Ellington

The King County general election of 2011 is tomorrow, and students still might question whether to fill out a ballot. Student leaders from politically active UW organizations shared their views on the initiatives and propositions.

Representatives from six groups discussed two City of Seattle proposals and three state initiatives. Wherever students’ political beliefs may lie, the following discussion is meant to sample the opinions of each group on campus.

The

groups:

Anita Yandle, vice president of Young Democrats at the University of Washington (YDUW)

YDUW represents different points of view on the democratic spectrum on campus, with individuals who identify themselves as more moderate to very liberal.

Matt McCleary, member of Generation Washington UW (GW)

Generation Washington is a moderate political group on campus with democrats and republicans involved. One of this group’s main focuses is endorsing Rob McKenna for governor.

David Wieland, chair of the Washington Student Association (WSA)

The Washington Student Association (WSA) focuses on bringing a high-quality and affordable public higher-education system in Washington state. It advocates issues that affect current and future students and is nonpartisan.

Steve Heidenreich, public relations chair of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL)

YAL represents a group of libertarians on campus who believe in social freedom as well as economic freedom, hoping to encourage individuals to make their own decisions instead of the state.

Rowdy Roddick, president of the International Socialist Organization (ISO)

ISO members believe human need is, above all, one of the most important aspects of society. They believe all values derive from labor and should result in a progressive tax system.

Will Hagen, director of membership of College Republicans

College Republicans represents the conservatives and the Republican Party of the UW.

Initiative 1183-

Alcohol privatization

This initiative, which was created by the company Costco, lobbies for privatization in liquor sales. This measure would close the state-run liquor stores and allow stores with 10,000 square feet or more to sell liquor.

Yandle, YDUW

Abstain

“Our club was split, with some people saying it was a yes or a no. Some believed that it was important to get the state out of liquor and that it’s not the state’s place to be distributing liquor,” Yandle said. Yandle added that some of the members said Initiative 1183 would raise revenue for the state with higher liquor sales and other profits. Others thought there was no security, in that it will raise revenue. “Some said that if we voted it down this year, Costco would bring a different, better version, and we may endorse that one,” Yandle said.

McCleary, GW

Yes

“I like the fact that this liquor [initiative] lowers taxes for liquor and wine. I think ultimately this is going to benefit consumers, and while the opponents are making a public-safety argument a big deal, it may or may not be,” McCleary said.

Wieland, WSA

Abstain

Heidenreich, YAL

Yes

Heidenreich said that, although Costco has spent more than $22 million in supporting this initiative, the company against it is also a large national liquor corporation. “It’s corporation versus corporation: One is national, one is state,” Heidenreich said. “We would be all for this, and it should be a bi-partisan support.” Heidenreich said the initiative would increase state revenue and that everyone should be very happy about it. “[People] should be able to buy [liquor at] places where they want to buy it,” Heidenreich said.

Roddick, ISO

No

“They are public-service jobs and strengthened by union members and certified training,” Roddick said. Roddick added that the union members are more trustworthy. “I agree on the idea — it’s a good idea — but the loopholes didn’t seem solid enough. The 10,000-square-feet idea seems unfair to small grocers who won’t be able to sell liquor. This is not the right tie and not the right bill.”

Hagen, College Republicans

Yes

“I have trouble believing that the [College Republicans] would not [vote yes],” Hagen said.

Hagen included that allowing the privatization of liquor sales would help enforce safety measures more strictly.

Seattle Proposition 1 —

families and education levy

This takes into measure the enhancing of a tax levy for education services with the goal of improving academic achievement for elementary, middle school, high school, and college/career preparation. Seattle property owners are asked to renew the seven-year levy by doubling the current levy. This is an average flat tax of $124 in 2012 and $126 in 2018 that would take a percentage of property value.

Yandle, YDUW

Yes

“We believe it’s important to fund education, as we are a group of students on campus. We really like the family education levy,” Yandle said. “It stands for what our club believes in.”

McCleary, GW

Abstain

“What’s sad is our state’s declining support for K-12 education,” McCleary said. “It’s becoming an increasingly small budget, and it’s sad that schools have to rely on local levies just to fund their basic education and operating cost.”

Wieland, WSA

Abstain

“WSA has not made an endorsement in this case, but from looking at higher education and the health of students, their abilities to have opportunities outside of class directly supports their ability to succeed in class,” Wieland said. “State support for the school district has been falling.” Wieland said that, in order to prepare students for college, there needs to be a K-12 system that gets them there.

Heidenreich, YAL

No

“[This levy] looks good on the surface when you’re adding money to education,” Heidenreich said. Heidenriech said that the state has doubled or tripled the amount it has put into public schools, but it doesn’t go toward enhancing the educational experience. In his own experience, he said the money for public schools has gone to new computer whiteboards and iPads instead of educational reform.

“It’s doubling these taxes on these people and doubling the burden. Education needs some reform and actual reforms of it rather than just throwing money at it.”

Roddick, ISO

Yes

“We think one of the main things is lack of funding for teachers. Teachers are fighting for their rights and better wages,” Roddick said. “K through 12 is seriously underfunded in our state, and we’re all for higher taxes all across the board.”

Hagen, College Republicans

ABSTAIN

Initiative 1163-

elderly and disabled assistance

This measure would assist background checks and training for long-term care workers and services for elderly and disabled people. The Service Employee International Union (SEIU) has been endorsing this idea for many years, and the idea has been approved by voters. However, due to budget issues, lawmakers delayed the initiative, and it never received sufficient funding from the state.

Yandle, YDUW

Abstain

“We agree that there should be federal regulation; however, the initiative didn’t have its own solution for having revenue to do this,” Yandle said. “The only way to fund this would have to come from other funding that isn’t in the legislative system right now. Rather than adding in something else that may be good for the state that we really want, now we need to stick with what we have.”

McCleary, GW

No

“I don’t think the state budget can afford that right now,” McCleary said. “It’s a nice idea to support training, but right now the Legislature [is] discussing billions of dollars in cuts eliminating general assistance and unemployment. This time it just doesn’t seem like a wise use of taxpayer money.”

Wieland, WSA

Abstain

Heidenrich, YAL

Abstain

Roddick, ISO

Yes

“We’re voting for what we already voted for,” Roddick said. “It just increases background checks and improves the quality of care itself.” Roddick said that this initiative prevents abuse and harm to the most vulnerable residents of the states.

Hagen, College Republicans

Yes

“You should be well-vetted if you are taking care of the elderly,” Hagen said.

Initiative 1125-

state approval for tolls

This initiative would require the state Legislature to approve tolls, as opposed to the Washington State Transportation Committee. This would ban variable-rate tolls, meaning people would always have to pay the same amount whether they drive at rush hour or late at night. The initiative would also mandate that tolls only go toward work on the road, so the funds collected could not be used to support other state or community expenditures. Lastly, this initiative would prohibit the construction of light rail across the I-90 floating bridge.

Yandle, YDUW

No

“We do not like the initiative at all,” Yandle said. “We do not like the fact that 1125 says that road tolls can only go to that street.” Yandle said YD is a pro-transportation club but believes that there should be transportation for everyone.

“It’s really not what we’re looking for at the time,” Yandle said.

McCleary, GW

Abstain

“I asked our members last night — people were split,” McCleary said. However, he had some personal opinions about the initiative.

“I’m concerned [that] politicizing our toll-setting process is going to make funding unreliable to pay back the bonds that the state took out for this,” he said. “Its going to increase the bonds’ interest rate, which will increase the overall cost of the project.”

Wieland, WSA

No

Wieland said members of WSA view this initiative as “almost inclusively cons.”

“This is a pretty thinly veiled attack on the 520 renovation,” Wieland said. “Citizens have already spoken that they want light rail on I-90, and we’re watching a rich financier shut that down.”

Heidenreich, YAL

Abstain

Heidenreich said he saw both pros and cons of the initiative.

For him, the pros were ending a toll when the project is finished. He said when it is kept for a specific project, it’s not stolen from the taxpayers. He said a con would be that it would be the same toll for everyone 24/7. “Depending on where you live, it should be a different toll,” he said. “Maybe you need a toll [more] than someone driving back at midnight, to [encourage you] to not create huge traffic jams.”

Roddick, ISO

No

“This is a total no for us,” Roddick said. “These rich millionaires are trying to break and destroy light rail across 1-90. It creates a deficit by not having tolls in place, and it raises taxes on everyone because it decreases overall revenue.” He said no other states have their legislatures approve transportation tolls.

Hagen, College Republicans

Yes

Hagen said that he voted yes, and he has trouble thinking that the other members would have voted against it. “Toll money should be used [for] the road that’s being tolled,” Hagen said.

Seattle Prop 1-

Vehicle License Fee

This measure would add an additional $60-per-car fee to vehicle owners. After 10 years, the fee will raise $204 million. The funds would go toward transit costs, such as the metro system, bike lanes and trails, streetcars, and street-pavement maintenance. However, the funds do not create new bus routes, and none of the funding goes to repairing the city’s bridges.

Yandle, YDUW

Yes

“We agree that it is a regressive tax that we do not like,” Yandle said. “However, this flat fee is the best way to raise revenue right now. Although we would have preferred a more progressive tax, it seems that the club is more for it because if you can afford a car, you can afford the tab fee as well.”

McCleary, GW

Abstain

McCleary said Generation Washington did not have a collective opinion about Prop 1. “Personally, I also feel like providing for roads and transit is the role of local government,” he said. “You have to look at the budget as a whole: How are we spending the money already?”

Wieland, WSA

Yes

Wieland said WSA has endorsed Prop 1. He said one of the initiative’s biggest criticisms is that it’s a regressive tax, meaning people with higher incomes are paying a lesser percentage of their income than people with lower incomes. “Why we still support it, even though it is a regressive tax, is that the most regressive thing we could do is to let our sidewalks crumble,” he said.

Heidenrich, YAL

Abstain

Heidenreich said as a group, he would not comment. “Personally, I could go either way,” he said. “Obviously we don’t want to tax people more, but transit and infrastructure [are] important.”

Roddick, ISO

Abstain

Hagen, College Republicans

No

“It’s an additional pact,” Hagen said. “It’s an additional burden that the people of Seattle don’t need.”

Hagen said $60 is a lot of money, and that it’s not fair that people who drive have to pay for transit for people who don’t own cars. “If it goes to road improvements, that’s different, but if you’re paying for a service you don’t use, that doesn’t sit with me personally,” he said.

Reach reporters Joon Yi and Katherine McKeon at features@dailyuw.com.