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.

One Liberal Constituency Group, Environmentalists, are Bummed, Though.


1. Council member Sally Bagshaw is looking into the possibility of expanding the city’s P-Patch program to property in Southeast Seattle that was used for light-rail construction staging but is now vacant. Parks committee chair Bagshaw—who sent PubliCola a cryptic email last night saying she was “on it” (“it,” presumably being this column Erica wrote on Monday about converting light rail land into P-Patches)—plans to meet with sustainability committee chair Richard Conlin, a big champion of food security, later this week.

2. Liberals—low-income housing advocates, senior and child health care activists, and labor unions—are all giving high marks to the legislature for funding their programs despite the $2.8 billion budget short fall. For example, the budget included $34 million for low-income housing, $30 million for child care for the working poor, $63 million for state worker health care, and millions to  restore (for the most part) nursing home care and adult day health care.

One liberal constituency group, environmentalists, are bummed, though. Not only was their top priority—raising the hazardous substance tax—left out of the budget, but the hazardous substance tax fund (which pays for storm water cleanup)  is losing $16 million.

You can read a Cliff’s Notes version of the budget here.

3. Gov. Chris Gregoire defends exempting microbrews from the temporary .50-a-gallon tax increase on beer. She says it’s not elitism is localism. The PI reports:

Gregoire said the fact that microbrews and wines were not included in the tax hikes isn’t elitism, it’s localism. Washington is home to hundreds of small breweries and wineries, which is why, Gregoire said, her husband Mike drinks microbrews and she drinks state wines.

The exemption is not for “some high-faultin beer,” Gregoire went on. “It’s because their Washington state jobs, Washington state beers.”

4. Theresa Dunbar, the longtime clerk for the city council, retired yesterday after more than 30 years at the city, during which she worked with 37 different council members. Dunbar, who could be seen at council meetings reading legislation at auctioneer speed, was the council’s longest-serving employee; that distinction now goes to Martha Lester, a council central staffer who’s been with the city since January 1989.






  • http://twitter.com/fattailed fattailed

    Re #3, are these liberal groups actually happy, or just relieved that things didn't come out as bad as had been threatened? Big difference there. Anyone “happy” with the budget just showed how cheaply their loyalty can be purchased.

  • forevergreen

    +1 to fattailed

  • sarah68

    No, not happy about the fact that starting in September, people at the absolute bottom will lose $339 a month and medical insurance because of a 2-year limit, but relieved that some people will continue to be covered. Not happy that the Housing Trust Fund is $30 when we need $200 to get homeless people out of the streets and housed, but relieved that the money stream wasn't halted and projects in process didn't have to shut down. Neither happy nor relieved looking at the coming year; very worried, more like. We need living-wage jobs in order not to be worried and they dont' seem to be on the horizon.

  • sarah68

    And I meant $30M and $200M, as was probably obvious.

  • Josh Feit

    In case you missed it, here's our report on the GAU compromise Sarah68:
    http://www.publicola.net/2010/03/24/senate-pass…

    And yes, bad news for low-income housing to see the lower dollars on the HTF.

  • http://www.worldchanging.com/ Alex Steffen

    When you think of what environmental NGOs didn't even try to fight for (for instance, stopping the tunnel and 520 expansion, which on greenhouse gasses alone should both be on their target list) or didn't even bring up (comprehensive climate, development laws like those in California), I think it's fair to say that those of us who support the environment got next to nothing this session, and were handed a bunch of systemic set backs. “Defeat” is the word that comes to mind.

  • ivan

    Most of us support the environment, Alex, in many ways and in varying degree. We're just not all self-promoting shrieking absolutist fundamentalist egomaniac fanatics about it like you are, nor do we care to be.

  • Morning Fizzy

    Yes, but you aren't called Worldchanging or Futurewise, so how important can YOUR opinions be?

  • Build TOC

    A P-Patch is an innappropriate use of surplus land at a light rail station. Even as a temporary use while the market picks up.

  • Slippery Pete

    “It’s because their Washington state jobs, Washington state beers.”

    I wonder if that's the PI writer's error, or Gregoire's (staff's) error? Either way, it definitely made it past the PI and Publicola editors.

    My more substantive comment is to say that this tax may violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. Only Congress can regulate commerce between the states (that's the Commerce Clause), the corollary being that a state cannot regulate commerce between other states (that's the Dormant Commerce Clause).

    The first question is, does this affect interstate commerce? I think yes. Some of the beer being shipped across states will now become more expensive, and there is a good chance that consumers will alter their preferences away from the out-of-state beer that got more expensive. This is an effect on interstate commerce.

    The next question to ask is whether or not the law discriminates against out-of-staters. Though the tax is not facially discriminatory (i.e., the text of the law doesn't say “beer coming from out-of-state is subject to a new tax, beer produced in-state is taxed at the old levels”), it has a discriminatory effect. The Supreme Court has said that a law has a discriminatory effect if, among other things, it imposes costs on out-of-staters that in-staters would not have to bear (the law does this, no in-staters have to pay the tax), or it is motivated by a protectionist purpose, helping in-staters at the expense of out-of-staters (Gregoire admits it does this). So the law has a discriminatory effect.

    The Supreme Court has said there is a strong presumption against discriminatory laws that burden interstate commerce. Such a law will be upheld only if it is proved that the law is necessary to achieve an important government purpose; it cannot be justified by a purpose that is unrelated to economic protectionism. The tax probably isn't necessary to achieve an important government purpose. Yes, collecting tax revenue in some manner is the definition of “an important government purpose.” But the beer tax specifically isn't necessary, it's just convenient. So the law fails to pass this balancing test.

    This law seems pretty similar to the Maine law at issue in Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison. That law gave tax exemptions for charitable property, but it singled out institutions that served mostly state residents for beneficial tax treatment. Institutions that principally did interstate business were penalized. The Supreme Court found the law to be discriminatory and to violate the dormant commerce clause. It was struck down.

    In sum, I'm pretty sure anybody who buys a six-pack of Miller Light after the new tax takes effect can sue the state, and win. If anybody is upset that their favorite cheap-o beer just got a little more expensive, or thinks the legislature should have covered the budget shortfall in a different way, I can refer you to a lawyer.

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

    So, you have read the legislation, or are you going off a quote?