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.

They’re Going to be Targeted

1. State Sen. Ed Murray (D-43), the Democratic Senate Caucus Chair who’s trying to round up the votes for the latest budget deal, reports that his Democratic Senate colleagues are getting calls from soft drink industry lobbyists “telling them they’re going to be targeted in the next election” if they support the soda pop tax proposal. A .2 percent per 12 ounce increase (for $38 million) on soda pop is a key piece of the deal.

2. Standing in front of a white board on which he’d drawn sketches of the state’s proposed 520 option and his alternative, Mayor Mike McGinn said, “My question is, why won’t the city council stand up for light rail over 520 … and will they stick with red-herring arguments about things that also apply to their plan?”

McGinn, who’d asked Erica into his office for a 1-on-1 yesterday afternoon to take issue with her  reporting on the possibility that his wider new 520 bridge designed to accommodate light rail could conceivably be converted into an eight-lane bridge for cars, didn’t dispute that eight lanes would technically be possible on a wider bridge. But, his point, he explained, is that it would also be possible to build eight lanes on the narrower bridge supported by the state and a majority of the city council. (We’ll spare you the technical details, but basically, it involves making the shoulders narrower).

McGinn also said that, because the two center 520 lanes in his plan would have to separate from the main bridge structure over Foster Island, they could never be converted into general-purpose lanes—they’d have to be dedicated to bus-rapid transit or light rail.

“I think [the council is] concerned that it’s not possible to do better than what’s been proposed” by the state,” McGinn said. “But if we don’t stand together, there’s a strong possibility that we’re going to get a bad alternative pushed through our city.”

3. The city council held a 520 public hearing of their own last night (McGinn held one the night before).  A council central staffer and a consultant outlined the changes that would have to be made to accommodate light rail on the bridge. (As we’ve reported, the bridge would have to be heavier, include more pontoons, and possibly be ten feet wider, although that’s now in dispute.)

However, most of the public comment skewed toward building McGinn’s proposal, which a recent poll concluded has strong support in Seattle. The support came from two main factions—environmentalists (who support transit) and neighborhood activists (who want to reduce the footprint of the bridge in Montlake and the traffic impact on Montlake and Capitol Hill).

4. Super liberal state Rep. Brendan Williams (D-22, Olympia)—who’s retiring from the state House this year out of frustration with what he believes is conservative Democratic leadership—is thinking of running against conservative state Supreme Court Justice James Johnson. (Johnson is running for a second term this year.)

Williams’ liberal colleagues, like Reps. Marko Liias (D-21) and Geoff Simpson (D-47), have been pushing Williams to run on Facebook and yesterday Williams took to Facebook himself re: the State Supreme Court … and Justice Johnson.

The Court ruled yesterday that, thanks to this year’s budget crisis, the state did not have to honor an arbitration commitment to pay unionized health care employees $87 million in pay increases from last year’s budget. Johnson wrote the opinion and last night, Williams’ Facebook status simply quoted Justice Barabara Madesen’s dissent:

“The majority actually says that even if mandamus were a suitable remedy, it would refuse to grant the writ because of the economic straits facing the State! This is a declaration of power that this branch of government does not have.” —Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, in dissent, criticizing Justice Jim Johnson for ignoring law in ruling against SEIU

5. The Washington Budget & Policy Center, a lefty economic think tank, has a jarring note about the $800 million revenue package that’s being hyped as the fix to this year’s seemingly endless budget negotiations.

It’s important to note (as shown the graph below) that a large share of the package — $342 million (43 percent) would only be temporary — allowing the state to maintain priorities like education, public safety, and health care while the economy recovers. The temporary measures would expire at the end of fiscal year 2013.




  • efd@ghs.com

    ehhhrrr. ” However, most of the public comment skewed toward building McGinn’s proposal, which a recent poll concluded has strong support in Seattle” Last I check 51% does not qualify as strong support. That is 5 out of 10 who agree with you. I convince one person my way and its a landslide.

  • Timothy

    It's good of McGinn to begin asking the Council to stand up and declare their intentions.

    Till now in 2010, the Council has largely been acting merely to spite McGinn, ignoring what should be shared values between them. The Council has visions of usurping the power of the Mayor's office, and the path they've chosen to get there is to side with the State, with Bellevue, with anyone other than the Mayor. That's short sighted and petty.

    In the process, they've lost sight that their job is to protect the interests of the City. Here's hoping that they soon abandon this folly and fight for Seattle. The next election for Mayor is still a ways off, and any Council members interested in the top spot have plenty of time to campaign. But, for now? Seattle has a complicated agenda that needs a unified front.

  • inside some baseball

    In regard to #4 and the temporary nature of the many tax measures in the proposed budget: The reason why the new taxes were considered is that sales tax and other revenue is down currently due to the recession. It is expected that once the economy is stronger, these temporary measures will not be needed. This approach seems prudent.

  • http://michaelmaddux.blogspot.com/ Michael M.

    I'm curious if there have been any cost estimations for how much it would be to build light rail over the bridge, operate it, maintain it, how far it would go, where it would go, the cost of that, etc. etc. If those were offered up in the poll, and BRT and other bus transit were offered as an alternative, I believe that support would fizzle.

    IMO, light rail across 520 is, at this time, unnecessary. LR is going across I-90, and that will connect with the current line. We should, as a region, instead focus on expanding the current line up to Everett, with stops at major park and rides and transit centers on the way, and down to Tacoma, same sets of stops.

    Providing transit-only lanes across 520 would allow for more reliable bus service. Do that, and, with the tolls, I believe ridership would increase for East-West travel.

    North-South travel still is a major source of gridlock pain, and LR along I-5 (with BRT along 99) is a great way, IMO, to relieve that pain, and encourage more people to get out of their cars, either by being able to bus or walk to a major transit point, or park and ride.

  • Chad Steen

    With regards to point one, I have always been of the mindset that it's my honor to pay taxes, that it's part of my civic duty to do so. I am bothered, however, by the Senator's plan to tax soda for whole bunch of reasons: 1. New taxes? Right now? Seriously? 2. Why are we singling out one industry? If the goal is to generate revenue while impacting the obesity epidemic, why not tax Kit Kats, Domino's pizza, and Nintendo for that matter? The soda industry is simply an easy political target, that's why. 3. This just gives Democrats a bad name. It plays right into the hands of the same 'ole critcisms we've been hearing for years. Why in god's name would we do that right now? The whole thing feels a little half-baked to me.

  • Timothy

    McGinn isn't proposing to build out LR, at this time. He's saying that to build the bridge in such a way as to preclude it from ever being built in the future is ridiculous; and I agree with that. You should too.

  • http://michaelmaddux.blogspot.com/ Michael M.

    “You should too.” is a terrible thing to say. Explain your point, make an argument, but never tell people how they should think.

    I'm just curious if LR really is the way to go, even in the future, across 520. Dedicated transit lanes just make more sense. By the time there is even money and political will to put LR across the bridge and to a destination, the bridge will have to be replaced again, anyway.

  • Cook

    man, i just looked at brendan williams fb page. what a silver fox. and a smart liberal! i'd definitely vote for him for WA supreme court

  • sarah68

    They're not proposing to single out one industry; some other small taxes will be included. No, it's not to combat the obesity epidemic, and the soda industry isn't an easy target (read what Murray says has been threatened); no industry is an easy target. Yes new taxes right now; do you understand what we're looking at cutting if we don't have SOME new revenue? $2.8 billion down. If we don't get SOME new revenue, there will be huge cuts and they might even hit some people you know. Or you. Perhaps paying a bit more for a Coke would be less onerous — ya think?

  • TMN

    It sounds like the lanes could be used for dedicated bus and other rapid transit until we get around to light rail, if ever. I still fail to see the problem with doing things in a sensible way from the start.

  • http://michaelmaddux.blogspot.com/ Michael M.

    OMG, I was thinking the same thing today! Adding him to the WSSC, along with current Justice Deborah Stephens will make the Court that much sexier!

  • kurisu

    If you're curious about it, then why risk a 50 to 75-year mistake, and why do “dedicated transit lanes just make more sense?”

  • Chris Stefan

    The bridge is going to be around for 70 to 100 years. Are you really willing to say we aren't going to want light rail in that corridor for that period of time?

    Just look at I-90. The agreement to design it for rail was signed in 1975. The bridge was finished in 1985. The finance package didn't pass until 2008. The earliest possible opening date is 2020. That is 45 years after the original agreement and 35 years after opening.

  • marymaryquitecontrary

    And as we've seen with the Chihuly “public comments”, all that means is that those people were more motivated to take the time to attend the meeting and share their opinions publicly. McGinn's followers are great at doing public meetings.

    Of more concern is that McGinn called Erica into his office for a private meeting because she wrote something that challenged the McGinn World View. Sounds rather Ceis-ian. Is this really the way our Mayor should be spending his time?

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/Communicate.with.Mike Mr. Baker

    Ok, him first on the tunnel, and West Side lite rail.

    So, a guy that rode into office on a fence is demanding firm positions although he is reluctant to do the same.
    Awesome!

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/Communicate.with.Mike Mr. Baker

    Is Seattle on the hook for this increase in scope of irony, er, I mean work?

  • Chad Steen

    Hi, Sarah. You make some interesting points. I should probably clarify some of my thoughts. Regardless of the other small taxes that are included, the soda industry gets hit the hardest. We probably see things the same way on this. I guess I'll concede that I don't know firsthand that this proposal has anything to do with obesity. You got me there. As for the soda industry being an easy target, I guess, what I meant was that soda's been somewhat demonized these last few years as a result of the obesity epidemic, almost to the exclusion of the myriad of products and lifestyles that contribute to the problem. What I'm saying is that it's easy to hop on the “soda companies are the devil” bandwagon, not that the soda industry won't fight like hell to protect their livelihoods. And I guess I don't have a laundry list of things that will have to be cut if we don't find a source of revenue. My point is that this one seems supremely unfair to one industry in particular and I don’t think its right to offer them up as our sacrificial budget-balancing lamb. There has to be a much more equitable way to go about closing this gap.

  • efd@ghs.com

    It is not Ceis-ian. Ceis would just tell you to go f yourself, end of story. McGinn has a ego to him, Ceis knew that he ran the town.

  • http://michaelmaddux.blogspot.com/ Michael M.

    The fact that nobody wants to admit is that the A+ plan, the one that it has taken years to come up with that people are trying to torpedo at the last minute, that Seattle chose to sit out the negotiations on, can have a lane in each direction converted to LR. It'd be expensive, and the connection to U-District would be noisier than Montlake residents want, but it is still doable, in the event it is necessary.

  • http://michaelmaddux.blogspot.com/ Michael M.

    The Eastside of 520 isn't all that developed, except, of course, for the Microsoft campus. LR over I-90 already covers downtown Bellevue. Dedicated transit lanes allow for more reliable bus service and BRT. Buses, unlike rail, can be moved to reflect where development actually happens, with dedicated lanes can travel faster, and are cheaper to run and operate.

    And, of course, that good old fashioned political will. People on the Eastside aren't as fond of light rail as Seattleites are. What we have in Seattle doesn't really help that, with ridership not at the original anticipated levels, the trains more expensive to ride, and the bizarre route.

    Unless Seattleites want to raise their taxes to pay for the entire line and operation of the line, there will not be support from folks on the Eastside, or elected officials from the Eastside and Island County.

    Spending time and political capital on a losing argument is not helping anyone. Transit only lanes are doable, physically and politically. LR is, IMO, not, at least at this time.

  • West Seattle Waiter

    McGinn will again find that he doesn't really have much support for his positions on 520 or the tunnel. But what he is trying to do is collaborate with the opponents with their plans for the lawsuits to stop both projects. Go find those emails Publicola they are there……

  • http://michaelmaddux.blogspot.com/ Michael M.

    See my reply to TMN. And I'm not saying on this side of the lake we won't want light rail. But the other side? Who knows.

    If everyone does, and the cost is no longer a consideration, then the A+ plan allows for LR to go across.

  • dadvocate

    Was the State Patrol called in regards to #1? It appears the soda industry is making threats to Legislators.

  • Facts get in the way

    Actually finished in 1989 with a usable life of about 75 years (ASHTO standards) and that's without the wear of light rail on it. The concrete will be stripped down to lower the weight because of the demands of LR. It was hardly built for LR. The cite below indicates that the bridge will have to be closed for storms greater than one year storms.

    What “agreement” are you referring to?

    What you point out is that we will spend hundreds of millions of dollars for the LR on a bridge that will be done in less than 50 after it starts running. In fact, it could be more like 40 years.

    Floating bridges are disposable, which might explain why so few of them are used anywhere in the world except here. Four of the five longest floating bridges in the world are in Washington State.

    If the decision-makers insist on building them and putting LR on them, at least they should be ready to run the rail from opening day.

    Don't believe me read it here: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/erp/conf_call0…

    BTW, if you bother to read it you might understand the resistance of WSDOT to LR on floating structures in Lake Washington.

  • Kathryn

    Draft Brendan Williams for Justice

    http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=105666…

  • tiredofhiscrap

    When will McGinn STOP being an advocate (i.e. protest activist) and START being the Goddamned Mayor! We need someone to run the city, not create pretend wars and create bigger divisions with the state legislature, business, main stream enviros, and neighborhoods full of working folk.

  • Boot quaker

    AND DON'T FORGET ABOUT DWIGHT DIVELY!!!!

    that man could make any budget look balanced. Mark my words, this city will falter any moment now because he is no longer at the helm. The lights will stop working, the taps will run dry and Rainier Beer will pull their mountain and move it to Alabama or someplace. We're all doomed.

    Will the last person to leave Seattle remember to put the key under the mat?

  • LeftyLib

    THAT is exactly the problem. McGinn is taking on the Council for not supporting light rail on 520. (As if!) NO ONE is arguing for a bridge that precludes light rail. Ergo McGinn has NO point. What he has is a desire to campaign because it's all he really knows how to do.

    Governance is a different dance and the sooner Mayor McNader learns the two step, the sooner we'll all be cruising on nifty new alternative transpo. It's not like the Council is the freaking 104th Congress! Heck how about he puts all that energy into building something in Seattle! Or getting better bus service? Or improving bike and ped infrastructure here at home.

    Mr Mayor, for all our sakes, please focus on something, anything practical. All you're doing right now is proving that the political left is doomed to fail. We have opportunities to create jobs, expedite big projects, build bike infrastructure, you name it. It's practically a billion dollar budget and that's not including the utilities! There's lots of good stuff you CAN ACTUALLY DO. Some of it is even good for the environment. Pick something!