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.

x close
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.

King County Charter Amendments: PubliCola Picks "Yes" On All Four

News   October 19, 2009 at 11:27 am PublicolaPicks

picksmall

King County Charter Amendments 1-3 fix “no longer relevant” portions of the county charter and confirm routine legislation approved by the county council (related to preparation of work programs and council approval of charter commission appointees, if you’re curious). Why do we have to vote on this stuff? We have no idea, but as long as you’re filling out your ballot, vote “yes” on these three.

King County Charter Amendment No. 4 adds protections for 156,000 acres of county-owned land by making it harder to sell or transfer those properties out of county hands. We think this is a sensible idea. Vote “yes.”


  • RonK, Seattle

    That was exciting!

  • RonK, Seattle

    That was exciting!

  • BombasticMo

    If we vote no to the first three, I don’t know why, just for shits and giggles, does it hurt anything?

    It does seem to be pretty useless.

  • BombasticMo

    If we vote no to the first three, I don’t know why, just for shits and giggles, does it hurt anything?

    It does seem to be pretty useless.

  • http://www.openspaceamendment.org/ corrie_seattle

    I was a staffer for the King County Charter Review Commission, the citizen commission that developed these charter amendments (as well as most of those that were on the ballot last November).

    To clarify why this boring ‘housekeeping’ stuff needs to be on our ballots… the Charter, like most constitutions, can’t be amended without a vote of the people. That means _any_ change, even a single word, can’t be changed without a majority vote.

    This Commission decided to recommend some long overdue cleanup to the Charter, as well as many more substantive, policy-related amendments (such as #4, the open space amendment). The first 3 amendments will eliminate some confusion and some unnecessary work that the county is currently required to do.

    Vote Yes- there’s no reason not to ;)

  • http://www.openspaceamendment.org/ corrie_seattle

    I was a staffer for the King County Charter Review Commission, the citizen commission that developed these charter amendments (as well as most of those that were on the ballot last November).

    To clarify why this boring ‘housekeeping’ stuff needs to be on our ballots… the Charter, like most constitutions, can’t be amended without a vote of the people. That means _any_ change, even a single word, can’t be changed without a majority vote.

    This Commission decided to recommend some long overdue cleanup to the Charter, as well as many more substantive, policy-related amendments (such as #4, the open space amendment). The first 3 amendments will eliminate some confusion and some unnecessary work that the county is currently required to do.

    Vote Yes- there’s no reason not to ;)

  • VinceInSeattle

    I’m mystified why conservation properties already owned by the county need enhanced protection from the County Council. When has any such sale been approved, or even proposed? Why should a supermajority be required? I distrust supermajorities in general – look what the filibuster threat is doing to health care in the Senate, and every other progressive initiative to come. I don’t understand what problem Charter Amendment #4 is trying to solve, and voted NO.

  • VinceInSeattle

    I’m mystified why conservation properties already owned by the county need enhanced protection from the County Council. When has any such sale been approved, or even proposed? Why should a supermajority be required? I distrust supermajorities in general – look what the filibuster threat is doing to health care in the Senate, and every other progressive initiative to come. I don’t understand what problem Charter Amendment #4 is trying to solve, and voted NO.

  • http://www.openspaceamendment.org/ corrie_seattle

    Amendment 4 makes it harder for the county to sell _our_ public lands. The county hasn’t recently sold an open space parcel such as the ones on the protected list, but the amendment is a form of insurance that that will never happen.

    Certainly we can imagine a possible future in which a conservative county executive takes office during a recession? And proceeds to propose the sale of certain lands that would fetch a high price, to subsidize public safety and health…

    It’s not hard to imagine. It could happen within the month. It’s smarter to try protect something before it’s lost than gnash our teeth later over what was not done.

  • http://www.openspaceamendment.org/ corrie_seattle

    Amendment 4 makes it harder for the county to sell _our_ public lands. The county hasn’t recently sold an open space parcel such as the ones on the protected list, but the amendment is a form of insurance that that will never happen.

    Certainly we can imagine a possible future in which a conservative county executive takes office during a recession? And proceeds to propose the sale of certain lands that would fetch a high price, to subsidize public safety and health…

    It’s not hard to imagine. It could happen within the month. It’s smarter to try protect something before it’s lost than gnash our teeth later over what was not done.