I plan to vote no on I-169. Here's why.

1. I believe that people that drive cars should pay for road repair and construction. I-169 removes that responsibility from drivers specifically and spreads it to all Washingtonians.

2. I believe that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor. I-169 will amount to a massive tax cut for the wealthier members of the population, while increasing taxes for the poorest.

3. I want more mass transit. I-169 reduces funding for public transportation.

4. I want cleaner air and less traffic, and safer roads. I-169's tax cut for drivers means more people will own cars, and more people will own multiple cars, making our road congestion and air pollution problems worse. Also, with more drivers, there would be more accidents and road deaths.

I-169 is greed-driven, and if it passes, would do great harm.

-- Joshua Drake (jmd@speakeasy.org), September 09, 1999

Answers

Cheers, all - I meant I-695, of course. Sorry for the error.

-- Joshua Drake (jmd@speakeasy.org), September 09, 1999.

Don't woory about the mistake Drake, that was only the LEAST of the errors in your posting. ;)

-- CraigCarson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 09, 1999.

Joshua, What a twisted use of the word "greed". It now applies to an overtaxed citizen that wants to keep a just little bit of the huge piles of money STOLEN from him or her by government at all levels, largely without his or her consent. Money that rightfully belongs to the citizen who EARNED it! (I'm greedy if I want to keep some of the money I worked hard for and to dispose of the way I see fit??) TAXES ARE TOO EXCESSIVE, REGARDLESS OF CLASS. Taxes, when levied out of neccessity, should be based strictly on revenue requirements, not for the purpose of social engineering. What each of us pays should be proportional to the benefit we receive, not based on ability to pay (to be consistent, that same kind of "income test" logic should be applied to EVERYTHING we buy....let's see how long the free market would survive that!!!). Redistribution of wealth is an element of socialism. History proves over and over again that socialism doesn't work, and it never will no matter how many times we try it.

I agree that users should pay for the roads. Appropriately, my State and Federal gas tax of $4.14 per 10 gallons has paid for all the state roads and repairs up to this point in our history. The gas tax is as fair and directly related as any tax gets (except for possibly tolls, which few in this state want). Additionally, this initiative does NOT stop the state from adding the new $30 dollar tab fee to the road fund (and I believe the proper place for this money IS with the roads). That's $30 more than it was before R-49. I'm still waiting for the R-49 projects. Where are they? The new stadium didn't take this long did it?

This is a battle for smaller government. We'll now get to see what people in this state really want. More liberty or more oppression. I will ALWAYS choose liberty. We seem to disagree on the proper roll of government.

-- SP (SP@hotmail.com), September 09, 1999.

Craig,

So point out and refute each one of the "errors" in Joshua's post. Especially #4. Let me guess: I-695 will actually lead to LESS pollution and congestion and road rage as well, because all those civic-minded folks who vote for I-695 will, upon its passage, immediately buy newer, fuel and emissions efficient cars, and start using their turn signals consistently, yield to pedestrians at crosswalks, avoid blocking intersections, etc. Right?

If you can believe that, I've got a shiny new, A-Rod-less (and maybe soon Junior-less, we'll work out those pesky details later) baseball stadium I'd like to sell you!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 09, 1999.

SP-

In my eyes, government is a tool to be used by the people for our mutual benefit; to protect the most downtrodden from being exploited by the most powerful; to organize projects for the general welfare; to solve collective problems; to protect and distribute shared resources.

In your post you said: "What each of us pays should be proportional to the benefit we receive, not based on ability to pay." This is a key to our disagreement. You assert that the more a person benefits from tax-funded programs, the more they should pay in taxes. This would have impoverished food stamp families paying more than the rich!

As a civil society, we embrace the responsibility to take care of each other. I say I-695 is greed-driven because it is a denial of this responsibility. It is a supremely uncompassionate initiative.

-- Joshua Drake (jmd@speakeasy.org), September 09, 1999.

Joshua, Yes I see greed and need to control others but it is all coming from the Belltown and UW liberals who feel THEY should decide what other people should drive and that THEY should decide that the people who work for a living and purchase cars should PAY so the visitors to the speakeasy cafe can ride the buses free.

Not so.. Pay your own way and quit demanding OUR moeny.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 09, 1999.

Joshua-

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" Sounded good when Lenin said it. Sounded better when Castro said it in Spanish. But neither the old Soviet Union or the present communist Cuba and the progressively less communist (though still quite authoritarian) PRC ever really made it work. Ten years ago I was in Germany and my family and I stayed at a hotel in Dinkesbuhl. Staying there was a Chinese trade delegation that was attempting to learn capitalism from the Germans. The delegation was predominately women, and while they played with my children (having left theirs back in China months previously) I wound up talking to the group leader, a political commissar of sorts. I expressed my surprise that they would be learning capitalist principles in Germany and he indicated that he had been a true believer in Mao, a Long March veteran, someone who had done very ruthless things, both in the initial establishment of communism in China, and in the Great Cultural Revolution. He had a haunted look when talking about these things that I will never forget. But he said it simply doesn't work! Capitalism, however, did work, and they could see that in the prosperity of their cousins in Hong Kong, Macao, and even (and this whispered) Formosa. That may tell us all something that we'd rather not believe, that a system that works on individual greed (capitalism) could actually lead to a better quality of life for people than communism, but it appears to be true. I hope you learn that while your younger than that old Chinese commissar, and I hope you don't pay the price to learn it that he certainly paid. He wasn't evil, but he admitted he had done incredibly evil things to try to make the system work. And it was apparent that Christmas in the gasthaus in that 14th century walled city, that what he had done was tormenting his soul.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 09, 1999.

maddjak,

I have to admire your consistency.

It seems that in at least three out of every four of your posts, the following two things are always found together, and are not likely to be unrelated: a vindictive assault upon anyone who goes or has ever gone the UW, followed in hot pursuit by an outstanding spelling error. (Your most recent was "moeny". I don't know personally what "moeny" is exactly, which perhaps goes to prove you right: maybe higher education is a waste of ahem, money if someone can earn 135 credits without learning what "moeny" is!)

So anyway, please be so kind as to answer me the following question, maddjak: is it sour grapes?

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 09, 1999.

"If you can believe that, I've got a shiny new, A-Rod-less (and maybe soon Junior-less, we'll work out those pesky details later) baseball stadium I'd like to sell you! "

What? You mean the gigantic public works giveaway that our elected legislators came up with to subsidize Nintendo, the construction industry, and the construction unions AFTER THE PUBLIC HAD VOTED IT DOWN? That alone is 450 million reasons to vote yes on initiative 695. It makes it harder for special interests to BUY public tax money. But no thanks. I voted against it myself. Haven't attended a game since Milwaukee stole the Pilots (remember the Pilots?) from us to become the BREWERS to replace the Milwaukee Braves which of course now belong to Jane Fonda's husband, old what's his name. But it is an excellent example of why the public needs veto authority over the state legislature, and I appreciate you bringing it up as an illustration of why I-695 is needed. (;

.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 09, 1999.

Joshua,

So let's twist meaning again. Excessive taxes (theft) are compassionate and a grassroots tax revolt against this theft is "supremely uncompassionate". We do dissagree about the proper role of government. I take my lessons from the United States Constitution which establishes for the first time in history that government is instituted to protect individual rights. Many of those rights are enumerated in our Bill or Rights. Last time I checked, this was still the "Supreme Law of the Land", and is reaffirmed in our own State Constitution. Your ideas seem to come from the Communist Manifesto.

Welfare is not the privy of the state nor is it an authorized function (as authorized by constitution). If a service is provided by government, it should be paid for by the benificiary of the service (ignoring any arguments about the ligitimacy of the government roll in providing the service). Rich or poor, if you drive on public roads or buy products transported on them, you should be paying porportionally for them. No fee system is perfect, but our current system of gross weight fees and gas tax come closest, and works just fine for everybody. Should the gas tax also be tied to net worth? Of course that's a dumb idea. As is the assumption that car value is in any way tied to a person's net worth. If this assumption were true, then Bill Gates would be paying the same tax for his Metro Geo as he would be for his Lamborghini.

Those compassionate matters which you speak of are always better left to individual volunteers and service groups. Government always messes up in the compassion department. You don't ever hear anybody arguing about fairness or effectivness of Private Charity. But we are always bickering about government's 'great job'. The difference is that one system is based on force, the other is based on REAL COMPASSION...I.E. FREE CHOICE. That's why private charity works and government doesn't.

With far fewer dollars and a small investment of my time, I voluntarily do more good for my impoverished neighbors than government ever has. But I often wonder, what greater things I could do if government would only let me keep and use more of my own money for this purpose, and secondarily free up more of my time to do even greater good (because I wouldn't have to work as many hours to pay taxes!). Charitible contributions drop as taxes go up. Government recognizes this and tries to compensate for that bad policy by granting tax relief to encourage charitable contribution. Why not go all the way and put charity back where it belongs....in the hands of the people?

We can argue specifics forever, which is unproductive and helps no one. But the issue I raise is the proper roll of government. Welfare ain't it. Do you do any private charity work yourself or do you just prefer to force other people to do it for you?????

-- SP (sp@hotmail.com), September 09, 1999.

Oh, and by the way, the "most powerfull" people are IN government. Which government do we use to protect the downtrodden from them?

-- SP (sp@hotmail.com), September 09, 1999.

SP-

Well it's clear that you have lost your temper and are now trying to pick a fight. It won't work. I-695 is not about volunteerism. Its not about charity. Its about transportation in the State of Washington. And so I repeat:

I plan to vote no on I-695. Here's why.

1. I believe that people that drive cars should pay for road repair and construction. I-695 removes that responsibility from drivers specifically and spreads it to all Washingtonians.

2. I believe that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor. I-695 will amount to a massive tax cut for the wealthier members of the population, while increasing taxes for the poorest.

3. I want more mass transit. I-695 reduces funding for public transportation.

4. I want cleaner air and less traffic, and safer roads. I-695's tax cut for drivers means more people will own cars, and more people will own multiple cars, making our road congestion and air pollution problems worse. Also, with more drivers, there would be more accidents and road deaths.

Enough said.

-- Joshua Drake (jmd@speakeasy.org), September 09, 1999.

I plan to vote yes on I-695. Here's why.

1. I believe that people that drive cars should pay for road repair and construction. They do that through their gas tax. I do not believe that they should be expected to fund ferries or transit. 2. I believe that the MVET over charges the poor. Someone in the 31% bracket will get 31% of their MVET back by claiming it as a deduction on their income tax. People in the lower brackets generally take the standard deduction and will get nothing back. This is not even a "flat tax" situation. If the rich guy has a $1000 MVET bill it really only costs him $690. The poor guy pays all $1000. There is nothing "progressive" about such a tax. 3. I want mass transit to pay it's own way. Mass transit in Washington brings in much less of it's cost through user fees than the national average. Let those who want to use public transportation do so. Don't force someone in a rural area that has no access to public transportation to pay for a water taxi service so the rich businessfolk in West Seattle can get from their waterview homes to downtown on public subsidies. If you can afford to live in West Seattle/Bainbridge/Vashon, you can carry your own transportation expenses without a public subsidy. I-695 reduces funding for public transportation.

4. I want cleaner air and less traffic, and safer roads. I-695's tax cut for drivers means more people will own newer, safer, better maintained cars. Hopefully, it will derail (pun intended) Sound Transit which wants to run 80 mph trains (that's hyperbole, it's really 79mph trains) through downtown Auburn, Kent, and Puyallup. Hopefully, it will stop the $100 million/mile light rail which will tear up the city, and force the buses out of the bus tunnel onto the public streets.

Enough said.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 09, 1999.

I'm not trying to pick a fight. You have a right to your opinion and to your "no" vote. I don't hope to change your vote and I don't need to. I'm simply debating a philosophy of ideas, inspired by your post. Is that allowed?

Neither camp is using much in the way of facts to persuade. Only #3 of your post could even closely be considered a fact. The rest are extrapolations and assumptions, just like what the other side is doing. This has become a big philosophy battle which really has no bearing on the 695 discussions. I've been sucked into it just like the rest. It's hard to read all this without jumping in at times. 695 is here for no more that what the crafters have stated. Nothing more. As to what happens to state government after it passes, it's anybodies guess. All guesses are equally valid and invalid. I for one am ready to find out what happens. I'm not afraid of change. I embrace it, expecially when I believe that the state powers are out of control and need reining in. 695 will help achieve my goal of much smaller government and hence a more free society. I hope my philosophy prevails. May the best voter win.

-- SP (sp@hotmail.com), September 09, 1999.

Craig writes:

"Hopefully, it will derail (pun intended) Sound Transit which wants to run 80 mph trains (that's hyperbole, it's really 79mph trains) through downtown Auburn, Kent, and Puyallup. Hopefully, it will stop the $100 million/mile light rail which will tear up the city, and force the buses out of the bus tunnel onto the public streets."

First of all, your concern for the buses that now run in the tunnel is touching. Too bad there won't be very many of them when Metro's funding is cut.

If you're voting for 695 because it'll stop fast trains, you're clueless. It's federal law that is allowing the trains to speed up. If you don't want it to happen, I suggest you contact your congressman or senator. 695 will have no impact either way.

Here's what the Tacoma News Tribune said about it:

"The Federal Railroad Administration has already authorized the higher limits, and federal law severely restricts the ability of states to lower them. The higher limits will go into effect unless the state or the cities can show that they would create overriding threats to local safety."

Here's some other interesting info from the TNT:

"If residents of the Green River Valley want to make the areas near the railroad tracks safer, train speeds should increase, not decrease.

This advice comes from Federal Way resident Richard Fiedler, a longtime railroad engineer who has since retired from the Burlington Northern railroad and Amtrak.

Fiedler told a group of about 20 people gathered Tuesday night at Auburn High School for a hearing on proposed higher train speeds that trying to keep speeds down actually will make tracks more dangerous.

"Forty miles per hour is not safe, but 60 is," he said at a state Utilities and Transportation Commission hearing on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway's proposal to increase train speeds along the tracks between Tacoma and Seattle.

These tracks now slice through the communities of Auburn, Kent and Tukwila, as well as Puyallup and Sumner in Pierce County.

Fiedler said during his 45-year career he has killed three people who tried to cross the tracks in front of his train. All of those fatalities occurred when the train was going around 40 mph or below, he said. He added that he's never had an accident when the train was moving 60 mph or above. Most motorists or pedestrians won't try to beat the train across the tracks at those speeds, he said.

Fiedler's testimony provided a surprising twist in an otherwise short public hearing on the BNSF railway's bid to almost double train speeds along its tracks."

Nice try, Craig.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 09, 1999.

BB- A few issues about your posting in reply to Mr. Carson.

First- you gave an n of one example. One person's opinion was that faster rail travel was safer. Inadequate sample size. Second- Selection bias. Since most trains spend more time traveling at slower speeds than fast ones, particularly in densely populated areas, this individuals exposure time at low speeds was greater than at higher speeds. That no more should reassure someone that higher speeds are safer than me saying its safe to drive 120mph while drunk because the total number of drunks having accidents above 120mph is smaller than the total number having accidents under 120mph.

If that doesn't convince you, go to this DOT website: http://www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/bull96.html

It gives the demographics of auto rail mishaps. Table 18 lists them by speed and type of train. For Freight trains, the greatest number of killed (124) and injured (317) occurred at 40-49mph. For passenger trains the greatest number killed (19) and injured (32) occurred between 70 and 79 mph. For Switch engines the greates number killed (2) and injured (49) occurred between 1 and 9mph (but then of course most yard speed limits are 20mph). Once again, it would help if people got facts rather than hearsay or "n of 1" anecdotes. Another good source for info is http://www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/APSP.html

This is a NON-TRIVIAL problem. DOT intends to prohibit at- grade crossings for high speed trains (120mph) due to the STRONG association of crossing accidents with speed.

So be a good boy BB, apologize nicely to Mr. Carson.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 09, 1999.

Sorry, Joshua, your post didn't make any sense the first time, either. reposting it was a waste of ascii.

That you've bought into the lies and distortions of the opposition is, of course, your problem. What YOU "believe" is of no concern, or importance. It is what the majority of the voters of this state believe that is important.

Your reliance on the class-warfare angle is so absurd as to be ignorable. That horse has been beat to death. Get over it.

What you want concerning mass transit is equally worthless. Mass transit solves nothing, costs a fortune, and is, for the most part, an expensive waste of money.

Your last "reason" flies in the face of the second reason, wherein you confirmed your ignorance by telling us "I-169 (sic) will amount to a massive tax cut for the wealthier members of the population." Since there are so few "wealthy members of the population," who, presumably, while rich can still only drive one car at a time, there will be a negligible effect on traffic. And, of course, the newer the cars purchased, the cleaner our air will be.

Hopefully, the next time you post, it will be with something you can substantiate, and not a series of "feelings," which, face it, can change the next time you take a dump.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.

Regarding train speeds:

Gary, I never stated that the 45 (!) year veteran conductor's opinion was anything more than one person's opinion. Thanks for stating the obvious.

I don't see anything in your post that says the feds are going to reconsider their decision to speed up the trains because of 695. And talking about 120 mile per hour grade level crossings is nice, but that's not what we're dealing with around here.

Oh yeah, guess what was going to be funded by R-49 along the BN railway that runs from Tacoma to Seattle? You guessed it, overpasses over the train tracks at some busy intersections. 695 takes that away.

So if you want more safety at crossings along the tracks, you shouldn't vote for 695. It won't slow the trains down and it takes away safety improvements at railroad crossings.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 09, 1999.

"Gary, I never stated that the 45 (!) year veteran conductor's opinion was anything more than one person's opinion. Thanks for stating the obvious. "

If you didn't consider it germane to your argument, why did you post it?

"I don't see anything in your post that says the feds are going to reconsider their decision to speed up the trains because of 695." Actually, if the MVET goes, the local MVET funding by the three county area that voted for Sound Transit may well go with it, underfunding the system. With current problems with the downtown light rail being over budget, with schedule problems for the Sounder, the whole package COULD collapse. "And talking about 120 mile per hour grade level crossings is nice, but that's not what we're dealing with around here" The issue was the demographics of speed versus train crossing fatal accidents. You were given two references, and this quote was to demonstrate that the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration all concurred that train speed was strongly associated with speed. Why are you criticizing me for giving you references and data that are totally relevant to the issue being discussed?

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 09, 1999.

SP wrote: "Welfare is not the privy of the state nor is it an authorized function (as authorized by constitution). If a service is provided by government, it should be paid for by the benificiary of the service (ignoring any arguments about the ligitimacy of the government roll in providing the service)."

So you believe the welfair programs operated by government are unconstitutional? What court decision did you get that from, because you need to let every state and the federal government know. Seriously, that kind of statement is why some consider I-695 to be somewhat uncompassionate.

From what I have seen here, a very few 695 supporters are uncompassionate. Westin, for one, seems totally unconcerned about the damage that would be done to the functionaing of government and the programs many depend on. I dismiss that kind of attitude without much hope of changing his mind. He wants his tax cut, and that is all that is important to him.

Most of the others believe, wrongly in my opinion, that somehow government will make it work and cut waste and reprioritize programs, so that nothing important will be damaged by the loss of revenue. It won't work that way, and if you look at the impact on many local governments you will find that things you believe are important are being considered for cuts. You may be able to get involved and help direct the cuts to something someone else thinks is important, but something has to suffer when the revenue is cut.

The second group, I have hope, will investigate and conclude that they really do have a civic responsibility to fund government (if not with the MVET then with some other funding method) to maintain the services, capital improvements, and programs we have asked government to provide. I have that hope because I believe people really are compassionate and responsible; and that if they understand the consequences they will recognize I-695 as a bad idea, badly drafted, and a deception of the voters.

No one likes to pay taxes, and my greatest concern is that most of the voters will not read beyond the $30 license tabs. If that happens, and the initiative passes, we will see a lot of money wasted on lawyers and a lot of program cuts that some here do not expect and will not want.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 09, 1999.

BB-

Although I may not be the most objective reader, I look with amusement at your back and forth with Henriksen. You attack me over the issue of train safety, use over half the post to give the opinion of one individual who used to drive a choo choo who apparently thinks he can kill people easier at 40mph than if he were going faster, because thats how he got his first three. Henriksen counters with two US Department of Transportation reports that say the opposite, one a consensus report of the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. You try to change the subject and say that you didn't state what you obviously did. Back when I was on the debate team in High School, the judges would have REAMED someone who tried that tactic. Are you just trying to disrupt the debate, or are you someday going to bring FACTS, SOURCES (other than one (1) retired engineer), and (dare we hope?) a well thought out argument to the table? The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 10, 1999.

Gary writes:

"If you didn't consider it germane to your argument, why did you post it?"

The quote? Because it was in the same article that I found the other info in. I thought it was interesting, nothing more, nothing less. You know, I thought you'd appreciate what the public is saying at meetings for them. By the way Craig, since the speeds of the trains are so important to you, were you at that meeting?

Did I even mention anything about rail crossing safety? No. The only mention of it that I've made so far is that 695 will take away funding for elevated rail crossings along that rail line, decreasing safety when the trains are sped up. Which still hasn't been addressed by anybody, by the way.

"Actually, if the MVET goes, the local MVET funding by the three county area that voted for Sound Transit may well go with it, underfunding the system. With current problems with the downtown light rail being over budget, with schedule problems for the Sounder, the whole package COULD collapse."

Doesn't mean that the freight trains won't get sped up. Once they've got their increase, do you really think they'll let it go? I don't. So we'll have fast trains and no elevated overpasses. Wonderful.

And oh yeah, all this complaining about Sound Transit cracks me up. It passed by the same standard that you 695ers all want in the future.

"The issue was the demographics of speed versus train crossing fatal accidents."

Really? Actually the issue was that Craig was implying that by voting yes on 695 you'd somehow have a say in slowing down freight and commuter trains that run between Tacoma and Seattle. Which isn't true. It's a FEDERAL ISSUE.

In any case, my point still stands. 695 takes away funding for railroad crossing improvements in that corridor. It doesn't have any impact on the speeding up or slowing down of trains.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.

"In any case, my point still stands. "

NO BB-

It merely sits on the top of your head, helping you to rewrite history once your opinions and pseudo-logic have been toasted by other peoples FACTS. And if you don't have the insight to see that, you're the only one on this bulletin board that doesn't. .

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 10, 1999.

Craig writes:

"It merely sits on the top of your head, helping you to rewrite history once your opinions and pseudo-logic have been toasted by other peoples FACTS. And if you don't have the insight to see that, you're the only one on this bulletin board that doesn't."

You misspelled "I'm dodging the issue that you brought up."

Chaff and flares Craig, chaff and flares.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.

BB-

"I'm dodging the issue that you brought up."

1. Specify the issue. You change "the issue" every time someone rebuts your assertions on the original issue. 2. Agree that facts, not hearsay fron some retiree will be judged. 3. Logic not emotion. 4. No ad hominem attacks.

Let's debate (or possibly even agree).

The Craigster

.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 10, 1999.

Craig writes:

"1. Specify the issue."

Here goes.

Issue #1

You said: "Hopefully, it will derail (pun intended) Sound Transit which wants to run 80 mph trains (that's hyperbole, it's really 79mph trains) through downtown Auburn, Kent, and Puyallup."

My reply was that this is an issue (the speed of the trains) that is decided by the federal government. 695 has nothing to do with it either way.

Your implication was that if you vote yes on 695, it'll have some sort of impact on the speed of these trains. The TNT says that the Federal Railroad Administration has already approved the new speed limits, and that local governments are severely restricted from doing anything about it. So 695 won't do anything to change this ruling.

Can we both agree on that, or not?

Issue #2

You seem concerned about the safety of rail crossings in that corridor. 695 takes away funding for R-49. R-49 was going to fund improvements to rail crossings in that corridor.

Isn't there a logical disconnect in your thinking? If you're really concerned about safety because of fast trains, why would you vote for something that takes away money to fund safety improvements?

Fire away.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.

Neither of these are issues. They do not comply with condition number 1. Will you accept these issues as substitutes for your #1 and #2? If not, please give your suggestions: #1. Assertion: The loss of MVET is likely to result in the loss of Sound Transit. Craig to debate positive, BB to debate negative. #2. Assertion: The loss of the MVET will have a significant negative effect on rail crossing safety in the Sound Transit corridor. BB to take affirmative. Craig to take negative. If these are unacceptable, provide your acceptable equivalents.

Are you also promising that you will comply with numbers 2,3, and 4? If not, then this is pointless?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 10, 1999.

Craig writes:

"#1. Assertion: The loss of MVET is likely to result in the loss of Sound Transit. Craig to debate positive, BB to debate negative."

I don't know where you're getting this from. I've never once said that Sound Transit wouldn't be impacted by 695. It's fairly clear, or at least as clear as anything surrounding this initiatve allows, that there will be a negative impact on funding for Sound Transit if this passes. I wouldn't go as far to say that it will be totally lost, however.

The only thing that I've said about Sound Transit is that I think it's rather ironic that all the 695 supporters are apparently so rabidly against it. I don't particularly think that it's the most wonderful plan in the world, but it passed with a public vote. Which is of course exactly what you are asking for in the future.

So if it passed with a public vote, it seems to me that you all should be supporting it as an example of politicans allowing voters to make a decision to tax themselves. It's a perfect example of what your vision of the future will bring, good or bad.

"#2. Assertion: The loss of the MVET will have a significant negative effect on rail crossing safety in the Sound Transit corridor. BB to take affirmative. Craig to take negative."

You've got this one right. I'm not sure how significant the impact will be, because none of us will be able to know until trains get sped up and intersection improvements aren't made (assuming 695 passes). But there will be a negative impact, because MVET funds that would be used to fund crossing improvements (overpasses, etc.) that were to be build with R-49 money will be gone.

But I'm still confused why you refuse to answer the questions, or respond to the issues that I posed above. You claim that I didn't even bring anything to the table, yet what I posted was a recitation of what you had yourself posted.

Answer this question for me, just for fun: will 695 have any impact whatsoever on the speed of trains between Tacoma and Seattle along the BNSF tracks? My answer: no. Your apparent answer: yes.

Federal regulations contradict your answer. What's your response?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.

BB-

Either buy into the rules and find yourself a debatable issue or find someone else to play with. If you don't agree with the issue to be debated, define an issue in standard format. If you don't like the statement of #1, give me a debatable (pro/con) ISSUE you do like. Do NOT take an interpretation of a statement that has not been mutually agreed upon, rebut it (or try to anyway), declare victory, and say "So there." An EXAMPLE:

"Answer this question for me, just for fun: will 695 have any impact whatsoever on the speed of trains between Tacoma and Seattle along the BNSF tracks? My answer: no. Your apparent answer: yes.

Federal regulations contradict your answer. What's your response? " If you wish to define the question as Assertion: The passage of I- 695 will have no impact on the speed of trains on the BNSF tracks between Tacoma and Seattle. BB to take the affirmative, Craig to take the negative AND YOU BUY INTO THE OTHER THREE CONDITIONS, OK. If not, suggest a more reasonable phrasing of the assertion. But whatever it is, we need to agree on the issue before starting the process. Otherwise we seem to have a problem with the issue morphing radically as facts are brought to bear that disprove what seemed to be the original assertion. .

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 10, 1999.

BB-

I've gotta throw in with Craig on this one. Back before he became a TV star, Bill Cosby used to do stand-up comedy. He cut a number of LP records (a primitive form of recording media, sort of like an oversize CD on a huge disk of vinyl plastic. You dragged a needle through a spiral groove, and a transducer converted irregularities in the bottom of the groove into an analog signal that (and I'm not kidding) a VACUUM TUBE amplifier would convert into real scratchy noises that for some reason were called "high fidelity." Really, they did this, check with the Smithsonian.) These LPs (for "long playing," if you can believe that) carried his comedy monologues, many about his childhood and childhood friends. Anyway, he had a great one where he described the ONE KID IN ANY NEIGHBORHOOD. The ONE KID simply was not able to withstand the loss of ego of being bested in their childhood games of cops and robbers, war, or cowboys and Indians (Cosby's terms, not mine. These were much less politically correct times). Cosby indicated that in a mock gunfight you could sneak up on the ONE KID, stick your toy gun in his navel, go "Bang! Bang!" catching him by surprise, and the ONE KID would quickly twist to one side, saying "it's only a flesh wound," shoot back with HIS toy gun, and claim to have killed you. And the Cos is correct, we all knew a kid like ONE KID sometime in our childhood. You BB, are that ONE KID, whose ego just never will permit him to admit that he's been bested in a fair fight (or in this case, debate). So I sympathize with Craig (although I admit Craig's postings are a little on the rude, crude, and in-your-face style that makes empathy somewhat difficult) when he doesn't want to debate until the subject has been clearly defined. Whenever you have been bested on these postings you do indeed have a habit of claiming the issue was something else, firing back, and declaring yourself the victor in classic ONE KID "it was only a flesh wound! Bang-bang! You're dead," style. In great amusement,

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 11, 1999.

Joshua, I do embrace the responsibility to take care of the members of this society who are in need of help. However I do not include the trucking companies who are funding the opposition to I-695 in that group!

-- Bobbie Harper (bharper@telcomplus.net), September 14, 1999.