Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Every Child Deserves a Mother and a… | For Your Bliss’s Consideratio… »

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Politics / City Israel Flips on Bag Tax Vote

Posted by Bryan T. Bissell on Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM

All summer long in her campaign for city council position 6, Jessie Israel has, to the consternation of some on the left, openly talked about her opposition to Seattle's Referendum 1, which would uphold the twenty-cent tax on plastic bags within the city passed by the council earlier this year.

On its face, that position is incongruous with some of the things she's been saying—"My goal is to reduce the amount of plastic bags in our waste system"—and with the green credentials Israel touts, including endorsements from Washington Conservation Voters and the Cascade Bicycle Club. She originally supported repealing the bag fee, then starting from scratch with a one-to-two-year education campaign followed by a total ban, arguing that a quickly imposed tax would be a burden on businesses and would not go far enough to change the behavior of Seattle citizens.

But then at Tuesday night's Candidate Survivor competition, when the moderators asked the candidates how they planned to vote on the bag tax, Israel stood on the “yes” side of the stage.

Had she changed her mind?

Contacted by phone last night, Israel told The Stranger that she had in fact changed her stance based on recent contributions to the Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax.

Between July 17 and 22, the American Chemistry Council (aka Big Plastic) gave over $1 million to the no on Referendum 1 group, bringing their total contribution amount to a staggering $1,292,299.

“Its not a fair fight anymore,” Israel said of her switch, adding that the big money infusion from the American Chemistry Council means the time to fight is now. “As information changes I'm also changing, like lots of voters. For me the game changer was the amount of money. I still believe that the bag fee is less compelling than an education program followed by a ban. But if it loses it will be really hard to re-visit this.”

Both of Israel's opponents, Martin Kaplan and incumbent Nick Licata, have supported the bag tax from the beginning.

Comments (15) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Ask her if she'll take the initiative a little more if we elect her, or if we'll need the press to uncover her policy switches at that point too.

Posted by gloomy gus on July 30, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Flip flop flip flop!
Go back to drinking Starbucks on your long coffee breaks from securing marketing deals with MNCs for KC Parks.

Posted by kingstPR on July 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Just vote for Nick already so we can be rid of this diva.

Posted by private24 on July 30, 2009 at 2:21 PM

no shit

Posted by gnossos on July 30, 2009 at 2:26 PM

This doesn't make a lot of sense. She says she believed a quickly imposed tax would be ineffective on changing shopper's behavior and be a undue burden on businesses in Seattle. How exactly does a big dollar donation by the plastics lobby change this? Seems more like political expediency to me.

Posted by danindowntown on July 30, 2009 at 2:26 PM

actually, it's a good thing that a politician can be open-minded in the face of new information.

Posted by contemplative voter on July 30, 2009 at 2:29 PM

If her initial stand had been based on any sort of principles, the infusion of industry campaign cash ought not to have affected it (granted, her stated reasons are not nearly as compelling as the fact that this tax/fee will screw poor people).

The City Council needs more principled and thoughtful members such as Nick Licata, not another get-along go-along careerist opportunist.

Posted by Mr. X on July 30, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Just ban plastic bags like Edmonds did and stop whining about how eco-friendly you are driving ten miles to and from work in your single occupancy vehicle.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on July 30, 2009 at 3:58 PM

I agree w/ Danindowntown @5- the logic she used shouldn't have changed because of the donation.

Sometimes, you can learn about a candidate or an issue by who supports it w/$$, but you shouldn't change your position because of that.

But many of us anti-bag-tax people were against the "fee" before we realized that Chemicals and Plastics were even looking at Seattle as a bellwether.

Plastics would probably donate to the Parks Dep't if they were being forced to give up all those thick-ass bags they go through in their trashbins.

Posted by YeahMeToo

on July 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM

For the record, Councilmember Nick Licata thought $500,000 from the Chemical Companies was, to quote our opponent, a "game changer". According to our esteemed opponent this race only got interesting after they sunk $1 million into it.
Nick has been a consistent and tough advocate for the bag fee all the way FROM it's conception TO it's up hill fight against Chemical Companies.
Because of his strong record on environmental stewardship Councilmember Licata has been sole endorsed by the Sierra Club. We intend to let the people of Seattle always know where we stand, and when Virginia Chemical Companies come into our backyard and try to tell Seattlites what to do Nick will be right there opposing them from day one... as opposed to campaigning for the Chemical Companies for over 6 months and then opposing them 21 days before the primary.

Andrew Lewis
Campaign Manager
People With Nick Licata

Posted by andrewjlewis on July 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM

it would have been easy for jessie to join everybody else on the left and say she's for the ban.

my guess is she believes big goals like these are better done with education and then action, rather than action that may hurt a segment of the population it isn't intended to hurt. this needs a bit of market conditioning before it is done. $.20 per bag for single, working mothers riding the bus with their kids everyday isn't trivial and treating it as such doesn't help the cause.

the ultimate irony is that the greenies on the left talk about connecting environmental issues to poor folks, but just don't know how to do it. it takes time, education, and outreach, not a north of the ship canal, we know what's best approach.

Posted by dacoach on July 30, 2009 at 5:07 PM

@10, what is your candidate's position on whether "it's" ever means something other than "it is"?

Posted by gloomy gus on July 30, 2009 at 5:18 PM

So it was a "fair fight" when the chemical industry had only contributed $250k?

Posted by Trevor on July 30, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Can't we just ban bags already??

Posted by tigerpie on July 31, 2009 at 1:33 AM

With the power and budget of the entire City of Seattle and many other short-sighted environmentalists behind the bag tax, I guess the politicos didn't flinch when the numbers seemed small.

All my voting life I have worked and voted for candidates and issues way left of center and it's sad that I find myself on the same side as the major polluters and poisoners of the world on this purely symbolic issue. There are many public policy avenues that our governments could pursue if decreasing plastic use and waste was the goal, but they choose the one that makes us all think we're better people: get on board, like Carter tried - turn down the thermostats and put on a sweater in the winter, that'll show them Iranians.

Why don't we put a tax on all plastic that enters the city - all those pallets wrapped with it in Georgetown warehouses, all the Macy's bags, the mayor's trash cans and liners, all the consumer electronics and the huge plastic packages they come in, produce and meat bags, and all those stupid [shout]plastic bags that bag tax literature came in yesterday!![/shout]

Posted by YeahMeToo

on July 31, 2009 at 5:17 AM