funding bike and pedestrian improvements. Any new funding plan developed by the Council must provide incentives to reward people who choose to get around by bike, transit, or walking.

    Unfortunately, as Erica’s report makes clear, we are facing a stark choice as a community: dedicate $4.2 billion to a downtown tunnel or instead invest in the city’s entire transportation network of ordinary streets, transit, and bike & pedestrian infrastructure.

  • http://www.friendsofseattle.org Friends of Seattle

    The goal should not be to merely replace the dollars lost by getting rid of the head tax, but rather to get serious about funding bike and pedestrian improvements. Any new funding plan developed by the Council must provide incentives to reward people who choose to get around by bike, transit, or walking.

    Unfortunately, as Erica’s report makes clear, we are facing a stark choice as a community: dedicate $4.2 billion to a downtown tunnel or instead invest in the city’s entire transportation network of ordinary streets, transit, and bike & pedestrian infrastructure.

  • JoshMahar

    Thank you Erica. Just to reiterate @1, this is a very concrete example of how creating a $4 billion tunnel for vehicles directly impacts the funding of other more environmentally friendly modes of transit.

  • JoshMahar

    Thank you Erica. Just to reiterate @1, this is a very concrete example of how creating a $4 billion tunnel for vehicles directly impacts the funding of other more environmentally friendly modes of transit.

  • Nope

    No no no.. we don’t get to take the $4.2 billion and put it towards bike and ped programs. At all.

    That is state money, appropriated by the Legislature, to BUILD A TUNNEL. No, tunnel, no money.

    Guess what the state’s fallback is? Uber-Viaduct.

    Just like how people pretend that if we just didn’t do Mercer (which btw is a part of the Viaduct plan now) we’d “get” all $200 mil. Nope – the vast majority of that money is not “city” money, and would go away once the project went away.

    Erica, thank you for your good work helping clarify. But these points should be added.

    FoS, shouldn’t you be out working on the McGinn campaign? : )

  • Nope

    No no no.. we don’t get to take the $4.2 billion and put it towards bike and ped programs. At all.

    That is state money, appropriated by the Legislature, to BUILD A TUNNEL. No, tunnel, no money.

    Guess what the state’s fallback is? Uber-Viaduct.

    Just like how people pretend that if we just didn’t do Mercer (which btw is a part of the Viaduct plan now) we’d “get” all $200 mil. Nope – the vast majority of that money is not “city” money, and would go away once the project went away.

    Erica, thank you for your good work helping clarify. But these points should be added.

    FoS, shouldn’t you be out working on the McGinn campaign? : )

  • People not Tunnel

    Nope @ 3: Don’t you have Nickels campaign work to do? Or, maybe an OPM report to write.

    The Mayor plans to use funds (including commercial parking taxes and transit benefit district funds) that have NOT YET BEEN DESIGNATED FOR ANYTHING for the tunnel: Read carefully and you will be enlightened. He plans to take funds away from pedestrians and cyclists.

  • People not Tunnel

    Nope @ 3: Don’t you have Nickels campaign work to do? Or, maybe an OPM report to write.

    The Mayor plans to use funds (including commercial parking taxes and transit benefit district funds) that have NOT YET BEEN DESIGNATED FOR ANYTHING for the tunnel: Read carefully and you will be enlightened. He plans to take funds away from pedestrians and cyclists.

  • http://www.friendsofseattle.org/ Friends of Seattle

    @3 You’re completely incorrect. As @4 points out, the $4.2 billion tunnel will require a sizable contribution from Seattle residents—at least $930 million. See http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/issues/viaduct/doc%20s/090225Final_BoredTunnel_folio.pdf. That money–raised from utility-rate increases, special assessments, and other taxes and fees–could be dedicated to bike and pedestrian improvements.

    Further, state gas-tax money can be used on ordinary city streets. So a portion of that gas-tax money, together with Seattle’s Complete Streets ordinance in place, could result in many streets being repaved with better bike and pedestrian features. Additionally, a portion of the Seattle transportation capital budget could then be reallocated to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

    But you know what else that $930 million in city money does? It makes the people of Seattle have a lot less money and be a lot more wary of new taxes. So when the City or the schools come around saying that we need taxes for police, schools, or fire, taxpayers are more likely to say, “Hey, @%#$ you, you’re already raised my taxes to pay for your fancy tunnel.”

  • http://www.friendsofseattle.org Friends of Seattle

    @3 You’re completely incorrect. As @4 points out, the $4.2 billion tunnel will require a sizable contribution from Seattle residents—at least $930 million. See http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/issues/viaduct/doc%20s/090225Final_BoredTunnel_folio.pdf. That money–raised from utility-rate increases, special assessments, and other taxes and fees–could be dedicated to bike and pedestrian improvements.

    Further, state gas-tax money can be used on ordinary city streets. So a portion of that gas-tax money, together with Seattle’s Complete Streets ordinance in place, could result in many streets being repaved with better bike and pedestrian features. Additionally, a portion of the Seattle transportation capital budget could then be reallocated to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

    But you know what else that $930 million in city money does? It makes the people of Seattle have a lot less money and be a lot more wary of new taxes. So when the City or the schools come around saying that we need taxes for police, schools, or fire, taxpayers are more likely to say, “Hey, @%#$ you, you’re already raised my taxes to pay for your fancy tunnel.”

  • Nope

    @3 Did you know that the surface/transit proposal estimate is $3.6 billion?

  • Nope

    @3 Did you know that the surface/transit proposal estimate is $3.6 billion?

  • Good Grief

    The tunnel isn’t $4.2 Billion and you look like a moron to anyone who is moderately well informed when you quote that figure.

    Speaking of mayoral candidates, the fucking McGinn tunnel push poll is back — I got called 10 minutes ago.

  • Good Grief

    The tunnel isn’t $4.2 Billion and you look like a moron to anyone who is moderately well informed when you quote that figure.

    Speaking of mayoral candidates, the fucking McGinn tunnel push poll is back — I got called 10 minutes ago.

  • Mr. X

    If the plastic bag tax/fee repeal passes, it will be in no small part due to the fact that a whole lot of average Seattle residents are increasingly sick of being (Greg?) nickeled and dimed by a city government that somehow manages to be both spendthrift and nannyish at the same time.

    Another parking fee increase on top of the recent one (not to mention the addition of new paid parking in heretofore free areas) isn’t gonna go over well with a sizable group of folks – albeit not the type of people who post at Publicola or Slog.

  • Mr. X

    If the plastic bag tax/fee repeal passes, it will be in no small part due to the fact that a whole lot of average Seattle residents are increasingly sick of being (Greg?) nickeled and dimed by a city government that somehow manages to be both spendthrift and nannyish at the same time.

    Another parking fee increase on top of the recent one (not to mention the addition of new paid parking in heretofore free areas) isn’t gonna go over well with a sizable group of folks – albeit not the type of people who post at Publicola or Slog.

  • Craig

    @6 and @7 – Yeah, the Surface + I-5 + Transit alternative came in at $3.6 billion (with almost no chance of cost overruns), but it included a HUGE increase in transit service (the tunnel option does not), improvements to I-5 (the tunnel option does not) and all of the other accoutrements that come with the tunnel option (seawall, etc..), except a tunnel with no exits downtown. You can read all about it at http://www.tunnelfacts.com

  • Craig

    @6 and @7 – Yeah, the Surface + I-5 + Transit alternative came in at $3.6 billion (with almost no chance of cost overruns), but it included a HUGE increase in transit service (the tunnel option does not), improvements to I-5 (the tunnel option does not) and all of the other accoutrements that come with the tunnel option (seawall, etc..), except a tunnel with no exits downtown. You can read all about it at http://www.tunnelfacts.com

  • Stephanie

    Erica, did you say $800 million for the ped plan? Where is that number from? To my knowledge, the ped plan only calls for $60 million, which is of course, woefully inadequate. We might have $800M in needs, but that plan only covers $60M. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

  • Stephanie

    Erica, did you say $800 million for the ped plan? Where is that number from? To my knowledge, the ped plan only calls for $60 million, which is of course, woefully inadequate. We might have $800M in needs, but that plan only covers $60M. Please correct me if I’m wrong.