http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/ResultsByCountyMeasure.aspx?ElectionID=26&RaceID=101797&CountyCode=%20&JurisdictionTypeID=481&RaceTypeCode=M&ViewMode=Results

Here’s where to go to get info on how all 3 counties voted on Sound Transit’s Proposition 1 for 2008:

http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/ResultsMeasure.aspx?ElectionID=26&RaceID=101797

The first results in from King County are: http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/200811/Respage17.aspx

The Seattle Weekly reports that the Washington Poll has released new results from a poll stating:

“Surprisingly, two initiatives that were winning flipped—Eyman’s 985, which had been up two points, is now down fifteen, while Prop 1, sadly, has gone from up seven to down eight, with an increasing number of undecideds. It seems voters have been reading the M.F. Truth.”

Here’s where to find the poll: http://www.washingtonpoll.org/results.html

We’ll see - I wonder whether it will take days for that outcome to become apparent.

Washington State really needs to make the mail-in ballots due by election day.

We received an email from Ken & Barbara Miller today with a message which outlines their views on Sound Transit’s Proposition 1 (ST2) to expand light rail. They have sent this message far & wide, to citizens and elected officials.

The Millers are the couple that had their Tacoma property condemned by Sound Transit.

The Millers’ case is the one that prompted the state legislature to draft a new law to (at the very least) notify property owners by registered letter of an agency’s decision to acquire their property.

Sound Transit had buried the decision on their website.

John Ladenburg was Chair of Sound Transit at the time, and has defended Sound Transit’s actions even after the legislature took action to protect Washington property owners by creating a new law. Agencies must now at least send folks a registered letter outlining their decision.

The content of the Millers’ message raises a lot of questions about the use of eminent domain and the behavior of public agencies, and is worth considering, if you are a taxpayer or property owner in Washington State.

Click here for the Weekly Volcano’s article: “Ken and Barbara Miller have been forced to take a bad ride from Sound Transit”.

And HERE –Washington Policy Center’s “A False Sense of Security: The Potential for Eminent Domain Abuse in Washington”.

From Ken & Barbara Miller:

“We urge your no vote on the Sound Transit proposition on the 2008 ballot in the Puget Sound region.

The system is not a practical use of limited transportation funds in this area.  The agency has simply wasted many billions of dollars during the years of the agencies existence in the Puget Sound region!

We are very familiar with the organization known as Sound Transit and have had years of personal experience with those who are promoting the Sound Transit Scheme and all that goes with it.

Our personal experience has stemmed from the treatment received by us related to a long owned family business ownership in South Tacoma.  That property was taken from us needlessly since the agency had many choices for the siting of a parking lot which by the way won’t even be needed for passenger train service for many years to come.

Sound Transit took our property and the compensation finally provided, as we had worried, barely covered the almost 1/2 million dollar legal cost incurred.  Those cost for us were for the nearly 4 years of legal maneuvering by the agency that rose to astronomical levels from the date of initial action filed by Sound Transit against us in July of 2004 ultimately taking our ownership.

Sound Transit is by far the most devious agency in the entire State of Washington.

Sound Transit has little meaningful oversight of their operation whatsoever.  Current members of Sound Transit’s unelected board are hand selected as they have always been for the board positions held and are influenced very little by views of the voters.

It’d be easy to expound for a very long time about our Sound Transit experience now having gone on for many years and taking $100s of thousands of dollars of personal funds we no longer will have.

Agency officials took our land from us and we essentially received no compensation for our ownership .We will therefore not ever have any way to replace our 30 year ownership with another property anywhere let alone a location like we had.   Citizens need to be grateful for what they might have today - it could be taken away tomorrow.

In reality there is no protection whatsoever for those who are subjected to the eminent domain process.  The words “just compensation” are absolutely meaningless. Payment for properties taken are largely whatever the whim of the agency might be.   There is little that can be done in such circumstances.  Judges at all levels do little to protect citizens’ supposed constitutional guarantees.

In our case - at the trial for compensation added to the mix - is the fact that the jury process was severely flawed - the attorney representing us was grossly inadequate at trial - the pro-tem judge presided questionably - the 2 alternate jurors who shouldn’t even have been in final deliberation were left on the jury - one of the alternates jurors was a brother of a seasoned ranking Sound Transit official - that juror somehow became the jury foreman (there is more to the jury foreman tale) - Sound Transit simply overwhelmed the entire  proceeding.

Trial costs to Sound Transit were of no concern - Sound Transit had staff attorneys & legal staff present along with the attorneys & legal assistants from Graham & Dunn. Various outside consultants were on hand to testify. There was biased testimony from some in government  - (the details are just unending).

Sound Transit cares not a wit what happens to citizens who are having private property taken from them.   Sound Transit makes polished public statements about acquisitions of property with various assurances & express promises to help those who fall “victim” to eminent domain actions. Agency policies and assistance are described unendingly by the agency but All of
the mentioned assistance tends to be forgotten and ignored when takings actually take place.

Sound Transit is the most corrupt operation to ever exist in the State of Washington!

The agency appears unstoppable with legal firms, engineers, consultants and many others reaping huge rewards in the Sound Transit scheme.  Those who are recipients of the fabulous riches bestowed upon them by Sound Transit in turn donate large sums to elect officials & re-elect them retaining positions.   Those officials continue supporting ongoing Sound Transit efforts, which continue to plunder taxpayers, property owners and citizens in general.  It is a never-ending, continuous cycle that seems like its unstoppable.

Something must be done to change the un-American conduct exemplified by what takes place in Sound Transit activities in the region.  Little seems to be taking place to promote any sort of change in these ongoing activities that remain rampant in the State of Washington and elsewhere throughout the country.

Thanks,

Ken & Barbara Miller”

Here are our other posts related to this subject:

HERE –Washington Supreme Court Decsions Related to Transportation Agencies & New Candidates

HERE — Sound Transit’s Premature Demolition of 1910 “Hansen House” Precludes Historical Use

HERE – Sound Transit’s behavior in the Miller property condemnation case should give us all pause

Read Mark Fefer’s article HERE:

“Sound Transit, naturally, prefers a different figure. In the campaign brochure mailed to voters, the agency provided a table showing estimated light-rail ridership in 2030 if we build ST2 and if we don’t build ST2. What a surprise—ridership more than doubles if we build it! Which is comically beside the point.

Of course if we expand light rail and eliminate the buses that travel the same routes, the number of people on light rail will increase.

But by that logic we might as well rebuild the old Bubble-ator—the giant plexiglass sphere that used to carry people between floors at the Seattle Center Food Circus (now known as the Center House). I guarantee you that if we rebuild that thing, and get rid of the stairs, Bubble-ator ridership will climb by 100 percent. Or more!

It’s this kind of sophistry that has made me so cynical about the light-rail campaign and its supporters over the years. Obviously light-rail opponents have their agenda too. But they at least seem to have the mindset of accountants, not sales reps.

They’ve also been wise enough to point out the environmental impacts of light-rail construction—which are huge, and will take decades to offset—rather than to pretend that a 55-mile light-rail line can simply descend from green heaven and give us all an instantly feel-good future.

If I thought we’d get a better plan by turning this one down, it would be easy to vote no. But I seriously doubt we will. Politicians will always prefer a bright new futuristic machine to the miseries of congestion pricing, dedicated lanes, traffic-signal changes, and other inconvenient techniques. A shiny bauble is what we’ve been offered, and it seems a whole lot better than nothing. Does anyone doubt we need some kind of major mass-transit expansion? Then again, this one’s being funded by a regressive tax that exploits the poor. Oh, you undecided voters, you flakes in flyover country, you’ve made me one of your own.

Yesterday, we wrote about the list of proposed taxes that cities, counties and agencies are proposing for 2008 (CLICK HERE). The concern is that the cumulative cost of the proposed transportation taxes, parks taxes, and other miscellaneous proposals, especially in this economic climate, will not only hurt families, but will be too costly for many Seattle-area families to stay in their homes.

Today, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has concerns about too many tax proposals on the ballot simultaneously:

“I am not supporting it, I am going to vote against it,” Nickels told KIRO radio personality Dave Ross on Tuesday, adding the city’s parks are considered the fourth best in the nation.

“I thought it would be good for us, rather than see property taxes go up, to actually see them decline because of levies leaving the ballot. With this economy, you’ve got to be careful,” Nickels said.

Later in the article, the P-I identifies another tax proposal coming next year:

….”Next year, voters will likely be asked to support the fourth renewal of the affordable housing levy. Nickels said the parks matter could wait until 2010.”

Here are a few of the comments from the article:

“Posted by Soccer.Guy at 10/23/08 7:45 a.m.Parks are basic infrastructure that should be funded out of the general fund, not by special levy. I already voted - “NO” on this.

Posted by DolphinGirl at 10/23/08 7:03 a.m. Did I hear him say something about how nice it would be to see our taxes GO DOWN for a change instead of GO UP if we didn’t vote in any new levies? That would truly be a miracle! Vote NO on all levies. Let’s learn to live within our civic means for a change.

Posted by greymatter at 10/23/08 8:06 a.m. Transit is about the region. The market is about the center of the city. The parks levy is about our neighborhoods. There is nothing flashy in this levy, but instead improvements to the FREE public parks we can use EVERY DAY in ALL Seattle’s neighborhoods. Make your own choice: go with the mayor or go with your neighborhood.

Interesting Point.

Seattle P-I Columnist Joel Connelly writes about concern over-taxing people to the point where they can’t afford to live in Seattle:

“Although devoured by the Seattle P-I computer when we switched e-mail systems, the message from an elderly Beacon Hill couple about their tax burdens remains embedded in my mind. They wrote about reaching a point where they can’t afford to stay in their modest home of 40 years, and how nobody in government seems the least bit interested in hearing about it.”

Glad to see that someone is figuring out that taxpayers from both major parties, Democrats & Republicans, as well as Independents,  have serious challenges in their efforts to save for retirement, pay for medical care, send their children to college, and take care of their parents, along with the relentless ASKS from local elected officials, cities, counties, and agencies. Joel’s response?

“In short, just say no.”

More and more people are figuring out that  elected officials, cities, & counties separate out what they think is palatable to the taxpayers- parks, libraries, fire and police services- so that they can happily spend on non-essentials in the general fund on items they know the public WOULD NOT vote to approve.

Then there is the question of: what are we paying for?

Crosscut’s Ted Van Dyk wrote October 21, 2008 about Sound Transit’s transfer of taxpayer funds for voter “education” services (click here):

“State Auditor Brian Sonntag is investigating payments of taxpayer funds by the City of Seattle (authorized by Mayor and Sound Transit Board Chair Greg Nickels) to the Sound Transit-supporting Transportation Choices Coalition, which is campaigning for the light rail proposal.”

Now, here’s the top story from King 5 news alleging: “Did Bellevue break the law in push to pass parks levy?”

“But one thing cities can’t do is use tax dollars to help convince voters to say yes. It’s against state law. Yet the KING 5 Investigators have uncovered evidence that Bellevue has done exactly that in its determination to get a new parks levy passed.”

See the King 5 story on the Bellevue parks bond at: http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_102008INV_bellevue_parks_levy_SW.13007a1d8.html

How does the cumulative number of tax proposals  relate to transportation planning in the Puget Sound region? Here are Joel’s thoughts:

“There’s one more reason for the natives to be restless — the current financial crisis. Could we not curb urban vision until financial markets are again stable, and we find out how bad the stable smells?

Since World War II ended the Great Depression, Seattle has been a middle-class city. We’ve avoided an affliction of the used-up portions of America, cities as domains of the very rich and the very poor.

The Beacon Hill couple’s message is somewhere in cyberspace. I would hate to see them ejected from a city they love.”

Click to see RTF’s previous posts on this subject HERE. And on future infrastructure ASKS: HERE.

 Read Ted Van Dyk’s scathing article outlining his votes on Initiative 985, Sound Transit’s Proposition 1, and Initiative 1000 at: http://crosscut.com/2008/10/21/2008-election/18580/

“Sound Transit, light rail’s prime- and sub-contractors, and the network of law firms, P.R. firms, consultants, and others profiting from light rail have mounted intense 2007 and 2008 campaigns for Prop. 1’s passage. Local newspapers have published essays by local attorneys, former public officials, and civic leaders which were, in fact, written by Sound Transit’s P.R. firm. The light rail network has channeled campaign contributions to public officials and has subsidized supposedly independent groups supporting light rail. State Auditor Brian Sonntag is investigating payments of taxpayer funds by the City of Seattle (authorized by Mayor and Sound Transit Board Chair Greg Nickels) to the Sound Transit-supporting Transportation Choices Coalition, which is campaigning for the light rail proposal. Sound Transit itself was created by a ballot measure which grossly misrepresented the costs, time of construction, and benefits to be derived from a light rail system.”

….”No independent, reputable transportation or public-finance analyst would tell you that light rail makes any transportation or financial/economic sense in the King, Snohomish, and Pierce county region.”

….”Special recognition should go, here in Seattle, to the critical analysis applied to the issue by King County Executive (and former Sound Transit Chair) Ron Sims, former WSDOT Director Doug MacDonald, former state Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge, Seattle Post-Intelligencer economic columnist Bill Virgin, Seattle Times columnists Joni Balter and Bruce Ramsey, and the Seattle Times editorial board. They took the time to understand the issue and refused light rail Kool-Aid.”

Crosscut writer David Brewster comments in his article: “Sound Transit 2 failure would be a political train wreck”, that:

“several factors have made passage (of ST2) less likely…

…One is the drop in gas prices by about $1 a gallon.

Another is the scary economy, making voters stingy with new taxes.

A third is crowded buses, which make a case for more transit but probably a stronger case for more immediate relief than the long lead time of a rail-heavy proposal. “

Brewster also states:

“Eastsiders are ambivalent (about Prop 1) because the rail line would take away bus and traffic lanes from the Interstate 90 bridge across Lake Washington.”

Representative Fred Jarrett confirmed this long ago, and said that the first thing that would be done after passage of last year’s Prop 1 (or ST2), would be that popular, efficient routes such as the 550 between Seattle and Bellevue would be cut.

Essentially, Sound Transit would exchange a popular, less expensive trip, for a more expensive trip, one heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Now Larry Lange at the Seattle Times is saying that: “As light rail comes, some buses may go“.

“Anybody living in those neighborhoods should be very interested” in what might happen, Metro service development manager Victor Obeso told Seattle City Council members this week.

The new rail service will duplicate service on at least two bus routes: Route 42 between downtown Seattle and the Rainier View area, and Route 194 between downtown, the airport and Federal Way.

According to Metro, both are examples of routes that could be discontinued along with others such as Routes 7 Express and Routes 32, 34, 35, 39 and 126.

Back to Brewster’s article:

“As for King County Executive Ron Sims, he’s already opposed to Prop 1 (though keeping quiet about it this time), is definitely on the bus side of the bus-rail balance beam, and will push to get some of the Sound Transit taxing authority for quick relief for his overloaded Metro Transit buses.”

Ron Sims seems to think that expanding bus service (possibly with dedicated lanes) would be a more responsive, quicker, less expensive way to move people. More buses to more destinations. Routes to respond to demand-where people need to travel to.

Ron Sims on Sound Transit’s Prop 1 bus plan:

“Sound Transit’s bus capital program is only 2 percent of the total expenditure plan for Sound Transit, Phase 2 (ST2). The estimated $17.8 billion dollars for this plan provides just 60 new buses for the three-county area, half of which will not be in service until after 2015. That adds just an average of 1.3 new buses per year in each of the three counties for the next 15 years…

The region’s bus systems are experiencing unprecedented growth, yet their current revenue sources are exhausted…

Buses across our region are full. Now is not the time to ask voters for a big tax increase tying up 30 years of transit investments for little short-term congestion relief. We can do better. Proposing the wrong plan simply because new voters may flock to the November ballot is still wrong.”