Kathy:
just say NO. Do you get your pay check every month? Do you get Health Coverage ? Do you get vacations? Many folks don't. You can not give government enough money, ever. The average citizen now pays approx. 52 cent of every dollar they earn, in taxes. It never stops. Politicians can find a thousand good reasons why we all should feel good about any government body raising taxes and fees and raisng taxes and fees and raising taxes and fees.
Over the past decade, prior to 08, the economy was doing OK. What did you do with all the money? Did you ever consider preparing for a rainy day? Of course not. Tax and spend. No matter the amount of revenue, tax and spend, raise taxes and fees and when you run out of OPM aka (others peoples money) the perfect solution is raise taxes and fees.I work with small business owners, with Health Insurance problems. You should tag along sometime and visit with a husband and wife team, running a small business and listen to a husband who works 60 to 70 hours a week, and their taxes keep going up. A small contractor deals with OSHA, L&I, B&O Liability Insurance, Bonding, Warranty Issues, His Bank for Lines of Credit, his CPA, meeting payroll, withholding taxes, FICA and trys to figure out a way to pay for his health insurance, to name a few, before he gets paid. If that contractor misses a payment, he is down and out. You should try it sometime, its an eye opener. You have lost touch.
Dave Henry

Kathy,
Don't listen to Dave. You have shown courage in doing the right thing...finally a responsible Republican. If Dave had his way and we paid no taxes, we would still be riding wagons on dirt roads!

I agree with Bob, Kathy showed great courage in being willing to negotiate (a rare quality not many of our politicians seem to have today) to come to a solution that reduces costs and benefits many of her constituents. It is easy to just say no, but that is not always the responsible thing to do. I have never know Kathy to make a decision lightly and as can been seen from the above article she put a great deal of thought and research into the issue. I also know that Kathy has been committed for many years to reducing labor costs at the county and her dedication to this issue is finally paying off. These are difficult, complicated times and we deserve more from our elected officials than easy answers or simplistic approaches to solving our problems. Kudos to Kathy.

Pumping money into the Metro Bus service will not improve its operations and the money will continue to subsidize another wasteful government operation. I want elected leaders to work within their budgets, to be efficient stewards of existing revenues, and find ways to create improvements.

Kathy & Lucy are close friends. Recently King County Staff turned down a rezone request by John Corrado (Woodinville Commercial Realtor) to take Sammaish Valley Agricutural Land and rezone it for a Hotel & Shopping Complex. After Ms. DeYoung spoke with Kathy Lambert about this the KC Staff was called out on the carpet and the zoning was approved. I think the hotel is a good idea but so is our beautiful valley.

Jim, I recall that rezone discussion took place at a recent council meeting, but didn't put the two parties together at that time. Lucy seems to be involved in lots of speculative deals going on around Woodinville. Now it appears that they have each other's back too.

Yes Julie. I was in the Council Chambers when John Corrado openly discussed this matter. There are no secrets here. The question really is, are Ms. Deyoung's comments really about our King County Council breaking with their constituents will or are these people just scratching each others backs.

Jim DeYounger and Julie Tesque - or whomever you are since you are not using your real names - your comments are blatantly false. I am not involved in any financial or land deals going on around Woodinville or any place else for that matter - speculative or not speculative. I don't know where you people dream this up. You people are great at innuendos and half truths. Here are the facts. Yes, I support the annexation of some of the property along 140th as does the Woodinville City Council and the Chamber of Commerce. Do they all have a financial interest in the annexation because they support it? I have no financial interest in any of the property in the proposed annexation. I support the annexation because I believe the annexation is good for Woodinville and our tourism industry. Yes, Kathy Lambert and I are friends and yes Kathy and I have talked about the annexation. However, Kathy supported the annexation long before she and I discussed it. And no, I am not scratching Kathy's back. People who know me, know that if I don't agree with what someone says or does, I would tell them so and I wouldn't put in writing that I agreed with them.

The stories that I've read in Patch lately lead me to believe that our civic leaders have compromised their morals and ethics for short sighted gains benefiting themselves. Lord Acton's dictum states, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Look at all of the leaders with more than 10 years under their belts who are getting caught up in the whirlwind--fire chief, ex-mayor DeYoung, County Council Member Kathy Lambert, County Council Jane Hague , and the list continues. I would like to see more upstanding volunteers with moral compasses pointing North step up and take the lead. Mr. Dave Henry you are such a man--step up and cast a light.

Dear Ms. DeYoung. Not sure how you know everyone in Woodinville. Guess I'm not part of that circle but we do go to meetings. Direct financial gain? No one accused you of that. But why was KC Staff so against this project and why did Kathy have to step in at your and John's bequest? Our valley is an asset to Woodinville just like the waterfront in Kirkland. This needs more consideration and involvement by all of the community not just some insiders.

Kathy, I still don't understand why it's government's role to worry about congestion into Seattle now. Didn't we know that a bridge replacement and lane expansion was necessary 10 years ago? Didn't we raise sales taxes on gasoline to pay for road work? Didn't we opt for a new stadium at taxpayer expense over road improvements? Isn't it true that most of the downtown riders get their bus passes paid for by their employers? Couldn't we expect bus users to pay a little more? What about those $1m buses running empty or lightly used, is that effective? Why did Microsoft choose to begin their own bus service that is widely used and running full? Did you consider privatizing buses?

Metro service is a cash black hole and represents the waste that centrally planned government has to offer. I am dismayed that a Republican would go along with this plan. The only one who gains my respect is Reagan Dunn. Reagan has developed a reputation as somebody who believes in prioritizing spending-not raising taxes- during tough economic times. He maintains the most pro-taxpayer voting record on the Council. I wholeheartedly agree with his statement "Given the economic pain, the public opposition and the unbelievable claim that the $20 tax is for 2 years only, this is a good time to say no." The Seattle Times even agrees with Reagan. Kathy, You let us down.

Yes Kathy, why can't people just walk everywhere...sheesh!

What makes me laugh is the talk of "right sizing". The obvious is considered as progress? Dave Henry sums it up perfectly "You can not give government enough money, ever."

As Lucy stated we do "deserve more from our elected officials than easy answers or simplistic approaches." Raising the car tab is a simplistic approach.

Dear Mr. DeYounger (or whatever your name is because you won't use your real name),

How typical of you and your small group. Whenever you can't win an argument based on the facts you resort to personal attacks. Sad.

A reminder to keep civil and on topic, thank you.

Dear Annie. Thank you for providing a place for open opinions to be exchanged. This should never be about winning and losing. It's an open venue for individuals to provide and share their thoughts and concerns on issues that are pertinent to our overall community. Thanks Again!

No politician has the right to override the vote and will of the people. Kathy should have voted NO on Metro.

Mrs. DeYoung said it took "courage" to give in to the liberals and for Kathy to sell out the voters who have voted time and again against higher license tab fees. Kathy was elected to represent her constituents, not just Mrs. DeYoung and a few of her friends. When the politicians get too big for their britches & think THEY know better then the taxpayers who have elected them and whose money they're spending (or wasting), then it's time for US to elect someone that will represent the people again. This is why my vote won't be going to Kathy again.

Is it really courage exhibited? Is courage what it takes to accept elected job as city mayor while living outside the city limits? Is courage what it takes to vote for family interests over community interests? Is courage what it takes to go along with special interest group wishes over the neighbors' wishes? Is it courage to spend without reconciliation? If this is COURAGE then Kathy and her friend Ms. DeYoung exhibit a boatload of courage.

Dear Ms. Tesque - or whoever you are because you won't use your real name.
Once again, you do not have your facts correct. I was elected by the voters of Woodinville to the City Council when I was a resident of the City and a registered voter of the City. I was sued over the issue of my residency and the lawsuit was dropped because it was groundless. I was then reelected to the City Council by the residents of Woodinville. While on the City Council I recused myself and did not vote on any rezone that involved my parents. And yes, I believe any politician exhibits courage when they take a controversial vote they believe is correct - whether or not I agree or disagree with them - because although I know it is part of the job, I also know how hard it is to be an elected official and take the criticism and personal attacks for standing up for what you believe to be correct. I believe it takes courage to stand up for what you believe is right. Kathy voted for what she believed was the right thing to do.

It was just one of those days today. So hot and I feel asleep on the cot in my office in downtown Woodinville. I was thinking I could go up to the Farm on Hollywood Hill and sleep at my parents house since they have air conditioning. But I realized that I was all grown up and sleeping in my old kids room just wasn't what I should be doing as an adult. Well maybe if i was an elected official in Woodinville it would be OK to leave my office home and go bum with Mom & Dad? But then I would have to make other tough decisions on how to live while taking advantage of others money. Oh well. That may be reality for some but I'll just continue to try and live the clean life making my way on my own. When do we get those free bus passes so I can ride back and forth to places I don't go?

When you promise voters that you're going to support what they've voted for numerous times, then you actually vote against it, that's not "courage"...that's lying. Anyone who cannot understand that should be the last person to continually tell everyone else to get their "facts straight"! Dishonesty (or should I say "courage"?) from the President all the way down to a council person is why the electorate has lost all faith in politicians.

Warning: Comments on this story should be addressed to Kathy Lambert's vote. Stay on topic or I will have to consider closing comments on this story.

Al Taylor says: "Pumping money into the Metro Bus service will not improve its operations and the money will continue to subsidize another wasteful government operation. I want elected leaders to work within their budgets, to be efficient stewards of existing revenues, and find ways to create improvements."

I'd just like to point out the "existing revenues" have fallen sharply. Had revenues been consistent, Metro wouldn't need additional funding. Metro has indeed worked within its budget. However, its budget did not (and could not) anticipate the sharp drop in sale tax revenue. Before asking the taxpayers for more money, Metro tapped its capital reserves, raised bus fares a shocking amount, and negotiated with its union, all of which closed nearly 80% of the budget gap.

It's easy to demonize when you are not aware of the intricacies of any given issue. The reality is that bus service boosts the local economy while improving traffic for those who don't ride. In an community, we all work together. Your $0.05 a day is hardly onerous.

Brian, that is an interesting comment in support of Kathy's vote.

How does bus service boost the local economy compared to using the money in other ways? (see below for an example)

How many cars does it actually take off the road? According to this: "Jacobson estimates that Metro carries over 340,000 people every day, and park and rides are hosting over 18,000 cars daily". So we can say for sure that 18,000 cars are not on the road because of bus service. (The ridership number is sort of meaningless since that does not translate to cars.)

Now compare that to how many cars are on the road. Are 18,000 cars a significant number for the area covered by Metro? Every day, approximately 115,000 vehicles use the SR 520 bridge to cross Lake Washington. I-405 near Bellevue carries around 200,000 cars per day. These are just come quick facts for just a tiny portion of the traffic in this area. Imagine what happens when you include the WHOLE area.

Now please consider the following: What if that same exact same money is used to build better roads, more efficient traffic control (intelligent traffic synchronization is not even close to what it could be), fix bridges and all the tools now available to improve traffic flow?

Finally, if bus service is so great, how come very few (any?) politicians take the bus every day - even the proponents?

This isn't "demonization" (a strange characterization) but an honest assessment of facts that are easy to verify.

Brian, let's suppose the situation is that a company built a million square foot facility outfitted with the most advanced automation to manufacture 10 times its current sales with the hope of recovering its costs when it quadruples current sales; hence, growth after quadrupling business is break even. Now consider the assumption of market growth is not realized because of the great recession. Does society owe that business for its losses--ie. should taxpayers bailout the company? That situation could be interchanged to Metro Transit incorporated. Metro built a transportation system with expensive big buses that operate with low occupancies and now we, the taxpayers, are being forced to pay them to operate inefficiently instead of allowing market forces to determine the most efficient means of conveying the riding public. The solution that Kathy Lambert voted to support forces everyone of us who don't use the bus (ie. buy the transportation product) to pay for the wasted gas and seats. I don't agree with that solution, nor the imposition that the government chooses to force me to buy that wasted capacity in order to maintain a bloated, poor implementation of public transportation.

Brian, the solution set for solving the Metro conundrum of high fixed costs per passenger mile of service requires leadership willing to frame the problem differently. For example, instead of sinking money into maintaining and paying for wasted capacity of the system, a better problem would be "how can existing monies be stretched to serve the riding public with the least waste?" A business person would approach that problem with facts and figures to come up with a plan to sell under-utilzed assets and propose other ideas. Ideas such as rightsizing the product to meet demand might include ditching double-decked and stretched buses in favor of smaller fuel efficient (hybrid?) vans along with matching trips to coincide with passenger peak schedules or perhaps subcontracting routes to independent operators as the parcel delivery services have done in many situations. Privatization of passenger transportation could also introduce the incentive for keeping costs down--remember econ 101 supply-demand-pricing models? To date, I have not read anything about innovative cost containment solutions being investigated.

Brian, by the way, if you want to see a model of better passenger mile efficiency in practice, then spend a little time looking at how the domestic airlines operate--SeaTac is not too far from Woodinville! Notice that Alaska, Delta, and United do not operate all of their routes with Airbus 380's or Boeing 747's. The airlines match their airframe capacity to the market being served. Popular long routes operate with 747's, service to less popular large population and business centers operate with 737's and regional flights to sparse destinations go with turbo-prop commuter planes. Why doesn't government lean its operations to serve areas by need? It would cut costs, save fuel, reduce pollution, and most likely generate scalable options that can accommodate fluctuations in business. Kathy, in my opinion is not motivated to be a problem solver anymore--she has become another long-term incumbent who takes the easy way out.(and by the way we have a lot of those around here).

Jack and Al -- before I dive into the debate, let me first just say thanks for discussing the issue. Your responses are both quite a bit more elevated than the usual comment discourse I'm used to seeing. And my bad for 'demonizing' -- that was a poor choice of words on my part.

Jack -- 340,000 riders and 18,000 spaces in park and rides yields only 18,000 vehicles off the road? Surely many of those cars took more than 1 person to the park and ride, folks who maybe took different busses and might have needed 2 cars to get people to their destinations. And surely many of the folks who would drive without bus service don't end up parking at a park and ride. I don't know how to arrive at the right figure, but 18,000 seems clearly too low, unless you assume anyone who rides the bus can't afford to drive, which seems a poor conclusion to make.

Jack, you also mention investing further in road building. Part of what we've learned in this whole tunnel debacle is that car trips in Seattle are down. Fewer people are choosing their car for trips into the city. So, as with the boondogle the tunnel will become, why invest in 20th century technology? We aren't using cars more, there isn't increasing demand for roads. Major transit studies show that increased road capacity simple does not reduce congestion. Roads in Seattle proper are funded almost solely for vehicles, while cars account for less than 40% of trips to downtown. Going off rough memory here, but bikes are 5%, transit is ~30%, and pedestrian trips make up the difference. Surely, roads are not the answer.

Al, I have to disagree with your comparison to a factory. A business like that is incharge of its own fate: its products will drive revenue and failure is the fault of the businss. Metro is a service, funded primarily by sales tax. Metro can't do anything to affect the fact that people aren't spending. Metro can't release a new product or have a sale to generate more business volume. Gov't is not private business. Gov't has to be transparent and accountable, has to consult the public and negotiate compromise. A business can make fast decisions with little regard for elements the business chooses to ignore. This bugs me because people talk as if gov't could be as efficient as business, which it is inherently impossible due to the burdens of public oversight.

Here's where I come from: I live in the south end. I'm a college educated gainfully employed taxpayer. I own my home and 2 cars and I pay the taxes on them gladly. I work on campus at the UW, where parking costs almost $20 a day, and $1,000 a quarter. I get to work on my bike (20 miles) and bus (5 miles) every day. I could choose to drive, but I'd rather have a research facility on campus, not a new parking garage.

The routes I ride, and there are 6 depending on how I do it, faced cuts. 3 of the routes were proposed to be eliminated. Those busses are standing room only most days. The cuts were not proposed to empty routes, but to routes many of the folks in my community rely on. Not all of my neighbors have the luxury I have of beign able to ride a bike or afford a car trip. The south end routinely gets screwed -- we lost our light station with no warning or public comment, though we all paid our share for the line. We lost the 16th Ave bridge, a major arterial in our area.

I believe in community. I believe that when I pay taxes, I'm helping my neighbor. I don't blindly trust the gov't and I don't want to give them endless funds with no oversight. But Metro works. People rely on it to get to work, to church, to the doctor. And everyone benefits anytime someone gets out of their car.

I'm much more concerd about the $60 tab fee for more never-ending stop gap road maintenance than I am about $20 for Metro. In downtown seattle, 5% of trips are by bike. 30-odd percent is vehicle, ~40% is transit, and the rest is pedestrian traffic. Yet, the vast majority of spending on our roads goes to cars, which is way out of proportion, especially in light of the fact that car trips have been declining for most of the past decade, not increasing.

Anyway, I suspect we'll have to agree to respectfully disagree. But thanks nonetheless for the discussion. Cheers all!

-b

ha! sorry for the redundant arguments, I hit the word limit and lost much of what I wrote, then managed to repeat myself.

Jim, I don't seem able to reply directly to your comment, but I hear you on that. Like you, I ride to work and don't mind paying my fee or increasing it because I can afford it. But the routes I rely on were slated to be cut, and there wasn't an option for me to support myself paying more. Sometimes I think that's part of the myth of democracy/capitalism. We're told we have a lot of choice, and in many ways we do. But often we don't get much say in which options we have to choose from. IT just so happens that in this particular case of the $20 tab fee for metro, I support paying. I'm not at all convinced on this $60 pothole levy. And I'm terrified what I'll end up owing on the godforsaken tunnel ...

Brian these are the same folks that voted in a $2 + Billion sewer plant that we don't need and put it on top of the 2nd largest earthquake fault in the United States. The councilmembers like Kathy that may not have voted for it, did not put much of a fight up against it. I remember Kathy saying that Dow Constantine really didn't understand the issue. Well then why didn't she explain it to him?