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.

Mysterious Phenomena at City Hall

1. This afternoon, the city’s Ethics and Elections Commission will discuss the city’s approach to social-media sites like Twitter and Facebook—namely, whether city officials’ posts on such sites are subject to public disclosure law, like emails and other correspondence.

Check out onetime county prosecutor candidate Bill Sherman’s take—which argues, basically, that they are—here.

(PubliCola looked into this issue several times  last year and also did a public records request for Seattle City Council Member Tim Burgess’ texts to test out public records law in the wi-fi age.)

2. A curious sign showed up in the corridor between city council member Mike O’Brien’s and Nick Licata’s offices yesterday:

Huh? Fizz asked Licata (whose office is the one behind that door). He invited us to open the door and stand in the corridor and, indeed, the wind started swirling all over the place. “It gets worse when you leave it open longer,” Licata said.

3. Perhaps the mysterious cyclone at city hall between Licata and O’Brien is the aftershock from their blustery encounter on C.R. Douglas’ Seattle Channel Show “City Inside/Out” this week where the pair went at it over the tunnel.

Licata, a longtime supporter of rebuilding the viaduct, said he considers the tunnel an “in between” solution that’s superior to the surface option, which he said would put 110,000 cars—the number that currently use the viaduct—on surface streets. “The worst solution would be the surface, by far,” Licata said. “You’d end up with more cars, higher public safety problems, more cost overruns, because [the city of Seattle would] take the entire bill, not the state.”

O’Brien countered that the tunnel itself, according to the state’s own environmental analysis, would put nearly 80,000 cars on city streets, because people will balk at the prospect of paying steep tolls to bypass downtown. “We’re building a tunnel that’s four lanes, but only 41,000 cars are going to use it,” he said. “We’ve got to address [traffic] diversion onto city streets.”

Licata shot back: “That is not an accurate figure. If you take the worst case scenario you end up with 45,000 [cars],  whereas if you build a surface [street], you’re going to end up with 110,000 cars on the streets. You’re saying you want all those cars on the surface downtown.”

Transportation chair Tom Rasmussen, also on the show, did occasionally get a word in edgewise. Calling O’Brien’s efforts to delay signing contracts with the state until the cost overruns language is removed from state legislation a “ploy,” Rasmussen said, “He wants to stop the project. He wants all these conditions to be met. … A lot of these issues can be worked out during the course of the project,” Rasmussen said, including the $300 million the Port of Seattle has pledged toward the project, as well as the cost overruns provision.

“I see three things happening. One is, we build the tunnel. Secondly, we close the viaduct, just like the South Park Bridge was closed because people couldn’t make a decision—they dithered and delayed and were in disagreement. Or, the viaduct collapses and we have to pull people out of the rubble.”

4. Speaking of “City Inside/Out” (and mysterious phenomena at city hall), on a separate segment featuring Gov. Chris Gregoire, Douglas’ show was unexpectedly interrupted by a sudden burst of flashing lights and alarms.

It was the vestiges of a fire-alarm drill from earlier in the day. (After a fire drill, city staffers apparently re-test the fire alarms to make sure they’re working.) If you watch the video, you can see the lights flash briefly in the background (Seattle Channel staffers scrambled quickly to cover them up) while Gregoire—who only had 40 minutes to spare—doesn’t miss a beat. Channel editors deftly cut the sounds of sirens from the video as Gregoire’s security team scrambled to get Seattle Fire Department brass on the line to make sure there wasn’t a real emergency.

5. A major priority for Seattle and King County in the upcoming legislative session is to find money for bus service; thanks to a major decline in revenue for sales taxes, Metro is looking at losing 600,000 hours of service over the next few years.

The state, facing a $4.6 billion short fall, doesn’t have any money either. So, where are transit advocates going to find the money? They are pushing a temporary $20 per car “congestion fee” for immediate help, and then for a longer term fix—upping the voter vehicle excise tax.


  • gloomy gus

    Thanks for the video tips – I’ll check ‘em both out.

  • http://www.twitter.com/joeszi Joe Szilagyi

    In no sane universe are social media NOT subject to disclosure. If an official uses it in any official capacity — like the Mayor and all Council have — then, yes, it is. If the Mayor or say Conlin keep a separate Twitter or Facebook for exclusively personal use, it’s private. If I was Mayor or on the Council (god help us), and I had

    My current personal twitter
    an office twitter (@CouncilJoe)

    And I never did a thing with my personal related to the work, it would be no more public disclosure bound than my personal home phone records, if I kept them separate. What needs to be in place, however, is strict (read: personal liability) penalties for crossing that line and not reporting it. How do we know current officials for example aren’t using off the books methods to communicate?

    I doubt for example the council would go to the trouble of creating 7-8 fake Gmail accounts and 7-8 fake Facebooks (“Bob Jones”) to make a private communications group on Facebook or something, or some private mail list off the books, but there should be (or is?) laws about that sort of thing.

    But the actual main tools they’re using in a public-facing context? @MayorMcGinn, Bagshaw’s main twitter, their public-facing websites and website emails like Burgess’s site email if he does anything council or city-business related on it? Of course they should be bound under disclosure law. It’s that simple:

    Work/city related tools (tunnel, finance, your committee, whatever): public.
    Personal (lets BBQ, wanna round of golf in interbay, Foursquare checkins for lunch?): private.

    Use your personal to cover the other, even once? You should be fair game going forward on that tool/account/whatever. It sucks, but it’s the only way for a level playing field if we know Person X has crossed that threshold.

  • Bill Sherman

    Just to clarify: the article I wrote discusses the use civic social networks in a lot of contexts, including public records and open meetings (and Fizz is right, there’s really no doubt that civic social network posts by public officals are public records). The Ethics and Elections Commission, though, only has purview over areas in which the use of social networking by city officials implicates portions of the Municipal Code that bar the use of gov’t resources for private benefit or for campaign purposes. SEEC doesn’t deal directly with public records issues (although there have been proposals that the Commission should add that to its duties).

  • http://www.facebook.com/douglas.tooley Douglas Tooley

    A point worth repeating – the failure of the public and private leadership in Seattle to come up with a viaduct replacement solution on budget is not the fault of the Citizens of Seattle, nor of the State.

    It is the fault of a political cash machine that can’t control itself and stoops to ad hominem attacks with sexual and racist overtones in order to extort from the public.

    Shame on the media for giving any of these specific losers one single drop of positive ink.

  • Reasoned

    I find it funny that O’Brien implies more cars on the streets is a “bad” side effect of the tunnel. The whole point of the surface option is to further the war on cars by increasing congestion downtown.

  • Buckywunder

    Hmm. Sounds like City Hall has some building issues — which is strange considering how “green” everyone in city government wants to be.

    Forty percent of all of our energy gets used in buildings. Someone should get on those issues at City Hall. There’s no reason for a “wind tunnel” in that building.