Liberals whining in Seattle? Who would have ever thought that possible?

Could be worse Josh. Nickels could just be naked.

Doesn't the new revenue stream make it harder to raise other taxes? This is why pro-Sound Transit politicians didn't like the monorail -- if the voters swallow that tax it's not so easy to sell them on a tax for somebody else's pet project.

Come to think of it, Nickels is absoluetly right. If this passes, I'm going to be in a little bit (maybe a lot) less giving mood when somebody floats some other new tax. And why shouldn't I be? Won't you?

so how do i get posting privileges? i'm... kinda a big deal.

OH NOES!!!111 I'M SECOND CLASS!

Film at 11.

Can someone explain to me why it should be up to the taxpayers of Seattle (or any other city) to fund things that the state is supposed to fund, as written in the state constitution? Education is a state responsibility, and they should be the ones funding it adequately. Why should any city take on such funding?

Josh,
You are playing a game of midget sized intellectual twister to be able to praise Carr and trash Nickels for saying the *same* thing.

StrangerDanger,

Nope.

Nickels statement never mentions why City Attorney Tom Carr is challenging I-87. It simply trashes I-87 in its own right.

Carr's reason for opposing I-87 is purely technical. Carr appealed the initiative on the grounds that state law delegates city budgeting authority to cities, not voters. In other words, citizens are not allowed to write city budgets by initiative. In a statement, Carr said that while funding for schools is important, “so is funding for police officers, fire fighters, homeless services, library hours and the many other good things that our city does. The state legislature provided a specific process for making these tough choices. In that process, it did not include the use of the city initiative.”

However, here's the Mayor's statement:

Mayor's statement on city attorney's challenge to I-87

City Attorney Tom Carr made the right call today in filing a legal challenge to Initiative 87. The Seattle School District is struggling to get its fiscal house in order and improve student achievement. But this measure and its companion proposal, Initiative 88, do not solve those problems.

As written, the initiatives would require the district to increase spending on new programs and teachers, not address the growing $20 million budget gap it is already facing. Throwing money at the wrong problems will only make matters worse.

The path forward for ours schools is clear. First, the Seattle School District must heed the recommendations of its Superintendent’s Committee and make the hard choices necessary to balance its books and invest in academic excellence in our schools.

Second, we must demand that the state fulfill its constitutionally “paramount duty” to adequately and fairly fund public education. Inside the classroom, state education funding is supposed to provide a level playing field for all of Washington’s kids. Currently, Washington ranks 42nd in the nation for education spending. Having Washington ranked in the bottom 10 is unacceptable. I’ve challenged the legislature and governor to lift our state into the “Top 10 by 2010.”

Seattle strongly supports our school district through the $117 million Families and Education Levy. In addition to Seattle’s other school district levies -- which are already among the highest in the state -- this money helps kids outside the classroom by paying for such things as drop-out prevention efforts, after school programs, family support workers and preschool for low-income families.

The challenges facing Seattle Schools demand a thoughtful solution. The city will continue to work with the district to support strong schools in every neighborhood and academic excellence in every classroom.

You'll notice that Nickels's statement does not reiterate Carr's legal point. Nickel simply used Carr's legal challenge as cover to pile on with a seperate line of attack.

You might want to talk to your, um, Nickels's brilliant media dept. and ask them why the press release doesn't say what you think it does.

Geesh, Josh, get a life. Next time you pay for the drinks at the Starbucks Shareholders Meeting.

If words denote guilt, you are Michael Jackson. Qui s'excuse s'accuse

Hi there! Your site is cool! nokia6630