Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Deja Voting

If two of this season's initiatives sound familiar, it's because we've voted on them before.

Inlander Staff

No on Washington Initiative 1125
Regarding tolls to pay for roads

Tim Eyman’s latest initiative aims to micromanage how the state can fund transportation projects via tolls. He says he’s not against them; he just wants the Legislature to be in charge of setting those tolls, not the state’s governor-appointed Transportation Commission. (The Legislature already is called upon to determine whether a project can or can’t use tolls to pay its way.)

Or maybe Eyman is out to kill toll roads, as I-1125 could well have the effect of ending the state’s ability to fund road projects that way. Public finance experts say putting the decision in the political arena would make potential investors in the public bonds worry, therefore the interest rate the state would pay would be higher to reflect the risk. They may become too expensive to pencil out.

This is really a Western Washington fight, as the Puget Sound region struggles to keep up with growth relying on a gas tax revenue stream that’s mostly tapped out. Now they want to do some road projects paid by tolls. In other words, local Seattle drivers would pay for those local projects. For Eastern Washington, this is much preferred to an expansion of the statewide gas tax that would pay for roads we rarely drive on. Keeping the option of toll roads available to Western Washington transportation planners is in our best interest.

Yes on Washington Initiative 1163
Regarding long-term health care workers

We supported this initiative when it was I-1029 and it passed in 2008. Now I-1163 is here to reiterate the need for better training and more rigorous background checks for long-term health care workers. The state has so far declined to fully enact I-1029, citing the state’s budget problems — if there’s no money, there’s no money. Still, reaffirming as the will of the people these changes to protect our most vulnerable citizens is important. When the state’s financial outlook improves, the Legislature can enforce I-1163

No on Wash. Initiative 1183
Regarding state-run liquor sales

Here's a second do-over of the 2011 initiative season — the effort to move the sale of hard liquor from the state to private businesses. You’ll recall we voted on this last year, when two similar initiatives (1100 and 1105) confused everyone. Both failed.

Behind the scenes, this is a battle between businesses large and small, involving issues both arcane (how alcohol is distributed in the state) and conspicuous (how we pay for our state government). To the average consumer, it’s a question of keeping hard liquor sales in about 300 state run outlets or expanding it to 1,500 or more.

But behind the scenes is where you need to look closer. Put on the ballot by retail giants like Costco and Safeway, this change in the law would be very good for them — not only by giving them a whole new product line to sell, but also by allowing them to take control of distribution. There’s nothing wrong with allowing business to flourish, but we must consider the known costs and uncertainties. While I-1183 puts new fees and taxes on liquor, there’s no telling whether this will wind up being a net gain or net loss for the state of Washington. Remember: Instead of having an income tax like California, Washington taxes things we consume, especially liquor and cigarettes, to pay the bills. The proponents’ claim that 1183 will cut the price of liquor is also just speculation.

What is true, however, is that Washington has a 96 percent rate of compliance in selling liquor only to adults; the average grocery store in the rest of the nation hits more like 75 percent — meaning 25 percent of underage kids are at risk. Such statistics have led the Centers for Disease Control to advise against the privatization of liquor sales where it is under consideration.

If I-1183 is passed, big-box retailers would be given a big edge over small businesses. In fact, only retailers with 10,000 square feet and above would be allowed to sell hard alcohol. That’s the problem with having interested parties write public policy — they inevitably pick winners and losers. And we have too much to lose on this one.

Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8. Spokane County ballots will start to be mailed out on Oct. 21.

Also in Commentary

New Frontiers

While the Old West still feeds the mythology of the region, the New West commands a new paradigm

Michael Dax |
Wednesday, May 22,2013

The Sports Mafia

Publisher's Note

Ted S. McGregor Jr. |
Wednesday, May 22,2013

The English Way

Justice Scalia finds his rationale for an expansive Second Amendment in Common Law — so why does Great Britain have such strict gun control?

Robert Herold |
Wednesday, May 15,2013

What We Pay For

Publisher's Note

Ted S. McGregor Jr. |
Wednesday, May 15,2013

Keeping America

Announcing a new local effort to inspire today’s students to learn where their country came from

George Nethercutt |
Tuesday, May 7,2013

Also By Inlander Staff

Nightlife

Inlander Staff |
Wednesday, August 23,2006

Quotes& amp;amp; Notes

Inlander Staff |
Thursday, January 9,2003

Buzz Bin

Inlander Staff |
Thursday, November 7,2002

Opening Films

Inlander Staff |
Thursday, May 5,2005

Buzz Bin

Inlander Staff |
Monday, January 3,2005


The “facts” about compliance rates for grocery stores are way, way off. It’s true that state-run and contract liquor stores average around a 95% compliance rate, but the statistics show that grocery stores are just as successful preventing minors from buying alcohol. Plus, doesn’t I-1183 double fines a store pays for getting caught selling to kids? And stores will also have to meet a whole bunch of other requirements before even getting a license to sell, such as employee training, things the current liquor stores aren’t required to do. It’s all in the initiative. Oct 05, 2011 | Reply to this comment

 

pgonzo, you are absolutely wrong. The article is dead on. And as a former liquor store clerk, they put us through over 12 hours of training, just to sell responsibly and that is updated yearly. You have no idea what you are talking about.....typical ignorant voter, sheep just following the herd. That´s why this state is so messed up. Oct 07, 2011 | Reply to this comment

 

Seems like "jamdam" is about as right (or wrong) as pgonzo is. Both opinions are based on speculation in the article. The article is biased and that´s intentional.
Now 12 hours of training isn´t something I´d broadcast out loud. That´s a minute number of hours to even be called "training". Seriously. I spent more time in a motorcycle safety course...and I paid for that!
State run liquor stores are no guarantee of a profit for the state no more than private liquor stores are. One difference I see is that the privately owned stores will close if they´re not profitable. Another would be that privately owned liquor distribution would probably create more jobs. Also, aren´t state operations subject to budget cuts?
Washington´s government is a mess and it´s mostly because of the mentality of the liberals who run this state. King county is actually the seat of power in Washington and Olympia is the home of left wing looney tunes that do the bidding of King County. The people of Washington will NEVER have an efficient government or balanced economy as long as the left is in charge and one county decides elections. Oct 07, 2011 | Reply to this comment

 

Well the gal who is fake voting in the above picture is busting out of that undersized sweater…

Is the Inlander trying to make a political statement with this photo?

Seeking political advice from the Inlander is like seeking pharmaceutical advice from a medical marijuana shop…they are under qualified, under skilled and have no idea of interactions…

Oct 11, 2011 | Reply to this comment

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close