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.

Exemptions

1. In light of declining sales tax transit revenue, (Pierce County is looking at a 35 percent cut in bus service this year and King County Metro is looking at a $200 million shortfall over the next two years, cutting 200,000 hours of service ), Rep. Marko Liias (D-21, Edmonds), backed by a new group called Transportation for Washington, is unveiling a transit bill in Olympia today.

Rep. Marko Liias

The bill would allow local voters to fund transit by approving any of the following: end the sales tax exemption on gasoline; a progressive motor vehicle excise tax; a vehicle license fee based on annual mileage; or a tax on fuel efficiency (or lack thereof).

Liias has already proposed a band-aid transit funding solution—a temporary $30 congestion fee. That bill got a hearing yesterday where a bipartisan duo from the King County Council—Republican council member Jane Hague and Democratic council member Joe McDermott—testified to support the bill. “We wouldn’t be here if we hadn’t already tightened our belts,” Hague said.

Jane Hague

McDermott, a former state legislator, called transit service a “lifeline” for low-income people who rely on bus service to get to jobs.

When transit agencies cut service and raise fares, Director of Commute Seattle Jamie Cheney added, a “virtuous circle turns into a vicious circle.”

Surprisingly, Tim Eyman (who has introduced a measure to reduce licensing fees to $30 across the state) was a no-show at yesterday’s hearing, leaving the AAA (unsurprisingly) as the only group testifying against the Liias bill.

2. The city council’s annual retreat, once a major source of news—and gossip and exciting out-of-town travel—for city hall reporters (see: Mayor Mike McGinn’s surprise seawall announcement last year), is slimming down. This year, it’s been scaled back to a “legislative planning committee” meeting at City Hall. (Boo!)

City council president Richard Conlin explains: “We decided we were just going to basically do a planning workshop … where each council member will talk about their priorities and then take presentations from [council] central staff, the city auditor, and [hear] the race and social justice initiative work plan.”

The move, council staff say, will save the city about $10,000 over last year’s retreat, which was held in a waterfront convention hall.

3. A bill introduced in the state legislature this week (and scheduled for a hearing in the senate transportation committee next week) would exempt the University of Washington—thanks to its commute trip reduction program—from the city’s parking tax.

The bill is being sponsored by Sen. Ed Murray (D-43, Capitol Hill) in the senate and Rep. Liias in the house.

4. On the same day that the state legislature considered exempting houseboats from shoreline environmental regulations, the city’s Department of Planning and Development sent out a splashy press release (and blog post, and call to PubliCola) announcing its new shoreline management rules, which “allow existing floating homes to be maintained, re-built, replaced, and expanded within existing development standards.”

Houseboat owners have said the existing rules are too stringent and make it impossible or prohibitively expensive for them to renovate or upgrade their homes.

5. Yesterday’s assault on the Growth Management Act (the 20-year-old law that makes local governments coordinate land use, transportation, infrastructure, and housing policy to push efficient development and fight sprawl), wasn’t limited to the bill we flagged that passed out of committee yesterday afternoon delaying GMA implementation requirements.

Another bill that allows some smaller counties to simply drop out of the GMA process, sponsored by Rep. Joel Kretz (R-7, Ferry County) passed the same committee yesterday, 7-2—with Democratic Reps. Dave Upthegrove (D-33, SeaTac, Des Moines) and Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34, W. Seattle, Burien) voting no.

Kretz’s bill says counties that weren’t originally mandated to follow GMA requirements because they didn’t meet population thresholds, but opted in anyway, can now backtrack and opt out (defeating the entire spirit and purpose of longterm planning, environmentalists complain).

When Kretz’s bill was first proposed, it didn’t allow counties that had since met qualifying population thresholds to back out. But yesterday, it was amended to make exceptions for Kretz’s Ferry County as well as neighboring Pend Oreille.

In a small victory for environmentalists, the bill was also amended to say the counties still had to protect forest and farmland.


  • Blue Light

    You can’t talk “exemptions” in Washington State without mentioning the tribes. Well, you CAN but you would be disingenuous.

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

    #1 — Liias’s bill — if the communities get to decide this themselves on a case per case basis, what possible harm is there here? You’d think Eyman would be all for it as it gives MORE control to voters. What would conservatives have against this? It should be a shoe-in, no?

    #3 — shouldn’t this be to exempt cars with, say, UW stickers for participants in the program, rather than UW as a whole?

  • stockholm liberals

    Egyptians are better at politics today than progressives in Washington State.

    1. oh please Olympia, may we please tax ourselves, pretty please?
    2. oh btw let’s exempt rich hippies in boats from enviro regs, you see, those are for others, not for us.
    3. oh please exempt UW from parking tax. Because, um, those cars belong to….oh that’s right liberals. and there’s simply no transit to UW!!

    Really focusing on the big picture, aren’t we….meanwhile billions for the DBT and for transit oh please sir may I tax myself some more? Please please mr. representative from okanagon, may we please be allowed to tax ourselves oover here?

    If you let us, we won’t say anything more about how all your counties take more dollars than you pay in taxes, okay?

  • Josh Feit

    I think (this is just a theory) that the pro-transit crowd is trying to preempt a “roads & transit” package that may come from Sen. transportation chair Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen. She wants to rope transit advocates into supporting a big roads + transit ref. But if transit folks come out w an alternative (this), she might be stuck.

  • Jakers

    #1: Rural KC get ready to pay more to fund KC Metro in Seattle!

  • Jakers

    #3: UW should not get an exemption. If McDonalds and cigarettes has taught me anything, it is target them while their young, ingrain the behavior and you’ll have them for a lifetime.

  • fount

    UW wants the exemption because parking fees fund the transit-oriented U-Pass Program. If parking fees are raised, and as a result fewer park, U-Pass costs skyrocket, leading to less transit in the end.

    Out of more than 50,000 trips to UW each day, only 20% are SOV. The model they have now is working well, but any additional pressure on the cost of the U-Pass would be real trouble.

  • fount

    UW wants the exemption because parking fees fund the transit-oriented U-Pass Program. If parking fees are raised, and as a result fewer park, U-Pass costs skyrocket, leading to less transit in the end.

    Out of more than 50,000 trips to UW each day, only 20% are SOV. The model they have now is working well, but any additional pressure on the cost of the U-Pass would be real trouble.

  • Ty

    God forbid we invested in any roads.

  • Ty

    God forbid we invested in any roads.

  • TJ

    No, it would exempt the UW from the need to collect city parking tax on UW property, and turning that over to the City.

  • Jakers

    So are you saying that if the U-pass cost increase more than the current $33/month, less people would go to the UW’s campus? If not, are their going to switch from transit to carpooling, biking and walking?

    Sov and carpools already can opt-out of paying for a U-pass, so if parking was to increase, maybe they would stop parking and start paying for the U-pass.

  • Anc

    My understanding for No.3 is that the UW exemption is b/c it already uses the entire proceeds from parking to subsidize it’s UPass program. So taxing parking for transit would actually hurt transit usage there as it would take away money for UPass by making them even more expensive than they already are.

    Not saying I agree completely with it (don’t quite know all the facts) but I think it is more than just a ‘liberal’ exemption.

  • Natehc

    Last time I checked, roads wont disappear if we stop funding them in the near future. Transit will.

    Also, the number of people driving is going down. The number of people taking transit is going up. We should be investing in transit, not roads.

  • Natehc

    Last time I checked, roads wont disappear if we stop funding them in the near future. Transit will.

    Also, the number of people driving is going down. The number of people taking transit is going up. We should be investing in transit, not roads.

  • Natehc

    Seattle gives KC metro 33% of it’s funding, but only gets 20% of bus service in return. So it’s actually the other way around.

  • Natehc

    Seattle gives KC metro 33% of it’s funding, but only gets 20% of bus service in return. So it’s actually the other way around.

  • http://peacetreefarm.org N in Seattle

    In addition, even with a mere 20% of Metro’s bus service Seattle provides a far greater percentage of its ridership. I don’t have the data at hand, but I bet it’s more than the 33% of Metro’s funding that the city produces.

  • Grover

    Yes, because buses do not need roads, as everyone knows. They use bike paths.

  • Blue Light

    We need to revise section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. There are far too many “exemptions” there.

  • TransitLover

    So “in addition” more Seattle riders get to use the subsidized service so it appears that they get their money’s worth if they give 33% of the funds and have 33%, or more as you bet, of the ridership.

  • fount

    You’ve got to be kidding. The money spent “investing” in roads — from the Federal Highway spending down to local infrastructure — almost certainly rivals the amount of money government has ever spent on anything.

    I don’t have time to get the numbers, and I’m willing to be proven wrong. But to claim we don’t invest in roads is absurd.

  • SoSad

    Such a good example of how government taxes and fees create winners and losers. Exemptions multiply. Inefficiencies remain. Politicians up the food chain soothe feelings with their “constituent services” that maintain the inefficiencies, cutting into local government fees. The money the State legislature takes out of the equation will have to be made up by the city in another way.
    .

  • Josh Feit

    They use existing roads (and decongest them). The point is: more money for buses and not for new roads.

  • Perfect Voter

    If we were collecting gasoline taxes at the same rate we were in the 1960′s — about a half-cent for every mile driven by an automobile, today’s gas tax rate would have to be about 75 cents/gallon, about double what it is today (after accounting for inflation and increased fuel economy).

    The gasoline tax (motor vehicle fuel tax, in state jargon) is a fine way to raise revenue to pay for roads and highways, both capital and maintenance, but rates have just not kept up. And that’s the fault of the Legislature, pure and simple.

  • http://www.paulloeb.org Paul Loeb

    Disturbing about AAA testifying against anything that supports transit, but not surprising. That’s why I switched to the Portland based Better World Club. Same roadside service, but advocate for environmental issues instead of against them

  • Johns

    Talk to the Speaker. Carlyle says he won’t let him so much as file a bill and have a hearing.