I hate to fisk the Seattle Times editorial board two posts in row... but Jesus Fucking Christ, do they even bother to read one paragraph before writing the next?
Mercer Island has had school-bond failures; voters rejected measures in the 1970s and again in the early 1990s. Several smaller school-construction measures in the mid-1990s were offered and approved instead.
This should serve as a warning to other districts, for example Seattle Public Schools, which plans to ask voters for $1 billion in ten months for operating and construction costs: nothing will come easy.
Mercer Island is an example of the end of the days when voters were inclined to approve every levy or construction bond. Districts must more closely chart critical upgrades on a schedule calibrated to economically precarious times.
So what they're saying is that this bond failure signals "the end of the days" when voters would approve "every levy or construction bond," an assertion they make just a few sentences after pointing out that Mercer Island rejected school bonds in the 1970s, and the 1990s, and again in 2012—you know, about every twenty years or so—clear evidence that voters have never approved every levy or construction bond. So... then... this bond failure isn't all that special after all, is it?
Um-duh, duh-um, duh-uh... way to undermine your own thesis, guys!