City
That Lawsuit Against Sound Transit…
The one I wrote about over here, in which longtime light-rail foe Will Knedlik claimed that the title and explanatory statement for this year’s Sound Transit expansion measure misrepresented the true cost of the proposal and should include language calling the measure a “permanent tax,” was dismissed with prejudice by King County superior court judge John Erlick, who said the ballot title “sufficiently informs voters where and how they can obtain more information and does not need to contain financial forecasts” about how the tax increase might be used in the future. Erlick concluded: “There is neither a factual nor a legal basis for [Knedlik’s] proposed redrafting of the ballot title” or explanatory statement, meaning that the ballot title and statement, as written by Sound Transit, will appear on ballots and voter guides in the three-county Sound Transit region.
Comments (11)
That is great. We should use that in the Prop. 1 campaign.
Posted by Greg | September 10, 2008 5:25 PMSo what's Plan B if this one doesn't pass?
Posted by curious | September 10, 2008 6:16 PM@2: Grab some boxes and help Microsoft move to the cool side of the lake?
Posted by AJ | September 10, 2008 6:48 PMDude, we should try to roll in some kinda measure about funding more taco trucks. That would be awesome.
Posted by Dingus Khan | September 10, 2008 7:17 PMI bet when Central Link opens, #4, we'll see more taco trucks surrounding those stations.
We better.
Posted by AJ | September 10, 2008 7:50 PMOn behalf of all the other Wills in Seattle, I'd like to thank the judge for slapping that Will upside the head.
Boo ya!
Posted by Will in Seattle | September 10, 2008 10:57 PMKemper Palin
Posted by clarity | September 10, 2008 11:17 PM@2
plan B would be busses.
busses are overcrowded now. we need more busses. we need more frequency. we need shorter busses we need more express busses we need nicer first class busses we need to lower the cost of commuting serve commuters now and spending most of the dollars on large construction projects that don't bring serve for many years isn't what we need now when we have a population ready to jump up in transit market share, but not enuf busses now.
Also: busses can go everywhere. light rail as proposed only goes somewhere.
Posted by busman's holiday | September 11, 2008 6:48 AM@8: You're absolutely right. We should never build permanent infrastructure, because its benefits will be delayed by several years. We can't replace 520 or the Viaduct! People need to get through those corridors NOW!
Sadly, the reason we DON'T have permanent rail infrastructure right now is because people used the opposite argument 30 years ago - we shouldn't build it because nobody uses it right now. That turned out well, didn't it?
Posted by Greg | September 11, 2008 8:46 AMTwo things are clear:
1. Mr. Knedlik is a very angry man.
2. Mr. Knedlik is fortunate that he has a steady target against which he can launch his venomous attacks. Otherwise, his head might explode.
What a sad way to for a man to live his life.
Posted by Molly McBee | September 11, 2008 10:45 AMThis so proves that there needs to ba a $1,000 filing fee for any lawsuit. How much public money and time is wasted by these anit-social nitwits like Knedlik.
Posted by TheDude | September 11, 2008 11:50 AMComments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.