Ballot initiatives in Washington State

[livendive 8]

Since the California ballot initiatives are getting so much press, I figured I might get one or two replies to this.

I-985 would divert certain monies from the general fund and red-light camera fines to reduce congestion by opening HOV lanes to all traffic except during rush hours, synchronizing lights, and other congestion reduction methods. Specifically excluded methods include mass transit and bicycling solutions. I'll be voting against this measure because it diverts money from a general fund that is currently in the red to promote improvements that won't affect me, and does so in manners that specifically exclude greener alternatives.

I-1000 would allow physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill patients with less than 6 months to live. It mirrors Oregon's assisted suicide program in its protective measures (felony convictions for coercion, waiting periods, required second opinions, etc). I'll be voting yes on this because I think people should free to choose how and when they die, and mentally competent people who reach such a conclusion should be able to get professional assistance.

I-1029 would require state funded training, testing, and certification of in-home healthcare providers. Most family members would be excluded from the requirements. It is expected to cost $30M over the next two years. I'll be voting against this because I think such things should be industry-funded rather than state-funded. This one has wide support (like 65-20) so it's unlikely my vote will have any affect.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[klingeme 1]

Quote

I-1000 would allow physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill patients with less than 6 months to live. It mirrors Oregon's assisted suicide program in its protective measures (felony convictions for coercion, waiting periods, required second opinions, etc). I'll be voting yes on this because I think people should free to choose how and when they die, and mentally competent people who reach such a conclusion should be able to get professional assistance.

I'm all for this one. I personally think that Jack Kevorkian was a bit of a saint.

[TrophyHusband 0]

i'll jump in here. i grew up there and its likely that i will be moving back in about 4 years.

i-985 this is a problem that is mostly in the greater seattle area is it not? traffic is a huge problem there. in fact, as much as i love the city, the traffic is a deal-breaker for me. that said, most of the money in washington is concentrated in that area. i wonder if they could find a solution that uses more local funds, and not toll booths either, that would fuck things up worse. it also seems silly to exclude green solutions, given that seattle is a progressive town. i would think that the residents would be very receptive to green solutions, but i could be wrong, i haven't lived there for 8 years. i agree with you.


i-1000 total agreement with you on that one.


i-1029 i have parents the currently live and will someday die in washington. its possible one or both of them will need in home care some day. i think its a good idea for the providers to have the proper training, testing, and certification. my sticking point would be the state funded part. it seems like the training could be provided at the community colleges where student tuition would pay for it. the state would bear some initial cost to get the classes going, but should eventually get paid back. with our aging population, there will be a growing need for in-home healthcare. testing and cerification could be paid by the person taking the test and seeking the certification. i would vote no on this too, but only because they could do better with the funding aspect of it.

damn dave, i agree with you on all three. this is speaker's corner so that shouldn't happen. are those the most controversial issues in washington right now?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[livendive 8]

Proposition 1 is also going to be on ballots in the urban areas of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. It provides a huge chunk of money ($18 to $47 billion, depending on who you ask) for regional transportation improvements. I believe the proposal calls for an increase of 0.6 cents in the sales tax and an annual tax of $8 per $1000 of vehicle value...presumably only in those areas (if I'm gonna have to fund it from over here, I'd certainly expect to be able to vote on it)

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[TrophyHusband 0]

hopefully it would only be for those areas. if i remember right, when i was there i voted for an initiative that lowered vehicle registration to something like $30 and made it a requirement that any raises in taxes or fees had to be voted on by the public. i heard that after i moved, the state just threw out the public vote half of the initiative. don't know if i was getting accurate info on that, but throwing out something that the public voted on seems like grounds for storming olympia with torches and pitchforks.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[livendive 8]

Quote

hopefully it would only be for those areas. if i remember right, when i was there i voted for an initiative that lowered vehicle registration to something like $30 and made it a requirement that any raises in taxes or fees had to be voted on by the public. i heard that after i moved, the state just threw out the public vote half of the initiative. don't know if i was getting accurate info on that, but throwing out something that the public voted on seems like grounds for storming olympia with torches and pitchforks.

Yep, that was Tim Eyman's first big win. I don't much care for his public personality or his motives, but I do agree with and vote for about half of his initiatives. I-985 above is one of his babies that I'm voting against.

As for the bill you mention (I-695), you have the gist of it. Basically the initiative was ruled unconsititutional because it contained more than one subject and because those subjects weren't all identified in the title. Still, the lawmakers were wise enough to realize that overturning the selling point of such a broadly supported measure would be political suicide, so the $30 tabs remained (mine were reduced from $430ish at the time). They've crept back up since then, and in especially stupid ways, e.g. requiring for-fee license PLATE replacement every 3 years and now applying a weight surcharge on all vehicles rather than just heavy duty trucks (yes, my girlfriend's Corolla is subject to a weight surcharge). They're still much better than they were though...I think mine were around $50-$55 this year.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[drdive 0]

Quote

Since the California ballot initiatives are getting so much press, I figured I might get one or two replies to this.

I-985 would divert certain monies from the general fund and red-light camera fines to reduce congestion by opening HOV lanes to all traffic except during rush hours, synchronizing lights, and other congestion reduction methods. Specifically excluded methods include mass transit and bicycling solutions. I'll be voting against this measure because it diverts money from a general fund that is currently in the red to promote improvements that won't affect me, and does so in manners that specifically exclude greener alternatives.

I-1000 would allow physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill patients with less than 6 months to live. It mirrors Oregon's assisted suicide program in its protective measures (felony convictions for coercion, waiting periods, required second opinions, etc). I'll be voting yes on this because I think people should free to choose how and when they die, and mentally competent people who reach such a conclusion should be able to get professional assistance.

I-1029 would require state funded training, testing, and certification of in-home healthcare providers. Most family members would be excluded from the requirements. It is expected to cost $30M over the next two years. I'll be voting against this because I think such things should be industry-funded rather than state-funded. This one has wide support (like 65-20) so it's unlikely my vote will have any affect.

Blues,
Dave

Dave,

Without talking to you ahead of time, I am 3 for 3 in agreement with you. I usually support Eymanns initiatives, but he is all wet on this one, and talks like a silver tongued politician on this one.

Doc

"We saved your gear. Now you can sell it when you get out of the hospital and upsize!!" "K-Dub"

"