I wonder why they decided to post a couple letters to the TNT in the "Latest Articles" section, but didn't include Peter Callaghan's column that ran on the same day? Could it be that it asks a few questions that Eyman doesn't want to be asked? And for that matter, why does it seem as if a lot of the supporters of the latest initiative want to dodge these questions too?

Here's a question: Since the voters of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties voted OVERWHELMINGLY to create a new tax on themselves to SPECIFICALLY fund a mass transit system, what right do the people outside this area have to force us to use OUR money differently? The people in my region spoke very loudly that we want a regional mass transit system and taxed ourselves to pay for it. Anyone outside of the RTA boundaries should NOT be able to tell those of us in that area that we can't use our money the way we want to. That is representation WITHOUT taxation, and smells suspiciously like the idea of Olympia telling us how to spend our money. You know, one of the things A LOT of you 695 supporters railed against during the campaign.

Here's the Callaghan column.

This time, the 'populist' tries to undo democracy

Tim Eyman, the father of Initiative 695, sees himself as the anti politician.

Not in the sense that he dislikes politicians, though he certainly seems to. Instead, he wants to be seen as the opposite of them. While they are insiders, he's an outsider. They benefit from the status quo; he wants to shake it up. They disregard the opinions of the masses; he picks them up and runs with them.

I-695 spoke to all of those themes. Eyman skillfully tapped into resentment toward the political establishment. While lawmakers were doling out tax cuts to business and amassing a billion-dollar bank account, regular folks were being patronized with tiny cuts in property and motor vehicle excise taxes.

The initiative succeeded overwhelmingly, and not just because car owners wanted a few hundred dollars in tax savings. It passed because it also gave voters a way to send a message to that establishment: It isn't your government, it's our government.

But if Eyman isn't careful, he'll become just another politician, overly impressed with himself. If he doesn't take a big gulp of humility, he'll start thinking that he's powerful because his initiative passed. He'll forget that people only lend power to leaders, subject to immediate revocation if they think that person is getting too haughty.

He'll become what he opposes.

Last week, Eyman announced a signature drive on a measure he claims will solve gridlock in the Puget Sound area. The plan would open car-pool lanes to all cars. It would require that 90 percent of state highway dollars go to roads and ferries. And it would demand that the regional taxes paying for Sound Transit's bus and rail network be devoted instead to highway building.

Eyman portrays the measure as another attempt by the people to yank control from the politicians.

But it looks a lot more like Eyman taking sides in a decades-long political debate over how to solve traffic problems. On one side are those who claim 40 years of highway building hasn't worked. As soon as roads are built to relieve congestion, they become congested.

On the other side - the one Eyman has aligned himself with - are those who say government shouldn't force people to ride buses and trains when they really just want to drive their own cars to work. Alone.

In 1996, voters in a region containing most of Pierce, King and Snohomish counties were asked to decide which way to go. By more than 56 percent, they chose to tax themselves to see if heavy rail, light rail and regional express buses might help.

It's exactly the type of direct democracy that Eyman's I-695 endorsed.

So why would Tim Eyman come back now - in the guise of a populist - and say those voters screwed up? Why would he second-guess - not the politicians - but the people themselves? Could it be because his side didn't prevail?

It would be anti-democratic to have voters across the state come in and tell taxpayers in the Puget Sound region how to spend their money. Spokane taxpayers aren't paying for Sound Transit. Why does Eyman think they should be able to decide how our taxes are spent?

It would be akin to having a statewide vote to second-guess a bond levy vote in the Yakima School District. Sorry, Yakima. We think you should build two high schools and a football stadium instead of five grade schools and a swimming pool.

Such condescension wouldn't be legal or wise. Neither would a move to reverse a decision of voters in Puget Sound, even if Tim Eyman disagrees with them.

Reach Peter Callaghan at 253-597-8657, peter.callaghan@mail.tribnet.com or PO Box 11000, Tacoma, 98411.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 22, 1999

Answers

I had asked a similar question in an earlier post which Craig responded to. Craig indicated that the voters in the three counties should be able to change their minds and the passage of I-695 in Pierce and Snohomish Counties is an indicator that the people in those counties had in fact changed their minds. If put up for a vote again, he feels that Sound Transit would fail.

But even he agrees that the rest of the state should not take monies that three counties voluntarily voted for to fund a specific project.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), December 22, 1999.

"even he " What do you menan, EVEN he? ;)

-- the craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 22, 1999.

Thanks Gene, I'll try to find the post. I can't see how 695 is an indication that the people want the RTA repealed, but then again Craig is kind of obsessed with the entire public transportation thing. He probably thought that the shooting on that Metro bus last year was an indication of the general dissatisfaction with transit.

And Craigster, just what in the world is "menan"?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 23, 1999.

The interchange between Craig and myself discussing this topic would be found in "Since when is Eyman such an expert on traffic planning?" occuring on December 16.

And Craig, that is how I interpreted this interchange. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

-- Gene (gene@gene.com), December 23, 1999.

"And Craigster, just what in the world is "menan"? It's a TYPO from the old hunt and peck typist, Craig-o. It was meant as a tongue in cheek humor (note the smiley on the original) expression of mock outrage that you used "even" as if to imply that the proposal was to the right of Craigster the Hun. But my lousy typing skills spoiled the punch line.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 23, 1999.

I was aware that it was a typo. But since you're so quick to point out everyone else's mistakes, I figured a little payback might be in order.

You know, that entire glass house thing.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 23, 1999.

"But since you're so quick to point out everyone else's mistakes, I figured a little payback might be in order. " Actually, I usually give people a bye on typos. But when people preface their statements with, "I'm a UW student.........." or "I have six years of study in urban planning....." or "I'm a college graduate......." and then goes on with atrocious grammar and spelling, well....... if you are going to claim yourself an educated authority, it'd be nice if you didn't come across as a refugee from the third grade. But that's just MY opinion. If you think it enhances your credibility to come across as illiterate, be my guest. I don't. It also ruins the punch line.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 23, 1999.