Majority Rules Blog

Judge Rules Money Trumps Fair Campaigns

2010-09-08T11:16:00.000-07:00

A Federal Judge in Tacoma has ruled that the unfettered flow of money is equivalent to free speech in elections. The problem is that corporations and wealthy individuals have more money than average citizens and hence can buy more "free speech".

The ruling throws out a Washington State law that limited individual contributions to campaigns to a maximum of $5000 per contribution in the last three weeks. The intent was to limit the influx of huge amounts of money right before an election that could put out false statements that opponents did not have the ability to respond to effectively.

Why this ruling is absurd is that both sides in an initiative for example had to comply with the same rules. It was not like one side was getting special treatment. Unfortunately now corporations and special interests can dump in huge amounts of money at the last minute without the ability of the opposing side or the media to respond to what can be false or erroneous statements. That is why the law was put in place.

The argument that the ability to spend any amount of money one wants in initiative campaigns is exercising free speech is absurd. Money buys paid speech. The Seattle Times article notes that already some $32.5 million has been spent on 6 initiatives this year.

The lawsuit was brought by Family PAC which opposed Referendum 71 last year. Referendum 71 passed 53% to 47% and expanded rights for domestic partners. It was opposed by conservative groups.

Madison and Hamilton Would Have Voted NO on I-1053

2010-09-05T16:02:00.000-07:00

Two of the founders of our country, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, would have voted No on Tim Eyman's Initiative 1053 if they were alive today. They spelled out their reasoning in The Federalist Papers in which they discussed the wisdom and necessity of majority rules for voting, instead of requiring a supermajority vote. Their arguments, which helped to frame the majority voting provisions in the US Constitution, are still as relevant today as when they were first written.

Initiative 1053 is an attempt to rewrite the rules by which Washington State Legislators make their decisions and vote. Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution says the Washington State Legislature shall make decisions by a majority vote. Eyman wants to change this to require that a 2/3 vote is needed by both Houses of the Legislature to pass revenue measures to fund state services or to repeal special interest tax exemptions that only benefit large corporations.

James Madison in The Federalist Papers No 58 had this to say about requiring supermajority votes:

It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.

Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers No 22 likewise stated:

what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ...

This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. ...

If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, ... Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

These arguments for majority votes still ring true today. Washington State voters should vote NO on Initiative 1053 and uphold our State Constitution.

Washington Conservation Voters Oppose Initiative 1053

2010-09-03T13:33:00.000-07:00

The Washington Conservation Voters are among the many organizations across Washington State opposing Initiative 1053, which is on the November 2010 ballot. Initiative 1053 is Tim Eyman's attempt to errorously amend the Washington State Constitution by initiative. Unfortunately for Eyman, in Washington State you can not amend the constitution by initiative. To do that requires a separate process of passing a constiutional amendment.

Eyman is trying to change Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution that says the Washington State Legislature shall pass legislation by a majority vote. Eyman and his corporate backers like BP are trying to require a 2/3 vote to pass revenue bills.

The Washington Conservation Voters describe their opposition to I-1053 as follows:

Vote No on Initiative 1053

Tim Eyman is back. His latest initiative, I-1053, recycles the failed concept behind Initiative 960 - forcing a two-thirds vote of the legislature to pass any increase in revenue for our state, such as taxing polluters. If this initiative passes, next legislative session's expected $3 billion budget deficit will have to be closed with another brutal all-cuts budget. Critical protections that keep our air safe to breathe, our water healthy to drink, and toxic contaminations cleaned up would once again be at risk.

The Washington Conservation Voters also has an article written by Joel Connelly of the SeattlePI.com posted on their website entitled "Eyman's I-1053 - A slick initiative" which explains some of the reasons corporations like BP, Tesoro, ConocoPhillips and Equilon are pushing I-1053. For them it's profits over public good and corporate responsibility.

You can add your voice opposing 1053 on Facebook by going here.

You can view the Vote No on 1053 website here.

You can check out all the Washington Conservation Voters 2010 endorsements by clicking here.

Another Oil Rig Explodes in Gulf

2010-09-02T11:47:00.000-07:00

Another oil rig has exploded and is burning in the Gulf of Mexico. No workers were killed but an oil scheen is reported at the site. Thirteen workers you were doing repairs and maintenance on the site were rescued from the water. Current reports say the well was not in production at the time. There is still a question as to the existence of the oil sheen but it could be from oil stored on the site.

see Washington Post -Fire forces evacuation of Mariner oil platform in Gulf of Mexico.

While a disaster is never good news, it may take some the heat off of Obama's decision for a moratorium on deep well drilling even though this rig was in shallow water. If there is a leak, at least in shallow water it is much easier to stop. A second oil rig explosion obviously raises concern about rig safety.

Cascade Chapter Sierra Club Urges No Vote on Initiative 1053

2010-09-01T10:44:00.000-07:00

The Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club has come out against Initiative 1053. This is Tim Eyman's 2010 initiative trying to impose a 2/3 vote requirement for Washington State Legislators to pass revenue measures and close special interest tax exemptions.

The measure is unconstitutional. An initiative can not amend the Washington State Constitution. Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution says the Legislature shall pass legislation by a majority vote. Only a constitutional amendment can change the constitution.

Here is the Sierra Club's rationale for opposing I-1053.

Initiative 1053 is Tim Eyman's latest bad idea that will cripple state government by allowing minority rule. The measure would require a supermajority on all revenue measures, such as increases in levies on toxic run-off from oil and other hazardous substances. In fact BP and their Big Oil friends have ponied up big to Tim Eyman to ensure that they can continue to pollute without paying to cleanup their mess. To add insult to injury, this measures also allows a minority to block closing tax loopholes to polluters.

In order for our government to function, the legislature needs to be able to ensure that polluters pay, and that we are able to invest in cleaning up our air and water. Just Say No to Initiative 1053.

You can go to the Sierra Club's website to see their endorsements for candidates for the November election. They also are supporting Referendum 52.

Republicans Blowing Smoke on Economy According to Newsweek

2010-08-31T13:08:00.000-07:00

In an article in Newsweek's The Gaggle on Press, Politics and Absurdity, Arthur Romano details how the Republican agenda for the economy doesn't hold up when examined. The article is entitled "Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge". Romano examines and calculates the figures based on stated Republican positions and actions they have proposed.

The article notes:

As House Minority Leader John Boehner put it in a "major economic address" on Tuesday, President Obama is "doing everything possible to prevent jobs from being created" while refusing to do anything at all "about bringing down the deficits that threaten our economy." Elect Republicans in November, Boehner assured his audience, and we will put an end to this insanity.

There's only one problem with Boehner's message: so far, the things that Republicans have said they want to do won't actually boost employment or reduce deficits. In fact, much the opposite. By combing through a variety of studies and projections from nonpartisan economic sources, we here at Gaggle headquarters have found that if Republicans were in charge from January 2009 onward—and if they were now given carte blanche to enact the proposals they want to—the projected 2010–2020 deficits would be larger than they are under Obama, and fewer people would probably be employed.

It is good to finally see some response from the media to questioning the absurd pronouncements and posturing by Republicans beyond merely quoting their phony claims. Anyone can repeat the nonsense that many Republicans and Tea Party fanatics have been spouting. It's something else to actually look beyond the heated rhetoric and rantings of the right wing and analyze what putting these folks and their friends back in power would actually mean.

As just one example of why people should read the Newsweek article to understand just how ridiculous the Republican claims are, let's look at the claim that extending the Bush Tax cuts for the very wealthy will help small business create more jobs.

As Newsweek notes:

"...it's unlikely that extending the cuts for the richest Americans would have much of an effect on small-business hiring, which is a claim that Republicans make with some regularity. Why? Because of the taxpayers that report running small businesses on their taxes, only 2 percent fall into the top two income brackets.* The other 98 percent of small-business owners make less than $250,000 a year and wouldn't pay higher taxes under Obama's plan.

History isn't on the GOP's side, either. If keeping the top marginal tax rate at 35 percent—the rate under Bush, and the rate that Republicans are fighting to preserve—spurs so much hiring, why didn't America experience any job growth at all during Bush's time in office? And if a top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent—the rate under Bill Clinton, and the rate that Democrats are fighting to restore—is such a job killer, why did payrolls grow by 20 percent during the 1990s?"

I urge you to read the article to get more details and understand better why the Republican economic
rantings are just a lot of smoke obscuring the reality that things would be worse off, not better if Republicans gain control of either House of Congress. If you thought we had gridlock and weren't getting enough done now, expect nothing to get done if Republicans get back control of either house.

Conservatives Plan to Spend Mega Millions to Win Congressional Lottery

2010-08-28T14:59:00.000-07:00

Conservatives are betting heavily that they can bring back their nefarious philosophy of corporate control of America by spending mega millions of dollars this year to convince conservatives and independents to get out and vote for right wing candidates to help takeover the US House and Senate. Think Progress reports that right wing spending for the November Election will drastically rise to around $400 million.

Under such well known previous players like the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association are also all American sounding names like Americans for Job Security and Americans for Prosperity.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision and Tea Party fanaticism and continuing libertarian ideals and free market advocates are all contributing factors stirring up a whirlwind of right wing dollars. Also contributing and giving these fanatics hope are polls that suggest the waning of the idealism and fervor of new voters and others that helped to elect Obama and put Democrats in control over the last several national elections. They are hoping these Democrats and independents don't make the effort to vote this year.

All I can say is WAKE UP to those that thought electing Obama was the end of the need to fight for the future. Wake Up to the reality that what we won is in danger of being lost. Wake up to the realization that despite all the problems inherited from Bush and the Republicans that much progress has been made for a better future. Maybe its not all you wanted but it is a hell of a lot considering where we were.

I say to those not yet energized to vote this year - Are you willing to just roll over and play dead and ignore the damage to our future that this right wing fanaticism and greed will bring to us all? I hope not. I urge you to get engaged in this year's elections and help battle off the attempt by the right wing to bring back the Bush/Cheney/Rove corporate greed machine that puts profit over people lives and dreams and hopes for a better future.

This election year is too important to sit out! Vote and urge your family and friends to vote. Give money to candidates you support and volunteer for their campaigns.

To give an idea of the magnitude and scope of the spending by conservatives here is the list of right wing groups and their proposed spending as tabulated by Think Progress. Do you really want these folks back in charge?

– Chamber of Commerce has pledged to spend $75 million

– American Crossroads has pledged to spend $52 million

– Americans for Prosperity has pledged to spend $45 million

– Republican State Leadership Committee has pledged to spend $40 million

– American Action Network has pledged to spend $25 million

– American Future Fund has pledged to spend up to $25 million

– Club for Growth has pledged to spend at least $24 million

– National Republican Trust PAC has pledged to spend at least $20 million

– An unnamed health insurance industry coalition has pledged to spend $20 million

– National Rifle Association has pledged to spend $20 million

– Faith and Freedom Coalition has pledged to spend $11 million

– FreedomWorks has pledged to spend $10 million

– Americans for Job Security has pledged to spend $10 million

– Susan B. Anthony List has pledged to spend $6 million

– Our Country Deserves Better (Tea Party Express) has already spent $5 million

– Tax Relief Coalition has already spent $4 million

– Republican Majority Campaign has pledged to spend $3 million

– Campaign for Working Families has pledged to spend $2 million

– Heritage Action for America has pledged to spend $1 million

– Financial Services Roundtable has already spent $0.5 million

– Family Research Council has raised $0.5 million

– Citizens United Political Victory Fund has pledged to spend $0.2 million

TOTAL: $399.2 million

Supermajority Vote Requirement for Washington State Legislators as Proposed by I-1053 is Unconstitutional

2010-08-25T14:36:00.000-07:00

This issue should have been decided long ago by the Washington State Supreme Court. Any attempt to limit the Washington State Legislature from enacting revenue bills or repealing non-performing tax exemptions by requiring a supermajority vote is unconstitutional. Initiative 1053 is unconstitutional and should be rejected by voters this November.

The Washington State Constitution is very clear on this issue.

Article II, Section 22 states:

"PASSAGE OF BILLS. No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.

It does not state that more than a majority vote can be required. Initiative 1053 tries to change that by requiring Legislators to act by a 2/3 supermajority vote in both Houses to enact revenue measures or repeal tax exemptions. It happens to be revenue in this case but it could just as easy be environmental protections or labor issues or race issues or women's issues or any other issue.

The fact of the matter is that anything more than 50% to pass a bill would give Legislators on one side of the issue more power than the other side in determining the outcome of a vote. Requiring a 2/3 vote to pass a measure means that the vote of 1/3 of the Legislators can prevail over the vote of 2/3 of the Legislators.

A majority vote gives both sides on a issue equal voting power to pass or reject legislation. Everyone's vote has equal weight. It's the basic concept of one person/one vote. But a 2/3 vote requirement for Legislators to pass something means that 1/3 of the Legislators can prevent passage; in essence giving the vote of those opposed to a measure twice the weight of someone voting for the measure.

This sets up a two tiered system of weighted votes, something that is not in the State Constitution for passing legislation. It distorts the process of representational government. Initiative 1053 tries to change the Washington State Constitution by saying that in some cases your elected Senator or Representative will represent you with one full vote to decide an issue but in cases involving raising revenue or repealing non-performing tax exemptions, they will essentially only have the equivalent of half a vote to decide the issue if they vote yes. If they vote no their vote will represent a full vote.

This is the flaw in supermajority votes. Under a 2/3 majority vote requirement to pass some issues, it sets up a system that essentially assigns Legislators the equivalent of half a vote if they vote yes or a full vote if they vote no on certain issues.

While I-1053 would require supermajority votes for deciding to raise revenue or repeal non-performing tax exemptions, it only requires a simple majority to pass itself. It does not require a 2/3 vote.

Washington voters are certainly not overwhelmed by this proposal based on past voting. In the one instance in which it was mentioned specifically in the ballot title, it just barely passed. That was Initiative 960 in 2007. It only received a 51.24% yes vote. That is nowhere near the 2/3 voting requirement it is asking the State Legislature to operate under.

In 1993, the 2/3 vote requirement was an issue in Initiative 601, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the ballot title. It also just barely passed with a 51.21 % yes vote.

Eyman mentions this measure passing 3 times which is misrepresenting the issue. In 1998 voters passed Referendum 49. It's subject dealt with motor vehicle excise taxes, bonds for highways and spending limits. Nowhere was a 2/3 vote requirement mentioned in the ballot title or official arguments for the voters pamphlet by supporters and opponents as referenced by the League of Women Voters.

These attempts to negate the concept of 1 person/1 vote for Legislators voting are unconstitutional. They are attempts to assign different voting powers to different Legislators depending on whether they vote for or against a particular measure. The Washington State Constitution does not allow the ability to weight votes for bills depending on the subject.

Article I, Section 29 states:

CONSTITUTION MANDATORY. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

The State Constitution does not set up the power to weight votes depending on a Legislator's position on a bill.

The issue of revenue/taxes is specifically addressed in another part of the Washington State Constitution.

Article VII, Section 1 states:

TAXATION. The power of taxation shall never be suspended, surrendered or contracted away.

Initiative 1053 is obviously an attempt to take away the Legislator's authority to raise revenue or taxes to support public services. The only way this can be altered is by a constitutional amendment.

An initiative or legislative bill can not amend the state constitution. That requires a constitutional amendment. Because constitutional amendments affect the basic framework of how our government works, it is a specific instance where the state constitution spells out a requirement for a 2/3 vote by the Legislature and a majority vote of the people to pass. Two other instances spelled out for 2/3 votes by the Legislature are to expel a member of the house and a 2/3 vote in the first 2 years to amend an initiative.

No where does the Washington State Constitution say that voters can by a simple majority vote on an initiative, limit the power of Legislators to pass revenue legislation or repeal under-performing tax exemptions by requiring supermajority votes. Under Article I, Section 29 to do so would require express words and no such words exist in the Constitution.

Initiative 1053 should be rejected by voters this November. It is unconstitutional. Uphold our Constitution by voting No on 1053 this November 2nd!

McGinn Administration Proposes Eliminating Protections for Most Trees

2010-08-17T11:37:00.000-07:00

Maybe it’s time to check if Seattle Mayor Michael McGinn is still carrying his Sierra Club Card. His Department of Planning and Development (DPD) has issued a controversial draft proposal, entitled City of Seattle Proposed Tree Regulations Dated July 14, 2010.

Unfortunately the proposal represents a complete reversal of recent tree protection legislation passed by the Seattle City Council and signed by McGinn’s predecessor, Mayor Greg Nickels. The proposal calls for ending all protection for mature trees in Seattle. It would rescind Director’s Rules 16-2008 which protects exceptional trees in Seattle.

It would also repeal the interim tree ordinance passed last year by the City Council which among other things protected tree groves and limited the number of trees which could be cut down in any given year. DPD’s proposal runs counter to Resolution 31138, passed by the Seattle City Council last year calling for strengthening trees protections, not weakening them. And it ignores most of the problems identified by the City Auditor in 2009 entitled “Management of City’s Trees Can be Improved.”

Seattle's urban forest and trees comprise an important component of Seattle's green infrastructure. Our urban forest reduces costs to taxpayers by reducing storm water runoff and cleaning pollutants from the air we breathe. It provides habitat for wildlife, screens noise and reduces weather impacts. Seattle's urban forest has been in decline in recent decades, losing canopy and mature trees.

The report was prepared in secret without a public process and is being marketed by DPD as the best way to increase our urban forest canopy. Comments will be accepted until Oct 31, 2010. The report proposes that instead of regulation, the city rely on education and incentives to protect trees. Unfortunately there are no good examples of places where this approach has worked.

Other cities are strengthening their tree regulations rather than proposing eliminating them. Seattle’s Urban Forestry Commission has reviewed the preliminary draft report and does not support the approach being proposed by DPD. They note that the proposed DPD framework would eliminate protections for trees on 99.5% of Seattle’s property and only apply to the .5% of property being developed each year. Once a building site is complete, there would be no ongoing protections for trees under DPD's proposal.

DPD is presenting their draft proposal to the Regional Development and Sustainability Committee of the Seattle City Council this afternoon, August 17, 2010 from 2 PM to 4 PM. The Urban Forestry Commission will also be discussing at this meeting their problems with the proposal. They have prepared a written response to DPD’s proposal.

Neighborhood and environmental activists across the City are outraged by the proposal. They held a public meeting at the Broadview Library on August 8, 2010 and decided to organize a Coalition effort to draft a citizen’s alternative to DPD’s proposal. The consensus of the meeting was that the DPD proposal was so extreme and contrary to public opinion and went in the opposite direction from that which other cities are moving; that DPD could not be trusted to prepare a forward looking and comprehensive proposal that addressed the need of the city to protect and expand our our urban forest and trees.

The organizations and community representatives meeting decided to consolidate and focus their efforts to enact a strong urban forestry ordinance under one umbrella group. The group agreed to organize under the auspices of Save the Trees-Seattle which has been fighting to save the old trees at Ingraham High School for the last two and one half years. Save the Trees-Seattle also came up with the idea of Seattle having an Urban Forestry Commission based on science. The City Council created the Urban Forestry Commission last year and they have been meeting since January. Save the Trees – Seattle also worked to pass the interim tree ordinance enacted last year.

The new coaltion under the name Save the Trees – Seattle established a legislative committee which will be putting together a citizen's draft ordinance. They will be seeking public input and welcome tree advocates and others from around the city to participate in the process. They will send their draft proposal to various groups and organizations around the city for review and will be speaking before interested organizations, seeking public feedback.

Coalition members of Save the Trees –Seattle have agreed on some preliminary proposals that they believe should be incorporated in any comprehensive urban forestry and tree ordinance. These include:

1. Maintain and expand protection for exceptional trees and tree groves

2. Expand current permit system for street trees to include all trees over 6 inches in diameter on public and private property; 2 week posting of permits on internet and visible sign on site, appeal process

3. Comprehensive regulations that cover both public and private sectors

4. Consolidate oversight, regulation and enforcement in an independent department other than DPD, that does not have a conflict of interest

5. License and train all arborists and tree cutting operations; with fines and suspension for violations of law

6. Give priority to native trees and vegetation to help preserve native plants and animals

7. Emphasis on habitat and ecological processes and soil as part of urban forestry

8. All real estate sales to require disclosure of exceptional trees on property or all trees requiring a permit to remove

9. Define canopy cover in terms of volume and area

10. Rebate on utility bills based on exceptional trees (or all trees over 6 inches in diameter) on property; property owners file to get rebate like they file for senior’s property tax exemption

11. Meaningful and descriptive site plans that show existing and proposed trees to scale.

The coalition will meet again on August 29, 2010 at the Broadview Public Library from 1:30 to 4:30 PM.

Seattle's DPD Proposes Eliminating Almost all Tree Protections

2010-08-05T13:16:00.000-07:00

The Seattle Departmant of Planning and Development (DPD) is proposing new tree regulations that would eliminate current protections for exceptional trees, tree groves and most other trees. The proposal was developed in secret without a public process.

The draft proposal was prepared in response to last year's City Council Resolution 31138 . The DPD proposal is inadequate and does not meet the pressing needs of preserving and enhancing Seattle urban forest and trees. It represents a significant step backwards in protecting this valuable infrastructure of our city.

It is important to note that the very first directive in Resolution 31138 in Section 1 is not met in several ways by DPD's “City of Seattle Proposed Tree Regulations dated July 14, 2010. The resolution states that “The City Council requests that the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) submit legislation by May 2010 to establish a comprehensive set of regulations and incentives to limit the removal of trees and promote the retention and addition of trees within the City of Seattle on both private and public property, including city park land.”

The report does the opposite by proposing the repeal of the interim tree ordinance, removal of protections for exceptional trees and relying only on incentives to protect trees.

DPD’s proposal is not legislation but only a report. In the introduction it states that “The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) is proposing to revise Seattle’s regulations governing trees on private property.” The report completely ignores the public component of protecting the urban forest. If urban forest regulations are to be effective, public and private entities must follow the same regulations.

Resolution 31138 directed DPD to look at “establishing additional protections for all City-designated exceptional trees”. This seems pretty clear, yet DPD’s response is to propose eliminating any protections for exceptional trees. This would represent a major reversal and repudiation of the goals of protecting unique species, old trees and others currently classified as exceptional. This is unacceptable.

Another criticism of the report is that it approaches urban forestry protection only from the sense of trees, not urban forestry. It ignores the ecological component of the interrelationship of plants and animals and the need for habitat protection. The impact of individual tree decisions is never in isolation but affects communities of plants and animals and their ability to survive.

The interim tree ordinance gave protection to groves of trees; yet no mention is made of this in this report. Many species of birds, insects and other animal’s survival depends on the retention of native plant species, including but not limited to “trees”. It is well known that the diversity of plants and animals increases as habitat patch size increases. The proposal removes interim protection for tree groves.

Also the whole definition of canopy analysis is dated ecologically. Canopy needs to be defined in terms of canopy volume. In an aerial photo a 100 year old 120 foot tall Douglas fir could appear to cover the same surface area as a group of 5 or 10 street trees yet the canopy volume would be hugely different.

This report needs to take into consideration these concerns of biodiversity and ecosystem sustainability. Many of these concerns are addressed in a 68 page report by the Montgomery Tree Committee entitled “Urban Tree Conservation: A White Paper on Local Ordinances”

An inherent conflict of interest exists in having DPD develop and oversee urban forest and tree regulations. It represents an internal conflict of interests. DPD’s primary mission is to help people develop their property. As noted in a recent public presentation by a DPD employee, the DPD’s interpretation is that trees can be saved unless they prohibit the development potential of a lot. As such DPD’s mission is clear and trees lose.

Seattle’s urban forest needs an independent advocate for its protection. The most likely candidate is to vest tree regulation and oversight in one city agency, not nine as is currently the situation. The Office of Sustainability and Environment is the most logical choice. The recent city Auditor’s Report in 2009 entitled “Management of City Trees Can be Improved”, concurred with this view when it stated that the City “Unify all City Departments behind a single mission through clear and demonstrated leadership by the Office of Sustainability and the Environment. The City’s current approach to trees lacks top leadership with the authority and accountability to ensure implementation of the Urban Forestry Management Plan.”

Another directive is to look at “establishing a requirement to obtain a permit before removing any tree in any residential, commercial or industrial zone”. Again pretty clear, yet DPD’s response is to oppose this, despite other cities requiring permits before trees can be cut down. Seattle already has a requirement to get a permit to cut down or prune privately planted and maintained trees in the public right of way, like the parking strip in front of one’s home. The permit is administered by SDOT, the Seattle Department of Transportation. The report makes no mention of this.

What is needed is to expand this current tree cutting permit to include all trees on public and private property that are above some minimum diameter. Many cities use a 6 inch diameter. Of course a special case needs to be dealt with in replacement trees that are planted as the result of, e.g., a land use action. Many of these trees will be less than 6 inches in diameter for a number of years.

Permits could be several tiered, with a list of exceptional trees being much more difficult to remove. There is no enforcement now of cutting of exceptional trees because DPD operates with a complaint based system, rather than a permit system. It is a dismal failure. By the time you hear the chainsaw, it is impossible to save exceptional trees or any other trees.

Permits could be applied for on the internet, and posted for at least a week before final approval and for a week afterwards so that the public and the city have a chance to check them out. Atlanta, GA requires a 2 week posting period. For a large tree like a 70 year old Douglas fir, a week or two is a small time indeed. Signs should also be posted, visible to the public in the vicinity of the tree to be cut. Neighbors on adjoining properties should be notified since frequently tree disputes are about whose tree it really is. A way to question or appeal the tree cutting should be set up, requiring at least a second opinion by the city or another arborist.

To eliminate the requirement that property owners know every nuance of the law, tree arborists doing business in the city should apply for a special tree cutting license, be professionally certified and attend a briefing by city officials on our tree laws and regulations. If trees are removed contrary to the law, the city could then go after the arborists with fines, and for repeat offenders or multiple violations, revocation also of their license. Most homeowners are not going to cut down large trees on their property because of damage and liability issues. They will probably hire someone.

One possible incentive system could be patterned after the senior exemption for property owners. The senior exemption is not automatic but property owners have to fill out an application and not exceed certain income levels. A rebate or reduction in water and sewer bills for maintaining trees and forested area could be made available but people would have to apply for them, listing tree species and sizes. This would help to establish the connection between trees and the benefits they provide property and home owners and the city.

Unfortunately the DPD report was prepared in secret without any major public input. It did not represent an open process or even examine many issues brought up in resolution 31138. And it is by no means comprehensive. Besides some of the major concerns we’ve brought up, any urban forestry or “tree” regulation is subject to the details in how the law would actually be written. The devil is in the details and there are very few details in this report.

As an example the DPD should use as a starting guideline an evaluation of any proposed regulation on the level proposed by The International Society of Arboriculture in its 181 page “Guideline for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances.” A smaller and incomplete checklist was also developed by the Georgia Forestry Commission entitled, “Tree Ordinance Development Guideline”.

Both these reports should act as a starting point to discuss the multitude of issues and specific concerns that need to be addressed in the development of any comprehensive urban forest and tree ordinance that both works and is accepted by the public. The current report is incomplete and unacceptable.

Please contact Mayor McGinn and the Seattle City Council to voice your opposition to DPD's proposal to remove protections for exceptional trees, tree groves and our urban forest. Urge that they enact strong legislation to protect our urban forest, increase our canopy cover and protect habitat for native plants and animals.

You can contact them at:

mike.mcginn@seattle.gov seattle.gov
richard.conlin@seattle.gov
nick.licata@seattle.gov
tom.rasmussen@seasttle.gov
sally.clark@seattle.gov
tim.burgess@seattle.gov
bruce.harrell@seattle.gov
jean.godden@seattle.gov
sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov
mike.obrien@seattle.gov

also cc the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission at
tracy.morgenstern@seattle.gov

Progressive Majority Targets 20 Key Races in Washington State

2010-08-03T23:41:00.000-07:00

Progressive Majority over the last few years has done a tremendous job getting progressives elected to office. Their recruiting and training effort is bringing new faces into the political arena. Their campaign team effort is now active in 8 states - Colorado, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. Here in Washington State they are supporting 20 candidates running for local office in 2010.

Below is a list of the candidates and races. Go to their State webpage and click on Washington State to get information on the candidates and their campaigns.

Luis Moscosco - Legislative District 1 - House

Andy Billig - Legislative District 3 - House

Dean Willard - Legislative District 5 - House

Laurie Jinkins - Legislative District 27 - House

Tami Green - Legislative District 28 - House

Carol Gregory - Legislative District 30 - House

Peggy Levesque - Legislative District 31 - House

Cindy Ryu - Legislative District 32 - House

Sharon Nelson - Legislative District 34 - Senate

Joe Fitzgibbon - lLgislative District 34 - House

Nick Harper - Legislative District 38 - House

Randy Gordon - Legislative District 41 - Senate

Eric Oemig - Legislative District 45 - Senate

Geoff Simpson - Legislative District 47 - House

Claudia Kauffman - Legislative District 47 - Senate

John Dean - Island County Commissioner

Patricia Terry - Island County Clerk

Joe McDermott - King County Council

Todd Iverson - Pierce County Council

Jean Melious - Whatcom County Council

Corporate America Planning to Spend Record Amount in Congressional Elections

2010-08-03T22:50:00.000-07:00

Republicans last week did the dirty work for the US Chamber of Commerce - their buddies. The Chamber lobbied hard against tougher campaign finance disclosure laws in Congress. Republicans in the Senate voted unanimously to block the legislation from being voted on. Republicans don't want the public knowing who is going to be spending tons of money in their behalf to try to bring back the conservative's failed free market economics with its lack of regulation and accountability that contributed heavily to our present lingering Recession.

As reported in the LA Times,

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the biggest collection point for corporate contributions, has increased its spending for the congressional election in November from $35 million in 2008 to a projected $75 million this year. Officials say it may go even higher.

The chamber has been joined by new conservative fundraising organizations — such as American Crossroads, affiliated with Republican strategist Karl Rove — that have committed to raising tens of millions of dollars.

One report circulating among Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill last week estimated that more than $300 million has been budgeted for the campaign by a group of 15 conservative tax-exempt organizations.

"A commitment of $300 million from just 15 organizations is a huge amount, putting them in record territory for groups on the right or left," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. "With control of Congress hanging in the balance, this kind of spending could have a major impact."

The US Chamber of Commerce loves all this hype and obviously isn't denying their attempt to influence the elections through this profligate paid speech. They even posted the article on their website.

Decisions by the conservative majority of the US Supreme Court have opened the floodgates of paid media. Forget free speech - do you think "free speech" can compete with "paid speech" of this magnitude? One has to hope that their lavish spending turns the public off and those concerned about corporate America's blatant attempt to buy a Congress to do their dirty work out and vote.

Democrats and independents concerned about this country being run by corporate America need to reject the failed policies of the Republicans. This is a crucial election for the future of our country. Get out and vote.

Endorsements by the Washington State League Of Education Voters for 2010 Elections

2010-08-02T14:23:00.000-07:00

The Washington State League of Education voters has endorsed some 44 Legislative candidates and 2 candidates running for the Washington State Supreme Court for this year's elections. The primary vote is August 17, 2010 . Ballots must be postmarked by this date or they don't count. The LEV notes that Secretary of State Sam Reed estimates that only some 38% of voters will actually vote in the primary.

In the Washington State Supreme Court races noted, there are only 2 candidates for each seat so the top vote getter basically wins and will appear alone on the Nov. ballot. So each vote is critical. Please send back your ballots.

Go to the LEV website at http://www.levpac.org/ for more information on specific candidates as well as links to their websites. Candidates of course can still use campaign help and funds for their election efforts.

Washington State Supreme Court

•Position 1: Stan Rumbaugh

•Position 6: Charlie Wiggins

Pro-Education Incumbents:

These legislators have taken a leadership role on education and children's issues in Olympia. *Denotes LEV PAC targeted candidates.

Washington State Senate

•Chris Marr, D-Spokane (6th LD)

•Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor (26th LD)*

•Tracey Eide, D-Federal Way (30th LD)

•Sharon Nelson, D-Seattle (34th LD)

•Randy Gordon, D-Mercer Island (41st LD)*

•Ed Murray, D-Seattle (43rd LD)

•Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens (44th LD)

•Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland (45th LD)*

•Scott White, D-Seattle (46th LD)

•Claudia Kauffman, D-Kent (47th LD)*

•Rodney Tom, D-Bellevue (48th LD)*

Washington State House of Reprersentatives

•John Driscoll, D-Spokane (6th LD)

•Kevin Parker, R-Spokane (6th LD)

•Judy Warnick, R-Moses Lake (13th LD)

•Tim Probst, D-Vancouver (17th LD)*

•Marko Liias, D-Mukilteo (21st LD)

•Mary Helen Roberts, D-Edmonds (21st LD)

•Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island (23rd LD)

•Dawn Morrell, D-Puyallup (25th LD)

•Bruce Dammeier, R-Puyallup (25th LD)*

•Larry Seaquist, D-Gig Harbor (26th LD)

•Ruth Kagi, D-Lake Forest Park (32nd LD)*

•Tina Orwall, D-Normandy Park (33rd LD)

•Fred Finn, D-Olympia (35th LD)

•Kathy Haigh, D-Shelton (35th LD)

•Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle (36th LD)

•Marcie Maxwell, D-Renton (41st LD)*

•Kelli Linville, D-Bellingham (42nd LD)

•Frank Chopp, D-Seattle (43rd LD)

•Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish (44th LD)

•Larry Springer, D-Kirkland (45th LD)

•Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland (45th LD)*

•Phyllis Kenney, D-Seattle (46th LD)

•Pat Sullivan, D-Covington (47th LD)*

•Ross Hunter, D-Medina (48th LD)*

•Jim Jacks, D-Vancouver (49th LD)

New Candidates

These promising, new candidates will continue the momentum behind education reform and funding in the Legislature.

Washington State House of Representatives

•Andy Billig, D-Spokane (3rd LD)

•Monica Stonier, D-Vancouver (17th LD)

•Chris Reykdal, D-Tumwater (22nd LD)

•Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma (27th LD)

•Carol Gregory, D-Federal Way (30th LD)

•Cathy Dahlquist, R-Enumclaw (31st LD)

•Kris Lytton, D-Anacortes (40th LD)

•David Frockt, D-Seattle (46th LD)

Cascade Chapter Sierra Club 2010 Endorsements

2010-08-02T13:51:00.000-07:00

Below is the list of 2010 Political Endorsements made by the Washington State Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club

National Position Name

All WA districts U.S. Senator Patty Murray

WA - C1 U.S. Representative Jay Inslee

WA - C2 U.S. Representative Rick Larsen

WA - C3 U.S. Representative Denny Heck

WA - C6 U.S. Representative Norm Dicks

WA - C7 U.S. Representative Jim McDermott

WA - C9 U.S. Representative Adam Smith

State Position Name

All districts Referendum: Vote YES Referendum 52

WA - 02 State Representative #2 Tom Campbell

WA - 03 State Representative #1 Timm Ormsby

WA - 17 State Representative #1 Tim Probst

WA - 17 State Representative #2 Monica Stonier

WA - 18 State Representative #1 Dennis Kampe

WA - 21 State Representative #1 Marko Liias

WA - 22 State Representative #1 Sam Hunt

WA - 22 State Representative #1 Stewart Henderson

WA - 23 State Representative #1 Christine Rolfes

WA - 23 State Representative #1 Sherry Appleton

WA - 25 State Representative #2 Dawn Morrell

WA - 26 State Representative #1 Sumner Schoenike

WA - 26 State Representative #2 Larry Seaquist

WA - 26 State Senator Derek Kilmer

WA - 27 State Representative #1 Jake Fey

WA - 27 State Representative #2 Jeannie Darneille

WA - 28 State Representative #1 Tami Green

WA - 29 State Representative #1 Connie Ladenburg

WA - 29 State Senator Steve Conway

WA - 31 State Senator Ron Weigelt

WA - 32 State Representative #1 Cindy Ryu

WA - 32 State Representative #1 Ruth Kagi

WA - 33 State Representative #1 Dave Upthegrove

WA - 34 State Representative #1 Sharon Nelson

WA - 34 State Representative #2 Joe Fitzgibbon

WA - 36 State Representative #1 Reuven Carlyle

WA - 36 State Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles

WA - 37 State Senator Adam Kline

WA - 38 State Representative #1 John McCoy

WA - 43 State Representative #1 Jamie Pedersen

WA - 43 State Representative #2 Frank Chopp

WA - 43 State Senator Ed Murray

WA - 44 State Representative #1 Hans Dunshee

WA - 44 State Senator Lillian Kaufer

WA - 45 State Senator Eric Oemig

WA - 46 State Representative #1 David Frockt

WA - 47 State Representative #1 Geoff Simpson

WA - 47 State Senator Claudia Kauffman

WA - 48 State Representative #1 Ross Hunter

WA - 49 State Representative #1 Jim Jacks

WA - 49 State Representative #2 Jim Moeller

County Position Name

King Conservation Board Max Prinsen

Pierce County Council Betty Ringlee (D), District 7

Pierce County Council Rick Talbert

Thurston County Commission #3 Karen Valenzuela

Seattle DPD Proposes to End Protections for Old Trees in City

2010-08-02T01:19:00.000-07:00

In a bizarre analysis by the Seattle Department of Planning and Development, it is proposed that Seattle no longer protect its large and old trees. This is no joke. They propose incentives as a better way to protect trees, but provide no clear examples or surveys showing this approach works. They argue that because the current system doesn't seem to work for them, that we should quit trying. This is like BP after a week saying they couldn't stop the oil flowing into the Gulf so they were giving up.

Seattle's current system doesn't work largely because DPD doesn't enforce it. No permits are required by DPD to cut down trees of any size. Under the current interim ordinance someone can supposedly cut down up to 3 trees a year on their property. Although they are not supposed to cut down exceptional trees (which are detailed in Director's Rule 16-2008), unless diseased or a hazard, the only way DPD follows up is if someone files a complaint. Of course by the time you hear the chainsaw it is too late to stop the tree or trees from being cut down.

This is why Seattle needs to put in place an expanded system to require that people get a permit to cut down any tree over 6 inches. I say expanded because we already have a permit program for removing or pruning privately maintained street trees in the right of way. It is administrated by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). Other cities also require permits before trees can be cut down.

The whole idea is to be sure that trees are not removed unnecessarily, that the tree is not really on someone else's property and that it is not an exceptional tree. An expanded permit system could be required for removal of any tree 6 inches in diameter or larger by private property owners and by the city. Citizens need to know that the city has to follow the same rules as they do. The current DPD proposal only refers to private property.

Permits could be several tiered, with exceptional trees being harder to cut down because of increased fees and more requirements to get approval. Hazardous or diseased trees would be able to be removed with minimal or no restrictions.

Permits could be applied for on the Internet and posted for a minimum of 1 week before being approved. Physical posting on the property and visible to the public would be required for 1 week before and 1 week after cutting.

Arborists working in the city would be required to certified by a professional group and register with the city. They would be required to attend a briefing on the city's tree regulations. If exceptional trees are cut down without approval, arborists would be fined and or lose their license to do business in the city. It is easier to inform several hundred arborists of our tree and urban forestry regulations than it is to try to inform all the citizens. Most large trees in the city require an arborist to cut in most cases, few homeowners are skilled enough or able to cut large trees in the city without facing potential damage and liability issues.

DPD's analysis is flawed because it emphasizes trees as a burden rather than as a part of Seattle's infrastructure. Our urban forest and its trees and vegetation reduce storm water runoff, clean the air, reduce noise pollution, provide habitat for birds, insects and other animals, provide aesthetics as a green space and contribute to our quality of life in the city.

We can have trees and development; it is not an either/or situation. We need to protect our green infrastructure. Most of Seattle's canopy increase is coming from increased planting of street trees. We are losing the large old trees with their much larger canopy volume and resultant benefits to city inhabitants. DPD proposal is a major step backward. Let the Seattle City Council and the Mayor know that you oppose the current proposal and that they need to put emphasis on retaining our trees. They represent the green legacy that we need to protect and pass on to future generations living in the Emerald City.

Washington Conservation Voters 2010 Election Endorsements

2010-08-01T19:38:00.000-07:00

As part of our continuing series of endorsements by progressive organizations we note that the following candidates have been endorsed by the Washington Conservation Voters. You can find out more specific information on these endorsements and the Washington Conservation Voters by clicking on their website link.

Statewide Initiatives (on November ballot)

Yes on Referendum 52

No on Initiative 1053

State Supreme Court

Pos 1: Stan Rumbaugh

Pos 6: Charlie Wiggins

Legislative District 1, Bothell

House 1: Derek Stanford

House 2: Luis Moscoso

Legislative District 5, Issaquah

House 2: Dean Willard

Legislative District 3, Spokane

House 1: Andy Billig

House 2: Timm Ormsby

Legislative District 11, Seattle, Renton

House 1: Zach Hudgins

House 2: Bob Hasegawa

Legislative District 21, Edmonds

House 1: Mary Helen Roberts

House 2: Marko Liias

Legislative District 22, Olympia

House 1: Stew Henderson

House 2: Sam Hunt

Legislative District 23, Bainbridge Island

House 1: Sherry Appleton

House 2: Christine Rolfes

Legislative District 24, Olympic Peninsula

House 1: Kevin Van de Wege

House 2: Steve Tharinger

Legislative District 25, Puyallup

House 2: Dawn Morrell

Legislative District 26, Bremerton

Senate: Derek Kilmer

House 1: Sumner Schoenike

Legislative District 27, Tacoma

House 1: Jake Fey

House 2: Jeannie Darneille

Legislative District 28, Lakewood

House 2: Tami Green

Legislative District 29, South Tacoma, Lakewood

House 1: Connie Ladenburg

Legislative District 30, Federal Way

Senate: Tracey Eide

Legislative District 32, Shoreline, Edmonds

Senate: Maralyn Chase

House 1: Cindy Ryu

House 2: Ruth Kagi

Legislative District 33, Des Moines

Senate: Karen Keiser

House 1: Tina Orwall

House 2: Dave Upthegrove

Legislative District 34, Seattle

Senate: Sharon Nelson

House 1: Eileen Cody

House 2: Joe Fitzgibbon

Legislative District 35, Belfair

House 1: Kathy Haigh

House 2: Fred Finn

Legislative District 36, Seattle

Senate: Jeanne Kohl-Welles

House 1: Reuven Carlyle

House 2: Mary Lou Dickerson

Legislative District 37, Seattle

Senate: Adam Kline

House 2: Eric Pettigrew

Legislative District 38, Everett

Senate: Nick Harper

House 1: John McCoy

House 2: Mike Sells

Legislative District 40, Anacortes

House: 1: Kristine Lytton and Tom Pasma

Legislative District 41, Mercer Island, Renton

House 1: Judy Clibborn

House 2: Marcie Maxwell

Legislative District 42, Bellingham

House 2: Kelli Linville

Legislative District 43, Seattle

Senate: Ed Murray

House 1: Jamie Pedersen

House 2: Frank Chopp

Legislative District 44, Snohomish

House 1: Hans Dunshee

Legislative District 45, Sammmish

Senate: Eric Oemig

House 1: Roger Goodman

House 2: Larry Springer

Legislative District 46, Seattle

Senate: Scott White

House 1: David Frockt

House 2: Phyllis Kenney

Legislative District 47, Kent

Senate: Claudia Kauffman

House 1: Geoff Simpson

House 2: Pat Sullivan

Legislative District 48, Bellevue

House 1: Ross Hunter

House 2: Deb Eddy

Legislative District 49, Vancouver

House 1: Jim Jacks

House 2: Jim Moeller

Kitsap County Commission

Commissioner Josh Brown

Thurston County Commission

Commissioner Karen Valenzuela

Whatcom County Council

Jean Melious

Pierce County Council

Pos. 5: Rick Talbert

Pos. 7: Betty Ringlee

Local Ballot Measures

Yes on Thurston County's Intercity Transit’s Ballot Measure

King County Democrats August 17, 2010 Primary Endorsements

2010-07-31T16:58:00.000-07:00

The following is a list of candidates endorsed by the King County Democratic Central Committee (KCDCC) for the August 17, 2010 Primary Election

Position - Candidate

United States Senator - Patty Murray

United States Representatives:

District 1 - Jay Inslee

District 2 - Rick Larsen

District 7 - Jim McDermott

District 8 - Suzan DelBene

District 9 - Adam Smith

Washington State:

Legislative District 1, Position 1 - Derek Stanford

Legislative District 1, Position 2 - Luis Moscoso

Legislative District 5, Position 1 - Gregory Scott Hoover

Legislative District 5, Position 2 - Dean Willard

Legislative District 11, Position 1 - Zack Hudgins

Legislative District 11, Position 2 - Bob Hasegawa

Legislative District 30, Senator - Tracey Eide

Legislative District 30, Position 1 - Mark Miloscia

Legislative District 30, Position 2 - Carol Gregory

Legislative District 31, Senator - Raymond Bunk Dual Endorsement

- Ron Weigelt Dual Endorsement

Legislative District 31, Position 1 - Peggy Levesque

Legislative District 32, Senator - Maralyn Chase

Legislative District 32, Position 1 - Cindy Ryu

Legislative District 32, Position 2 - Ruth Kagi

Legislative District 33, Senator - Karen Keiser

Legislative District 33, Position 1 - Tina Orwall

Legislative District 33, Position 2 - Dave Upthegrove

Legislative District 34, Senator - Sharon Nelson

Legislative District 34, Position 1 - Eileen Cody

Legislative District 34, Position 2 - Marcee Stone

Legislative District 36, Senator - Jeanne Kohl-Welles

Legislative District 36, Position 1 - Reuven Carlyle

Legislative District 36, Position 2 - Mary Lou Dickerson

Legislative District 37, Senator - Adam Kline

Legislative District 37, Position 1 - Sharon Tomiko Santos

Legislative District 37, Position 2 - Eric Pettigrew

Legislative District 39, Position 1 - Eleanor Walters

Legislative District 41, Senator - Randy Gordon

Legislative District 41, Position 1 - Marcie Maxwell

Legislative District 41, Position 2 - Judy Clibborn

Legislative District 43, Senator - Ed Murray

Legislative District 43, Position 1 - Jamie Pedersen

Legislative District 43, Position 2 -Frank Chopp

Legislative District 45, Senator - Eric Oemig

Legislative District 45, Position 1 - Roger Goodman

Legislative District 45. Position 2 - Larry Springer

Legislative District 46, Senator - Scott White

Legislative District 46, Position 1 - David Frockt

Legislative District 46, Position 2 - Phyllis G. Kenney

Legislative District 47, Senator - Claudia Kauffman

Legislative District 47, Position 1 - Geoff Simpson

Legislative District 47, Position 2 - Pat Sullivan

Legislative District 48, Senator - Rodney Tom

Legislative District 48, Position 1 - Ross Hunter

Legislative District 48, Position 2 - Deb Eddy

King County:

County Council District 8 - Joe McDermott

City of Seattle - Municipal Court

Position 1 - Edsonya Charles Postponed 9/28

- Ed McKenna Postponed 9/28

Position 3 - Steve Rosen

Position 5 - Willie Gregory

Position 6 - Karen Donohue

JUDICIAL -

Washington State Supreme Court:

Justice Position 1 - Stan Rumbaugh

Justice Position 5 - Barbara Madsen (Chief Justice)

Justice Position 6 - Charlie Wiggins

Court of Appeals, Division 1, District 1 - Michael Spearman

Superior Court, Position 36 - Jean Rietschel

King County District Court

Northeast District, Position 6 - Michael Finkle

West District, Position 5 - Anne Harper

Shoreline District, Position 2 - Marcine Anderson

R1 Southeast District, Position 2 - Darrell Phillipson Dual Endorsement

- David Meyer Dual Endorsement

Southwest District, Position 2 - Susan Mahoney

Northeast District, Position 7 - Donna Tucker Triple Endorsement

- Larry Mitchell Triple Endorsement

- Ketu Shah Triple Endorsement

Southeast District, Position 6 - Matt Williams Dual Endorsement

- David Tracy Dual Endorsement

Chainsaws Again Threaten Old Trees at Ingraham High School

2010-07-20T21:41:00.000-07:00

It was a long shot expecting the City of Seattle to come to the defense of the old trees at Ingraham High School. The Seattle School District also only sawthe trees as an impediment to their development plans. Now Seattle Hearing Examiner Ann Watanabe has also chose to ignore the evidence in the Hearing Record and Seattle City law requiring that priority be given to protecting uncommon plant and animal habitat in the City of Seattle. She has denied the appeal by Save the Trees-Seattle to stop the 70 year old 100 foot tall eveegreen trees from being cut being cut down at Ingraham High School in North Seattle.

The decision is not yet posted on the Hearing Examiner's website. When it is I will post a link here.

The environmental review now goes back to the King County Superior Court. We will be appealing the decision and it will be up to the court to make a final decision. They previously issued a restraining order preventing the Seattle School District from cutting down the 70 year old 100 foot tall Douglas fir, western red cedar and Pacific madrone trees until the environmental review was completed by the City of Seattle. That has now been done.

In her most recent decision Seattle hearing Examiner Ann Watanabe chose to ignore testimony from Save the Trees - Seattle that alternative sites for building the school addition were available on the Ingraham campus and that the Seattle School District padded the cost for other sites by adding in features like an additional 2000 square foot entrance on designs for the North side. Of course this raised the cost for any North side addition. The Seattle School District's designs and cost estimates for alternative sites lacked credibility when closely examined.

Many of the issues raised were ignored by the Hearing Examiner. One obvious early sign of the Hearing Examiner's limiting review of relevant issues was her upholding a preliminary motion by the Seattle School District to exclude testimony on wildlife by one of the witnesses we called, Kirk Prindle, a wildlife biologist who is a member of Seattle's Urban Forestry Commission. This was despite the submitting of new bird studies for the Seattle School District, which were included in DPD's file.

The Hearing Examiner ignored basic ecological considerations, as did the DPD and the Seattle School District. Groves of trees, particularly groves with conifers are not common in Seattle. The particular association at Ingraham of conifers and madrone trees is an uncommon plant habitat in Seattle. The Hearing Examiner in her previous decision agreed with this. There are only about 52 acres total of conifer madrone forest in all of Seattle, mostly at Seward Park. While there are scatterings of Douglas fir and madrone trees here and there in Seattle what is unique about Ingraham is that it is a 1.2 acre site and a grove of some 130 trees rather than just a few trees.

The diversity of plants and animals in a grove is directly correlated with patch or grove size size. The larger the patch size, the more diversity of plants and animals. Because all of Seattle has been logged over, except for some 50 acres of old growth at Schmidt's Park, the Ingraham Grove represents some of the oldest trees in Seattle. This older growth and uncommon plant habitat should be saved. City environmental law gives a priority for doing this. Yet at Ingraham High School, given the viable option of saving the grove in it's entirety because alternative sites exist, the Seattle Hearing Examiner has chosen not to.

Unfortunately the so called Emerald City of Seattle has a policy that we will save trees unless they prevent the development potential of a site. When this was mentioned by an employee of Seattle's Department of Planning and Development at a recent urban forest symposium on saving trees, the whole room broke out in spontaneous laughter. Yes it was said seriously but it is a joke obviously when the absurdity of the policy sinks in.

Unfortunately the consequence is not a joke. Seattle continues to lose trees, especially during development. Exceptional trees basically have no protection at any time because the whole process is complaint driven. By the time you hear the chainsaw, it is too late to stop a tree from being cut down. So DPD's proposal is that since the current system doesn't save trees, let's scrap the law mandating protection for old trees in the city altogether. It's like BP after they weren't able to initially stop the oil flow in the Gulf saying, well this didn't work so lets just stop trying.

One way the city can get some control over continued tree cutting, especially old trees is to expand its current permit system, to require a permit to cut down any tree over 6 inches in diameter on public and private property. The Seattle Department of Transportation already requires a permit before a tree can be cut down or even pruned if it is on the public right of way. Yet the DPD in their just released proposal for a new tree ordinance for the City of Seattle dismisses tree permits altogether and basically argues that we need to just encourage people to do the right thing and save trees by more public outreach and education. Like this has worked.

What we need is a change of policy and priorities. In the past people used to shot songbirds to eat. Fashion also threatened the very survival of many bird speicies as birds were killed for their feathers to create lavish "fashionable" hats. Yet we changed public policy to end this absurd killing of birds for money and fashion.

Trees are no less valuable living life forms than birds. In fact birds need native trees and shrubs to survive. Unfortunately trees are not mobile like birds. That makes them even more vulnerable. They are living entities of beauty and its an ecological necessity to protect them if birds and insects and other species are to survive on our planet. Obviously the DPD's proposal is ridiculous to eliminate protection for trees, especially exceptional trees.

We require hunting licenses to kill various wildlife and populations are monitored to ensure that overhunting does not occur and a species is wiped out. It's time to do the same for trees in our city. Trusting that people will not cut down trees wantonly and drive species of associated animals and plants to extinction in our city should not be left to chance and wishful thinking.

The current underegulated and unenforced tree protections are resulting in a continued decline of our urban forest. Most tree increases in recent years have been the short lived, small trees that get planted in the parking strips. The large trees and few remaining groves of trees continue to be cut down. Its time to change this. The interim ordinace passed last year limits tree cutting to 3 a year yet even this is not monitored or enforced. Without permits and tracking of trees cut down we have no idea who is doing what. We see plenty of examples everyday however of trees being cut down.

Save the Trees-Seattle is working to stop trees being cut down in the city and come up with a workable new tree protection ordinance. You can help support our efforts by making a contribution to Save the Trees-Seattle. Click on the donate button below to make a contribution of $50 or $100 or or $25 or whatever you can so we can continue our efforts to save the trees in Seattle from the chainsaws.

Republican Hypocrisy on the Deficit

2010-07-18T13:01:00.000-07:00

Republicans continue to harangue about the deficit but are hypocritical. Many of the continuing causes of the current Federal deficit are the direct result of actions espoused and supported by the Republicans. These include the actions taken by the Bush Administration to wage 2 wars without new funding, pass new legislation to help people pay for prescription drugs without providing any new funding, pass tax cuts for the wealthy that did not produce new revenue or jobs as a result and support a bailout for the economy in the final months of the Bush Administration.

Now they want to say it's all Obama's fault. The Republican game plan if elected will not be to make taxes fairer or increase revenue to cover existing programs. It will be to use the deficit to further cut Federal programs that help the needy, the poor and less fortunate. For example, they want to roll back the newly passed health care legislation which will reduce the donut hole on prescription drugs, prohibit health care companies from denying health care based on pre-existing conditions and roll back a program to have your children on your insurance through age 25.

But more importantly they want to re institute the Bush tax cuts which helped the rich keep more money in their bank accounts but did not increase jobs or income for most middle class Americans. As Paul Krugman says in today's New York Times,

"... flirting with crisis is arguably part of the plan. There has always been a sense in which voodoo economics was a cover story for the real doctrine, which was “starve the beast”: slash revenue with tax cuts, then demand spending cuts to close the resulting budget gap. The point is that starve the beast basically amounts to deliberately creating a fiscal crisis, in the belief that the crisis can be used to push through unpopular policies, like dismantling Social Security.

Reinstating the Bush tax cuts would cost another $650 billion or more according to Paul Krugman. He quotes Senator John Kyl of Arizona as saying that "... you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce taxes on Americans.". Senator Kyl is the second highest ranking Republican in the US Senate. The Bush tax cuts benefiedt the very wealthy, not middle class Americans. I guess Kyl would rather raise the age on social security recipients or cut health care for senior citizens instead. Or privitize your social security account so that corporations can profit at your expense. Who really thinks that average citizens can depend on the stock market for security?

Don't be fooled by the Republican noise machine. We know what life was like under the Republicans. Unless you're a millionaire or a corporation, history shows they are not going to help middle and lower income Americans. Voters would make a big mistake this November voting to return to the failed economic policies of the Bush years.

Obama, Democrats Score Another Victory with Passage of Financial Reform Bill

2010-07-16T09:46:00.000-07:00

President Obama and the Democrats in Congress (with the help of a few Republicans) passed another piece of major legislation. Give credit where credit is due. Despite the never ending negativity of the Republican leadership, Democrats prevailed in passing a major bill to reform financial practices in America. The legislation is a significant reversal from past policy decisions pushed by free market Republicans to deregulate the financial industry. These policies failed as demonstrated by our current depressed economy and loss of jobs.
By a Senate vote of 60 to 39, Democrats overcame a continuing filibuster threat by the Republican leadership intent on trying to stop Congress from passing any reform legislation and then blaming Obama for not getting anything done. Voters this November need to keep in mind that it is the Democrats who are working to clear up the messes left by the last Republican Administration and that Republicans continue to obstruct needed change.

As the New York Times notes:

The vote was the culmination of nearly two years of fierce lobbying and intense debate over the appropriate response to the financial excesses that dragged the nation into the worst recession since the Great Depression.

The result is a catalog of repairs and additions to the rusted infrastructure of a regulatory system that has failed to keep up with the expanding scope and complexity of modern finance.

The bill subjects more financial companies to federal oversight, regulates many derivatives contracts, and creates a panel to detect risks to the financial system along with a consumer protection regulator.

A more detailed analysis of some of the provisions of the legislation and comments by some NW Senators can be found on the NPI Advocate.

There's a great column in today's Seattle Times by Froma Harrop entitled "Don't forget who created this mess". I highly recommend people read it. (Unfortunately the column is not on the Seattle Times website yet).
Too much attention has been given to vocal strident anti-government protesters on the right. They are aligned with and being promoted by conservative Republicans who want back in power. As Harrop says:

But when they ask whether I want Republicans to take back Washington, I'll respond: "Are you out of your mind? We're still recovering from their last round of debauchery - their fiscal irresponsibility, servility toward wall Street, disrespect for science, contempt for the environment". ...
Dear readers, I'm a reasonable woman. I don't care much about ideology. My bottom line is what's good for the country. While the country is on a bad path, Republican voodoo is what put us on it. Surely, many voters agree with me.

Only 3 Senate Republicans to put Financial Reform before Politics

2010-07-14T15:08:00.000-07:00

Most US Senate Republicans are more intent on playing partisan politics than they are on doing their job and looking out for how to protect the American public from shady financial interests. Too many in the financial community were more intent on making a fast buck than on providing the public with fair consumer practices and honest deals. Lack of adequate consumer safeguards contributed to our near financial disaster.

We are still trying to recover. Most Republicans under their current leadership are more concerned about how to make President Obama look bad than they are on solving our financial problems. They are more intent on playing political games that they think will help them get back into power.

So when 3 Republicans show courage in bucking the do nothing approach of the Republican leadership, they are to be commended. So far Senators Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe have said they will vote to prevent a filibuster from stopping passage of the proposed financial reform package.

Despite the New York Times characterization of the bill as "limping toward Senate passage", I think garnering 60 votes in the US Senate is significant. My arithmetic saying that 60 votes is a hell of a lot more than 51 votes which would be a simple majority of the US Senate. The whole filibuster process stinks and its one of the factors contributing to the public low opinion of Congress. It's time to end the filibuster.

As the New York Times notes this bill will accomplish a fair amount:

The legislation would create a system risk council comprising the most senior government regulators to try to identify potential dangers in the financial system. It would create a powerful consumer financial protection bureau to be housed in the Federal Reserve and would impose a new regulatory framework on the trading of derivatives, the complex instruments that were at the center of the 2008 downturn.

The bill seeks to avert future crises by giving government regulators the power to seize control of failing financial institutions, break them apart, sell off the assets and put them out of business, with shareholders and creditors taking losses.

The bill would also strengthen the Securities and Exchange Commission by giving it new authority over credit rating agencies , hedge funds and private equity companies.

Senator Cantwell Agrees to Support Financial Regulatory Bill

2010-07-12T20:48:00.000-07:00

It seems Democrats in Congress are on the verge of passing another major bill. As reported in the New York Times today, its "a question of when - not if - according to Senate Democrats." With most Republicans still plugging their ears and covering their eyes and ignoring the pressing problems facing this country, every Democratic vote is critical as 60 votes are necessary to prevent a filibuster in the Senate.

Senator Maria Cantwell had previously voiced her opposition to the bill because she was concerned that not enough was being done to address the financial risk of loosely or unregulated financial instruments like derivatives which had helped to contribute to the recent financial crisis.

Now the New York Times reports that:

Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, who originally opposed the regulatory overhaul, announced that she would support the final version. The move came after she received a letter from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission about provisions relating to new regulation of derivatives, the complex financial instruments that were at the heart of the 2008 crisis. Ms. Cantwell had been concerned about potential loopholes but said she was reassured that the bill would impose a tight regulatory framework

Final passage will still depend on several Republican votes appearing and probably a temporary replacement Senator being appointed to fill West Virginia's Senate seat held by Senator Robert Byrd who recently died.
The seat will be filled with a temporary appointment until a special election is held in November to fill the remaining two years of Byrd's term.

One glaring omission from the bill is the lack of oversight for car dealers by the proposed Consumer Protection Agency in the bill. It is unfortunate because after buying a house, cars are one of the major expenses of US households. This would have been a popular item with consumers. .

Loopholes in Washington State's Retirement System Need to be Fixed

2010-07-11T17:00:00.000-07:00

It doesn't matter whether you're a conservative or liberal; Washington State's Retirement System needs radical changes to be credible. At a time when college tuition is being greatly increased, classes and programs are being cut, teaching professionals are being let go and money is not even available for many teaching fellowships for graduate students, some colleges and universities around Washington State have been rehiring back to their old jobs, people who have retired as state workers and allowing them to both be paid a salary and collect retirement funds.

As the Seattle Times reported on June 27, 2010, this process has resulted in a mockery of public funding of our higher education system. The example of just one Washington State University official shows why:

"Greg Royer ranks among the state's top-paid employees, with a salary of $304,000. But that's just part of his income. For nearly seven years, he's also collected an annual pension of $105,000.
Royer, the vice president for business and finance at Washington State University, tops a long list of college administrative staff members who've been able to boost their incomes by up to 60 percent by exploiting a loophole in state retirement laws.
A Seattle Times investigation has found that at least 40 university or community-college employees retired and were rehired within weeks, often returning to the same job without the position ever being advertised. That has allowed them to double dip by collecting both a salary and a pension. ...
A Times analysis of state payroll and retirement records shows that, as of the beginning of this year, about 2,000 people were collecting both wages and a pension from the state. In about two-thirds of those cases, however, retirees had returned to a state job on a part-time or on-call basis.
The Times found that 58 workers "including the 40 in higher education” had retired and been rehired full-time within three months. WSU and the University of Washington together accounted for 30 of those cases. A number of state agencies, most notably the Washington State Patrol, accounted for the cases outside of higher education."

Washington State's current state retirement system allows workers to retire with regular benefits at age 60 or after 35 years of service. It's easy to understand taxpayer's being angry when many are just looking for one salary to meet family needs. To allow state workers to game the system by double dipping, while cutting services and asking for more taxes is not acceptable.

Compare this with the headline in an article today in the Seattle Times that says for most workers, who are dependent on social security to make ends meet that "70 might become new retirement age". Current retirement age for folks like me born between 1943 and 1954 is age 66. For those born after 1960, it is 67. And as I understand it, if I earn over a certain amount each year when I retire, my social security benefits are cut.

Washington State legislators need to act now to reform the state retirement system. While I am a strong advocate for the state funding essential public services like higher education, I am offended that the state continues to allow its retirement system to be abused. Washington state legislators need to correct this problem now!

As Ryan Blethan of the Seattle Times noted in an editorial in today's Seattle Times:

"More is expected of those who lead our public institutions, especially those who sit atop our colleges and universities. ..."

Blethan goes on to note that action needs to be taken and that we're not talking peanuts here.

"...there are about 2,000 double-dipping state employees, costing the state approximately $85 million annually. The Times investigation found some of these rehires happened within weeks and the positions were never advertised. A state employee can only be rehired after a month of retirement.
The problem seemed to slide by in healthy economic times even though it should not have. The Legislature needs to close the double-dipping loophole during the next session, even if that next session is a possible extra session.
Legislators do not have any other choice unless they are not serious about adjusting the state's budget to economic reality. If addressed quickly and aggressively this is low-hanging legislative fruit".

Britain Shows Leadership on Climate Change

2010-07-02T13:38:00.000-07:00

Human impacts on our planet's life support systems are contributing to carbon dioxide buildup and climate change. Few countries are taking critically needed action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In a dramatic action the British government has made a hard political decision, putting our planet's welfare above continued unsustainable growth of airport traffic which contributes to climate change.

As reported in the New York Times today:

In a bold if lonely environmental stand, Britain’s coalition government has set out to curb the growth of what has been called “binge flying” by refusing to build new runways around London to accommodate more planes.
Citing the high levels of greenhouse gas emissions from aviation, Prime Minister David Cameron, a Conservative, abruptly canceled longstanding plans to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport in May, just days after his election; he said he would also refuse to approve new runways at Gatwick and Stansted, London’s second-string airports.
The government decided that enabling more flying was incompatible with Britain’s oft-stated goal of curbing emissions. Britons have become accustomed to easy, frequent flying — jetting off to weekend homes in Spain and bachelor parties in Prague — as England has become a hub for low-cost airlines. The country’s 2008 Climate Change Act requires it to reduce emissions by at least 34 percent by 2020 from levels reached in 1990

Here in Seattle meanwhile we opened a new third runway at Seattle Tacoma International Airport in 2008. As noted in a Seattle Times article in November 2008:

As the first jetliner takes off today on Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's new $1 billion third runway, state and local decision-makers are already debating where in Puget Sound to put a fourth runway or its equivalent.

While the current recession has slowed consideration of expanding air traffic, when the economy improves pressure will again increase for continued expansion of regional airports. Alternatives to more air traffic include expanding our rail transportation system. Last year a news report from McClathydc.com reported that:

Washington state and California officials have held preliminary discussions about a high-speed, state-of-the-art rail line that would connect San Diego and Vancouver, B.C., with trains that could travel in excess of 200 miles per hour.

Certainly we have alternatives. These don't just include huge engineering projects and huge financial expenditures as more teleconferencing versus business trips as an example makes sense both environmentally and economically for businesses.

And horror of horrors, maybe people just not taking as many personal airline trips makes sense. Growth for growth sake is not the answer to living within our means without destroying our planet's life support systems.

Let's give a round of applause to Britain for acting with restraint. We need to do the same in planning for our future in the Northwest..

Ingraham NW Tree Grove Fight Back Before Seattle Hearing Examiner for Third Time.

2010-06-22T21:57:00.000-07:00

Save the Trees-Seattle is commencing another full blown hearing today on trying to save the old conifer and madrone trees in the NW grove at Ingraham High School in North Seattle. Last year we seemingly won our appeal before the Seattle Hearing Examiner - she agreed with us that the NW Grove was an uncommon habitat in Seattle and that city environmental law said it should be protected.

Unfortunately the Hearing Examiner gave the Seattle School District the option of moving the project or reducing the footprint and the Seattle School District choose to just reduce the footprint. Trees be damned. The Seattle school District reduced the footprint of the project from a previous 44% of the grove to 38% and then started playing additional games.

They said the impact was much less because they now claimed the grove didn't start at the edge of the school but 30 feet out. Problem is 30 feet out is where the tree trunks are and groves start where their roots and canopy drip lines are, not where tree trunks actually are.

And of course the Seattle School District claimed that all the alternative building sites they looked at cost more. Originally they claimed that a 2 story building on the north side would destroy 4 classrooms in the existing building. Then in the second Addendum to their Environmental Checklist they claimed 2 classrooms were lost. They of course had to replace these classrooms so the alternative site would have to have a larger building and cost more.

The only problem is that the Architects finally agreed with Save the Trees-Seattle that no classrooms would be lost with a two story building on the north side. So the Seattle School district now claims that they must build a 2000 square foot entrance way for any North side building. In other words the fix is on. They have added extra study rooms and more utilities, you name it, to each of the other sites besides the west addition in the NW Grove grove to jack up the price.

This is the public's taxpayer dollars at work, ignoring what is good environmental policy and setting out to destroy more of an uncommon plant habitat in Seattle that also has significant canopy - these are 75 year old, 100 foot tall Douglas fir, western red cedar and Pacific Madrone trees - part of the last 50 acres of this habitat in Seattle according to a report done by Seattle Urban Nature. on the State of Seattle's Madrone Forests.

The Hearing process starts at 9 AM on the 40th Floor of the Seattle Municipal Tower, 700 5th Ave. The Hearing is today, Wednesday June 23, 2010. The public is welcome to attend. The appellants go first and then the Seattle School District and Seattle Department of Planning and Development.