How will they pay for the rest of light rail?

Meet me in Tukwilye, Willie. Meet me at the end. Even tho’ you find nothing

As you go round the bend.

Take a bus to the airport,

Or maybe to the mall.

But, it won’t be any faster

han with no train at all.

And don’t forget to …

Mention my name in Tukwila;

It’s the greatest town in the world.

You’ll find a lot; there’s plenty to see

even know people with a color TV.

So, mention my name in Tukwila;

And if you get caught in the rain,

Mention my name, mention my name.

Then ride to Westlake on a train

Now, Sound Transit officials have a plan to extend the rail line, not to the airport or to the mall, but rather to the north, keeping what they say is a promise to build the line under Capitol Hill to the University of Washington.

They say that the most cost-effective light-rail route from downtown to the University District would serve Capitol Hill and Montlake but bypass First Hill and South Lake Union.

This leaves the question of where the agency will get the $1.6 to $2.3 billion to pay for it and millions more to get to Northgate.

Sound Transit plans to do it by continuing to collect its 0.3 percent motor-vehicle excise tax despite the state Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding voter-approved Initiative 776.

Interestingly, the King County Council has stopped collecting its share of the tax — as Snohomish and Douglas counties had already done. Sound Transit should do the same.

Otherwise, the elected officials on the Board will be defying the Supreme Court.

For those who want to recall one of those officials, here’s what a petition would look like, according to Article I, Sections 33-34 of the State Constitution:

“Shall Ron Sims be recalled as county executive of King County because he has committed an act of misfeasance while in office and violated his oath of office by ignoring a duly passed initiative to the people, declared constitutional by the State Supreme Court, by continuing to approve the collection of a 0.3 percent motor-vehicle excise tax for mass transit in the Sound Transit district?”

The charges in the petition would have to be approved by a judge and signed by a number of registered voters equal to 25 percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for King County executive in 2001 and filed with the director of County elections who shall call a special election

The process would be similar for petitions against Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and other officials.

Let’s rumble in Shoreline

Eight and a half years ago, I wrote a story about the election of the first Shoreline City Council.

The group we elected was a cohesive one. The members clowned together in the city parade, and, for awhile, they even prayed as a group before Council meetings.

They came to quick agreement on contracting with the county for police agencies, and on letting existing fire, water, sewer and electricity agencies continue.

But now they face more contentious issues that came out in the hard-fought election in which former County Councilwoman Maggie Fimia defeated incumbent City Councilman Kevin Grossman. When I heard them debate, I could feel the sparks fly from my spot at the back of the room.

I thought then, and do now, that both belong on the Council. I think the two are the most eloquent advocates for opposite positions on how to develop Aurora Avenue. I want to see them continue to debate at Council meetings. The resignation of Councilwoman Linda Montgomery gives the city the opportunity for Grossman to replace her and for the city to hear both of their voices.

I supported Fimia’s independent stands on the County Council, and I supported Grossman’s candidacy for the state Legislature a year ago.

Unfortunately, the Council is likely to be deadlocked with at least one member gone, forcing the County Council to decide.

The short Council is a result of Montgomery’s late resignation. Had she announced it once she knew she would be moving, we voters might have picked her successor.

JFK 40 years gone

Everyone who is nearly or over 50 can remember where he or she was at mid-day 40 years ago tomorrow.

I was a student who walked into a room expecting to see dozens of people, only to find them across the room, gathered around a TV set, watching news of President Kennedy’s assassination.

Everyone has “memories” about the events that followed the assassination from Lyndon Johnson’s taking the oath of office on the plane to the events of the funeral. These images are being played over again on TV specials, reminding us to remember what most of remember as much from pictures as from our heads.

Fix the election process

In less than a year, our country will elect a president. Unfortunately, we have done little to address the process that took two months to decide a winner in the election of 2000.

Yes, most states have changed their voting systems; so no one will have to count hanging chads and pregnant chads. But, we haven’t changed the electoral college. If each state’s votes were apportioned by the percentage of the state’s votes rather than winner-take-all, the argument in Florida would have been over who got a 13-12 advantage rather than who got all 25 votes.

Of course, Ralph Nader would have won a few electoral votes in one or two large states. If that had deprived either major candidate of a majority, the constitution would demand a vote in the House of Representatives with each state’s delegation having one vote. This is both undemocratic and prone to deadlock. So, we’d have to find another tie-breaking mechanism.

Then, someone should do something to shorten the nominating process. Next year, more than half the states will have picked their delegates to the national conventions by the first of March, more than six months before the election.

Let’s have a national primary in late May or early June, with exceptions for the New Hampshire primary and Iowa precinct caucuses, which would be in April. That would mean that we’d go back to brokered conventions and compromises that would leave each party to pick the most electable candidate.

What if there’s no primary?

With the likelihood that federal courts will continue to hold Washington’s blanket primary unconstitutional and that the State House and State Senate will continue to produce different versions of a substitute, Washington is likely to have no primary next year.

This means that we’ll be electing our governor, a U.S. senator, other statewide officials, nine U.S. representatives, half of our State senators and all of our State representatives in one big election with dozens of candidates for some offices and the likelihood that someone will win with a very small plurality.

Let’s allow it to happen only once.

I don’t want the Senate to give in on the Cajun Primary, which would advance the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, and I don’t expect the House to give in on its support for an “open private primary.” So, let’s have the Legislature put the two plans on a referendum and let the voters decide whether they want a partisan or non-partisan primary.