Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Poll: Eyman Initiative Looks Likely to Pass

Posted by on Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Rasmussen Reports, a polling firm, has released a poll on state Initiative 1033. The findings show that 61 percent of voters would vote yes, 31 percent would vote no, and 8 percent are undecided. Five-hundred people were surveyed on September 22 with the following question:

A statewide initiative will be on the ballot this November. We'd like to ask if you support it or not:

The initiative concerns state, county and city revenue. Here is the ballot title: This measure would limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases. Revenue collected above the limit would reduce property tax levies. Do you definitely favor, probably favor, probably oppose, or definitely oppose this initiative?

Here's how they responded:

21% Definitely favor
40% Probably favor
17% Probably oppose
14% Definitely oppose
8% Not sure

As I've said before, Eyman's initiative would fuck the state of Washington, even though the language seems innocuous. It would essentially limit the amount of money the government can collect from taxpayers based on how much it collected the previous year, adjusted for inflation and population growth. Any surplus the state collects would go toward reducing property taxes. But in practice, the measure would lock Washington into its current budget—the worst budget the state has had in decades, owing to the recession—and prevent the budget from expanding when the economy improves. So the state at its leanest—like right now, with a budget requiring the state to lay off roughly 3,000 teachers and cut basic health services for 40,000 people—would become the most robust the state could ever be. A similar initiative in Colorado devastated the economy, the No On 1033 campaign points out.

In 1992, Colorado became the only state to cap revenue. Higher-education funding dropped 21 percent in four years, according to the Bell Action Network, a nonprofit research organization. The group also found the number of children without health insurance doubled and immunization programs for children were suspended—until voters put the law on hold for five years to let the state try to recover.

"It's clear that voters are savvy enough to see through opponents' threats, lies, and scare tactics on I-1033," Eyman said in a statement released today. "Voters are clearly rejecting their 'con' campaign and strongly supporting I-1033's policies of fiscal discipline and property tax relief. Voters understand that the private sector, not the public sector, creates the jobs that will drive Washington's economic recovery. Voters know that anything but an overwhelming 'yes' vote for I-1033 will be seen by politicians as the people's endorsement of higher taxes. Voters realize that I-1033 is their only opportunity for a break on their crushing property tax burden. Opponents certainly have the best 'con' campaign money can buy but apparently, voters aren't buyin' it.

Says Eyman: "We have faith in the common sense of the average taxpayer to see through opponents' threats, lies and scare tactics."


Comments (45) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
Great, then we'll be a basket case like Cali is.

Posted by Will in Seattle on September 29, 2009 at 3:04 PM · Report this
I hate people.
Posted by vailripper on September 29, 2009 at 3:07 PM · Report this
so you're cutting and pasting your own posts now?
Posted by epic failure on September 29, 2009 at 3:08 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 4
Sounds like Eyman is finally bringing TABOR to Washington. I'm surprised it took him this long to do it.
Posted by Matt from Denver on September 29, 2009 at 3:08 PM · Report this
Ugh. Fuck that guy.
Posted by wingalingDragon on September 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM · Report this
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy just doesn't work.
Posted by Kent Brockman on September 29, 2009 at 3:15 PM · Report this
zephsright 7
Maybe if this passes, when the state DOES (not if mind you) degenerate into a bigger stupid mess than it already is the people will realize that it was all Tim's fault and his stupid initiative. Then they will realize that the initiative process is the dumbest thing ever and repeal it. Ah growing pains.
Posted by zephsright on September 29, 2009 at 3:16 PM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 8
Can we do an initiative to bar Eyman from filing any more initiatives?
Posted by Joe Szilagyi on September 29, 2009 at 3:17 PM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 9
Actually, can we do an initiative to bar initiatives?
Posted by Joe Szilagyi on September 29, 2009 at 3:18 PM · Report this
Michael of the Green 10
I doubt even Tim knows how bad this is going to be for WA. What a shame.
Posted by Michael of the Green on September 29, 2009 at 3:18 PM · Report this
Hernandez 11
If this passes, I am going to beat Tim Eyman with a large stick until he is no longer capable of filing initiatives. Anyone care to join me?
Posted by Hernandez on September 29, 2009 at 3:28 PM · Report this
As much as I hate Timmy, my hatred of the idiots who vote for his initiatives is growing larger. And, unfortunately, the citizens of this state don't seem to learn a damn thing. His original car tab initiative gutted public health in the areas of the state that voted most heavily in favor of it, and yet they still drink whatever crappy kool-aid he mixes up.
Posted by gnossos on September 29, 2009 at 3:31 PM · Report this
Gitai 13
The upside is this allows for different electorates to pass our own tax and spending increases. In Seattle and King County, we will do so, knowing that proper funding will keep our areas growing. I suspect Pierce and Snohomish Counties will wisely do the same. In five years when the horrific effects are obvious everywhere else, it'll be repealed, just like TABOR in Colorado.
Posted by Gitai on September 29, 2009 at 3:34 PM · Report this
Here's our update from Sunday that addresses some of the things raised by Dominic:

RE: 3 whoppers told by I-1033's opponents on KING 5's UPFRONT w/ Allen Schauffler on Sunday.

WHOPPER #1: "Well, Initiative 601 is still the law in this state and it's worked -- it's kept taxes down."

TRUTH: I-601's growth limit on government (inflation plus population growth) was in effect from 1993 through 2005. During that 12 year period, government continued to grow but at much more sustainable rate (growth averaged 8.9% after I-601, growth averaged 17.3% per biennium before I-601). But in 2005, Gregoire and the Democrats got rid of I-601's fiscal discipline, repealing the inflation-plus-population-growth limit and switching instead to a ten-year average of personal income growth -- this was effectively no limit at all (as the Washington Policy Center wrote: "Tying increases in public spending to the growth in the average of personal incomes artificially exaggerates the impact of wealthy people's incomes on state spending. Under this budget rule, state spending and taxation go up for everyone, even though not everyone's income has increased to keep pace."). That's why during Gregoire's first term, government growth exploded 33% over four years, which was completely unsustainable, inevitably leading to a massive $9 billion deficit.

12 years with I-601's fiscal discipline, 4 years without it. Voters have seen what happens without I-601's fiscal discipline and they want to bring it back.

I-1033 reestablishes I-601's reasonable growth limit of inflation and population growth, maintaining the 'safety valve' of voter approval for bigger increases, and providing 'first bite' to the constitutionally-protected rainy day fund for excess tax revenues with the remainder of excess tax revenues being refunded back to taxpayers via lower property taxes.

WHOPPER #2: Concerning Colorado's voters and the TABOR amendment: "They put it in place. They experimented with it for 10 years and they recently repealed it, they suspended it, and they expect to repeal it."

TRUTH: In 1992, Colorado voters approved TABOR and it remained in effect for 13 years. In 2005, opponents in the Legislature put Referendum C on the ballot and it suspended until 2010 the refund of excess tax revenue by state government (not all governments, just the state). The "suspend TABOR" forces raised and spent $12 million, the other side $2 million. It narrowly passed 52-48% in a low-turnout election. After three years without TABOR, in 2008, opponents put Amendment 59 on the ballot and it proposed to forever stop the refund of excess tax revenue by state government, dedicating it instead to education. The "permanent repeal" forces spent $6 million, the other side $200,000. Despite a huge turnout of liberal voters in a very "pro Obama" presidential year, the voters crushed the permanent repeal 58-42%.

So Colorado's voters had 13 years of experience with TABOR, put it on hold for a while, didn't like being without it, and so they voted to bring it back next year in 2010. This is hardly Colorado's voters 'repudiating' TABOR.

But just to be clear, I-1033 is much more flexible and focused than TABOR, so it will function much more like I-601 because of its 'safety valve' of voter approval and because it's subject to legislative change.

WHOPPER #3: "This is not Initiative 601. This a remake of the initiative in Colorado called the TABOR initiative."

TRUTH: KING 5's Allen Schauffler couldn't stomach that falsehood, replying: "There are very important differences between this and Colorado. Colorado's is a constitutional amendment ... this one (I-1033) seems to have more pressure valves that people can vote for tax increases on a local level if they want to. Not every government is affected, etc. Tim, what are some of the differences?"

As Allen pointed out, TABOR is a constitutional amendment -- it couldn’t be amended by the Legislature; I-1033, like I-601, is a law, providing the Legislature with flexibility to change it. TABOR encompassed every government – school districts, library districts, fire districts, ports, public utility districts, etc. I-1033 focuses only on the state, counties and cities. TABOR put a limit on every governmental account and every tax dollar received, including transportation funds, pension funds, capital budgets, workman’s compensation, unemployment insurance funds, federal funds, etc. I-1033, like I-601, only addresses the general fund. TABOR didn’t allow rainy day funds. I-1033, like I-601, gives ‘first bite’ of excess tax revenues to the rainy day fund. TABOR didn’t exclude federal funds; I-1033 explicitly does. TABOR prohibited governments from borrowing money except with voter approval; I-1033, like I-601, has nothing like that. TABOR required voter approval for any tax and fee increase by any government; I-1033, like I-601, doesn't. TABOR was very, very broad and inflexible – I-1033, like I-601, is very focused with plenty of flexibility.

Initiative 1033 contains proven policy which is eminently reasonable -- it allows government an automatic increase every year equal to the growth of the economy. It has a built-in safety valve, the same as I-601: if government thinks the automatic increase isn't a big enough increase, they can go to the voters and ask for more. I-1033, just like I-601, allows the people, and not the politicians, to decide how fast government grows and how big a tax burden we can afford.

What's wrong with bringing back I-601's fiscal discipline?

Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to lower property taxes (they actually think taxpayers are UNDERTAXED!??!!). Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to get government off the fiscal roller coaster. Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to stop politicians from unilaterally raising taxes and fees. Opponents want us to trust the politicians, despite their insatiable appetite for higher taxes.

We're very proud of the 315,000 citizens who signed I-1033's petitions. We believe they spoke for the majority of Washington's voters and support I-1033's renewal of I-601, I-1033's reduction in property taxes, and I-1033's empowerment of the citizens to decide how fast the government should grow and how big a tax burden we can afford.
Posted by Tim Eyman on September 29, 2009 at 3:44 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 15
@ Tim, we aren't "living without TABOR," whatever you might think. What was placed on hold was the dreaded "ratchet effect," in which government HAD to shrink when revenues did but could not easily grow when revenues did. That's what Ref C placed on hold.

You're right about voters not wanting to repeal it forever, but your cause-and-effect analysis of the reasons why couldn't be further off the mark.
Posted by Matt from Denver on September 29, 2009 at 3:59 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 16
Doom and gloom. Gheeezuz people, really stop this nonsense. We're not fucked. Tell me what you think Washington is going to look like if this passes? Mad Max people running around everywhere? Tens of Thousands of homeless rag covered people walk the newspaper strewn streets of Seattle, sleeping in rusted hulks of cars, while tall sky scrapers have no windows in them, only birds roosting? You make it sound like a post apocalyptic movie set is gunna happen.

"the measure would lock Washington into its current budget" I'm locked into my current budget I can't spend any more no matter how badly I want to or need to.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on September 29, 2009 at 3:59 PM · Report this
Says Eyman: "We have faith in the common sense of the average taxpayer to see through opponents' threats, lies and scare tactics."

Once again, Eyman proves he's a liar. What opponents' threats, lies and scare tactics? The liberal/progressive left hasn't fought back. The liberal/progressive left NEVER fights back. They let the health care debate be hijacked by teabaggers. They obsess about Sarah Palin while most of us are trying to forget her. They whine, but never ACT. If it passes, the liberal/progressive left will have only itself to blame... but they won't. They'll chalk it up to those big bad fictitious conservatives in "red" counties.
Posted by Activist, not passivist on September 29, 2009 at 4:03 PM · Report this
smade 18
Mr. Eyman, would you submit to an audit of your finances to allow the citizens of Washington to determine how big a tax burden you can afford? What is an acceptable level of taxation in your mind? Or are you simply ideologically opposed to taxation of any sort? I would be in favor of voting for an initiative that reduced your personal tax burden to zero while depriving you of the ability to use any government services or assets.
Posted by smade on September 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM · Report this
"This measure would limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue* - that's really vague. The entire bit talks about property tax this and that. Are only property taxes affected? That's what most people would presume reading the question.
Posted by kinaidos on September 29, 2009 at 4:05 PM · Report this
Fnarf 20
Mississippi here we come. When's the parade of corporations leaving the state getting started?
Posted by Fnarf on September 29, 2009 at 4:14 PM · Report this
smade 21
"Homer (Simpson)'s Odyssey"
Posted by smade on September 29, 2009 at 4:16 PM · Report this
Antitax rhetoric works especially well with voters frightened for their jobs and homes during a recession. Eyman and McGinn find themselves strange bedfellows this season.
Posted by gloomy gus on September 29, 2009 at 4:21 PM · Report this
Zebes 23
It is both frustrating and terrifying that, thanks to obfuscating marketing and voter complacency, I and every other citizen of Washington is at the mercy of every batshit cost-adverse initiative Tim Eyman comes up with.
Posted by Zebes on September 29, 2009 at 4:25 PM · Report this
T 24
Is there a way we can proportionally distribute the burdens Eyman's initiatives impose so that those who voted in favor of them are affected more than those of us capable of seeing through the scumbag?
Posted by T on September 29, 2009 at 4:27 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 25
@14 for the Epic Fail.
Posted by Will in Seattle on September 29, 2009 at 4:43 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 26
time for an state income tax, but just on watch salesmen from Mukilteo.
Posted by Max Solomon on September 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM · Report this
Timrrr 27
Well, when I see...
21% Definitely favor
40% Probably favor
17% Probably oppose
14% Definitely oppose
8% Not sure

...that doesn't exactly look like a 61% yes vote.
More like:

21% YES
14% NO

with 60% of the UNDECIDED leaning towards YES.

(Maybe a small distinction, but an important one if you're hoping to recruit future NO on I-1033 canvassers, nevertheless.)
Posted by Timrrr on September 29, 2009 at 5:26 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 28
@26 for the win. Provided it includes former watch salesmen from Mukilteo, not just current ones, or people who do more than two unconstitutional state inititatives.
Posted by Will in Seattle on September 29, 2009 at 5:36 PM · Report this
I'm from California.
You don't want this.
It means poor roads from no road repair. It means larger classes because you can't build schools or hire teachers and administrators. It means ships bringing in goods from abroad will moor at Vancouver instead of Washington state because port facilities won't get modernized.
So if ALL THAT sounds awesome! Go for it.
Posted by Agent of Chaos on September 29, 2009 at 8:17 PM · Report this
TheRain 30
Tim Eyman keeps on proving that he hates public education, because this bill would absolutely and completely rape the schools. Say so long to the music teachers, librarians, counselors, and artists, folks, because they'll be the first against the 1033 wall.
Posted by TheRain on September 29, 2009 at 9:17 PM · Report this
It's a Rasmussen poll. They also tell us that people don't want healthcare. Disregard.
Posted by nah on September 29, 2009 at 9:24 PM · Report this
The really sad part is that initiatives are Eyman's job. Next year Eyman and Dunmire will roll out another nasty initiative.
Posted by 2cents on September 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM · Report this
Yeah, Rasmussen is a Republican polling house. All of their polls lean toward Eyman's side anyway. Not to say they should be utterly ignored, but they do come with a grain of salt.
Posted by The Rasmussen Response Bias on September 30, 2009 at 12:53 AM · Report this
Mrs. Norris 34
Afterwards, I recommend you throw him to a crowd of frustrated ferry commuters.
Posted by Mrs. Norris on September 30, 2009 at 7:10 AM · Report this
Steve Zemke 35
I-1033 does not give "refunds to taxpayers". It is much more complicated than that and is actually shifts tax burden onto lower income folks to benefit just those that own property.

Under I-1033, sales taxes and other fees will still be the same as before. Last year sales taxes accounted for 57% of state revenue. Everyone pays sales taxes but not everyone has property.

Those who lose under I-1033 are renters; those who gain are wealthy property owners. You see the rebate Eyman proposes is not based on what you pay in sales taxes and fees but on what you own. The more property you own, the more you benefit.

Senior citizens on fixed income and working families who don't own homes lose twice; they pay the same taxes but get no rebate or see new or restored public services.

The US Census Bureau says some 35% of households in Washington State are not owner occupied but rented or leased. If you want to reduce taxes do it fairly, like just cut sales taxes or property taxes.

But to shift the burden of paying property taxes onto people who don't own property is ridiculous and unfair. This is a poorly thought out proposal. Read the initiative yourself before voting. It's not as simple or straight forward as Eyman wants you to believe.…
Posted by Steve Zemke on September 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM · Report this
Steve Zemke 36
It is a big mistake to think that I-1033 allows government to grow. If you freeze spending at the current level, which I-1033 does, and only adjust for inflation and population all you're doing is allowing the purchasing of this year's services next year at their inflation adjusted price and for whatever additional people you have.
In reality is, it is even worse than this. Eyman's inflation adjustment is based on a consumer index, the implicit price deflator that tracks consumer items and is a national index. Education costs and Medicaid costs and other public services have risen over time much faster than the implicit price deflator.
The result was that in Colorado, where Eyman copied this initiative from, education spending dropped from 35th to 49th in the country.
We don't need to repeat Colorado's disastrous experiment here. Vote NO on I-1033.

Please pass the word on urging your friends, family and others to Vote NO on I-1033. This initiative can be defeated if people understand what it really does. Thanks

Posted by Steve Zemke on September 30, 2009 at 2:10 PM · Report this
The scope of the general fund has too broad a concept that should not be used. All items (bills requests or anything asking for money or the expenditure of money) must be first separated into individual items based upon the cost to implement vs. the cost to fund vs. the benefit to the common people. This truth in advertising as written would not allow any additional funding neither for any unrelated items added nor for any additional items not directly related to the project as laid out. Repairs on these items (if required) must be cost effective and the work guaranteed if outsourced. For example a road bid must have a minimum number of years guaranteed service as described or it must be repaired free to the taxpayers. All monies collected for specific projects must be used for that project, if for schools spent on schools, if for roads spent on roads. Nothing can be reallocated to other sections without approval from the voters. Truth in advertising is required in almost all of our private firms but it appears the various forms of government have exempted themselves from these same requirements even though they are not using their money to pay the costs. Then there is equality in the process...this country was formed as a Republic not a democracy. If money is to be allocated for roads then how about looking at the total miles of roads within an area and allocating the money to be more equitable. Not going with 99% for the Seattle corridor and leaving 1% for the rest of the state. The fact that you have a greater population does not give you the right to a larger share of revenue from a republic form of government, Neither we nor any other country can sustain a “share the wealth government” and allow that government to be the sole decision maker in our lives. Remember, those of us who must pay the bills need to have a greater say and or vote over those who spend our taxpayer money. To give an unrestricted financial checkbook to those who have shown by past performances total disregard for all citizens will spell ruin for those paying the bills. Government is the only group of people who claim to be working for our benefit, do what they want and exempt themselves from the processes and will put you in jail if you do not pay for what they want done even if it is not what the people want.
Posted by usewillow on October 8, 2009 at 11:45 PM · Report this
Regardless of any proposed government change have you not noticed the first thing the government starts to remove are the hot button items...For example; they cut education, health, police, fire, transportation and lower saleried workers. Now have you seen them get rid of their fancy cars? How about the fat cat jobs? How many of you went up in arms when the multi thousand dollar painting in the rotunda was painted over because one man claimed to be offended (he said nothing until it had been painted and paid) Does the whole state need a multibillion dollar tunnel in Seattle? We will end up helping to pay for it but do not need it. Did Seattle need a half billion dollar trolley to run a couple of miles? Your mayor said he wanted it and that was good enough. How many of you that do pay home taxes have ever had a three year bond floated even though you may not have wanted it but it passed anyway. At the end of those three years (or whatever length of time the temporary bond ran) did you get the money being taken out returned or is it still in effect with other bond measures being added to it. Before you look at the things you might be losing with lower cap taxes look at the waste in government and demand that be removed first then there would be plenty of money for needed things. We in Eastern Washington do not need more bridges and ferries but we get to pay for them. We did not need new sports arenas especially since the King dome was not paid for when it was torn down but rest assured there is going to be public money put into the payment of these. Think not...lottery sales were supposed to be for education but they are allowing Hawks scratch tickets to be sold where does that money go? Do your home work and demand to know where the money is going before you let them just spend it and prepare to be shocked or maybe just to have your fears confirmed.
Posted by usewillow on October 9, 2009 at 12:32 AM · Report this
"We in Eastern Washington do not need more bridges and ferries but we get to pay for them."

Hahaha, yeah fucking right. You don't have the tax base to pay for that stuff. In case you forgot, most of Washington's population is in the west. Not only do we pay for those things ourselves, we're probably paying for your infrastructure too.
Posted by jorauk on October 14, 2009 at 5:34 PM · Report this
How about requiring all future intiatives to pass by a super majority. All these simpletons that are going to vote in favor of I-1033 forget that this applies to small cities just as much as the state. Some cities are struggling to make ends meet now. This mess would freeze them at 2009 levels which in many cases means bankruptcy or cutting essential services.
Posted by MPK on October 21, 2009 at 4:45 PM · Report this
Has anyone clued in the advocates of this thing that if they don't own property they will never see a dime of this rebated sales tax? A huge donation to get this thing on the ballot was made by one of the largest commercial property owners in Bellevue. That should tell them something. For those that are hurting the most by this recession, this will not mean a thing for them. They'll simply be making their landlords richer.
Posted by MPK on October 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM · Report this
Something has to be done about high property taxes. I will have to move into a much smaller trailer in a couple of years because of the increasing property taxes. When I went to school there were no Teachers Aide's. There is fat to cut easily.
Posted by norsky$$$$ on October 22, 2009 at 7:45 AM · Report this
Many States will follow. We are in a Depression and Obamy doesn't have a clue on how to fix things, except to run the printing presses. Now we just have to make sure the bureocrats don't sneak in a State Income Tax $ $ $

This initiative is much more gentle than Prop 13 of California.
Posted by Fat in Gov on October 22, 2009 at 7:56 AM · Report this
@Sargon Bighorn #16

"Tell me what you think Washington is going to look like if this passes? Mad Max people running around everywhere? Tens of Thousands of homeless rag covered people walk the newspaper strewn streets of Seattle, sleeping in rusted hulks of cars, while tall sky scrapers have no windows in them, only birds roosting? You make it sound like a post apocalyptic movie set is gunna happen."

Not exactly that. But what is inevitable is the rapid evisceration of the second most productive high-tech economy in the nation: the Puget Sound region. Why do you think that California and Washington became technology centers? It can't be the rain because it's sunny in Silicon Valley. OK, not that.

How about the higher education system? Oh, maybe that. California had the best higher education system in the world until Proposition 1 destroyed it. Silicon Valley lived on that legacy for thirty years, but it's imploding now, with technology entrepreneurs moving away to sites around the world.

Washington has taken California's place on the West Coast and certainly had great good fortune to have been the birthplace of Bill Gates and Paul Allen. But remember that they started in Albuquerque because that was a hotbed of Apple enthusiasts (go figure) and only moved here because they used up the pool of local programming talent and didn't want to expose themselves to the competition and ferment that was Silicon Valley at the time.

Posted by anandakos on October 23, 2009 at 11:16 PM · Report this
@UseWillow #38

"We in Eastern Washington do not need more bridges and ferries but we get to pay for them."

Hmmm. Well, we in Western Washington don't need any highways in the flyover counties except I-90 and I-82, but we get to pay for them.

As another poster pointed out nearly 75% of the state's population lives in the third of the states area west of the crest of the Cascades. And the median per capita income in King, Snohomish and Kitsap counties is over $20,000 more than that of most of the sparsely populated counties east of the mountains. San Juan is right up there too, but they're too little to matter. King County alone has about 40% of total state population and it's the richest per person. The fact is that we west siders pretty much pay for the entire state budget.

I would suggest that you might want to compare your highways and other state supplied infrastructure with those of northern Idaho, your close compadres. Take an especially close look at the similarities and differences of WSU and the University of Idaho. Hey; they're only ten miles apart! Should be easy for a wheatfielder.

Ouch! Doesn't look so good to live in a state with no Puget Sound World Class City does it?
Posted by anandakos on October 23, 2009 at 11:44 PM · Report this

Add a comment


Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy