Ouch. It turns out the current front runner for King County Executive, the seat that has the most influence over transit decision in Seattle and throughout the county, is Susan Hutchison – a former Discover Institute board member and former TV news anchor. Why does this scare me? 1) I like to call the Discovery Institute the Discover How To Build More Roads Institute. They fought hard against light rail, and fight hard to build more roads. 2) Former news anchor = instant name recognition, which will help her in the polls.
I admit I don’t know much about the other candidates. Does anyone have a suggestion about who to support?
Oh, and don’t be too afraid. Although she’s leading with 37% to 9% (with Larry Phillips in 2nd place), I should point out that it was a KING5 TV poll.
I’m glad that the STB dudes are meeting to talk about how to pass the new ST ballot measture that’s coming this November. I can’t make the meeting, but I thought I’d share a thought or two.
Sound Transit can’t actually campaign. So we need other groups to form — like last fall’s “Yes on Roads and Transit” — to do the legwork. That campaign was relentlessly positive, and I think that was a perfectly reasonable tactic to use.
However, while I was away, I caught a few radio and TV ads promoting Honolulu’s proposed light rail system. And I thought they were very effective. Here’s one:
The radio ads are even more aggressive. They basically call out the anti-rail folks for being full of it. They’re made by a 501(c)4 called “Support Rail Transit.”
Of course, negative ads are risky. They repeat the negative. Why give the anti-rail zealots a platform for their arguments? That’s why negative ads are generally accepted as a sign of weakness (c.f. Microsoft’s new anti-Apple ads, or any of John McCain’s recent anti-Obama ads).
But maybe it’s time to get more aggressive. Mayor Nickels’ recent op-ed is effective because it openly mocks the anti-transit folks’ arguments as absurd on their face. The Honolulu ads use a similar tactic.
With all the misinformation floating around in the public about what Sound Transit is and isn’t planning, it might be time to shoot down some of these arguments publicly. Our major local media outlets have generally been loathe to call B.S. on these guys, maybe someone else needs to.
The Seattle PI today endorses a NO-NO vote on the viaduct:
The message behind this no-no vote might be lost on Gregoire, Nickels and Chopp, who each appear immovable on the issue, and have abdicated their duty to lead. We’d like to send them back to the table to study carefully, and without prejudice, all possibilities, including a surface-plus-transit option. In the meantime, the state is responsible for safety on the current viaduct. Perhaps it ought to retrofit the thing while decisions are being made so that we don’t risk it crumbling over our heads or beneath our wheels.
Instead of spending our limited transportation tax dollars on more concrete for cars, we should be doing what cities across the country, from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to San Francisco, to Portland, Oregon, to Chattanooga, Tennessee, are doing, with universally positive results: tear the viaduct down, implement all the surface-street improvements we’re going to be doing anyway during the 9 to 12 years the viaduct will be closed for construction, and see if we can get by without it permanently.
And that seems to be the nut of it: if we have to close the corridor for a decade anyway, we may as well close it for a few years and see what happens.
Sound Transit Latest News
Recent Comments