The editorial board at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer can't stop editorializing about Initiative 985, Tim Eyman's "traffic congestion relief" measure. After its initial Oct. 10 recommendation for voters to reject the initiative, the paper has penned seven additional anti-I-985 editorials. Meanwhile, the paper has published just one Eyman op-ed in favor of the measure.
Here's the original recommendation, "No way on I-985" from Oct. 10.
And the rest:
Oct. 19: Seattle and I-985: A new subsidy
Oct. 22: Another 'no' on I-985: Robbing education
Oct. 23: Another No on I-985: Slick audit claims
Oct. 26: Another No on I-985; Red-light warning
Oct. 27: Another No on I-985: Bush's surprise
Oct. 28: Another No on I-985: Risk to our safety
Oct. 29: Another No on I-985: Wrecking budgets
And it's not over yet. According to the P-I's Virtual Editorial Board, a closing pitch against the measure is coming in Friday's paper.
Update: Eyman just forwarded me his e-mail conversation with the P-I's editorial staff. Apparently, he asked to respond to their "near-daily editorials against I-985," but P-I staff members allowed him only to submit a 200-word letter to the editor, rather than respond with an additional guest editorial. Eyman has frequently responded in the paper's Soundoffs comments section online.
The P-I isn't the only paper to publish multiple op-eds against I-985. The Everett Herald and the Tacoma News Tribune have both editorialized twice about why voters should reject the measure, while columnists from all three papers have published arguments against I-985 as well. For a complete roundup of the state's major newspaper endorsements, including on I-985, see Crosscut's handy endorsement guide.
Another update: P-I editorial page editor Mark Trahant writes to say the paper is "proud to crusade" against what it considers "a poor initiative." Take a look at the comments section to read Eyman's unpublished response editorial.
Final update: The P-I has its final editorial online. Here's their explanation why they've penned so many arguments against I-985:
Here are three reasons. First, we see this initiative as terrible transportation policy, an approach that will make traffic worse and daily commutes longer. Second, stripping local governments of money for red-light cameras is a safety issue for us. This measure's passage will endanger our streets and intersections. The third reason is strategic: We think the more people know about Initiative 985, the more likely it is that they will reach the same conclusion we did.
This is a no-vote brainer.
