Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« One or the Other | This Week in Film: Bruno »

Monday, July 13, 2009

News Hunter Loves Jails, Hates Pets

Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:00 PM

eeb6/1247518239-hunter_press_conference.jpg If elected as King County Executive, Representative Ross Hunter (D-48) would try to hand over county-managed animal shelters and curb funding for other programs, he announced this afternoon. Last year, King County Animal Care and Control issued 134,027 dog and cat licenses and rescued 6,062 pets. Hunter wants to transfer the program to the Humane Society,campaign manager Cynara Lilly says. The move could save up to one million dollars a year.

“I don’t think that voters would be in the mood to add taxes, particularly sales taxes,” Hunter said on a noisy downtown street in front of catatonic, sign-holding supporters.

The county experienced a $93 million deficit in forming its 2009 budget—a shortfall managed by cutting funding to criminal justice and other programs. The county council forecasts another $50 million gap next year.

Hunter released a 16-page memo on his strategy to "dig out of the mess":

• Consolidate municipal jails into a regional jail system (“If we don’t have regional cooperation, we are up the creek,” he said.)

• Cut the county executive office’s staff and the council’s support staff

• Begin negotiating labor contracts for 2011 and perhaps reopening contract negotiations

• Require that county employees pick up some of their health care premium costs

• Cover Metro shortfalls by temporarily reducing service in Seattle, and by cutting "diversions" like the water taxi to West Seattle

His memo also notes that the county operates four of the 29 low-income primary care healthcare facilities in the County. He asks, "Is this our core mission, or could it be better provided by the non-profit sector?” Hunter believes nonprofit health-care providers would be better able to manage county funding, providing service to more individuals for the same price. While some of these proposals sound reasonable in tough times—cutting administrative staff, for instance—it's unclear that they add up to digging us out of the mess. Much of Hunter's manifesto leans on lofty but nebulous rhetoric like being "strategic," "planning" and "looking at underlying causes."

Additional reporting by news intern Garrett McCulloch

Comments (15) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

This is a "D"? Why not elect a Republican since they would have about the same platform.

Reducing bus service in Seattle? we already have pent-up demand. Why not cut the lesser-used bus service on the Eastside? jeez

Posted by vooodooo84 on July 13, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Didn't the Humane Society adopt a no-kill policy a while back? How on earth could they take over from King County if they won't euthanize animals? Much as I'd like to live in a world without euthanization, I don't think it's realistic.

Posted by TVDinner

on July 13, 2009 at 2:13 PM

• Cover Metro shortfalls by temporarily reducing service to Seattle

Here's an interesting question for the "no new taxes" people who would support an option like this: how many dollars of worker productivity will be lost by cutting service to Seattle?

Or, to look at another facet of the same problem, what is the adjusted hourly wage of a service industry worker from Everett who now has to spend an 90 minutes getting a bus to the Seattle hotel where he or she works, rather than the 60 minutes he or she previously had to spend? How does that wage loss stack up against the collective cost of an increase in sales or land taxes?

The trick for a politician, of course, is to cut services in ways that amount to a disproportionately heavy tax on people who can't do anything about it, and no tax on people who contribute to political campaigns. If you can balance on that high wire, you can stay in office forever.

Posted by Judah

on July 13, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Hey look. A lot of reasons not to vote for Ross Hunter!

Posted by giffy on July 13, 2009 at 2:35 PM

I get the "hard choices" blah, blah, etc. But I am eternally mystified by the idea of covering Metro's shortfall by reducing service to the area that uses it the most. From a cost per user perspective, this is just plain stupid.

Posted by Westside forever on July 13, 2009 at 2:53 PM

I don't think it's fair to say he's just going to cut service in Seattle. He doesn't really say anything really:

"Is a new formula the answer? Maybe, maybe not. Given that the majority of existing service (60+%) serves Seattle, it’s hard to imagine a policy formula that would not result in downtown taking the majority of the short‐term cuts in service. We must be careful in doing this – balancing the cost of service, equity in distribution of service, and demand/ridership in making the decision. This can’t be done with blunt instruments."

There's no talk of raising more revenue, just the eternal efficiency improvements.

Posted by Martin H. Duke

on July 13, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Wait.

Cutting service on the PROFITABLE Seattle bus lines?

That's insane.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on July 13, 2009 at 2:59 PM

See, I think there's room for some questioning of how the county spends money. I spent probably 10-15 minutes talking 1:1 with Ross Hunter at a local Democratic meeting last week, and he made some good points about how much our county government is costing us compared to other jurisdictions.

But King County is a big place, and there are maybe 20 counties nationwide that compare in scope at all. Of course things are more expensive here. And cutting government salaries and employee benefits won't help--it will deepen the recession, as will cutting government spending in general. What's missing in his message is any commitment to progressive values, including a willingness to consider new revenue sources rather than cut government to the bone.

Also, just because I live outside the city of Seattle doesn't mean I appreciate his attempts to run as the Eastside candidate, deliberately drawing on anti-Seattle resentment. Even if he hedged about not wanting to discount the city's point of view either. And also, government isn't a corporation, and stressing his management experience at Microsoft really tells me very little about how he'd do as county executive.

Posted by Cascadian on July 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM

Just remember they can cut service overnight but it'll take years to ever restore it. Just keep that in mind.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on July 13, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Privatizing some low-income health care? Great. That's a prescription for dumping more people into emergency rooms, which is by far the least efficient and most expensive form of care. Sure, go ahead and talk tough about the budget, but it'd help to inject something that makes some frickin' sense here and there. I'm just sayin'.

Posted by augustus mulliner on July 13, 2009 at 3:43 PM

So Hunter and the Legislature want to push thousands out of the state health care system and he's going to come down to the county level and cut the safety net? What a great guy.

Posted by Medina View Home on July 13, 2009 at 3:56 PM

So, exactly how much of the county budget is cops, jails, and courts, anyway? It used to be 10 percent back in 1989 (or something like that).

Let's cut it back to the percentage of the budget it was in 1989.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on July 13, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Seems like Hunter and Jarrett have gotten around to writing off the Seattle vote to Phillips and Constantine, to try to save themselves by peeling off votes from Susan Palin.

Posted by erty on July 13, 2009 at 4:42 PM

hooray for the prison industrial complex! why the fuck are we electing people too dumb to find cheaper ways to "reduce crime" than make everyone felons and pay for their extended incarceration?

Posted by ungh on July 13, 2009 at 5:28 PM

@2

I used to be an officer for King County Animal Control. KCAC actually has a euthanasia policy that is pretty damn close to the Humane Society (HSUS). They only euthanize very sick or aggressive animals. HSUS tends to put more resources towards rehabilitating sick or aggressive animals. That's the only difference. Neither organization euthanizes due to overcrowding issues.

I don't see the problem with handing animal control over to HSUS if they are willing and able to do it. But are they?

Posted by Violet_DaGrinder