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.

KC Council Democrat Patterson: “Not Committed to a Yes” on Metro Fee

King County Council member Julia Patterson, a Democrat who represents South King County, tells PubliCola that she is not committed to a ‘yes’ vote on a temporary $20 fee to pay for Metro bus service. Without the fee, Metro faces 17 percent cuts to service starting in February—a $60 million annual shortfall.

Earlier today, PubliCola reported that Patterson’s Democratic colleague Bob Ferguson now says he supports passing the fee, which would require a two-thirds (six-member) vote of the King County Council. Four of the council’s five Democrats now support the fee, but the council’s four Republicans have said they will not support it. The council could also put the fee on a countywide ballot by a simple-majority vote.

Patterson says her district has “a lot less to lose with those [Metro] cuts than Seattle districts.” Under a new plan for allocating cuts, South King County would lose fewer hours of service from the cuts, but would gain less service from the fee, than other, more affluent King County districts. “I’d be asking my people to pay $20—my poor and working-class people—to subsidize bus service in wealthier Seattle districts,” Patterson says.

“It’s almost unjustifiable to me, when you look at the amount of money they would be raising by collecting that $20 on every car and you look at the amount of bus service I would lose,” Patterson says. “I am representing the poorest district in King County. My people are struggling harder and working with less. … Twenty dollars might not seem like that much to someone who lives on Queen Anne or Magnolia, but it’s significant to my people.”

Patterson does say that she’s “100 percent willing and able to support putting a fee on the ballot.” However, it’s unclear whether voters would support a fee for transit now. Last year, a countywide sales tax for public safety failed 44-56.


  • Me

    Poor people own cars? I thought they rode the bus?

  • You

    Let me get this straight. She supports tens of billions of dollars to be spent for ST and light rail for her “working poor” constituents she’s always whining about, which coincidentally, runs right thru her neighborhoods, and NOT Magnolia or Queen Anne. And 20 bucks is far to much for her folks to pay for little benefit, but the thousands of homeowners in the Magnolia and QA should happily pay for light rail in her region, although they’re getting almost no direct benefit from it?

    Makes perfect sense!

  • repete

    Subsidizing Metro is subsidizing sprawl.  Us city dwellers pay the big bucks to live in the city and also subsidize the commutes of those who choose a more bucolic domicile.  Seattle would do well to opt out of metro and run its own smaller, less polluting, less destructive, more responsive busses.  We cannot achieve a rational, fair, transit paradigm if we keep externalizing costs.

  • Anonymous

    A lot do. Some people feel that a car is an absolute need and those people end up piling on more and more debt, because they are living beyond their means.

    I lived in Auburn (Oh god, it was hell.) for the first year after high school. I lived RIGHT next to the train station/transit center and bus service was still absolutely horrid. Patterson doesn’t realize that people in her district ARE poor and need greater access to alternate transport options. If they had more options, (which this fee would help a little), they might not be buying wedding cakes on food stamps from Albertson’s (Did I mention what I was doing living down there? Subsisting on part-time grocery store wages.).

    She also draws downright lazy comparisons. I think people living in certain parts of Federal Way (Redondo), Des Moines, and Auburn (Lakeland Hills) are definitely more affluent than most anyone living south of I-90 in Seattle. She can compare apples to apples, but comparing apples to oranges is an easier lazier solution. Unfortunately for her, other council members could do the same thing by comparing rich suburban SKC cities/neighborhoods to poor neighborhoods in Seattle.

    Her reasoning is flawed. If she wanted to help the poor, she’d be on board with the fees.

  • Anonymous

    I agree that Seattle should take over transit service within the city limits, but subsidizing Metro is subsidizing sprawl? Really? Come on man, subsidizing highways is subsidizing sprawl. Allowing SOVs in HOV lanes is encouraging sprawl. Encouraging people to choose a more environmentally and econonmically friendly way of getting around isn’t. Also, it sounds like your beef should be with ST and not with Metro, considering ST covers three counties.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t forget that much of the district she represents has just been told they probably won’t be getting light rail, and that folks down there are hopping mad about it and—rightly or wrongly—feeling taking advantage of by the rest of the region (and in particular, of course, big bad Seattle). Would not surprise me at all if pandering to some of that resentment is at least partially fueling this stance.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t forget that much of the district she represents has just been told they probably won’t be getting light rail, and that folks down there are hopping mad about it and—rightly or wrongly—feeling taking advantage of by the rest of the region (and in particular, of course, big bad Seattle). Would not surprise me at all if pandering to some of that resentment is at least partially fueling this stance.

  • Bruce Nourish

    A more nuanced analysis would suggest that the $20 might be good for South King residents — or at least better than the alternative. With the passage of the new RTTF guidelines, new Metro service will be allocated first to underserved, high-performing corridors, many of which are in South King, particularly Kent and Burien. The $20 fee will allow Metro to preserve the current number of service hours and the current bus network. A smarter thing to do would be to maintain the service hours and cut the poor performing routes and allocate those hours where they’re needed most.

    100k hours of extremely low performing routes throughout the county are identified here:
    http://your.kingcounty.gov/kcdot/media/Feb2012SrvRed.pdf

    Not enacting the $20 fee will be bloodbath all round. Enacting it and insisting on performance-oriented cuts and restructures will hurt a much smaller number of people while benefiting far more people (again, particularly in the south), and making the bus network more useful and efficient.

  • Bruce Nourish

    A more nuanced analysis would suggest that the $20 might be good for South King residents — or at least better than the alternative. With the passage of the new RTTF guidelines, new Metro service will be allocated first to underserved, high-performing corridors, many of which are in South King, particularly Kent and Burien. The $20 fee will allow Metro to preserve the current number of service hours and the current bus network. A smarter thing to do would be to maintain the service hours and cut the poor performing routes and allocate those hours where they’re needed most.

    100k hours of extremely low performing routes throughout the county are identified here:
    http://your.kingcounty.gov/kcdot/media/Feb2012SrvRed.pdf

    Not enacting the $20 fee will be bloodbath all round. Enacting it and insisting on performance-oriented cuts and restructures will hurt a much smaller number of people while benefiting far more people (again, particularly in the south), and making the bus network more useful and efficient.

  • Bruce Nourish

    You seem very ignorant. Let me explain a few things to you:

    1. ST does not levy a property tax — it’s sales, MVET and car rental.
    2. ST’s subarea equity policy prevents Seatte’s money being spent in South King or the Eastside or the other two counties. You aren’t paying for shit down there.
    3. Rail is being built in each subarea in the places where the ridership is. That means the Downtown/Capitol Hill/U-District/Northghate corridor is being built now, because that’s where the people are.

  • Monster

    start taxing high end bike sales!

  • Monster

    start taxing high end bike sales!

  • sarah

    $20 PER YEAR is not significant to anyone, Ms. Patterson.  That’s ridiculous.

    Poor people drive cars because they tend to live farther from their jobs and the transit system is already so bad, they don’t have reliable bus transportation to and from work.

  • sarah

    $20 PER YEAR is not significant to anyone, Ms. Patterson.  That’s ridiculous.

    Poor people drive cars because they tend to live farther from their jobs and the transit system is already so bad, they don’t have reliable bus transportation to and from work.

  • Anonymous

    Bruce, yes, You is a bit misinformed, but let’s not cause any drama.

    1. ST leverages mostly sales taxes. MVET and other car related taxes are a minor contribution to the money pot.
    2. You are absolutely correct.
    3. There is ridership in Federal Way, and they were technically told that they would have Link service by 2020ish. In addition to being promised service, it’s right next to Tacoma and rail to FW could facilitate a built out to or from Tacoma. In a perfect world we’d have the three largest job centers in the state linked by LRT come 2023.

    Now, because people are reluctant to pay for essential government services (probably the same folks that are pissy about SR 520 tolling), ST doesn’t have the money to expand LRT to Federal Way. It’s not ST’s fault, but the voters in that subarea will definitely not admit to it.

  • Anonymous

    BA-ZING. “Dude there is totally an assault on drivers, bro. They are going to build a mountain out of cars and force everyone to ride bikes. I heard it from some guy that heard it from some guy.” These jokes are sort of getting old. Rational people realize that there is absolutely no bias toward cars and that there is no favoritism going on with any other form of transportation.

    Also, they do tax all bike sales. Yes, sales tax is a tax. I know, weird.

  • Seattle Hack

    Fact check; Seattle is not subsidizing Metro. In fact, the suburbs are subsidizing Seattle bus service. Seattle actually pays about a third of the cost of Metro’s system and uses over 60% of the service overall. So your claim that we should opt-out of metro is wrong on the environmental and fiscal side. You can argue that other county systems are a huge $$ drain for Seattle, but not Metro buses.

  • Seattle Hack

    Fact check; Seattle is not subsidizing Metro. In fact, the suburbs are subsidizing Seattle bus service. Seattle actually pays about a third of the cost of Metro’s system and uses over 60% of the service overall. So your claim that we should opt-out of metro is wrong on the environmental and fiscal side. You can argue that other county systems are a huge $$ drain for Seattle, but not Metro buses.

  • Seattle Hack

    Councilmember Patterson is probably positioning to get something in exchange for her vote. She is a smart politician who gets the importance of transit, knows the value of her swing vote, and rarely misses an opportunity to play the angles. Don’t come down too hard on her, she’s just doing her job, and well.

  • Seattle Hack

    Councilmember Patterson is probably positioning to get something in exchange for her vote. She is a smart politician who gets the importance of transit, knows the value of her swing vote, and rarely misses an opportunity to play the angles. Don’t come down too hard on her, she’s just doing her job, and well.

  • Transit Voter

    CM Patterson is overlooking the fact that a whole lot of her constituents commute into Seattle every day and ride those bus routes that she would like to ignore. 

    She’s demonstrating the worst kind of parochialism, pretending that her citizens travel only within her district.

  • Anonymous

    Councilmember Patterson should be fighting for her poor constituents by dumping all her political capital into supporting transit at all levels.  Many people use transit, but who DEPENDS on it?  The working poor, disabled, young, and elderly. Our most vulnerable citizens.  Unfortunately, because transit has been co-opted by the bourgeoisie environmental movement, it’s now considered some sort of aspirational “extra” rather than the basic need that it is. 

  • repete

    Since metro only monitors boardings there is no way to
    know where the usage is.  Is that 60%
    route miles, bus miles, boardings, passenger miles, or what?  Metro does not gather information such as
    passenger miles so there is no data to work with.  Subsequently, there is no means to calculate passenger
    miles per BTU.  Tossing out number like
    60% of usage is Seattle without disclosing its underlying calculation is nearly
    as worthless as a numerator statistic. 
    Until metro can provide us passenger miles per BTU for the whole system,
    including support vehicles, all I will see is huge empty buses driving in
    circles.  The dirty little secret of
    metro is that it is not an energy saving device.

  • repete

    Cool, please make check out to repete c/o Publicola.

  • Big Jim Slade

    “Some people feel that a car is an absolute need and those people end up piling on more and more debt, because they are living beyond their means.”

    Strawman. “Those people” have a car because they don’t have the time to spend sitting on a bus getting to and from work. Or … self employed contractors.

  • Anonymous

    Strawman. Live closer to work/work closer to home.

  • Monster

    why don’t you want to pay taxes for having something nice

  • Johns

    1/3 of the cost? Really? I am comfortable saying that Seattle gets a bit more service than we pay for, but that seems skewed. Source?

  • Johns

    1/3 of the cost? Really? I am comfortable saying that Seattle gets a bit more service than we pay for, but that seems skewed. Source?

  • Poopypants232

    It really doesn’t matter.  Without a Republican vote, there are not the required votes to pass it.  Show me a Republican vote, THEN worry about howCouncilmember Patterson will vote.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t at all fault her for representing her district, that is her job after all, but as a resident of Seattle I don’t plan on supporting any more money for Metro until they stop fucking over Seattle. They’ve made some minor changes, but not enough to satisfy me. Hell I don’t see why transit should be run on a county wide level at all. Seattle should run its own intercity system and leave the suburbs to the County. 

  • Anonymous

    No she is just seeing that those routes will not experience significant cuts. 

  • Anonymous

    You’re surprised that she is trying to get the best deal for her constituents? 

  • cry me a river julia

    what a jerk slamming democratic queen ann…..an area that’s supported every damn transit tax and fee even though they don’t get light rail and light rail and sounder go to patterson’s district.

    democrats are simply lame as a party.  being thrust back on the defense so much, now they can’t even get the 5 votes to do the tranist fee?

    julia patterson should be ashamed of herself for selling out transit.  MANY areas in seattle pay ad infinitum for light rail taxes ….it’s literally more than ten thousand dollars per household if you add it up over the years….and get no light rail….and she’s all pissy because the little teeny tiny 20 fee for busses has a slightly more beneficial impact in seatle where there’s mor people to serve more densely than  in her district?

    what. a. jerk. 

  • Norge

    I liked Julia Patterson until I heard this.  Not very democratic if you ask me.  I’m too am tired of Seattle taxpayers being the deep pocket for King County and the State.  What is the figure — for every tax dollar collected by the state, Seattle is responsible for $.49 and we get back $.27.