Perhaps I missed it. Lord knows I've been watching this issue on a peripheral level at best, but I don't remember seeing a single piece of evidence to indicate that putting a new arena in SODO will have the disastrous effect on the Port that so many have promised. I vaguely recall seeing one bit indicating that, at times, transportation times would increase by about five minutes around pre- and post- game time at the current proposed site in that particular area, and am curious as to how this delay, during night games, would be so detrimental to the Port. Especially with the new Spokane Street viaduct poised to be open well in advance of any arena completion.

Century Link and Safeco Fields were both done so wrong, in such a way to screw over taxpayers, that I get the fear regarding any new arena, and the desire to reach for whatever possible reason one can find to oppose the same, but this is a great deal. Initial bonding capacity used in order to finance the project, but no tax dollars being used, is a good deal.

That's not to say the whole thing is perfect. The location itself is far from any great transit hub, and as we all know, there are two holdouts on selling property. If it were up to me, I would say buy everything up, and do a land swap with Atlantic Base, putting the arena at the current bus barn - right next to transit, and creating more of an L shape for a "Sports District".

But the idea that the neighborhood is a bad fit is ridiculous. SODO is changing. I agree that we can and should protect access to our working port - through improvements to the North-South corridor between Spokane Street and the terminals that are impacted by the stadiums. But instead of going into the conversation railing against something that will bring jobs - construction in the short term, service and small business opportunities in the long term - it would behoove everyone to focus on how we can make the deal better. From prevailing wage guarantees to long-term port traffic mitigation, there are ways to improve this deal, but at its core, it is a great deal for Seattle.

A long time ago, I lived in the Harbor Point area of Mukilteo. Random fact - the complex I lived in also once housed Marko Liias.

While driving to work one morning, I was reaching for a CD (yes, kids, we used to have to use those for our in-car audio), and not paying attention to my driving, when I realized I was swerving a bit. I looked up, and was just about to hit a jogger. Taking a look back after passing this man, I realized it was Tim Eyman. That face is very unique.

To the point - this initiative is bad policy. Major metropolitan areas across the country have systemic tolling - NYC, Chicago, LA, San Francisco. In Washington, we are basically in the infancy of system-wide tolling, and it should be able to be used for more than just funding of roads. Using tolls to reduce congestion makes sense - by encouraging commuters to carpool or take transit, we improve mobility for all traffic, improve the quality of life, and, ultimately, put more money in people's pockets - money they can spend in our economy.

By restricting the ability for WSDOT to implement smart tolling for more than just road building (HOT lanes come to mind), this initiative usurps local influence and control, and instead sends decisions to Legislature, which is a terrible idea. Even worse, disallowing light rail across I-90, which Eyman may have forgotten was approved by voters, this measure will let the entire State basically tell King County that we should be more car-centric, even as we time and time again make clear that we are transit friendly.

1125 is bad policy all around. Tolling is a smart way to pay for roads, and also a smart way to reduce congestion. Variable rate tolling - whether across 520 or in the HOT lanes on 167 - will continue to allow our region to not only improve traffic flow for all vehicles, but also improve transit flow.

On the one hand, I'm happy to be on the same page as Tim Harris on a transportation issue, and think he brings up some valid points that would make more sense if this were a regional fee, not a Seattle fee. Tim's anecdote tells me that we need more reliable commuter transit that runs more often. Once the BRT replaces the 358, I believe that CT's BRT, coupled with Metro's, will assist in doing just that. The fact remains, however, that this fee will have no direct burden on Tim.

On the point, though - this is not a perfect plan, by any stretch of the imagination. Would it have been better with more rigid percentages? Yes. Would it be better as an MVET instead of a flat fee? Hell yes. Is it better than nothing? Yes.

There are the transit improvements, which will assist in mobility and bringing jobs to Seattle (even those streetcar lines). There are the pedestrian and bike safety improvements, which will improve safety, and keep those pesky cyclists out of the way in more places (the new Dexter bike lanes = amazing). Road repair, which improves safety, comfort, and ability to get around for all commuters.

Additionally, it's 10 year limited length is a good thing. It will give our city an opportunity to see if this is a good direction for the city to go in the future. Hopefully it will allow for some lobbying to allow MVET's at the local level in Olympia. And while such a short time frame means no investment in bridges, would John rather we have a permanent fee?

Finally, I am rather sensitive to the piling on of fees. $20 already from the city, $20 from the county, and an additional $60 from the city may be small beans for some, but for others, especially with our current economic state, is far from ideal. But getting people back to work on these programs is worth it. Changing the focus from cars to mobility is worth it. And improving safety for all users of Seattle streets and sidewalks is worth it.

Classen rightfully points out that this isn't an issue that can be solved at City Hall. Accountability - an ongoing theme I have heard from Mo - involves City Hall, SPOG and the community. It's not enough to call for better training of officers and more involvement, or to have a legislative idea. We need people who have a plan to get those ideas through council, and have the relationships necessary to bring everyone to the same table. "Us vs. Them" is never a good place to start, and, yet again, the only candidate in this race who is not just saying the right thing, but getting in the weeds and explaining how he will do it is Classen.

I find it curious that on the one hand, Trevor praises Bobby for calling public safety his number 1 priority, and then indicates that Mo's version isn't good enough. From the beginning of this campaign, I've heard Classen, time and time again, talk about public safety to include bringing accountability to SPD and restoring trust in the department. Again, though, Mo doesn't just play lip service and, like Mike McGinn, talk and listen (and talk and listen some more), he is offering detailed ideas, and strategies to get them implemented.

It is good to see serious contenders for public office willing to call for accountability of our police department. It will be interesting to see, once his C4 is filed, if Bobby would have the resources to continue past next Tuesday. Looks at this point as if Classen does.

Both sides of this issue have, quite honestly, handled themselves quite poorly during this debate. Teachers unions don't want outsiders to be the arbiters of who is and isn't a "good" teacher, and reformers have aimed to vilify unions.

Unfortunately, sound bites are more fun than sitting down and really tackling what needs to be done. Last year was a start, and I would agree that what Sen. Tom (D-ish-48) is attempting to do this year undermines the rare occasion where everyone played nice, and now has everyone at each others' throats again.

But we, as a society, need to continue to talk about reform. And as a Seattle taxpayer, if I'm going to continue to subsidize rural districts, then I expect a bit more respect to the State's expectation of standards.

Bloviating aside, I do wish we would start talking about real reform of our education institutions. Let's be honest - not every pupil is going to go on to get a college degree. We need more Sno-Isle type skills centers, and learn, as a society, to accept that trades = family wage jobs, as well, and instead of allowing our children to fail, and attempt to throw money at it, perhaps it is time to really rethink our long-term education goals and strategies.

Education reform can and should be about more than just graduating students (and not in Harium Martin-Morris' fashion of lowering standards - what a disgrace to the Seattle School Board). It should be about preparing our kids to be adults. Sometimes that means preparing them for college. Sometimes a trade.

I had a great conversation recently regarding this very issue, and a point that came across that sticks with me – Electric Trolley Buses are Seattle’s version of Light Rail. Seattle isn’t Portland, and our topography and electorate are very different.

Light Rail is extremely cost-prohibitive, and we can get the same results with transit-only lanes, while utilizing and expanding an ETB system we are accustomed to, and that already has great ridership.

Is LR a good idea in the future? As Julia points out, Sound Transit has the funds to look into that when it is time, and that is part of a regional plan.

But for now, what we can and should do is focus on improving the rights of way for transit, implementing BRT in some form from West Seattle and Ballard to Downtown, and keep those transit-only lanes coming!

The improved reliability that accompanies transit-only lanes can only increase ridership numbers, getting more cars off the street.

And that is something we can do now, and without the ridiculously high cost.

In short, the lesson for the left is not to rest on our laurels. Disaffected Democrats who were upset with the pace of DC, choosing not to vote or work on GOTV efforts let the Tea Party run rough-shot over us. Patience is a virtue, and many on my side's impatience did nothing but hurt the long term good.

Well, covering initiative reform isn't nearly as sexy as tunnels and budget cuts.

Sure, the Legislature could refer a tax package to voters, but what should that look like? I'm dying to know.

Extending sales taxes to candy failed. Increasing sales taxes (and the State limit) is a failing proposition. Property tax increases are a failing proposition. An income tax is a failing proposition, and a corporate income tax...well, I can see the campaign against it now looking exactly like 1098, but adding a line saying companies will just leave.

I do agree that it would behoove our Legislators to, at bare minimum, put together a package of loophole closures, but honestly, how much could that bring in in revenue? What the left needs is it's own Tim Eyman - someone everyone hates, but is damn good at getting stuff passed.

And finally - expecting anything referred to the voters to actually pass, and putting together a budget that reflects that, would be completely asinine. Voters in Washington time and time again are proving they don't like taxes. Until we can change the conversation on the ground, it is a tough proposition.

Trevor does hit part of this right on the head - the federal government very much should have continued stimulus spending on state governments. As much as people like to vilify public sector workers, they forget an important part - those workers make money that they turn around and spend in the economy. Looking at the ongoing recovery, private sector jobs are being created, while public sector jobs are going away.

However, I'm not ready to blame Republicans for bad ideas. Many have had those bad ideas for years, yet people still voted for them.

Washington isn't Wisconsin, and I'm sorry, Sen. Fitzgerald, but I'm not convinced you have a strong enough understanding of our issues to give any sound advice.

As Roger pointed out, we have a tax structure that is especially susceptible to economic swings, and an electorate that likes to cut taxes (car tabs, candy) and limit the ability to increase revenue (1% property tax cap, 2/3 majority), but that also wants nice things for kids (smaller class sizes) public sector workers (increase teacher pay) and those in need (expansion of Basic Health).

My discomfort with the initiative process aside, one area that could be used to put a partial future fix on Washington's problems would be some sort of initiative reform. Keep paid signature gatherers, but make a constitutional change requiring tax cutting initiatives to specify what they're cutting, so people clearly know that the cheap candy they're getting is at the expense of kids. At the same time, when we have initiatives that increase mandated spending, require a source for those funds, or a cut to another program.

But, unfortunately, we are where we are. I'm already hearing complaints about the proposed budget, but unless someone can show me the path to a 2/3 majority to close tax loopholes or raise revenue, it is what it is. We are lucky in Washington that the labor fights aren’t as…well, not like the Midwest. Our leaders’ lack of such hostility has led to great agreements, most notably in King County.

I’ve heard the complaints – raise taxes, no furloughs. But when there is no room to raise taxes, furloughs are better than layoffs, and paying a little more for insurance is better than layoffs. Being a member of a union isn’t about one worker, or the most senior workers, it’s about all workers. Spreading the pain is something that Washington State and King County employees should be proud of, but cannot be considered a long-term strategy.

It is time for our elected leaders to take the lead, sure, but it is also time for those of us who want to changes to stop preaching to the choir, and convince our friends and relatives across the state, and get them to do the same.