Erica, what's the source of your information that Eyman is closing in on the number of signatures he needs?

I sure hope it's not Eyman himself. He's been known to lie about these things in the past.

I think you're a better journalist than that...

Erica, Why do you hate democracy so much?

@1, even at this early stage in comments, wins.

pseudopopulist ("su-do-pop-u-list"; adjective) Populist, but I don't want to use that word because it would imply that his ideas are more popular than my own. (Originates in the late American post-modern progressive movement; first recorded use by ECB in the SLOG, 2008.)

@4

I would suggest:

pseudopopulist ("su-do-pop-u-list"; adjective) Populist that is popular with the wrong populous. (Originates in the late American post-modern progressive movement; first recorded use by ECB in the SLOG, 2008.)

Not to be confused with generosity, kindness, or keeping bags of kittens out of the roadways.

Or rather populus (?...)

If paid signature gathering had been banned years ago, would we have missed out on anything good? I'm drawing a blank.

@8 - Free speech?

Putting a new law on the ballot is not "speech."

Anything? Tell me what wonderful thing paid signature gatherers have done for us. Surely there must be just one of these things you can name that made us better off.

@10 - um, kept the clipboard industry humming?

I-75 - which made the enforcement of laws prohibiting the individual possession of marijuana the lowest enforcement priority in Seattle - gathered a significant portion of the required signatures using paid signature gatherers, and I'm OK with that.

Everytime this douchenugget gets another moronic initiative on the ballot (i.e. "every two fucking years"), I begin again my happy countdown to moving the fuck away from here. Only two more years, douchenugget!

I-75? For real?

@5: I like it.

Money is considered an aspect of free speech in U.S. politics, and paid petition gatherers are obviously all about money. Some reform removing the payment per signature aspect in Washington is not asking too much. A ban worked very well in Washington State for nearly 85 years, protecting you from paid petition circulators by a 1914 statute. The Rehnquist Court's ruling in '88 (Meyer v. Grant) ended all of that, opening the door for the likes of Tim Eyman and deep pockets in any state using the populist process. Washington voters need only look to their southern neighbor for a possible solution. In 2002, Oregon voters approved the Initiative Integrity Act - Measure 26. The initiative made it unlawful to pay or receive money or other thing of value based on the number of signatures obtained on an initiative or referendum petition.



The 9th Circuit Court, in Prete v. Bradbury, upheld Measure 26 against a 1st Amendment challenge in February 2006.

 A criminal investigator from the Oregon Department of Justice testified in Prete that petition circulators paid per signature had:



a) forged signatures on petitions;

b) purchased signature sheets filled with signatures; and

c) attended signature parties where circulators met to sign each other's petitions.



It is naivete, at best, to assume this isn't happening in Washington - anecdotal evidence aside. A similar reform in your process would be a big step in the right direction.

(The State Constitution of Georgia does not provide for the initiative process. Mr. Eyman would have to sell only watches here in Savannah.)

Osama tim Eyman... JIHAD!!!

Yeah el I like the laws passed by legislatures that are run by million dollar lobbyists sooooo much more. Sure let's tax the poorest a 1/2 percent sales tax to build transit that rich people will ride on - now that's what you like, right?

@18 - you mean like the BIAW carp Eyman pushes?

Since the number of signatures needed to qualify increased to 224,880 in 2005, 10 measures have managed to collect enough voter signatures to receive a public vote. On average, each campaign spent $716,494 to get on the ballot. I-985 will qualify for less than that.

But there's no correlation between how much it costs for the ballot and whether a measure has broad support or not.

Of the 10 measures that qualified, 4 were approved by voters (and each of them used a combination of paid and unpaid volunteers) and their average cost to qualify was $677,167. The 6 that were rejected cost an average of $742,712 and they were also a combo of paid and volunteer.

It might to interesting to note that the 4 measures that have passed since 2005, two were by us (I-900 in 2005 requiring the State Auditor to do performance audits of state and local governments and last year's I-960 making it tougher to raise taxes) and two would probably be considered progressive ideas (I-901 The No Smoking Ban and I-937 the Clean Energy Initiative).

Finally, I-1000 on doctor-assisted suicide is on track to spend more than any other measure in history to qualify -- $1.2 million with two months still left for additional fundraising. That's nearly triple what we've raised.

Hey Tim Eyeman. I'd like to reduce congestion. Who wouldn't? Congestion is teh suk!

Has any city every reduced congestion without laying off all the workers and suffering massive economic collapse? If so, which one? I'd like to study how they did it.

Thanks Tim!

it's 'populace'. not populous.

laurence, whatcha doin' in savannah? we need you back here to star in a revival of angels in america!

piss off, timmy.

From: Tim Eyman

Having 225,000 citizens voluntarily sign on to this common sense transportation reform initiative is very exciting. Voters recognize that this initiative is their only opportunity to tell politicians that their top transportation priority is reducing traffic congestion, limiting the time it takes to drive our vehicles from point A to point B. And there is overwhelming support for this no-new-taxes transportation reform initiative, especially now during these tough economic times. And I-985's silver bullet is the smart, thorough, professional work being done by State Auditor Brian Sonntag -- his game-changing performance audit on transportation prompted this initiative and its policies.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

Uh, Tim, people use the phrase "silver bullet" to refer to things that don't exist, like pie in the sky, or snake oil, or a free lunch. As in "there is no silver bullet, of course..."

Did you know that? I think you just accidentally told the truth, in a way.

Can you answer my question or not?

Say Tim, I see you are staying up late to self Google yourself. Don't forget to check out the Stranger Personals while you're here...self Googling..

Hey...let's beat Eyman on the issues. All of this sideshow discussion about money and paid signature gatherers, etc. is a distraction and only plays to his strategy.

Let us be done with this fruitless tactic, and move forward with providing a better vision for the future of transportation than Eyman provides.

CNN says that the suburbs are dying, and people like Tim Eyman's "way of life" is dying on the vine.

Fear is all he has left.

to: elenchos

Our initiative's policies are based on the recommendations made by a recent performance audit of transportation by State Auditor Brian Sonntag. He hired world-class transportation experts to thoroughly investigate reducing congestion. They'd be able to answer your question (email Linda Long, State Auditor's office, lindal@sao.wa.gov and she'll get you their contact info)

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

"Actions that could be instituted over the next five years are:
...
-Increasing efforts to have people use carpools, transit and telecommuting."

That's straight from the audit report of your own precious Brian Sonntag.

How does killing carpool lanes for most of the day help encourage people to use them? And how does funneling all the money from tolls in to a roads-only fund help encourage mass transit improvement? I don't get it.

Plus, I really love the way you dodged elechnos' questions, Tim. Just pass off any real explaining and stick with regurgitating the same handful of defenses for your naive and short-sighted initiative, right?

Having 225,000 citizens voluntarily sign on to this common sense transportation reform initiative is very exciting....And I-985's silver bullet is the smart, thorough, professional work being done by State Auditor Brian Sonntag -- his game-changing performance audit on transportation prompted this initiative and its policies.

An elected official doing his job--one could only hope.

Petitioned voluntarily signed--citizenry doing their duty.

Lost in all this rhetorical fog and deflection of good work by public officials and civic volunteerism by signees is the simple fact that for Mr. Eyman, activism in the initiative process has become a career choice. He receives remunerations, collects a fee for his efforts. Since money and politics are like the waste in septic tanks--the big chunks float to the top--perhaps the cynicism of a good number of Washingtonians would assuaged just a bit if the Good Citizen from Edmonds did this all for free.

So I'm reading the State Auditor's report on congestion (PDF) and it definitely talks about how our congestion sucks, and how it sucks everywhere else too. It says repeatedly that we ought to add lanes to increase capacity, because they think that will reduce congestion. The word "sprawl" isn't in there anywhere.

I don't believe this report hints anywhere that anybody has actually succeeded in reducing congestion. Which calls into question their confidence that their prescriptions will work. They're saying, sure, nobody else has ever done it before, but we think if we keep trying we will be the first city ever to do it. Like Tim said: a sliver bullet. Like magic. Like a dream!

If anybody can find mention of anybody else making congestion decrease, I'd love to hear about it.

@30: Actually, in septic tanks the big pieces of shit settle on the bottom. It's the scum that floats on top.

Elenchos

We DO need to increase lanes to increase capacity. There IS no magic bullet for this problem. Even if we had all your mass transit pipe dreams in play, we'd STILL have congestion unless we add additional capacity. We need BOTH TRANSIT AND ADDITIONAL lanes, AND likely we need a few innovations like Tim's initiative too.

I get so fucking tired of lame ass excuses that get regurgitated on these boards. Simply put, the idiot tree hugger environmentalists decided years ago to restrict expanding our highway infrastructure. AS A RESULT we are a DECADE behind in our lane capacity given the number of people and cars in the region, AND we are NEGLIGENTLY far behind given future population trend models.

What don't you get in your rosy world? You think it is going to get any better? Or are you just so cynical that you'd like to "give it to" those of us who need vehicles to live?

Why do you insist on trying to force me to live your lifestyle if I want to live here? The entire population of the United States(except NYC) has gotten used to living and transporting with the car driving model of life.

There are a VOCAL majority of people that want to CONTINUE their lifestyle and not be FORCED into crowded urban lifestyles.

We have the $$$ to live our lives as we deem fit. I gurantee you that those with the $$ and means will flee the state in the coming decade unless this transit mess is fixed with more lanes.

Then you can be left to enjoy this nightmare with less of a tax base.

We'll see how loudly you'll be whining then with high prices and high congestion.

From: Tim Eyman

Based on the comments here, I-985 is going to be approved by the voters by a very wide margin this November. Clearly, the only reason opponents identify as being bad about it is that I'm one of the co-sponsors. For 10 years, voters have consistently found that argument unpersuasive, so looks like I-985 will be another big winner.

Sonntag's audit report clearly makes such arguments even less compelling.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

@33 if all the conservative, small-minded, roads-only-loving gas guzzlers with "$$$" move away, won't there be less congestion anyway?

Go ahead and leave. We don't want you.

Plus, NYC isn't the only city that has learned to live with less reliance on cars. Look at Chicago, look at Portland, look at Denver. There or more.

Also, those of us opposed to this I-985 bullshit aren't as bothered by the rising prices and congestion, because that means increased support for mass transit.

Driving is not a right. It's a goddamned luxury. Get used to paying for it.

@33
Please, leave the State. I think we'll be just fine without your tax base dollars.
Also, your draconian manifest-destiny perspective just doesn't work any more; just because an "entire population has gotten used" to the car-model way of life, doesn't mean we don't need to change it. And hey, some of us have gotten used to the car-model,-- and get this, we still want to change it! No where in your post do you mention pollution or Climate Change; in short, you miss the point. That's why you get so "fucking tired' of our lame ass excuses. But hey, at least we tree-huggers have got the balls to dare to envision an ideal. (P.S. that's how one arrives at a progressive step forward) All you've got is "roll over and take it in the ass from the auto-culture that will never change". In closing, please leave the State, or move to Bellevue.

@34

Actually Tim, we oppose I-985 because it's flawed, roads-only, environmentally disastrous in the long term, and little more than a gimmick in the short term. Stop being such a narcissist.

@33 "We DO need to increase lanes to increase capacity"

If you define "capacity" as the number of people a facility can handle, more lanes are not required. It's only required if you define "capacity" as the number of vehicles a facility can handle. An HOV lane full of buses full of people carries way more people than a single new SOV lane.

"I don't believe this report hints anywhere that anybody has actually succeeded in reducing congestion."

The reason for this is something called "induced demand." The more lanes are added, the more cars appear to fill them up. Thus, sprawl, followed by more congestion.

@39

Yes, I think that's the case. That's one reason I searched the report for the word "sprawl", because I was hoping the Texas consultants they paid $1.6 million would address that. It is the most widely-cited and obvious reason why adding lanes is considered unhelpful.

But, you know, I'm a big fat moron, I'm told. RE: @Tim & his pals. I'm such a moron that I can't find one single example of a city which has reduced congestion. You know, like it says right here in in Tim Eyman's URL: reducecongestion.org?

Some claim there are no silver bullets. But Tim says there is a silver bullet. He says he will reduce congestion. It's a fantastic claim, and it is something that has never been done before. If you can't give me an example, can you at least admit you're entering uncharted territory? You're attempting something which nobody has ever figured out how to do. Risky, at best.

From: Tim Eyman

Sonntag's professional, thorough performance audit reports that basic, common sense reforms will have a dramatic benefit. Requiring local governments to synchronize traffic lights on heavily-traveled streets and arterials -- that one reform -- will reduce congestion 5-6% statewide. Again, that's totally common sense -- it makes complete logical sense that that reform will reduce congestion.

Again, I-985 isn't about what we, the sponsors, will do -- it's about what the world-class transportation experts hired by Democrat Brian Sonntag found when they did a top-to-bottom investigation of our state's transportation system.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

Hey Tim Eyman, why can't you answer a SIMPLE QUESTION?

If the Texas consultants the auditor paid $1.6 million are "world class", does that mean they have experience with actually reducing congestion? Does anybody, anywhere, have actual experience reducing congestion? Please answer this one simple question. Has anybody ever done the thing you say your initiative will do? Has anybody ever reduced congestion? Anybody? Where? Who are they?

Why won't you answer this simple question? Why? Why? Why? Answer the question Tim!

We will gladly put the reputations of the world class transportation experts hired by State Auditor Brian Sonntag against the clowns running our state's grinding-to-a-halt transportation system -- it's not even going to be close with the voters. Taxpayers are paying tens of billions of dollars every year in taxes, fees, and other government charges and they expect to have their money spent on reducing traffic congestion by implementing these common sense reforms.

It's clear that the common sense policies in I-985 resonate with the voters and are overwhelmingly popular and that's why opponents are going with their usual change-the-subject attacks.

We're extremely confident the voters will appreciate the debate our initiative will spur -- and the voters will decide which direction they want to go: more of the same versus the common sense reforms provided by Auditor Sonntag.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

Reputation, Tim Eyman? Reputation for what? Reducing congestion? Guess they can't put that on their resume because they've never done it, have they?

It must kill you that you can't name one city on Earth that has ever done the thing you are promising. You're a snake oil salesman, pure and simple, making promises you can't keep. Promising to do what nobody has ever done.

OK. You won't answer my first question. *victory dance* New question.

Why don't the Texas consultants mention induced demand in their entire 222 page report? For $1.6 million we should have gotten a report that covered all the bases, don't you think? Induced demand is the #1 objection to your proposals. It is the #1 reason why you even have anyone opposing you. Why don't they talk about sprawl? Why don't they talk about how people will drive more if you make it easier to drive?

And THAT is exactly why nobody has ever successfully reduced congestion.

You really don't know how to answer a question do you Tim?

Please try to come up with a response that actually RESPONDS TO THE QUESTION YOU'VE BEEN ASKED. We're all really tired of your delusional rhetoric. Coward.

It's clear that our state's transportation system is grinding to a halt and the only response by opponents of I-985's common sense policies is "Eyman's a bad guy so don't vote for it" -- pathetic.

The reason I-985 is going to be approved by voters by a wide margin is because they (rightly) trust State Auditor Brian Sonntag and the professional work he and his auditors are providing to the citizens.

He and his team have done 9 performance audits so far, made 434 recommendations that will save taxpayers over $3.2 billion over the next five years. But the Governor/Legislature aren't working with Auditor Sonntag, they're fighting against him. And that's because he had the audacity to look at issues that the citizens found important to them (heaven forbid that the people be listened to!).

I-985 provides common sense reforms that the voters will embrace in November. And opponents' attack-the-messenger strategy will once again fail.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

Tim, where did I say people shouldn't vote for it because of who you are?

I want to reduce congestion. Everyone does. You could have my signature and my vote for I-985 if only you could show me that it is possible to reduce congestion.

All I'm asking for is evidence. Actual evidence, not promises from experts who can only say "trust us, we know what we're doing!" I would trust them if they could show me these congestion tricks really work. History says these things always fail and congestion always gets worse.

Why should I support trying again and again and again to reduce congestion when hundreds of cities have tried and failed for decades? Why can't you name one single city that has successfully reduced congestion? Why? Answer the question, Tim! Answer the question!

And please don't sit here and feel sorry for yourself because you're an unpopular figure. Anyone reading this thread can see how slick and tricky you are, and they can see the way you twist and turn to avoid a direct answer to a simple question. If people don't like you, you only have yourself to blame.

once again, another attack-the-messenger approach - good luck with that, it hasn't worked for 10 years but maybe this year is your year (not).

The audit report clearly outlines the common sense reforms that'll clearly reduce congestion. How can any sane person oppose synchronizing traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets? If that's a bad reform, why are cities and counties doing it in Washington state? And many more say they'd do it if they had the money -- I-985 provides the money.

But opponents don't attack the policies, they stupidly believe that attacking the messenger is better. Anyone who reads this thread recognizes the intellectual bankruptcy of this approach. But it's basically all you got.

These are common sense reforms that'll do more to reduce congestion than the multi-billion dollar, mega-tax-hike plans by the same folks who've brought us more and more gridlock from clearly-failing-policies.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

Cities and counties across the state have already synchronized their lights? Great! Did it work? Did it reduce congestion?

Tim, we may have been attacking you lately, but only because you refuse to address legitimate attacks to this initiative, that you are touting at "common sense."

Want people to stop thinking you're such a snake? Stop acting like one and give our questions with some real answers.

I and elenchos would both like to see some evidence that I-985 will work, not more 'trust Brian Sonntag, he's real smart and classy.' That's not going to cut it.

I apologize for the typos in the above post. Here are the corrected bits:

1. touting AS 'common sense'
2. and give our questions some real answers.

The overwhelming majority of the voters will approve I-985 in November. We'll never convince the crazies, but fortunately, there ain't alot of 'em.

To the crazies, let's just agree to disagree.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

Tim, why is it crazy to ask if this works? You say they synchronized the lights. I ask, "Did it work?"

Why is that crazy? Please explain what is crazy about asking whether or not something turned out they way they thought it would.

Other cities have added lanes. Most cities have prioritized reducing congestion. Many cities have diverted all funds away from transit and favored everything they could think of to move cars faster. Many have tried what you want to try.

Did it work? Simple question, isn't it?

The funny thing is, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity. I'm asking whether I-985 just repeats the same things that have been tried for 50 years, yet thinking that this time it will be different. Rational question for me to ask, don't you think?

Yet you call me crazy? That takes some nerve.

To the crazies, let's just agree to disagree.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

No, Tim you should answer the question. We should agree to give a straight answer to a simple question. Answer the question, Tim!

Gotta go to Olympia today to turn in I-985 signatures. Wow, this initiative is overwhelmingly popular with voters.

Thursday, June 18, 2008

To: Our thousands of supporters throughout the state (cc'd to all media outlets -- reporters, columnists, editorial writers, and others in newspapers, radio, and TV)
From: Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, Mike Fagan, & Mike Dunmire, ph: 425-493-9127,
email: tim@permanent-offense.org, http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

RE: We turn-in 226K signatures today (Thursday) - need 50K more voter signatures in the next 15 days

As we announced on Monday, we'll be turning in 226,000+ signatures today to the Secretary of State's office in Olympia at the 520 Union Bldg (lower level, east entrance) -- the minimum needed is 224,880. IT'S CRITICAL FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT DONE YET, WE'RE NOT DONE YET, WE'RE REALLY REALLY NOT DONE YET. We've clearly a huge INITIAL hurdle, but we've got another FINAL hurdle to go.

Did we mention: WE'RE NOT DONE YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We need to turn-in a bunch of extra voter signatures -- a cushion -- to ensure we qualify I-985 for the ballot. We need to get roughly 50,000 more voter signatures in the next 15 days.

There's been a definite increase in donations and petitions coming in but it's critical that we all redouble our efforts to get I-985 over the finish line.

When it comes to the petitions that our supporters have in their hands right now, it's time to fill 'em up and send 'em in. Our deadline is July 3.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, PLEASE DONATE TODAY -- please send us a donation of $10, $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 or more (there's no limit on amount that can be given) to our offices in Spokane. You can also contribute online using VISA or MasterCard or PayPal:
http://www.ReduceCongestion.org. However you want to do it, please send in your most generous contribution RIGHT NOW.

We've got the raise the funds necessary to get I-985 on the ballot and help us pay off Tim's huge loan to the campaign (his 2nd mortgage on his home). We're really counting on everyone to do everything possible to ensure I-985's success.

FULL STEAM AHEAD!

Best Regards, Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, Mike Fagan, & Mike Dunmire, ph: 425-493-9127, email: tim@permanent-offense.org, http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

P.S. Here's a quick summary of this year's initiative: ReduceCongestion.org I-985 implements the State Auditor's recommendations to reform the Department of Transportation and reduce traffic congestion by using existing public resources more effectively. It opens carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours, requires local governments to synchronize traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets, and increases roadside assistance funding to clear out accidents faster with the implementation overseen by the State Auditor. These policies are funded by taxes and charges we already pay: 15% of vehicle sales taxes, revenue from fines generated from red light traffic cameras, and a percentage that previously went to art on transportation-related public works projects. Finally, I-985 doesn't impose tolls, but it institutes critical taxpayer protections if tolls are created and levied.

ReduceCongestion.org (Reduce Traffic Congestion Initiative) . PO Box 18250 Spokane . WA . 99228 . PH: 425-493-8707 . FAX: 425-493-1027 .
http://www.ReduceCongestion.org . email: jakatak@comcast.net

Answer the question Tim. Shouldn't you be working a little harder to convince us? I thought you were DEDICATED.

Just turned in signatures for I-985. Great info here:

RE: We turn-in 226K signatures today (Thursday) - need 50K more voter signatures in the next 15 days

As we announced on Monday, we'll be turning in 226,000+ signatures today to the Secretary of State's office in Olympia at the 520 Union Bldg (lower level, east entrance) -- the minimum needed is 224,880. IT'S CRITICAL FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT DONE YET, WE'RE NOT DONE YET, WE'RE REALLY REALLY NOT DONE YET. We've clearly a huge INITIAL hurdle, but we've got another FINAL hurdle to go.

Did we mention: WE'RE NOT DONE YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We need to turn-in a bunch of extra voter signatures -- a cushion -- to ensure we qualify I-985 for the ballot. We need to get roughly 50,000 more voter signatures in the next 15 days.

There's been a definite increase in donations and petitions coming in but it's critical that we all redouble our efforts to get I-985 over the finish line.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

Still no answers. Imagine that...

I have a suggestion for getting those 50,000 signatures.

You could say, hey, the city of ________ synchronized all their lights, and they reduced congestion! This data proves it!

Or how about, the state of _______ passed a law that said reducing congestion would be the DOT's top priority, and congestion really did decrease! Can't argue with success, can you?

Or maybe, in every jurisdiction I know, such as for instance ___________, or ________, or over in __________, restricting the funding of transit sources had the measurable effect of reducing congestion! If it worked for them, it will work for us! Yay!

Wouldn't that be convincing? You betcha! I'd sign. I'd be so excited I'd sign twice! Ha ha!

If only we knew the names that go in those blanks. Tim, you're a co-sponsor of I-985, and a smart guy too. Tim, what should I fill in the blanks with? Pretty easy question, right? Simple, straightforward question that deserves a straight answer, right? Seeing as this is all just common sense, plus these approaches are all recommended by a real smart big shot consulting firm. They wouldn't take $1.6 million of our money and recommend things that had never worked before. Would they?

Would they, Tim?

Again, the crazies can go on and on and on and that's fine. But the overwhelming majority of voters will approve I-985 this November.

Amazing actually that we had time to do the petition turn-in with all the time spent on this thread.

Thanks for proving that the only argument made by opponents is their usual attack-the-messenger approach. Someday maybe the crazies will learn that it doesn't work with voters -- until then.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

OK, Tim, you won't answer the question. I think the reason you won't answer the question is that you don't want to admit that all of these things have been tried before, and not once have they delivered the reduced congestion that was promised. Obviously, the truth is not on your side so you won't talk about it. Fine.

Then may I ask, why are you calling me crazy? That's also a simple question and you should give a straight answer. What is crazy about asking you whether or not this has ever worked before?

I'm sorry you feel you are being "attacked." I guess I can relate, because being called crazy makes me feel attacked too. Instead of talking about each other, could we talk about reducing congestion (as in what has ever worked to reduce it).

No? Don't want to answer that one? Then why is asking you about it crazy?

You're not going to change my mind on I-985 and clearly you're not going to support the initiative -- that's fine -- agree to disagree and let's go on with our lives.

We prefer to spend our time productively and effectively and communicating with an obvious opponent is a complete waste. I do enjoy the to and fro so I can go with it for a while. But really, what's the point? Again, I and most voters already support I-985, a small minority don't. Again, that's fine.

I-985 accomplishes the following goals:

• illustrates the public's support for making reducing traffic congestion a top transportation priority
• opens up carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours
• requires local governments to synchronize traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets
• clears out accidents faster with expanded emergency roadside assistance
• uses a portion of vehicle sales tax revenue for these policies
• removes the profit motive for red light cameras
• replaces the percentage spent on public art to instead go toward reducing congestion
• institutes critical taxpayer protections on future tolls
• and empowers the State Auditor to monitor the implementation of the initiative's policies to ensure compliance.

http://www.ReduceCongestion

FYI:

Eyman says he's on track with I-985 signatures

JOSEPH TURNER; joe.turner@thenewstribune.com June 20th, 2008 http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/393614.html

Professional initiative promoter Tim Eyman said he turned in 226,613 signatures to the Secretary of State's Office on Thursday, but that he plans to get an additional 50,000 signatures to ensure that Initiative 985 wins a spot on the November ballot.

I-985 would shift part of the state sales tax on cars and trucks to a special fund that could be used only for congestion relief on the state's highway system.

Eyman needs 224,880 valid signatures to get the measure onto the Nov. 4 general election ballot, but generally between 15 percent and 20 percent of signatures collected are invalid because they're duplicates or come from people who aren't registered to vote. The additional signatures are a hedge against invalid ones.

The deadline to submit signatures is July 3 at 5 p.m.

Eyman took out a $250,000 line of credit against his Mukilteo, Snohomish County, home to make sure he could pay for the signature drive campaign.
Money wasn't coming in as fast as he'd hoped. He said that so far he's lent the campaign $100,000 in two installments this month, and that he expects to lend more before the signature drive is over.

His July 10 filing with the state Public Disclosure Commission will show those transactions, he said.

Joseph Turner: 253-597-8436

blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics

Tim, the point is to talk about reducing congestion. That's what I care about. Lots of people care about reducing congestion, for the many reasons listed in the auditor's report, like time wasted, economic losses, and environmental damage.

I'm somebody who likes to dig a little deeper and make an effort to understand my world. Many supporters of the initiative process think this way: rather than put unwarranted trust in politicians and highly-paid insider experts, they think the people are smart enough to make good decisions.

If they have the truth.

So it's kind of funny to me that somebody who is so committed to voter initiatives would place so much emphasis on "common sense" on the one hand, and then, weirdly, on blindly trusting some big money, out-of-state consultants who promise a free lunch. Or "silver bullet" as you called it.

The voters know there is no free lunch. And real common sense says that a tactic that has been tried and has never worked is not a good tactic. Common sense says a whole package of tactics that have been tried before and have always failed is a bad package. Commons sense says that it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether or not others have had success with the approach being recommended. Common sense.

That's the point, Tim. I don't care about you or your habits and proclivities, or your home mortgage or any of that. This is not about Tim Eyman or about me. It is about reducing congestion.

So. That being the point, let's talk about reducing congestion. Let's start fresh with a new question. Has anything in I-985 ever before been successful at reducing congestion?

I should add that you could change my mind, Tim. I've been proven wrong many times in the past -- scroll up to comment #12 of this very thread for an example.

It's very difficult to prove a negative. How can I prove that nobody has ever reduced congestion? I would have to be omniscient. All I can do is look and look and look for evidence. If I've made a thorough search and found nothing, I can say so, but how can I be sure I didn't miss something?

That's where you can help. You're Tim Eyman. You have dedicated followers. You are committed to the goal of passing I-985, and if you or your supporters could find evidence of anybody ever reducing congestion, it would be extremely valuable to you. If you could say, "Look! This has worked before!" and it would be a slam-dunk win for you. It would change even my mind.

I'm being very honest and open. My mind could be changed. I've suggested what kind of evidence would change my mind. I'm open to any evidence, but I've made it easy for you by specifically suggesting what would work for me.

It's too bad if your mind can never be changed, but mine can, Tim. Help me change my mind and become an I-985 supporter. Tell me if anyone has ever reduced congestion.

Vote 'yes', vote 'no' -- feel free to do either, it's fine. We'll have overwhelming voter support in November with or without those folks who read SLOG.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

Great, Tim. Thank you for your time! I really appreciate the willingness to discuss things. But before you go, can you answer one easy question for me? Are you aware of anybody who has ever successfully reduced congestion?

Just a quick "yes" or "no" is all I need. Or even just say "Y" or "N" if you're busy. Thank you so much!

it's really extraordinary how popular I-985 is becoming. we couldn't have timed it better. it's clear that the voters are eager to back State Auditor Brian Sonntag and his audit team's recommendations. the clear rejection of last year's Prop 1 shows the voters don't want higher taxes -- they want politicians to implement policies that utilize our existing resources more effectively. that's exactly what I-985 does. so we've really got a winner with I-985. great stuff.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

Could be a winner, Tim. Could be. You're the expert.

You know what would be really great stuff? What if it passed, and then, contrary to all experience, congestion were actually reduced! I think that would be a first, what with there being no known instance of reducing congestion.

You don't know of an instance of anybody reducing congestion, right, Tim? Hey, I know. If you don't know of anybody reducing congestion ever, then post a comment on this thread where you talk about anything except whether or not you know of somebody reducing congestion. We will agree that you're changing the subject as a way of saying "I do not know of anybody ever reducing congestion. It's never been done!"

OK. Go ahead.

The politicians' alternative to I-985 is higher car tab taxes, higher sales taxes, higher property taxes, higher business taxes. Given that, I-985 looks even better:

• illustrates the public's support for making reducing traffic congestion a top transportation priority
• opens up carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours
• requires local governments to synchronize traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets
• clears out accidents faster with expanded emergency roadside assistance
• uses a portion of vehicle sales tax revenue for these policies
• removes the profit motive for red light cameras
• replaces the percentage spent on public art to instead go toward reducing congestion
• institutes critical taxpayer protections on future tolls
• and empowers the State Auditor to monitor the implementation of the initiative's policies to ensure compliance.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

So by all that, what you mean to say is, "Nothing in I-985 has ever reduced congestion." Right?

You're saying we have a choice between repeating congestion reduction tactics that have always failed every single time anyone has tried them in the past, or else pay more taxes for a new and expanded transit system while discouraging density, right?

And you know that transit and density have been shown to effectively reduce commute times, right? As an alternative to congested driving commutes, which sad to say nobody has so far ever been able to fix. Many have tried, all have failed.

Is it fair to say that Tim Eyman agrees with me on all this?

The voters overwhelmingly rejected Prop 1 that offered huge tax increases. So tax increases are out, what's the alternative: the audit answers with this: using what we already have more effectively by making reducing traffic congestion a top transportation priority.

The government has a goal to educate all kids -- they don't succeed with every kid, but by having the goal, we educate more kids than we would without the goal. The government has a goal to get rid of crime -- they can't eliminate all of it, but by having the goal, they get rid of more than if they didn't make it a priority. Same goes with reducing traffic congestion.

Auditor Sonntag's report said that adopting its recommendations will reduce traffic congestion 15-20%. It doesn't eliminate congestion, but it will reduce travel trip times significantly. Such a change, according to the report, will provide a $3 billion boost to our state's economy.

Since I-985 doesn't raise taxes -- it identifies existing taxes and government charges and dedicates them toward implementing its policies -- it's worth trying these common sense reforms and making it a higher priority to reduce traffic congestion. All of us want to be able to drive our vehicles from point A to point B quicker. I-985 will do just that.

I-985 isn't called the "ELIMINATE Traffic Congestion Initiative", it's rightly called the "REDUCE Traffic Congestion Initiative". Its policies will make things better; they won't completely eliminate the problem, but hey, compared to raising taxes, we say it's worth trying.

Even the crazies must admit that higher taxes aren't an option because taxpayers said no to Prop 1 when the economy wasn't in as bad a shape as it is now. Tax hikes now are totally impossible politically.

And that's just another reason why I-985 will receive such an overwhelming vote this November.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

I seem to remember Prop 1 losing the support of environmentalists because it contained too much road expansion and not enough transit. This is an aspect of a serious divide that will require skilled political leadership if it is to ever be resolved. The isolation and unaccountability of your initiative movement probably disqualifies it from being able to resolve the impasse.

It's interesting that you would try to make an analogy of education with transit. You say that just because they fail to educate one kid doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Good point. What if they are educating most kids? Or even a few kids?

But what if they had never educated even one kid?

What if I were trying to sell you on an educational system that had not had one single success. Ever. Talk about no child left behind! What about EVERY child left behind? Would divert even more money for that system? No way. Nobody would keep trying tactics that had a 100% failure rate.

That's why I asked you to name one -- only one! -- instance of reducing congestion. I'm only asking for one example.

And, no I did not say "eliminate." I did not ask you for an example of eliminating traffic congestion. We're talking about reducing congestion. It is indeed rightly called the "REDUCE Traffic Congestion Initiative". Here you have a very good point. Let's focus on that. Can we reduce traffic congestion?

Once again, Tim, the question comes back: Can you name one example of reducing traffic congestion? Or is this like a schools system that has never taught even one child to read? Not even one...

The approach you advocate is exactly the approach the voters rejected with Prop 1. Higher taxes.

I-985 takes a different approach -- using what we already have and taxes we already pay more effectively. And these reforms are based on a performance audit conducted by our State Auditor.

Your approach is more of the same, business as usual, higher taxes. Why should voters go with your approach, especially considering they just rejected your approach last November?

After all, your approach is a continuation of the approach that's brought us the grinding-to-a-halt transportation policy of the past 30 years.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

That is interesting.

You're offering the same old approach that has been carried out to maddening excess in California, Texas, Michigan and most of the car-centric states in America. Your approach is time tested. It's been done, and done, and done, and we have data on how well it works. We have reams and reams of data on whether or not each of the bullet-points you advertise (plus the ones you don't like to talk about) in Ian-985 have ever worked.

You tell me. Have any of the things in I-985 ever worked before?

And then there's my approach to reducing congestion. I don't have one.

I have no idea what to do to reduce congestion because I am not aware of any approach to reducing congestion that has ever worked. I am desperately searching for any idea for reducing congestion that has ever worked. Can you tell me one? The problem with I-985 is that it is full of things which have been tried and which all failed. Scratch them of the list. All good ideas; don't get me wrong. I would have supported them if they were new, but they're not new. They're old and we know they don't work.

So. If reducing congestion is impossible, is there an alternative? Instead of trying to get all those cars to move faster, can we try something completely different? That's what density and transit are all about. The things we haven't tried.

Don't say transit and density are business as usual here in Washington: we have never built a transit system, and overall density is pretty low. We've only just begun. I can give you examples of others who have built real transit and increased density, and it works. Can you give me an example of somebody who tried I-985's approach and it worked?

But if we don't increase density or build transit, then yes, I'm all for doing nothing. Since all that busy work in I-985 is known to be a waste of time, why bother?

Once again, voters have rejected what you want. So instead of going with what the voters don't want, I-985 provides what voters do want: reducing traffic congestion. Synchronizing traffic lights -- that one reform -- will reduce traffic congestion 5-6%. And since it doesn't involve higher taxes, that's 5-6% better than your I-don't-have-a-plan-except-the-one-the-voters-just-rejected.

so we have a choice, stick with business-as-usual with higher taxes, or common sense reforms provided by our State Auditor using existing revenues.

It's clear that opponents of I-985 don't have a better alternative. And that's why I-985 will be overwhelmingly approved by voters this November.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

Tim, voters rejected expanding roads in Prop 1, along with adding some transit. The auditors congestion report includes a long-term recommendation to expand roads. Did they reject more roads? Or more transit? Or what? You don't know. We're going to find out in November, since we're likely to see ST 2.1 on the ballot.

I cannot figure out what you mean by business as usual, since we have in fact not built a transit system. It's an incoherent statement.

But yes, you're right. I'm offering NO PLAN. You're absolutely incorrect in saying that this is a stark choice between I-985 and doing nothing except raising taxes. The only thing we are deciding is between I-985 and an infinite number of other things which are not I-985. The name for the logical fallacy you are committing here is "false dilemma."

Opponents of I-985 have no duty to offer a better alternative. It is an up or down vote. Accept it or go with anything, everything, or nothing. Do you know why, Tim? Because you are not a legislator. If you were to run for office and go down to Olympia, you'd get an education in making choices between alternatives, and you'd learn something about having to offer a better plan in place of the one you don't like. With these initiatives, it's not like that because there is no negotiation and no horse trading. Take it or leave it.

I'd vote yes if I had evidence it worked. Can you give me a straight answer to a simple question? Have any of the parts of I-985 ever worked before? Has anybody ever reduced congestion before? Ever?

Simple question. Stand tall and be an honest man. Yes or no?

Vote 'yes' or vote 'no' -- either is fine because the initiative is going to be overwhelmingly approved with or without you.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

elenchos, in this specific instance, you are a rockstar.

Tim, you had nothing to say but talking points and not even good talking points at that. I wish I could broadcast this coversation everywhere in the state.