I am 100% in favor of I-695. A friend of mine is against the initiative and asked me a question that I would like to be able to answer but currently don't have enough information to.

"The taxpayers voted against building Safeco field; however, they built it anyway and it's being funding by us taxpayers. What makes you think that by voting yes to I-695 we will get what we vote on?"

Can you shed some light on this for me? Is this any different than the Safeco field vote?

-- Niecy Johnson (NiecyBeetle@cs.com), October 25, 1999

Answers

Don't worry. If it passes, we'll get it. Can you imagine the problems if they screw with it? I've only heard rumblings and rumors. But it will not be pretty... I read on another I-695 posting somewhere that there are detailed plans to block all the freeways in the greater Seattle area durring morning rush hour with old beaters in all directions.

I can only imagine to problems that would cause. What if somebody needs medical service?

Don't get me wrong. I don't agree on such actions. However, if our government decides to not follow the law (and that's what I-695 will be) and to snub their nose at the peoples orders, the people are going to use extreme measures.

-- Bill Sheehan (williamsheehan@hotmail.com), October 25, 1999.

What we are voting on with I-695 is an actual change in the law. What was voted on with the staduim was a specific budgetary expenditure. The legislature has the authority (allegedly given to them by us, the voters) to appropriate money for all sorts of public and quasi-public projects. They exercised that alleged right when they set up the funding scheme with the M's for the stadium. With I-695, such a discretionary right will not exist because the new law does not deal with the actual spending of money, only how much is collected and when. There will be no way for the legislature or the governor to usurp the public's wishes when I-695 passes. This is why they are all screaming "the sky is falling", because they know there is no "back door" like there was with the stadium vote.

-- just a guy (torijosh@yahoo.com), October 25, 1999.

First, I am not a sports fan and did not agree with funding Safeco Field.

However, I have heard that the vote was concerning a specific funding proposal which was rejected. The logic that was used, is that the voters did not want THAT funding method, that required voter approval; but did not reject the stadium itself. If it were built with private money, no one would have objected would they? The supporters of the project proposed an alternate funding plan that did not require voter approval, and justified it by the revenue that would be generated by the events. No one broke the law to do it.

What is different about 695, is that if it is passed it becomes law 30 days after the election results are certified. Unless, of course, the expected suits are filed in that time and an injuction is issued by a court pending evaluation of the interpretation and constitutional questions. In that case, you will not get what you voted for until the court permits it to go into effect.

As for a demonstration, or blocked freeways, the rule of law includes waiting for a judicial judgement. It also includes arrest for any illegal action, and what you described would not be hidden.

If 695 is passed, and a court lets it go into effect, I believe we will all regret it. I also believe that is exactly what will happen if no legal basis is presented that justifies invalidating the initiative or major parts of it. If the government does not follow the law, I would join you in getting the responsible official in front of a judge.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 26, 1999.