Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« $5 Million for Ron Paul | Awesomest "Green" Campaign Eve... »

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Rich Enemies Can Be Good Allies

posted by on October 3 at 14:14 PM

I bet the environmentalist at the Sierra Club never thought they’d see the day when they’d be happy about Eastside road warrior Kemper Freeman—the president of the Bellevue-based Kemper Development Company—putting $100,000 into a local political campaign.

Well, Freeman dropped $100,000 on No To Prop 1 late last month— bumping the campaign’s war chest to $156,000.

No to Prop 1 isn’t affiliated with the Sierra Club, but it is one group that’s campaigning against the $17.8 billion roads and transit initiative. The Sierra Club is also campaigning against the measure. They think roads part of transit and roads is bad for the environment.

Kemper Freeman doesn’t like the measure because it’s funding light rail—and because the roads package isn’t big enough.

Speaking of big campaign contributions… holy fuck… the No on Referendum 67 campaign has raised $8.7 million, including a $1.3 million contribution from State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance. Ref. 67 pits trial attorneys against insurance companies in an effort to make it harder for insurance companies to challenge claims.

RSS icon Comments

1

Man, why can't those "no on Prop 1" folks get their message straight? First they're the Sierra Club, then they're some rich Eastside Developer - they really are hopelessly muddled, aren't they?

Posted by Levislade | October 3, 2007 2:17 PM
2

As if any further proof were necessary, this clearly demonstrates that transit and roads should NOT be on the same ballot measure together. Duh.

Posted by jameyb | October 3, 2007 2:29 PM
3


Light rail construction is well under way. The projects are coming in on time and under budget:

“Ahmad Fazel, Sound Transit's light-rail director, would only say that "we are on track to build this project on time and on budget.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002181534_soundbudget16m.html

Clean and safe service between Downtown and SeaTac Airport will be operating in short order (2009).

The agency always receives excellent audit results, including from State Auditor Brian Sonntag. Those prove it is under budget and operating efficiently.

If the expansions are voted down in November, we won't have another chance for light rail in our lifetimes.

Posted by we_need_real_transit | October 3, 2007 2:33 PM
4

The roadway development company next door has a Yes To Roads And Transit in their window. They seem happy at any reason to have more roads. Are transit fans happy enough at any reason to have more transit?

Aside: Is there any reason why so many perfectly good King County I&Rs have to have "poison pills" in them?

I guess Kemper has caught Sierra's "not good enough" attitude. So now we have both pro-roads people and pro-transit people against a roads and transit package. Grrreat.

Not that I'm decided yet.

Posted by K | October 3, 2007 2:41 PM
5

Do you ever feel like the Sierra Club can't see the forest for the trees? I feel that they are shockingly short-sighted on this issue.

The Sierra Club has continued to lose its credibility. After the mess with the anti-immigration folk a few years ago, I began to see the once-proud organization as little more than a tool for conservative organizations. This latest hook-up with Kemper Freeman really seems to continue that.

Posted by brappy | October 3, 2007 2:42 PM
6

W_N_R_T - same bullshit, different day.

The light rail line promised to voters was scheduled to be completed in 2006 at a cost of $2.9 billion for 21 miles, AND it was supposed to be up and running before they came back to voters for more tax money.

Oh yeah, and your last sentence about the "once in a lifetime" nonsense is BS too.

Pretty thin gruel, that....

Posted by Mr. X | October 3, 2007 2:45 PM
7

HaHaHa - we_need_real_transit comes back with the under budget on time bull.

Sonntag does not audit for keeping promises or being on time or on budget, his audits are tests for technical compliance. ST just raised the cost (budget) of the tunnel to the UW by $100 million so if the bids come in at $1.6 billion they will on budget and if the bids come in at $1.75 billion ST will raise the budget and they will still be on budget - HaHaHa

Tell us we_need_real_transit if they build 35 miles for $35 billion YOE and finish in 2037 will ST2 be on budget and on schedule? HaHaHa

Posted by whatever | October 3, 2007 2:47 PM
8

@5 - They're not "hooking up" with Kemper Freeman; they both oppose the same bill for completely opposite reasons. Yeesh.

Posted by Levislade | October 3, 2007 2:55 PM
9

@5:

Sierra Club not seeing the forest for the trees? That's rich. How about this for myopia:

Blowing a generation's worth of transportation dollars to worsen global warming at the precise moment we should be planning for 80% reduction in emissions by 2050.

Neglecting billions of dollars of deferred structural maintenance in order to splurge on new highways.

Stoking the sprawl that's eating its way into the foothills of the Cascades with new, automobile trip-generating capacity.

Laying the cost disproportionately at the feet of non drivers via a regressive sales tax.

Posted by Patrick | October 3, 2007 3:00 PM
10

ST is on time and under budget with light rail. It scaled back the project. Light rail is 15 miles now, not 21, and it is on time and under budget. The voters were not promised 21 miles.

@ 7 wrote: "Sonntag does not audit for keeping promises or being on time or on budget, his audits are tests for technical compliance."

The agency is in full compliance, always has been, always will be. ST has never broken promises. It has the right to scale back capital projects.

Wanna try again? These ballot measures really bring out the crackpots.

Posted by Read the Source Materials | October 3, 2007 3:04 PM
11

I see or hear those No on 67 ads about every three minutes - regular working people moaning about those nasty trial lawyers, frivolous lawsuits, and "triple damages." One neocon code word after another, with a pile of money behind them. I don't even know what's in the initiative and I'm already for it.

Posted by pox | October 3, 2007 3:12 PM
12

we_need_real_transit @3:

If the expansions are voted down in November, we won't have another chance for light rail in our lifetimes.

Nice bit of sarcasm. I'm sure people here were making that same observation back in 1968.

Here's what should be apparent to anyone who's been following the goings-on in Olympia:

  1. There's not going to be a vote in 2008. There may not even be a vote in 2009, if the dreaded governance reform takes hold and that has to work itself out.
  2. This is our last chance to vote for 50 miles of grade-separated light rail. Whatever comes back will be scaled down. Of course, the Sierra Club would love to see this happen. If they could cut that down to, say, 15 or 20 miles of disconnected, largely street-level light rail, they'd say "mission accomplished."
  3. There's a better chance we'll get another transit+roads ballot next time than a Sound Transit-only ballot. Why? Because Ed Murray and Judy Clibborn and Chris Gregoire are not going to unconditionally surrender.

Posted by cressona | October 3, 2007 3:21 PM
13

The no on prop 1 campaign is stupid because if we all stop driving, RTID won't have enough money to actually build those roads.

So vote yes, and don't drive if you care about the environment!

Posted by Andrew | October 3, 2007 3:24 PM
14

Just think, if we listen to Cressona, we won't be able to build more transit in areas that really need it in 20 years (due to max out) and we won't be able to build more urgently needed bridge replacements (because we maxed out the possible money on freeways we don't need built in wetlands without HOV lanes) and we won't be able to afford to live here.

But hey, it's all good so long as cressona and the others have cush jobs, right?

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 3:28 PM
15

@10,

Sure ST is on time and on budget - we're also meeting all of our benchmarks in Iraq, too - it's just a matter of being willing to continually move the goalposts.

Try that one on someone who just fell off of the turnip truck, please.


Posted by Mr. X | October 3, 2007 3:31 PM
16

Oh, and I'm WAY with you on that @ 11 - I'll vote trial lawyers over insurance companies any day of the week, and twice on Sundays (well, if the polls were open).

Posted by Mr. X | October 3, 2007 3:32 PM
17

"The voters were not promised 21 miles."

HaHaHaHaHa

and we are not being anything now, right? Please let us know what we are being promised this time around?

Posted by whatever | October 3, 2007 3:37 PM
18

Sims just fed a poison pill to the measure. He's the King County Exec, for as long as he wants. He gets to appoint a majority of ST's board. He'll appoint those he wants, and they'll do what he wants. The results will not be pretty. That's the thing about the way ST was structured: the King County Exec. is King. He's signalled "no-go," and none of the pissants whining here can reverse that. Nobody (well, nobody with any sense) will vote for this measure when the man in charge of implementing it does not support it. This iteration of "Phase II" will not come to pass, nor should it.

The pill will begin working now . . . .

Posted by Dr. Kervorkian | October 3, 2007 3:38 PM
19

From 1996 Regional Express ad - please note 21 miles weren't promised 25 miles were promised and the cut backs were only if there were revenue shortfalls not cost increases.

Read the ad http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf//1996adcampaign/faq.html

Is the plan fair to everyone?
The plan was developed in over 400 public meetings with input from thousands of people. Each region in the plan is served by a system that best represents their particular needs. The entire region will be served by 20 new express buses with suburb to suburb service. Eighty-one miles of commuter rail will link 14 communities from Everett to Tacoma. Twenty five miles of light rail will alleviate traffic in our most congested corridor, along I-5 from the Sea-Tac Airport to Downtown Seattle and further on to the U-District. Also, the revenues raised in one area go directly towards transit in that locality -- no one area will subsidize another.

Posted by whatever | October 3, 2007 3:49 PM
20

That State Farm insurance contribution makes sense. I received a letter that thrashed I-67 a few weeks after I bought an insurance policy from State Farm. Question: if State Farm gave out its clients' contact info for political campaigns, would it be violating the law?

Posted by Trevor | October 3, 2007 3:57 PM
21

@ 19 - That's just a campaign ad.

If you look at what the voters approved, you'll see there was no specific number of miles. That is why it was OK for ST to scale back the light rail line to 15 miles. Have you never heard of the Sane Transit case? Dude, you're fighting a battle that the road warriors lost four years ago. Take a nap, you'll be better afterwards and your postings won't reflect so poorly on you.

Posted by Unbiased | October 3, 2007 4:13 PM
22

Unbiased what are we being promised this time? Right, nothing. Yes, they won the case based on the assessment that Res. 75, which was not part of the voters pamphlet but available at libraries, should have been read by any reasonably informed voter.

But let's just concentrate on this vote. What exactly is being promised?

So dude, we shouldn't believe the pro campaigners this time? For example you?

Posted by whatever | October 3, 2007 4:41 PM
23

Unbiased,

You make an excellent case for a NO vote on ST2/RTID - thanks.

BTW - how many names have you posted under today?

Posted by Mr. X | October 3, 2007 5:11 PM
24

@9,

Go Patrick.

The political calculus by the road advocates is almost perfect. Light rail is to Seattle voters as donuts are to Homer Simpson -- so tantalizing as to make us lose sight of everything else in the room. So, road advocates get Seattle voters to pass horrible road projects that standing alone could probably not even get majorities in the areas where they are being built, much less majority support in the region.

To make it more absurd, so many of the commenters who urge a yes vote claim they are savvy political thinkers and progressives. Hmm, progressives urging regressive taxes to make global warming worse. Unbelievable. You are being badly played by politicians and business interests who care not at all about global warming, but instead are asking the public to subsidize climate changing highways with regressive taxes for their political and business ends. Thank goodness for Ron Sims and the Sierra Club standing up and telling the truth.

And all this handwringing about light rail dying. After this fails, Gregoire and the legislature aren't going to say "that's it, we're done. Too bad." They will be competing with each other to be the champions for moving forward with effective transportation solutions. To do otherwise is to risk being sweeped out of office for gross incompetence on the most pressing public issues for the region -- transportation and global warming.

It is worth taking a stand on global warming. In every major social movement in this country, at some point the public said to the politicians "enough. It is time to change." Anything less just perpetuates the status quo, and we know how that is working out for us. Stop making excuses for climate changing highways. Say no.

Posted by rtidstinks | October 3, 2007 8:48 PM
25

People on both sides of this issue are sounding like assholes. There are good reasons for moving forward with this now or waiting and working for something better. Neither side necessarily is being "played." Take a deep breath.

Posted by referee | October 3, 2007 9:24 PM
26

thank you referee.

however, i still strongly believe that RTID/ST2 is a great idea, and will continue posting in these threads until somebody convinces me otherwise.

will, mr x, whatever, patrick, others--

i admire your dedication to your ideals. however, i implore you to take a serious look at what this city needs, and ask yourself-

is perfectionism going to solve any of those problems?

are cars actually going to go away if we build light rail or more busses?

what can we actually get done in the next 30 years to accomodate an almost doubling of the population?

have wsdot and usdot suddenly stopped providing money for repairs to the freeways around here?

what does seattle need more: less congestion on roads and highways, or more?

does rtid say anything about not implementing tolls?

which city has a more important opinion of how the world should be? seattle? bellevue? everett? tacoma?

and as a closing note about sound transit's so-called "bad track record" here are the major projects they have done (thanks to "clarity" from another thread)-

OK, let's cop to ST messing up the original starter line from Sodo to UW. Since then? Let's just take the big ones:
Tacoma Link: done on schedule, on budget.
Lynnwood TC: six mos early and $5M under budget.
Bellevue DA: 12 mos early and $25M under budget.
Federal Way TC/DA: done on schedule and budget
Eastgate DA: done on time, within budget.
Central Link: 80% complete, on schedule and within budget (baselined six years ago.)

Posted by Cale | October 3, 2007 11:18 PM
27

Cale,

I, too, will cop to the intelligence and passion of posters such as you and Cressona. Nevertheless, longtime observers such as myself and the others you cite are also good blue state types who have "taken a serious look at what this city needs" over a period of years and just see this all differently. Differently - dare I say - based on our real-world observations of what gets promised and what actually gets delivered in the politics of our region.

In the case of your post @ 26, if you go back at all and look how I've posted, I'm basically looking at all of the regional factors you are (and getting pilloried for it by many others) and simply arriving at different conclusions on each of the bullet points you make. To wit -

yes cars matter, and yes people will keep using them

I think the notion that regional population will double in 30 years is speculative. FE - Seattle - in the recent boom times - has grown by about 4000 people per year, yet the City insists on raising their original growth projections to 6000 per year to justify additional subsidies to middle-income households. To what extent is this based on the real world, and to what extent is the City CHOOSING to subsidize additional growth beyond what its own budget can reasonably accomdodate under the GMA in terms of providing concurrency (and, for just one subpoint - to what extent do the new businesses they are subsidizing through tax breaks actually creating new demand for suburban housing for the 60-70% of new employees in SLU who won't live in the neighborhood?)

Actually, WSDOT, SDOT, and others have spent the last 15 years deferring maintenance to create a case for megaprojects - the AWV and SR 520 being excellent examples (now that they're not on the ballot, and now that even Democrats can't agree among themselves what combination of efficacy and political expediency to adopt, the AWV and particularly the seawall doen't seem to be such an emergency anymore, do they?)

Seattle and the region need less congestion, but I must say that I find a lot of irony in many R & T supporters advocating for Eastside lane expansions when in their heart of hearts they really believe that congestion is good as long as it forces people to use mass transit (this unfortunatley happens to be the semi-official position of the City of Seattle, as well - hence their all stick no carrot approach to anyone who still needs to get around the City by car)

In that light, I'm opposed to tolls on existing roads until there are realistic transit alternatives in place. Yes, this makes me a Kemper Freeman loving Rethug (oh wait, Shrub is the one pushing congestions pricing at the Federal level), but unlike many of the Dems I see here, I actually worry about the effect on working class schlubs in the meantime. And, yes, you're right - RTID does not preclude tolls, but it's also true that it doesn't include them, either.

On your final bullet - Tacoma Link was originally priced out at $50 million, and wound up costing more than $80 million, so I wouldn't be trumpeting it as a ST success story.

Personally, during the first two ST campaigns, I always thought it should have gone as far north/south/east/west as possible to meet existing transit demand, but somewhere along the way the TOD crowd decided it should be used as a development tool to facilitate new development and ridership instead of addressing current regional travel patterns. In my view, this was a tragic mistake - and one that led to a veritable diaspora of many people of color in the CD and Rainier Valley as they got priced and eminent domained out of their longtime homes to points south that many pro-rail partisans have yet to come to terms with.

So, yeah, we've been paying attention pretty durn closely - and we're still voting NO.

Posted by Mr. X | October 4, 2007 12:20 AM
28

Respectfully Mr. Referee

Deep breath taken . . . we are getting played. And outplayed. Sound Transit was prepared to go to the ballot in 2006 alone, when it would have easily passed. The roads supporters in the legislature prevented that, and tied it to RTID, a roads measure that was originally brought to us by eastside republicans since voted out of office. I don't dispute that people of good faith are going to struggle with this measure. I did. That is the "play" that was made by roads supporters that ultimately don't care about global warming - to put liberal voters into a box of saying take this, or get nothing. The result, progressives divided, personal attacks between people who share the same objectives, and the good possibilty that liberal pro tax voters will supply the winning margin for climate changing highways. Damn straight we are getting played -- that was the intent of the roads advocates.

So, back to the main point. We can either accept the box, or try to kick out one of the sides. Given what we know about the global warming impacts of highway expansion, to me the answer is obvious.

By the way, feel free to jump in and referee anytime. But calling people "assholes" kind of undercuts your message. It is not my intent to be one, and I am sure it is not your intent to be one either.

Posted by rtidstinks | October 4, 2007 1:32 AM
29

@3

Way to be a fucking plant. Those of us who are legitimately interested in seeing Prop. 1 pass, and aren't being paid to say so, don't need any help from the likes of you. Fuck off.

Posted by Greg | October 4, 2007 7:55 AM
30

"No to Prop 1 isn’t affiliated with the Sierra Club, but it is one group that’s campaigning against the $17.8 billion roads and transit initiative. "

Ralph Nader wasn't affiliated with the right wing interests which funded his brilliant campaign, either. The Sierra Club is going the way of the Green Party.

"ST just raised the cost (budget) of the tunnel to the UW by $100 million "

Whatever follows this curious path where the foaming, obsessed and barely sane rail opponents do what they can to slow the project down - and then complain about cost increases. Talk about being intellectually honest.

"In that light, I'm opposed to tolls on existing roads until there are realistic transit alternatives in place. "

Oh, this is rich. Mr X opposes both Plan A and Plan B. And he doesn't want Plan B to go into effect until Plan A - which he opposes - takes place.

Mr X is the personification of gridlock, which makes sense since he's one of those anti-growth dinosaurs.

"I always thought it should have gone as far north/south/east/west as possible to meet existing transit demand, but somewhere along the way the TOD crowd decided it should be used as a development tool to facilitate new development and ridership instead of addressing current regional travel patterns."

Yeah that was your buddy Ron Sims, Mr X. And guess what: it worked. Redevelopment (for the poor, middle class, and evil rich) in the valley along a faceless stripmall pattern formed around cars.

So, now, Sound Transit is proposing the same plan you liked 10 years ago? It seems like the person you're fighting here is yourself.

Posted by LovinWillAffleckAsch | October 4, 2007 12:48 PM
31

LWAA - "Whatever follows this curious path where the foaming, obsessed and barely sane rail opponents do what they can to slow the project down - and then complain about cost increases. Talk about being intellectually honest."

The price/cost estimate went up $100,000,000 during a period that no one was protesting anything - the point was related to the shell game budget scam ST and their supporters play where the most recent estimate becomes the budget - please LWAA give any evidence that the $100,000,000 increase in the estimate of the tunnel to the UW had anything to do with anything anyone did, much less a critic.

Straw man, foaming, embarassing, insane - blah, blah, blah.


Posted by whatever | October 4, 2007 1:45 PM
32

@ 30,

Just so you know, I actually voted for ST in 1996 despite my reservations - and was expressing my sense of buyer's remorse over the direction it ultimately took.

And as long as you're putting words in people's mouths, I never said Ron Sims was my buddy - but god forbid someone decides late in the day that they have honest reservations about their own work, because they'll be skinned alive by dishonest little twerps like you.

How many names have you posted under today?

Posted by Mr. X | October 4, 2007 1:49 PM
33

Light rail is the wrong system for Puget Sound.

We need an efficient public computer controlled shared taxi system (with subsidies for the poor).

That system now exists and it's called Texxi

http://www.texxi.com

Posted by John Bailo | October 5, 2007 10:13 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).