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.

Emergency Transit Funding May Have to Go to Public Vote

City council members—who have spent more time lobbying legislators in Olympia this session than in any previous year—say the senate transportation committee, headed by frequent transit foe Mary Margaret Haugen (D-10), seems unlikely to authorize counties to pass a $30 emergency license fee for transit unless it includes a public vote. (Last month, state Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-12, signed on to the house version of the bill, but only on the condition that it go to a public vote; the bill ultimately passed without Armstrong’s support).

The temporary (two-year) fee is aimed at staving off devastating cuts at King, Pierce, and Snohomish County transit agencies; without it, King County Metro alone faces service cuts of 600,000 hours, or 17 percent. As written, the legislation allows counties to simply impose the fee (again, on a temporary, two-year basis). If the counties had to put the fee to a vote, it could be a year or more before it takes effect—far too late to do anything about the impending service cuts.

“It’s only a two-year fee,” says council transportation chair Tom Rasmussen, who pleaded his case last week to a skeptical Haugen. “It isn’t going to help us during the short term if we have to take it to voters.”


  • Natehc

    Haugen is simply trying to stop this transit funding in any way she can. I completely agree with Rasmussen.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    They spent all their money on light rail that no one wants or uses.

    Tough luck, kiddos.

  • Johns

    She’s trying to create an environment where “Roads and transit: the return” will get passed. Of course the “transit” component will be minimal at best.

  • LarryHog

    They turned a transit project into a social engineering project and let the idiot TOD mantra poison the pool for future transit progress…

  • Blue Light

    Why are transit proponents afraid of a public vote? Are they scared they’re giving the people something they don’t, actually, want?

  • camano rules

    yes, if we need a public vote to get MMH on baord, do it. pass it this session put the vote on in august, fuck, why can’t they make government work?

    btw the better plan is to oust MMH from that chairmanship. someone from a rural place just does not represent democratic values on transportation.

  • ratcityreprobate
  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/6SAQ6R2ZBGQQNNBXVJZG66K6KY Mickymse

    Uh, NICE TRY anti-transit commenters… The reason folks are opposed to a vote on this fee, as Rasmussen points out, is that it is temporary. It sunsets June 30, 2014. Requiring a vote most likely means a delay until the November ballot, and budgeting for next year without a guarantee of approval.

    If she wants to require voting, she should give us a permanent new transit funding source now…

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr Baker

    The “fear” is that a public vote would not happen until (likely) this Fall, with the funding going into effect next January, and NOTHING says short-term like waiting a year just for the vote.

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

    How vulnerable is Mary Margaret Haugen? I mean, could something be done to unseat her in favor of someone better, or is she some old time institution out there?

  • Jakers

    I like our constitution that sets forth a representative democracy for handling this kind of stuff, they need to do their jobs and stop trying to shield themselves with public votes.

  • Anonymous

    Well I think you really want to ask two questions:

    #1 – Is she vulnerable for releection to her Senate seat (10LD, Whidbey Island etc)?

    and/or

    #2 – Is she vulnerable as the Chair of Senate Transportation?

    She is vulnerable for re-election – but from her right flank, not her left. No way she gets taken out by someone more liberal. She’s up in 2012 and likely to retire anyway because a) she’s old, and b) her husband was accused of hitting on her last campaign manager! They just need to find a credible Dem to take her place, and that’s not easy up there; her two House seatmates are both Rs.

    As for simply replacing her as Chair, there are plenty of members of her own caucus who don’t think much of her management style and wouldn’t mind seeing her get the boot – but it’s doubtful that leadership is willing to go there. If they were, it would’ve happened by now.

  • Anonymous

    Well I think you really want to ask two questions:

    #1 – Is she vulnerable for releection to her Senate seat (10LD, Whidbey Island etc)?

    and/or

    #2 – Is she vulnerable as the Chair of Senate Transportation?

    She is vulnerable for re-election – but from her right flank, not her left. No way she gets taken out by someone more liberal. She’s up in 2012 and likely to retire anyway because a) she’s old, and b) her husband was accused of hitting on her last campaign manager! They just need to find a credible Dem to take her place, and that’s not easy up there; her two House seatmates are both Rs.

    As for simply replacing her as Chair, there are plenty of members of her own caucus who don’t think much of her management style and wouldn’t mind seeing her get the boot – but it’s doubtful that leadership is willing to go there. If they were, it would’ve happened by now.

  • ratcityreprobate

    She is not very vulnerable. Her opponents over the years have been much worse. Friends who live up there tell me they just hold their noses and vote for her.

  • ratcityreprobate

    She is not very vulnerable. Her opponents over the years have been much worse. Friends who live up there tell me they just hold their noses and vote for her.

  • Mikos

    “someone from a rural place just does not represent democratic values on transportation”…huh?

  • Mikos

    “someone from a rural place just does not represent democratic values on transportation”…huh?

  • okaaay

    Sigh. half the Democratic vote is from Seattle and close in areas of Puget Sound with strong support for transit. Someone from a rural place who blocks our county council from having the power to raise tiny car tab fee while we’re cutting Metro drastically does not represent the democractic values of:
    -helping the poor
    -helping the environment, and

    -empowering local councils that are mainly democratic.

    There are those from rural places who do strongly support demo values on transportation but MMH ain’t one of them. I overgeneralized. Sorry. But not really.