Eyman helped me decide my ST3 vote

Ever since the election, I’ve wanted to say to someone (but who?), “Here’s a hot tip: If you really don’t want a bill to pass, don’t have Tim Eyman write the opposition piece.” So, more than simply enjoying Jerry Cornfield’s Thanksgiving column, I ended up learning some interesting things.

The paragraph which began, “Tim Eyman should toast directors of Sound Transit …, ” really grabbed me. Wait a minute, Sound Transit itself picked Eyman to write the opposition piece for the voter pamphlet? I dug around a bit and discovered an enlightening column by Mike Lindblom (“Sound Transit picks ‘radioactive’ Tim Eyman to write statement against expanding light rail”) which ran in The Seattle Times on or around Aug. 1. I’ll admit (not proudly) I’m knee-jerky where Eyman’s involved: Tim’s for it, I’m against it — and vice versa. That said, I (a big-on-buses person) had been wavering a little on ST3 — until the moment I read the voter pamphlet. Before reading Jerry’s column today, I hadn’t known that, by law, sponsors of bills choose the writers of both the pro and con statements printed in voter pamphlets (seems a bit fox and henhousey to me). Fortunately, though my ST3 yes vote was clinched by that opposition piece, I don’t regret it. After all, Rick Steves wrote part of the “for” opinion, so am in good company (but will be more skeptical of voter pamphlet info in the future).

Candace Plog

Edmonds