The Spinning and Re-spinning of I-776

An analysis by Ruth Korkowski, Co Chair of CETA

In order to stay in the running for the $500 million Federal Grant, Sound Transit needs to demonstrate local support. DC officials were extremely interested in the outcomes of the Monorail and I-776 elections. Desperate to demonstrate support, Sound Transit now is trying to explain to DC and others that the "no" vote within the ST taxing district was a clear victory for light rail.

Sound Transit's leadership ties to the failed attempt to defeat and then deflate the successful Monorail vote are well documented. The main message voters heard about I-776 during the campaign from ST leadership is very telling: "Don't bother voting for I-776 because it won't hurt light rail, but will hurt other services and projects that you want." The legal challenges are even based on the duplicity of the initiative, asking voters to vote for one thing but having it affect two. Now ST is arguing that the "no" vote within the taxing district is proof positive that voters want light rail. The actual message voters want to send DC and Sound Transit can become clearer by examining how the issues are framed during a campaign and by including any available polling data.

The Seattle Weekly and all of the Sound Transit area dailies ran editorials against I-776 except the Everett Herald, which ran a guest editorial by Snohomish County Executive and Sound Transit Board Member Drewel. In every case, they stressed the loss of funds for roads to the counties and cities. The Weekly (10-23-02) the Seattle Times (10-14-02), The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (10-27-02) and the Tacoma News Tribune (10-11-02) also reported that outstanding Sound Transit bonds would force the continued collection of the taxes. The P-I, Times, South County Journal (10-31-02) and Eastside Journal (10-22-02) stressed the principle of local control as opposed to a statewide initiative. The Eastside and South County Journals and the Times also stated their opposition to the light rail plan, and the Times and the Weekly predicted cuts to other, more popular, Sound Transit services. The P-I and the Weekly predicted that I-776 would be ineffective against light rail.

The same issues were cited in numerous articles in the daily papers prior to the election, cuts to other Sound Transit services (11 times), outstanding bonds requiring continued tax collection (9 times), the desirability of local control (9 times), cuts to local roads funds (7 times). Articles also raised questions about its constitutionality (7 times). One article predicted cuts to park and ride lots (P-I 11-2-02). The guest editorials under the bylines of Dick Ford (Times 10-24-02) and Steve Williamson and Steve Leahy (P-I 10-22-02) contained many identical sentences cautioning voters about the same issues, and added a warning of cuts to State Ferries and the State Patrol. The sentence, "However, it does not mention a revote on Sound Transit anywhere in the text of the initiative", coming from a prominent attorney and leaders of the labor and business community, indicated that I-776 could not be taken as a revote on Sound Transit or light rail.

These arguments were reinforced by County Executive and Sound Transit Board Chairman Ron Sims. In and interview on KUOW Public Radio on October 15th he claimed that "All that money goes to transportation…It's a transportation dollar loss…to cities and counties in four counties…$1.3 billion…in the next ten years. These are dollars that we use to repair and maintain and build arterials and street lighting systems, for traffic synchronization. I mean these dollars hurt." In fact over half of that figure represents just seven years of motor vehicle excise tax collection by Sound Transit. (Times 10-22-02) Sims went on to repeatedly denounced I-776 as contrary to local control.

The daily papers also ran guest editorials by I-776 proponent Tim Eyman, a prolific writer of tax cutting initiatives, who was discredited earlier in the year by revelations that he had diverted political funds to his personal use. His first successful initiative, I-695, drastically cut bus system budgets. Prior to the scandal, his last initiative attempt to cut transit funds, I-745, failed statewide. An Elway poll the weekend before the election found that 45% of the voters who opposed the measure said that Eyman's association with it was important to their decision. (Times 11-10-02) Eyman framed the initiative as, "designed to fulfill the promise of I-695", with a revote on light rail as a "fringe benefit". (P-I 10-22-02)

After the election County Executive and Board Chair Sims was quoted as saying that "because of obligations to bondholders funding light rail…cuts will come to other Sound transit ventures…" (TNT 11-6-02). "We're going to have to make some substantial cuts in Sound Transit. That will include cutting back on park and ride and HOV lane projects, but will not affect building the light rail system." (P-I 11-6-02) "King County Executive Ron Sims…has said if I-776 is upheld by the courts, expanded Sounder service isn't going to happen." (SCJ 11-8-02) The two Seattle daily papers responded with editorials the following Sunday. "Cannibalizing other Sound Transit services such as Sounder commuter rail and express bus routes to pay for light rail is unacceptable." (P-I 11-10-02) "It (I-776) may encourage a revote on light rail, which is good. But it knocks out road work, which is not good." (Times 11-10-02)

On November 14th and again on the 21st, the Sound Transit Board met with the agency's attorney. Prior to the election, the Seattle Times reported that Sims and Executive Director Earl "said the FTA process does not appear vulnerable to I-776." (Times 11-2-02) However, going into the second meeting, Sound Transit spokesman Lee Somerstein admitted, "The initiative affects our ability to do bonds in the future." After these meetings, Sims admitted, "We need to quiet this issue for the purpose of our credit." (SCJ 11-22-02) Executives Sims and Ladenburg announced after the second meeting that King and Pierce Counties would file suit to overturn I-776. The South County Journal (11-22-02) reported that, "The counties' challenge of I-776 appears to insulate the embattled Sound Transit from the political heat of suing, and Sims said the board was worried it would be perceived that way."

The message Sound transit wanted to send was given by Sims that morning on KUOW radio and echoed by Ladenburg, "People who make up this district say they want to continue this tax. This initiative steps on the rights of those voters." (SCJ 11-22-02) Not only was Sound transit refusing to admit that I-776 would cause a revote on light rail, it was now claiming against all previous arguments that all the votes against I-776 were votes in favor of light rail.

The message was supposed to be bolstered by a map passed out at the Board Meeting showing the vote breakdown by Sound Transit subarea. However, both Ladenburg's own Pierce County and South King County, which is slated to receive the controversial light rail line, voted in favor of I-776. A precinct breakdown published by the Seattle Times (11-22-02) showed that within the North King District, I-776 passed in some areas south of Downtown Seattle, where light rail will be built, but was very heavily rejected north of Downtown. "To know it is to hate it" seems to be the message from voters.

The story of the framing and re-framing of I-776 is the flip side of the refusal of Sound Transit to put light rail to a stand-alone vote. It is consistent with the framing and re-framing of the project's benefits and costs dating back to the early 90"s. Spin is continually substituted for substance.

In the summer of 2000, King County Executive Sims proposed light rail funding as part of a ballot measure to restore funding for bus service. Starting in 2001 and continuing in the present, Sound Transit Board members have pushed for light rail funding as part of a Regional Transportation package. Sound Transit has unused taxing authority which could be put to a vote independently. Accessing those funds would make it possible to complete a more useful light rail project in a timely fashion. The agency's refusal to do so is a clear indication of its knowledge that the voters no longer support the project.