I am your average poor in debt UW student. When it came time to vote on I-695, I voted no because I decided to vote responsibly and think the about the initiatives effects on the future of our state. After reading the facts and myths of 695 on this website I became convinced that Eyman's facts are not facts. What Eyman calls a fact are merely ideal outcomes. It is not a fact that all programs supported by license tabs will know be supported by our state's tax surplus. That is up to the politicians not Eyman. So far the response has been layoffs and cuts in transportation services. Besides, a tax surpluss is a good thing, not a reason to put ourselves in debt. I feel insulted when Eyman claims his initiative helps poor people, college students and working families. Destroying are future plans for mass transit is not going to help us. Making me rely more on our cars does not help us. Cheaper car tabs are not going to begin to replace these losses. Many people voted for I-695 because they were not presented with the consequences of the initiative. If you honestly think your ideas are as flawless as Eyman does, you can present the consequences of those ideas without worry. Eyman has dismissed every consequence of his initiative with unlikely claims. Eyman acts as though his initiatives are for the good of the people. Not. His newest initiative that would send 90 percent of transportaion spending to highway construction, goes against many aspects of responsible planning and the conservation of our natural resources. Building more freeways and less public transportation is foolish. For the following reasons:

1- eliminates an alternative to driving a car (so much for poor people) 2- requires further destruction of natural habitats 3- enables further urban sprawl 4- congests traffic even further

You might want to consider another reason for high taxes on tabs. Brace yourselves. This is an ugly thought suburbanites. The reason is to discourage more people from driving their cars and encourage the use of public transportaion. The reason for this is not to fill the pockets of greedy politicians, it's to create a sustainable environment.

-- Esteban Alcorn (estebanalcorn@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999

Answers

High MVET will create a sustainable environment? It does no such thing. And you criticize Tim Eyman for lack of facts. Here's a fact for you. A 56% majority heard the facts (the sky is falling) daily, and we voted for it anyway. Tim's honesty? I prefer his honesty to your whining. Come back in 20 years, UW student, when you have a bit more experience earning a wage, and paying taxes.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

Esteban-

Mass transit is losing market share worldwide, even in Europe and Asia where the population density makes it much less inefficient than in the US. People are voting with there feet against it for very good demographic reasons.

In this country, it has been pushed well past it's niche. The bus runs targeted for cancellation in South King County had less than nine boardings per hour. This means they were averaging only about three passengers aboard at any given time. The entire Metro only averages 15 passengers aboard a bus at any given time, and this counts full buses to Husky and Seahawk games, and everyone who rides the no-fare zone buses. It doesn't make sense to have a $400,000 vehicle weighing thirty tons be highly subsidized to get that little use. We need a social safety net for those who can't drive, and we need to meet demand in those areas where transit can be self supporting, but we don't need buses that ride near empty, and that is what we have.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 17, 1999.

To - Marsha, maybe you should read what I my message more carefully. I never said a high MVET will create a sustainable environment. Less cars on the road will create a more sustainable environment. Maybe you should look up the word fact in the dictionary because it is not a fact that 56% of the voters heard the facts. The only fact their is that 56% of the voters voted for the initiative. Don't be a fool and think that 100% percent of that majority new the facts. Many have admitted to voting for the initiatve just to by cheaper tabs. Who wouldn't if they didn't know the concsequences.

As far as your comment on me needing to come back in 20 years after paying some taxes and earning wages. Maybe your the one who needs to come back in 20 years when you can show some maturity by not making ingnorant assumptions and personal attacks. For all you know I could be a 40yr old graduate student.

-- Esteban Alcorn (estebanalcorn@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

The only fact their(sic) is (sic)that 56% of the voters voted for the initiative. Don't be a fool and think that 100% percent of that majority new (sic) the facts. Many have admitted to voting for the initiatve(sic) just to by(sic) cheaper tabs. Who wouldn't if they didn't know the concsequences(sic). As far as your comment on me needing to come back in 20 years after paying some taxes and earning wages. Maybe your(sic) the one who needs to come back in 20 years when you can show some maturity by not making ingnorant(sic) assumptions and personal attacks.

For all you know I could be a 40yr old graduate student.

MAYBE, BUT YOU'RE CERTAINLY NO ENGLISH MAJOR.

-- (ZOWIE@HOTMAIL.COM), December 17, 1999.

I hope the grammer assistant has better things to do with their time. Lets stick to the issues. We aren't here to sharpen up our writing skills.

-- Mark (mark@seattletimes.com), December 17, 1999.

"I hope the grammer assistant has better things to do with their time. Lets stick to the issues. We aren't here to sharpen up our writing skills. "

That anything like a grammar assistant?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

What do you do at the Times, Mark?

Hope it isn't proofreading.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

The uneducated UW student wrote; read what I my message more carefully.

I did. You wrote, "When it came time to vote on I-695, I voted no because I decided to vote responsibly and think the about the initiatives effects on the future of our state."

and you also wrote "The reason is to discourage more people from driving their cars and encourage the use of public transportaion. The reason for this is not to fill the pockets of greedy politicians, it's to create a sustainable environment."

Apparently, you write one thing and mean something else? You did not mean money from MVET? You wrote "Maybe you should look up the word fact in the dictionary because it is not a fact that 56% of the voters heard the facts. The only fact their is that 56% of the voters voted for the initiative. Don't be a fool and think that 100% percent of that majority new the facts."

No uneducated UW student. You are the fool. It is a FACT that local and state governments released all sorts of information on the effects of I-695, via TV and Newspapers, spending millions to do so. If a single voter was unaware, it was intentional on their part. Ever heard of a voters pamphlet? And you are not very bright to suggest otherwise, or that I would need a dictionary.

It is not hard to distinguish young and stupid from mature and intelligent. Thanks for your second post, proving just how ridiculous you are.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

Marsha 

Your comments are still not accurate. I have heard of pamphlets. I never said the facts regarding the consequences of I-695 werent presented by the government, I said Eyman did not accurately present them.

The reason I suggested you look up fact in the dictionary is because you wrote:

Here's a fact for you. A 56% majority heard the facts (the sky is falling) daily, and we voted for it anyway.

I am sure this true for some people, but in order for this comment to be a fact it must be true for the entire 56%.

I reffered to MVET because of your comment which was a response to mine was:

High MVET will create a sustainable environment? It does no such thing.

I replied by stating:

I never said a high MVET would create a sustainable environment.

I hope your maturity and prejudices catch up with your age

-- (estebanalcorn@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

esteban-

I hope the UW refunds the tuition you spent to take English 101 and 102. You was robbed!

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

DEAR MR. EYMAN

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE INSIGHT ON THE OUTCOME OF YOUR HELP AND PASSING OF I-695. I WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR A YEAR. I HAD WORKED VERY HARD TO GRADUATE FROM COLLEGE AND ACHIEVE MY GOAL OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND NOW IT IS JUST A FLASH IN THE DARK THANKS TO YOUR IDEAS AND SUPPORT OF I-695. I DONT THINK YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THE RAMAFICATIONS OF THE PASSING, AND OVERALL DESIGN OF I-695. I NOW HAVE TO START THE NEWE YEAR OFF UNEMPLOYED, AND ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I JUST WAS BLESSED WITH A NEW BABY GIRL THE 11TH OF DECEMBER AND NOW I HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT I CANNOT SUPPORT MY FAMILY DUE TO THE LOSS OF MY JOB WITH THE STATE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO WISH MY FAMILY A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR???? PROBABLY NOT! DID YOU THINK THAT THIS WAS GOING TO HAVE NO EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT THROUGHOUT THE DEPARTMENT? I THINK YOU SHOULD TRY TO USE BETTER JUDGEMENT WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS EVERYONE NOT JUST YOURSELF! MY HOLIDAYS ARE NOW PRETTY MUCH SCREWED BECAUSE OF YOU AND MY FAMILIES WELFARE IS JEOPARDIZED BECAUSE OF YOUR IDIOTIC ACTIONS TO SUPPORT A BILL THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER PASSED. THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO IMPLEMENT A POINT, WITHOUT FUCKING UP EVERYONES LIFE SURROUNDING YOUR BELIEFS. I JUST THOUGHT YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS, HOPING YOU WILL HAVE JUST AS WONDERFUL A CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR AS IM GOING TO HAVE, BUT THEN AGAIN YOU PROBABLY DONT HAVE A CONCIOUS AND SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR Patrick K Archer Traffic Safety Operations Specialist WSDOT Headquarters Phone : (360) 705-7292 Fax : (360) 705-6826 E-Mail : archerp@wsdot.wa.gov

-- PATRICK K ARCHER (LISANPATRICK@EARTHLINK.NET), December 20, 1999

-- PATRICK K ARCHER (LISANPATRICK@EARTHLINK.NET), December 20, 1999.

I NOW HAVE TO START THE NEWE YEAR OFF UNEMPLOYED, Fortunately for you, we have an unemployment rate at a thirty year low. Finding a new job should not be a problem for anyone willing to work, particularly not a college graduate.

AND ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I JUST WAS BLESSED WITH A NEW BABY GIRL THE 11TH OF DECEMBER Congratulations! Kids are really fun. They are our chance at immortality. You're a lucky man!

AND NOW I HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT I CANNOT SUPPORT MY FAMILY DUE TO THE LOSS OF MY JOB WITH THE STATE. There always was that chance. Life has no guarantees. But as a college graduate, you won't have any difficulty finding another job, hopefully in the private sector where you can learn how to do things more efficiently than they do in state government. If so, it'll be well worth the temporary disruption in your career.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO WISH MY FAMILY A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR???? PROBABLY NOT! Sure! We'd ALL like to wish you Season's Greetings, including Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah. Also happy Ramadan, if that's important to you.

DID YOU THINK THAT THIS WAS GOING TO HAVE NO EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT THROUGHOUT THE DEPARTMENT? Gosh no! We rather hoped that it would cause the legislature to change the laws so we can contract out a lot of functions that the private sector can do more efficiently.

I THINK YOU SHOULD TRY TO USE BETTER JUDGEMENT WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS EVERYONE NOT JUST YOURSELF! Well gee Patrick, Eyman didn't just sneak this buy everybody. A solid MAJORITY of voters also thought it was a good idea.

MY HOLIDAYS ARE NOW PRETTY MUCH SCREWED BECAUSE OF YOU AND MY FAMILIES WELFARE IS JEOPARDIZED BECAUSE OF YOUR IDIOTIC ACTIONS TO SUPPORT A BILL THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER PASSED. I think the only thing that would jeapordize your family's welfare is to continue to whine and feel sorry for yourself, rather than move on to the abundant opportunities in the private sector. The initiative passed because a solid MAJORITY of your fellow voters believed it was a good initiative.

THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO IMPLEMENT A POINT, WITHOUT F***ING UP EVERYONES LIFE SURROUNDING YOUR BELIEFS. Would you want your daughter reading this in a few years? Tsk-tsk!

I JUST THOUGHT YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS, HOPING YOU WILL HAVE JUST AS WONDERFUL A CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR AS IM GOING TO HAVE, I don't know about Mr. Eyman, Patrick, but I'm looking forward to an OUTSTANDING holiday season. Hope yours is just as good.

BUT THEN AGAIN YOU PROBABLY DONT HAVE A CONCIOUS AND SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT. I have a great conscience if that's what you are trying to say, and I always have a little difficulty sleeping on Dec. 24th, not sure if that's just eager anticipation or anxiety over Santa getting caught in the chimney.

In any event Patrick, thank you for your interest in our initiatives, we deeply appreciate your support, and hope that you will continue to support us in the future.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR Patrick K Archer Traffic Safety Operations Specialist WSDOT Headquarters Phone : (360) 705-7292 Fax : (360) 705-6826 E-Mail : archerp@wsdot.wa.gov

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 20, 1999.

Good Lord Patrick-

You not only are whining miserably, but you're doing it in multiple postings. The state is advertising for jobs that you could apparently fill. You might take a lateral move to one of them, if you feel you must work in government. See your OTHER whiney posting for details.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.