Sometimes the only way you can get a vote is to take things statewide.

From today's PI: Suit filed to get drainage fee issue on county ballot A Renton man, rebuffed in an attempt to refer King County's new rural drainage fee to voters, is suing the county to try to get his referendum measure on the ballot. Chris Clifford, a Seattle cabaret owner, filed the suit in Kittitas County Superior Court in Ellensburg Thursday. Representing himself without a lawyer, he has asked for a May 1 hearing on his petition for a court order directing King County officials to process his referendum petition.

The county's surface water management fee was charged to all property owners in unincorporated King County except those in rural Eastside areas and on Vashon Island. In December it was extended to all unincorporated properties.

Rural residents have raised a tempest of opposition, and a County Council committee now is considering possible revisions to the fee.

Clifford filed a proposed referendum petition to place the fee extension on a countywide ballot. But the county prosecutor's office said a state law authorizing such fees doesn't allow voters to decide on them.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), April 17, 2000

Answers

to Mark: As a bona-fide whiner, I'm less concerned, now, about I-711 annihilating HOV lanes which may actually be working. The legislature has the legal right to "adjust" any initiatives passed by the people. So, even if I-711 passes, the legislature can bring back the HOV lanes on a case-by-case basis.

Actually, as a result of the discussion forum, I now believe the most rational policy is to issue special license plates for permission to use the HOV lanes. The cost could be $0.25/lb. of the weight of the vehicle plus $10 per every 1000 miles over 50,000 miles on the odometer. So, a 2-ton vehicle with 100,000 miles would pay $1500 annually for the privilege of using the HOV lanes. There would be no exceptions. Buses, vanpool vans, rental cars, etc. would all pay, utilizing the same formula.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 17, 2000.

Mark writes, regarding the SWM fee:

>>Sometimes the only way you can get a vote is to take things statewide.<<

And your point is? The SWM fee won't be taken for a statewide vote, Clifford's only trying to get it voted on in King County. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), April 17, 2000.

"And your point is? The SWM fee won't be taken for a statewide vote, Clifford's only trying to get it voted on in King County. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? "

The point is that there IS NO INITIATIVE PROCESS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL SO HE CAN'T GET IT VOTED ON AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. THAT'S what I'm talking about, you arrogant %#&$.

If you'd real and try to understand what your opponent's point of view is, rather than just trying to call them ignorant, you'd come across as a good deal less ignorant (or at least less arrogant) yourself.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), April 17, 2000.

Temper, temper, ....... play nicely, children.

I do have to throw in with Mark, however, that the point that he was trying to make was pretty clearly spelled out in the last sentence, "But the county prosecutor's office said a state law authorizing such fees doesn't allow voters to decide on them. "

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), April 17, 2000.

Mark writes:

>>The point is that there IS NO INITIATIVE PROCESS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL SO HE CAN'T GET IT VOTED ON AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. THAT'S what I'm talking about, you arrogant %#&$.<<

Perhaps you should do some research before you put your foot in your mouth. There is an initiative process at the local level. Remember when Seattle voted for the monorail? That was an initiative.

If you're talking about King County specifically, you can change county ordinances through referendum or initiative, but you you just can't change the county charter.

Any other questions?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), April 17, 2000.

Quack-person

"Clifford filed a proposed referendum petition to place the fee extension on a countywide ballot. But the county prosecutor's office said a state law authorizing such fees doesn't allow voters to decide on them. "

What part of this statement don't you get? Are you saying that the county prosecutor is fibbing? If not, IT APPEARS THAT A STATEWIDE INITIATIVE IS THE ONLY OPTION, DOESN'T IT?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), April 17, 2000.

Well Mark you might have a point if you hadn't COMPLETELY missed the point of our "whining."

We've been taking issue with the fact that I-711 would override a local vote of the people. You've attempted to refute this by providing an example of a person trying to override the vote of a government entity. Just kind of completely different.

Perhaps had the surface water fee been enacted by a vote of the people of King County, and this guy couldn't get it removed without going to a statewide initiative, then you might have something. But the people that live in areas that say, have a voter approved mass transit system DO have the power to repeal those taxes if they so wanted.

Your example Mark, is completely and totally unrelated to our "whining."

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 17, 2000.

"Well Mark you might have a point if you hadn't COMPLETELY missed the point of our "whining." "

First you slam the guy without reading his posts, then when he points out the bloomin' obvious, you go ooops, I didn't make a mistake, we were whining but for a different reason.

LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME!

-- (ZOWIE@HOTMAIL.COM), April 18, 2000.

I'd like to respond to what Zowie posted, but I don't have a clue what he's talking about.

I read what Mark wrote, and like I said, it doesn't have anything to do with what those of us opposing I-711 are taking issue with. That is, unless he is confirming my claims that many supporters of I-711 in the RTA district are doing so because they know that they are in the minority within the district, and must resort to a form of ballot stuffing to get their way.

So as Zowie has gotten me to highlight, either Mark completely missed the mark on one of the opposition arguments against I- 711, or he does understand it, and basically thinks that if you don't get your way in an election you should just gerrymander it until you do get your way.

Geesh Zowie, way to shoot your ally in the foot. I'm certainly going to sleep better tonight knowing you're not on my side.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 19, 2000.

At last, I am in at least partial agreement with Patrick. To be specific;

"I'd like to respond to what Zowie posted, but I don't have a clue "

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), April 19, 2000.

It's nice to hear that you've finally come to realize that you don't have a clue Zowie.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 20, 2000.

Patrick-

The Alzheimers must be setting in when you can't recognize your own quotes.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), April 20, 2000.

"The Alzheimers must be setting in when you can't recognize your own quotes."

Leave it to Zowie not to get his own style of low brow humor.

-- Patrick (patrick142@yahoo.com), April 26, 2000.

That's Patrick, the king of the lame retorts.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), April 26, 2000.