streetcar

Early Boise streetcar

A century ago, most cities of much size had streetcars, electric rail systems running through the populated areas. Boise had an extensive system that run through most of what then was town (which was a lot smaller than it is now) and out west into the farm country, where many families would go for a daytrip ride on the rail.

There are far fewer of these now, most wiped out by the mass of cars and buses. San Francisco has a famous system, of course; Portland has a neat downtown-area streetcar system that meshes well with the rest of the MAX/Tri-met system; and Seattle has its new unfortunately-acronymed South Lake Union Trolley.

And Boise just might get a small-scaled version, running east and west of and through downtown. Mayor Dave Bieter has been pushing it hard, Senator Mike Crapo has been working on federal funding (which would have to amount to $40 million)

It has become a big subject of controversy in the city’s current council races – and the tenor of it suggests where the public attitudes are leaning. The streetcar critics (the more conservative candidates) are direct and blunt in their blasts – open-seat candidate Dave Litster calls it a “trolley folly.” His opponent T.J. Thomson (who has Bieter’s endorsement and, owing in large part to a much more extensive campaign, seems likely to win) hasn’t exactly been taking the pro-streetcar approach. While not ruling it out, he declares himself neutral and a backer of a public vote on the matter. That’s Bieter’s supporter.

How might such a vote go? You may get a clue from a just-out Idaho Statesman poll showing 50.3% in opposition, 36.7% in favor and the rest undecided. Bieter maintained that many of those opposed haven’t seen the financials and economic estimates in support of the streetcars, and that may be true. But that doesn’t mean the numbers would move greatly even if they did.

On my last visit to Boise I spoke with a number of people about the streetcar, mainly people predisposed to public transport, a number of them big fans of the Portland system. There was little enthusiasm in this group (less than I’d expected) for the streetcar. The reasons varied, but most commonly came to this: The streetcar could do only limited good for downtown transit, would eat up valuable real estate, and gobble big money that could otherwise go toward beefing up a bus system in desperate need of more routes and greater frequency. There was also a feeling that it would place too much emphasis on downtown and not enough on the rest of the city, and thereby split attitudes (maybe leading to divisiveness) about public transportation generally. And public transportation has always had a rough patch in Idaho.

So if you find fewer candidates in Boise supporting the streetcar Idaho than you do throwing rocks at it, there may be reasons. And those reasons might be less clearly split philosophically than you might think.

Share on Facebook

Idaho

There’s a lot of moaning around the Puget Sound about the Boeing decision to located its secondary 787 assembly plant at Charleston, South Carolina, rather than at Everett, which is near existing Boeing facilities and was of course badly wanted by the Seattle region.

It’s not good news for the Northwest, of course. But before you start in on the finger-pointing and recriminations, read about what South Carolina did (among other things) to get the plant:

“The Boeing incentive includes up to $170 million in low-interest loans for construction, plus sales tax exemptions for computers, material and fuel used in test flights. It allows Boeing to pay very little corporate income tax for 10 years, by tying those taxes to in-state aircraft sales.”

And, importantly, it gives Boeing a non-union work force (in a right to work state).

Would matching that have been a smart move for Washington? South Carolina’s package amounted to massive payoffs (for that, in essence, is what they were), huge breaks on normal support for community services (which is what taxes are), and low-end wages. What kind of option would that have been for Washington?

For that matter, what is it saying about Boeing – the company that not so many years ago said it was uprooting corporate headquarters to Chicago in part because key public services (such as tranportation) weren’t keeping up?

Share on Facebook

Washington

At a recall election in Clatsop County, Commissioner Anne Samuelson apparently has lost her seat by the margin of four votes.

Once again: Every vote counts.

Although in a way this may not be a shock, since she was actually recalled from the Jewell School District board just last year (though she has been on the county commission since 2006, when she was first appointed and later elected).

H/t to Blue Oregon.

Share on Facebook

Oregon

Vaughn Ward

Vaughn Ward

Campaign finance reports from the Northwest for the cycle ending September 30 showed mostly the expected. The two Democratic incumbent senators in Washington and Oregon have big mega-million warchests, and no one in their states comes close. The House incumbents are all raising substantial money, which for present purposes we’ll define as six figures or more. Only three House challengers have. We’ll return before long to two of them (Democrat Suzan DelBene in the Washington 8th, and Republican Robert Cornilles in the Oregon 1st).

The most interesting of them for now may be the third: Republican Vaughn Ward, running in the Idaho 1st congressional district. Unlike the other two, he has in-party opposition that facially should be running in front, but now clearly isn’t. The numbers run this way: Incumbent Democrat Walt Minnick has raised $885,842 (a very solid amount) and has on hand $642,322; Ward has raised $242,875 (with $178,533 on hand); and fellow Republican Ken Roberts has raised $62,020 with $41,660 on hand. Among northwest challengers, Ward has been outraised only by DelBene, who so far has self-funded 59% of her warchest.

By traditional measures, Roberts, who is in state House leadership and has endorsement from much of the House Republican caucus and a big swath of Republican leadership, ought to be top contender, or at least the lead money-raiser: He would seem to be the inside establishment candidate, if just by virtue of his statehouse linkages. But Ward seems to be on the verge of swamping him, and the dollars are only one indicator of that. A range of politically-active Idahoans (across parties) we’ve talked with recently say that Ward is pulling ahead.

That may be a national conclusion as well. In the last few days Ward was in Washington and reports picking up an endorsement from Representative Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, the House Republican whip. National endorsements like that, while a competitive primary is still going on, are not unheard of (see the Democrats and the Oregon race for the Senate in 2007) but are unusual, and could open quite a few financial doors.

I spoke with Wardthis morning, and some of the reasons for that fell into focus. They also suggest how great is the challenge Minnick will face next year – which is to say, large.

An early guess about Ward, who has never run for office before and is on the younger side (age 40 at present), might be that he’d have a steep learning curve as a candidate, in developing a clear message, self-description, presentation and so forth. But whatever curve there was, is largely past: He is clear, concise, polished, confident (just short of cocky), well aware of his audiences and how to address them, with some sophistication in shaping and framing messages. As a candidate, he reminds in some ways of former Senator Steve Symms (who had excellent campaign skills), but drawing on a broader background.

He seems to have an effective handle on telling his life story (growing up in a low-income one-parent house, moving on to military, combat in Iraq, CIA experience and staff work on Capitol Hill for then-Senator Dirk Kempthorne). His core message doesn’t stray from the Republican line (less government, lower taxes, etc.) but he has more to add to it. His take on Afghanistan, for example, essentially backs that of General Stanley McChrystal, with some detail but formulated simply: “Finish the job or get out.” It may be a message easy to convey, and possibly easier than whatever the Obama Administration comes up with.

Ward positions himself as an outsider (“I’m not a status quo candidate”), and running against Roberts of the Statehouse or Minnick from the Potomac, that may work. (Should be noted here: Ward seems not to talk a lot about either, but more about himself – a simple but effective campaigning approach that often works well for conservative Republicans in Idaho. It’s a campaigning style – Kempthrone and Senator Mike Crapo are among those who have used it – that carries a subtle non-abrasive subtext that: I am the winner.) Ward’s ties and connections in Washington and in the defense and intelligence world may be something his opposition could usefully examine. But for now, he seems able to hold a stance amenable to the tea-bagger crowd (remember that members of the Palin family have campaigned for him) without venturing out into their more extravagant and contentious turf.

A point of interest. He said that he is asked “every single time I have one of these meet and greets: How do we know you’ll do what you say and not drink the water and become part of the process and become one of them … beguiled by the power and smitten by it, and lose your way . . .” You get the sense this is a concern generic about politicians overall, not Ward in particular. (His answer circles back to his life experiences and how they have shaped him.)

The three Republican members of Idaho’s congressional delegation all would describe themselves as solidly conservative, and get that description from most external observers too. And you’d be hard pressed to describe the Republican congressional caucuses overall as anything other than highly unified along conservative lines. But Ward reports that among Idaho Republicans “they’re talking about a discontentedness with the east coast Republicans . . . who are not necessarily holding true to what they think are Republican values.” He referenced the two Maine senators as examples. Of course, the two Maine senators are almost the only examples remaining of non-strongly conservative Republicans left on Capitol Hill. But Ward’s report on what they’re thinking about rings true, and suggests a lot about what the Idaho Republican primary electorate looks like.

Ward has been, of course and of necessity, talking mainly so far to Republican activists and strong supporters – that’s where you start a campaign. But he already seems well equipped to take his efforts on broader roads. For now, he’s much better positioned for it than many people would have expected only a few months ago.

Share on Facebook

Idaho

pass

Near Willamette Pass, Tuesday/Linda Watkins

Linda was on the road Tuesday from Klamath Falls to Eugene. Here’s some of what it looked like near Willamette Pass.

Share on Facebook

Oregon

dairy

Dairy belt/University of Idaho

Large swaths of southern Idaho have been transformed in the last couple of decades by dairies – not the little norman Rockwell dairies of yore but megadairies, with populations of cattle that overshadow those of people, most notably in the Central magic Valley.

Most of the discussion has centered on the environmental effects of such masses of cattle. But the dairies have other effects too, social ones, that can have impact on politics and policy. These are the subject of a just-out 109-page University of Idaho report called “Town and Dairy.”

The report inevitably focuses on two points, both highlighted early on: “Two parallel trends shape the context for this analysis. Both are consistent with national trends in farm-dependent areas of the country. First, the structure of Idaho’s dairy industry is changing. The trend is toward larger and more geographically concentrated farms with an increasing demand for wage labor. Second, Idaho is becoming more ethnically diverse as the state’s Hispanic population grows at a faster rate than the rest of the population.”

Alongside these, the report looks into economic impacts – increases in population but also in unemployment and demand on social services, on crime (not that dairies are catalysts for crime but that population increases do lead to more activity), on schools and health care. The report isn’t wholly negative; it points out some major economic boons the dairies have contributed. But also points out the costs.

Useful reading.

Share on Facebook

Idaho

The fall audited circulation numbers for newspapers nationally are out, and they are . . . awful.

From a year ago to this fall, paid circulation for a whole bunch of newspapers around the country is down by more than 10% – that’s more the norm than the exception. (The average is around 7%.) What has been the largest paper in the Northwest, the Oregonian, is part of that, down 12.1% to 249,163. In the spring of 2007, it was 319,625.

(This happens to come on the same day the Oregonian names a new publisherChris Anderson of the Orange County, California, Register, though he does have background in several Northwest newspapers.)

The Oregonian is now listed at 22 among the nation’s newspapers, while the Seattle Times is now 20 – its numbers having grown after the collapse of the print Post-Intelligencer. But not to all that much: 263,588 is well short of where the two papers were a year ago.

Share on Facebook

Oregon Washington

The current round – getting much closer to the end game – on congressional health care action, puts this as a final package headed toward Senate vote: Inclusion of a public health insurance options, with “opt out,” meaning the included ability of individual states to decide not to participate.

While the talk swirls about the “opt-out” option, which has been notable in discussion for some weeks but now seems a solid part of the Senate package, the question for this space becomes: What of the Northwest states? What will Washington, Oregon and Idaho choose to do?

In the case of Washington and Oregon, the answer seems obvious. Since no further action would be needed (if the current package becomes law) to participate in a public option, and since both states are run by people who as a whole likely back the public option, that would seem to be that. These two will be “public option states.”

The question mark will be Idaho. Many of Idaho’s top elected officials are highly skeptical, to put it minimally, of the public option. Of the 50 states, Idaho probably would be among the half-dozen or so where opposition or criticism of the option would be greatest. A conservative Republican Idaho elected official (as most of them are) ordinarily would have to reverse stance heavily to go along with the public option.

And yet, what if they did not? If the program for whatever reason crashes and burns nationally, that would be one thing – it might be withdrawn or scaled back in the larger picture on its own. But suppose it functions somewhere close to as-intended? Imagine the scene of Idaho elected officials defending their refusal to allow Idaho citizens to obtain affordable health insurance, when they (and the businesses they run or are employed by) could do that by moving across the border? The “opt-in” option could put them in quite a bind, unless they went along with the thing described in so many conservative circles as a chamber of horrors.

It may even be so intended.

Share on Facebook

Northwest

The sides have very much divided up in the city council races in Boise. Two readings make clear a good deal of it.

One is the Idaho Statesman editorial endorsements in the races, out today: Backing incumbents Vern Bisterfeldt and Maryanne Jordan, and T.J. Thomson best known in the area until this race as one of the prime Obama organizers in Idaho last year).

And the Idaho Conservative Blogger has the alternative viewpoint.

Share on Facebook

Idaho

The usual rule here is that we’ll refer to people with the name and indentifiers – such as profession or political party – of their choice. But we won’t make that an absolute because of the occasional, if unusual, cases in which people are simply deceptive about such things. Clarity and honesty ought to trump deceit.

King County executive candidate Susan Hutchison has in the current campaigns positioned herself as a political independent and moderate, a stance that’s been bought by at least some of the regional mass media. (The Seattle Times, in endorsing her, described her simply as “a political outsider.”) But that’s disingenuous at best. Washington has no political party registration, but you can tell where a candidate stands by their friends, and Hutchison’s are from Republican and conservative circles. Not a point to play up in a King County race, perhaps, but such are the facts.

With that in mind, consider the close alliance between Hutchison’s campaign and the Building Industry Association of Washington, which in recent years has been the prime engine in Washington state for Republican and conservative campaigns. Horse’s Ass has outlined the most recent connections, ranging from contributions to recent rounds of robocalls around the county. If doubt remained about the nature of Hutchison’s independence, that should be enough to erase it.

Share on Facebook

Washington

Never enough any more, apparently, to argue on the actual merits or demerits of a specific idea: The obligation seems to be to press it beyond the point of reason. Even when the core issue seems to be on your side.

So we have Idaho’s two senators, Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, Republicans, tagged (along with 28 other senators) as “rape nuts”, uncaring about whether women are sexually assaulted. The hook for that is their votes against a defense spending amendment, backed by Minnesota Senator Al Franken, aimed at barring military contracts with companies that limit employees to arbitration rather than other measures (such as lawsuits, or going public) to resolve claims “related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.”

The amendment came about because of a particular actual case in which an employee of (in effect) Halliburton, working in Iraq, was gang-raped and injured. After many procedural efforts, she has gotten her case, not yet settled, to court and public. The Franken amendment would have allowed her sue directly.

A Kevin Richert (Idaho Statesman) blog post out today outlines the situation, and Crapo’s and Risch’s responses to it, in some detail. But a couple more points seem in order.

What the amendment does is set a requirement and limitation on companies that seek to do work for the Department of Defense; it was not, at core, a referendum on whether rape is a bad thing.

Crapo and Risch have, as they have pointed out, ample public record (through state and federal legislative votes) for cracking down where they could on sexual assault; accusing them of being uncaring about that pushes the case beyond sense. Because the charge is so over the top, there’s a temptation to stop with that observation.

But what about the point of the amendment: That companies accepting federal contracting dollars should have to adhere to certain basic standards of decency? Look again at the language of the amendment, and what it is designed to prohibit – roadblocking the ability of victims to push back when they have been sexually assaulted, a requirement that they give up their basic rights as victims of crime. That would seem a shocking thing for Risch especially, as a former prosecutor who has prosecuted sexual assault cases, to endorse. The senators suggest (in Richert’s piece) that some time and efficiency advantages could accrue through use of arbitration; but nothing in the amendment bars the use of arbitration if the victims want to avail themselves of it – it simply prohibits making it mandatory. Such policies exist solely for the financial and public relations benefits of the contractors, not because of military security or because they do anyone else any good.

So draw your own conclusions here about who logically falls on which side of the debate here.

There’s a reality here that merits some open discussion. Overreaching accusations of rape-coddling don’t much help.

Share on Facebook

Idaho

Jason Atkinson

Jason Atkinson

State Senator Jason Atkinson, R-Central Point, who ran for governor in 2006 and emerged third in that Republican primary, has indicated he expected to run again this year. That was expected and made sense. He displayed strong campaign skills during his governor run, he has a strong constituency among active Republicans and especially among social conservatives, and seemed likely to become the immediate frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Because his Senate seat is mid-term next year, he would not be putting it at risk.

So his announcement that he will “suspend” activities – you can’t call it a campaign, because he has never actually announced as a number of other contenders have – changes in a big way what had been the expected dynamic for next year. (As a note: From all appearances, Atkinson seems not to have shut and locked the door to re-entry, but as he’s situated now it doesn’t sound likely.)

The Oregon Republican Party is dominated by conservatives, but it now faces a peculiarity: The probability, for the moment anyway, it will nominate a moderate who will get little backing or enthusiasm from conservatives. There are two Republicans in the field now, businessman Allen Alley and former legislator John Lim, both from Portland and neither with any great backing from most of the party core. Between them, Alley may have the edge, but either way a lot of conservatives may be wondering: Is this it? Have we slipped to the point that we can’t even generate a candidate for governor?

There is one other name circulating as a possible Republican contender for governor: State Senator Frank Morse, R-Albany. He could be an impressive general election candidate: He has some broad respect across the board (no one could credibly describe him as fringe or uninformed or incapable), but it’s far from clear whether he runs, and seems not to have made any major moves in that direction. And one other thing: He too is relatively moderate, and will not excite the Republican base. And when time comes to vote, you do need your base.

For a lot of Republicans, it has to feel like: Back to the drawing board.

Share on Facebook

Oregon

Nothing unusual (or Oregon or Washington) on the face of this: Someone’s unhappy about the title being placed on a ballot issue, and don’t be surprised if a lawsuit develops.

What we have here is actually two ballot issues, Oregon Referenda 66 and 67, both referring to the voters the question of whether to sustain or repeal two tax increases (one on income tax for incomes over $250,000, the other on the minimum corporate tax) imposed by the last legislature.

A post on Oregon Catalyst, “Ballot titles new partisan low,” by Senator Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, argues that the titles are written with bias toward passage: “The committee didn’t just skew the language to favor the tax increases, they left out important information that might reflect negatively on the tax increases, like the fact that these tax increases are retroactive to the beginning of this year. The ballot title also ignores that very important fact that these tax increases are permanent, not a temporary fix that expires after two years.”

The problem is that you could always run through items to add or subtract in a title, but the title isn’t there to make a comprehensive case either way – there’ll be room for that elsewhere in in the voters guides – and these don’t.

The Eugene Register-Guard, which weighed in on the titles, said in an editorial today that “Fights over ballot titles are a routine feature of the political maneuvering that precedes a vote on ballot measures in Oregon, just as challenging referees’ calls is part of the game of basketball. So it is with the ballot titles a legislative panel has drafted for the two tax measures that are up for a statewide vote in January. Both, however, are exactly what ballot titles are meant to be: concise summaries of the measures and their effects.” Each does with some accuracy say that what’s at issue is a tax increase (that being the key red-flag language anyway), each described with some clarity.

Or almost. One of the points of squabble has to do with what exactly the results of repealing the taxes would be. Ferrioli has a reasonable point in this area: “The ballot titles are also quick to include statements that are purely speculation, such as what type of cuts would have to be made if the tax increases are defeated. Unless the committee has a crystal ball, there is no way they can know what the specific cuts would have to entail.”

So, herewith a proposed constitutional amendment for Oregon (and Washington) concerning ballot issue which have fiscal impact, whether on the tax or spending side:

All ballot issues should have to account (as legislatures do) for both sides, revenue and appropriation. If the main point of a ballot issue is to reduce (or increase) revenue, then it should also provide how that reduction (or increase) should be handled on the spending side. If a ballot issue is aimed at the spending side (as has happened in Washington on teacher pay, for example), then it should also provide for where the money to pay for the expense would come from. In other words, ballot issues should have to balance the books, the same as legislators do.

Which would seem on the surface to be what Ferrioli is calling for . . . one would think . . .

Share on Facebook

Oregon

In pre-electronic times past, political machines would give their voter backers the ticket – a sheet of paper showing how the voter ought to vote, up and down the line. Political parties in effect do that, naturally, as a matter of course, but more broadly, voters tend to be on their own.

So, something interesting in Washington: the Progressive Voters Guide, aimed at providing something like that ticket in web form. It runs through the issues, arguments for voting a particular way, links. It breaks down races by region, down to (for example) the Yakima City Council.

Endorsements include, understandably, Dow Constantine for King County executive. Interestingly for mayor, no endorsement but rather this:

“Vote for [Joe] Mallahan if: you think business management experience is important, you prefer a more pragmatic approach to politics, you want to replace the Viaduct with a tunnel, and/or you are less concerned about his lack of experience with Seattle issues. . . Vote for McGinn if: you believe a track record of civic leadership is important, you prefer a more pointed and grassroots-oriented progressivism, you oppose replacing the viaduct with a tunnel, the environment is your top priority, and/or you are less concerned about his lack of management experience.”

Will we see something similar from the right?

Share on Facebook

Washington