Election picks from a regional perspective

Readers have asked Cascadia Report for input on Seattle-area ballot issues. So here's our logic, in brief, on some key measures:

-- Washington Initiative 933: No. The measure would overturn land-use rules developed democratically over the last 15 years to manage growth. Sure, those policies need to be fair, consistent and not hurt the little guy. Instead of gutting the rules with this measure, hold elected representatives accountable for the hard decisions necessary to handle the region's growth.

-- Washington Initiative 920: No. Cascadia is steeped in the idea that individuals should carve their own fortune, not inherit it. The estate tax helps preserve a level playing field by affecting only the very wealthiest citizens. The fact that a few rich sponsors paid signature gatherers to get this measure on the ballot and then have misrepresented it as a "death tax" that affects everyone makes this vote even easier.

-- Washington Initiative 937: Yes. We're generally not fans of legislation by initiative. But requiring that large utilities generate 15 percent of their energy from new renewable sources by 2020 is a reasonable goal. This should stimulate resourceful industry and force the state to deal with thorny details like siting and building costs.

-- King County Prop. 2: Yes. We would prefer a progressive tax to finance transportation. But this .01 percent increase in sales tax dedicated to more bus service along the area's busiest routes is still an essential step toward building a regional transit system.

-- U.S. Senate: Maria Cantwell. She advocates energy efficiency and protection of this region's environment, and is an essential check on the Bush Administration. Republican challenger Mike McGavick could have made a very effective senator but took a wrong turn in his campaign, especially with divisive gambits like calling for drug testing of welfare mothers, oil drilling in a national wildlife refuge and wasteful spending on an ineffective wall along the Mexican border.

-- U.S. House, 7th District: Linnea Noreen. This young Independent believes Seattle should be represented in Congress by someone who wants to work for realistic solutions to heath care, education and transportation problems. Incumbent Democrat Jim McDermott has marginalized himself with extreme positions. Listen to the candidates on KUOW's afternoon interview show.

-- U.S. House, 8th District: Darcy Burner. This is a vote against the Bush Administration's policies. While there are more qualified Democrats to hold the seat (they chose not to run), incumbent Republican Dave Reichert is mostly a rubber stamp for policies that are bankrupting the country with a disastrous war and costly yet ineffective tax cuts. The Republican majority he supports also blocks conservation measures important to this region.

-- Washington Supreme Court: Susan Owens. She's a nonpartisan judge who takes her responsibility seriously. Challenger Stephen Johnson is an ideologue Republican state senator with a conservative agenda to push on the court. He's mostly funded by the Building Industry Association of Washington, whose main goal is to gut regulation -- no matter how popular with the public.

-- Seattle Initiative 91: No. This measure would prevent almost all city spending on sports despite the spillover economic benefits that can result. Make sure elected officials make wise decisions, but don't tie their hands with this crude measure requiring an arbitrary level of return on investment.

-- Seattle Referendum 1: No. Seattle's tame strip clubs don't need more draconian regulation. This is a legitimate industry that serves consenting adults from around the region. The city should spend its time solving real problems, not legislating morality.

-- Seattle Prop. 1: No. This would increase property taxes to pay for basic services like roads and bridges. The city has sweetened the deal by promising $38 million for bicycle paths. Defeat this measure so the city has to prioritize critical projects within its budget.

Comments

[Brian]

Initiative 937 amounts to ridiculous micromanaging with no concrete goals outside of forcing feel-good tech. It assumes a false technological prescience and does not address any issues (such as zoning and permitting) that may actual be slowing alternative energy efforts.