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.

Until the Legal Mess is Sorted Out

Morning Fizz, Politics   February 9, 2010 at 7:30 am Morning Fizz

1. State Sen. Margarita Prentice’s bill to suspend I-960—the voter-approved measured that requires a two-thirds vote for tax increases—advanced to the senate floor yesterday. (Our previous coverage of the bill is here.)

Another bill we’ve been following—the environmental community’s push to triple the tax on hazardous substances to pay for storm water clean up—was formally introduced in the legislature yesterday. The bill initially earmarks the majority of the money for the general fund rather than for environmental clean up.

A lower profile bill—South Seattle Sen. Adam Kline’s (D-37)  bill that would put the brakes on the foreclosure process by giving homeowners more options for loans and mediation—moved out of committee yesterday.

2. The Seattle-Tacoma International Taxis Association (STITA) has sued the Port of Seattle.  The nonprofit cab—which has had an exclusive right to serve Sea-Tac ariport—recently lost a bidding war to competitor Yellow Taxi and with it, their two-decade long agreement with the Port of Seattle to provide the cabs leaving the airport. STITA sued the Port—they requested a restraining order to prevent the Port from signing the new contract—over the lost contract saying the bidding process was illegal.

According to the lawsuit, the Port used a “profit-driven model” with a “concession fee” instead of the previous model that based the contract on the Port’s estimated costs. STITA also says in the lawsuit that they rely on the Port contract for the bulk of their business and will go under (and put 450 employees out of a job) without it.

King County Superior Court Judge Steven Gonzalez quashed the lawsuit yesterday when he denied the requested restraining order yesterday, but the State Court of Appeals quickly issued a stay. The Port can’t sign with Yellow Cab until the legal mess is sorted out.

3. Our favorite local band, THEESatisfaction, is playing at Neumos tonight.

Today’s Morning Fizz brought to you by Vote Yes! on Seattle School Levies




  • http://twitter.com/I_know_right Cynara L

    Love the THEESatis Morning Fizz shout out. See you tonight!

  • christi_s

    Love the new commenting functionality!

  • joshfeit

    Glad you like it. Stay tuned for more fixes as we redesign the redesign.

  • capicola

    Do you mean “put the brakes on the foreclosure process?” This is as bad as lose/loose.

  • Josh Feit

    Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed it.

  • giffy

    Ideally they would have a system where anyone could pick someone up at the airport and we could get lower costs, but really I can't why I should care between these two companies. Its going to be the same number of jobs either way.

  • Greenwood Progressive

    Actually, the costs are set by the County (and to some extent, the Port), so flooding Sea-Tac with more taxis would only reduce the income of the cabbies who sit in line at the airport for hours.

    Why should you care? It's already harder to find a cab in Seattle than in any big city in the US. This contract will reduce the number of cabs because the vast majority of STITA cabs do not have Seattle licenses — they will probably go out of business. And Yellow Cab will move taxis currently serving Seattle out to the airport. The net result: fewer taxis downtown and hundreds of STITA drivers losing their jobs.

  • Kathryn

    Hate to say it but one reason I use the shared shuttle or the bus, and in future hope to use rail, is precisely because there is no competition among cab companies at the airport.

    Saying having less cabs than other airports is a problem, without taking in to consideration that they allow cabs from many companies to line up and it is first come first served, it not telling the whole story.

  • giffy

    I am saying those costs should not be set. Require them to be posted and clear, but let each company set their own prices. Many airports do not contract a monopoly or set prices.

    And I am not sure Yellow will pull cabs out of Seattle as much as simply hire more drivers. The demand for cabs is not deceasing.

    But yes, we do need more licenses downtown, and I would have no problem giving every STITA driver one as well as many many more people.

  • Michael M.

    The only thing that really makes little to no sense to me about the whole thing is that any cab can take people to the airport, but only one company can pick people up there. That's effing stupid, environmentally unsound, and gives little incentive for cabs to deliver from Seattle (unless they're Yellow Cab now).

    Is there any actual benefit to having the monopoly, other than the cab company having to pay for the right?