Why You Should Vote No on Initiative 985

Initiative 985 is the 2008 incarnation of Tim Eyman's Annual Initiative Campaign as he plays citizen legislator. Eyman basically buys his spot on the November ballot each year by hiring a slew of paid signature gatherers to collect enough signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot.

Most voters never read the back of the initiative and the fine print of what Eyman wants them to vote into law. They should because Initiative 985 is another one of Eyman's Trojan Horse Initiatives. Hidden in the text of I-985 is language that directs so called congestion relief money to building more roads and opposing spending money for transit.

The Washington State Attorney General's Office has done a terrible job of assigning a ballot title and summary to Initiative 985. It is misleading and misses the main use of the money appropriated under I-985.

Reading the ballot title lulls you into believing that this measure might actually reduce traffic congestion as Eyman's seems to claim. It sounds like the $145 million or so Eyman wants to appropriate from the General Fund and red light fines each year will be used to open car pool lanes, synchronize traffic lights and add emergency vehicles to clear roads.

After you put up a few signs saying car pools lanes are open after rush hour to traffic, get your computer synchronized lights set up and add a few more tow trucks in the first year what happens to the bulk of the $145 million collected each year in Eyman's dedicated fund?

This is when you find out what Eyman's plan really is. It is to dedicate millions of dollars more each year to just building more roads. This is above and beyond the already dedicated funds collected from gas taxes that is restricted to roads.

I-985's purpose is not to solve traffic congestion but to eliminate all measures to reduce congestion except road building. It is another one of Eyman's Trojan Horse Initiatives.

Hidden in the fine print of Initiative 985 is the fact that after you've synchronized traffic lights, opened car pool lanes and added some more emergency vehicles, the remainder of the $145 million collected each year can only be spent on "reducing vehicle delay by expanding road capacity and general purpose use to improve traffic flow for all vehicles"

This may sound O.K. until Eyman's I-985 adds "Purposes to improve traffic flow for all vehicles do not include creating, maintaining or operating bike paths or lanes, wildlife crossings, landscaping, park and ride lots, ferries, trolleys, buses, monorail, light rail or heavy rail."

The money collected to reduce congestion is put in a dedicated fund but can't be used for buses or park and ride lots or bike paths. The state gas tax is already dedicated to road building and Eyman wants to add more money for road building.

I-985 reflects Eyman's is anti-transit bias and his support for more roads. This measure will not reduce congestion but add to it by spending more money on road building rather than alternatives to get people out of cars and into more efficient modes of transportation like buses.

Initiative 985 needs to be rejected by voters. The public needs to vote no on more road building at the expense of other proven methods of actually reducing congestion.

I-985 is not good public policy but is just another Eyman attack on public transit.
Vote No on I-985.

for more information go to the official No on 985 campaign at www.noon985.com .

Governor Chris Gregoire Deserves to be Re-elected

Democratic Governor Gregoire has been one of Washington State's best Governors. Her problem is that she is not one to toot her horn but she has been busy making our state better and addressing the problems we face. If she has a weakness it is in communicating just how good a Governor she has been.

She has a good record of accomplishments to run on. For example during her 4 years we have seen action on a number of environmental issues.

Under her watch we have seen Washington State step up to addressing cleaning up Puget Sound - a long overdue action.

The state passed the Clean Car Act to join with California and other states in dealing with increasing fuel efficiency that the Bush Administration refused to address.

The state has enacted a bill to deal with toxic toys that the Bush Administration also refused to act on.

Legislation was passed to support local agriculture and to provide locally grown food to schools.

Green Jobs legislation was enacted to start Washington state on the road to new jobs and cleaner energy and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Gregoire has been active in dealing with climate change, including the Western Governor's Initiative and the Washington Climate Action bill.

These issues cover just a few of the changes Governor Gregoire has helped to implement.

Meanwhile what can you think of that Republican Dino Rossi has done in the last four year's to address these or other issues?

Besides smiling and saying he's for change, what has Rossi done in the last four years on these issues? Nothing. He is running a blank slate campaign - he is talking in non-specific sound bites and ignoring the issues so no one really knows what he will do because he won't tell us.

That blank slate campaign approach almost got him elected last time.It would be a mistake for Washington voters to repeat the mistake made with George Bush.

Maybe you want to go get a drink with Dino after watching his ads because he seems like such a nice guy but do you really want to trust someone with our state's future who is running a blank slate campaign and refusing to tell the public want he will do as Governor besides cut the budget.

And even then he isn't telling you what he would cut. The public deserves and needs more honesty from someone running for Governor. Too much is at stake.

Rossi's smile in fact is only a campaign gimmick - a technique Rossi learned through his years in real estate. As quoted in the Seattle Times, "I've found you can do pretty much anything you want if you do it with a smile on your face," Rossi said. "It's amazing what you can get away with if you do it with a smile on your face."

Voters deserve more than a smile. They deserve someone that will be straightforward and tell them what they believe and what they intend to do. Rossi refuses to do that.

Chris Gregoire has a strong public record and is not afraid to speak out about her positions. She has proved herself to be a competent and capable Governor.

I urge you to vote to re-elect Chris Gregoire as Governor of Washington State on November 4th... She has stepped up and done the job to help protect our environment and move our state in the right direction. She has earned our vote of support.

Timber Interests Plan Last Minute Half Million Dollar Blitz Against Peter Goldmark

Peter Goldmark is the Democrat running for Public Lands Commissioner in Washington State. According to the latest Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) reports Peter Goldmark has out raised his Republican opponent Doug Sutherland, the incumbent, $841,775 to $578,052. Goldmark's fundraising is impressive considering that about 50% of Sutherland's money is coming from timber and mining interests.

But lurking in the shadows is an independent PAC called the Committee for Balanced Stewardship. It has a war chest totalling $594,910. In 2004 this same committee spent over $322,000 doing last minute mailers supporting Doug Sutherland's campaign for Public Lands Commissioner. Sutherland won that race against Mike Cooper.

The Committee for Balanced Stewardship is going to again spend all its money to try to re-elect Sutherland. But something is wrong when a special interest PAC comprised of mostly timber interests is raising more money to support the candidate than the candidate is raising.

And to top things off many of these timber and mining interests are giving to both campaign committees. Over half of the contributions to Sutherland campaign are from timber and mining interests.

Contributions directly to Sutherland's campaign are limited to $1600 per election (primary and general are separate elections). But the same contributor giving money to a PAC like the so called Committee for Balanced Growth can contribute as much as they want to try to influence the outcome of the election.

That's why you'll see Weyerhauser has given Sutherland's campaign $1400 but has also given the Committee for Balanced Stewardship $100,000. So much for limiting the influence of big money in elections. As long as the loophole exists that money given to a so-called independent PAC has no limits, companies like Weyerhauser will use their corporate dollars to try to disproportionately influence the outcome of the election to get their candidate elected.

This loophole gives big money interests that stand to profit from the election of their candidate a decided and unfair advantage in trying to influence the outcome of the election. Regular donors who give directly to the candidate, see their ability to affect the outcome of the election diminished.

The loophole as written for no limits on contributions to independent PAC's says if you are wealthy or have corporate money to spend, you have a huge advantage in trying to affect the outcome of the election by your greater ability to reach the voters with your message.

So who is basically skirting campaign contributions limits to Sutherland by giving to the so-called independent PAC. Here's the list of corporate interests donating to the Committee for Balanced Stewardship that is trying to keep Republican Sutherland in office:

Weyerhauser, Federal Way,WA $100,000

Hampton Affiliates, Portland, OR $75,000

Rayonier, Jacksonville, FL $75,000

Glacier NW, Port Angeles, WA $50,000

Green Crow, Port Angeles, WA $25,000

Sierra Pacific Industries, Redding, CA $25,000

Port Blakely Tree Farms, Tumwater, WA $20,000

Stimson Lumber Co, Portland, OR $20,000

Longview Timber Co, Longview, WA $25,000

Green Diamond, Shelton, WA $25,000

Olympic Resource Mgt, Poul;sbo, WA $15,000

Simpson, Tacoma, WA $12,500

Murray Pacific, Tacoma, WA $20,000

Vaagen Brothers, Colville, WA $5000

With the Committee for Balanced Stewardship's money and Sutherland's campaign money, timber and mining interests will comprise about 3/4 of the money spent to try to re-elect Doug Sutherland. They want to keep their cozy relationship with the current Commissioner of Public Lands. All the more reason to vote for Peter Goldmark. Public lands should be for public good not private gain.

Seattle School District Refiles Application to Build Ingraham High School Addition in Tree Grove

Your comments now can help save the trees at Ingraham High School in North Seattle from the chainsaw!

If you have not yet heard, the Seattle School District has refilled their application to proceed ahead with their construction project at Ingraham High School. Here is the permit website: http://web1.seattle.gov/DPD/permitstatus/Project.aspx?id=3009549.

Comments need to be sent by Nov. 13, 2008!!! (note -deadline was extended)

The Seattle School District has filed to build the project in the same location as before – in the grove of 100 foot tall, 75 year old Douglas fir, Pacific madrone and western red cedar trees on the West side of the High School. This will result in the cutting down of 68 of the trees.

As you may remember, Save the Trees - Seattle was successful in temporarily stopping the Seattle School District from cutting down the trees in August after the District withdrew their permits. But the Injunction was only temporary and the school district has refiled with the Seattle Department of Planning and Development to go ahead with the Project.

The Judge at the time ruled that it was premature to file our appeal of the DNS (Determination of Non-Significance) on the Environmental checklist issued by the Seattle School District, even though the Seattle School District said we had to file then or lose our right to appeal.

Judge John Erlick of the King County Superior Court noted that the City of Seattle had the power to alter the project or put additional conditions on it and until the city approved the permit, the final project could be altered by the city. The Judge felt it was premature to rule on the merits of the case.

This is of course the hope of those opposing the trees being cut down and why your comments to the city are so important. The city has the option of saying the environmental impacts are significant in the proposed location that results in so many trees being cut down and ask the Seattle School District to move the project to another location.

Right now the Project has only been reviewed within the Seattle School District. Now it is the City of Seattle’s turn to review the Project for compliance with city laws, including our land use and environmental and SEPA laws. This is your opportunity to comment on the project and it is important that as many people as possible respond and urge the city to not approve the Seattle School District’s plan to cut the trees down. Comments must be sent by Nov. 13, 2008.

The fact is that there are other locations at Ingraham High School that the addition can be built on that do not require that any large trees be cut down, including the open lawn area on the North side of the school. They do not need to cut the trees down. Neighbors support the renovation which is to replace decaying portables at the school but not in the tree grove. We can have both education and trees on the Ingraham campus, which at 28 acres is the largest public high school campus in Seattle.

Important points to make to help save the trees:

1. Seattle’s latest Comprehensive Plan in the Environment Element states that the city should “strive to protect and retain certain trees and groups of trees that enhance Seattle’s historical, cultural, environmental and aesthetic values" and “work to achieve a sustainable urban forest that contains a diverse mix of tree species and ages in order to use the forest’s abilities to reduce storm water runoff and pollution, absorb air pollutants, provide wildlife habitat, absorb carbon dioxide, provide shade, stabilize soil, and increase property values.”

2. In addition the Comprehensive Plan’s policy is “to strive to achieve no net loss of tree canopy coverage starting in 2008, and strive to increase tree canopy coverage by 1% per year up to a total of 40 percent, to reduce storm runoff, absorb air pollutants, reduce noise, stabilize soil, provide habitat and mitigate the heat island effect of developed areas.” Seattle’s urban tree canopy has gone from 40% in 1972 to 18% today.

3. The west grove of trees at Ingraham HS was acknowledged by the Hearing Examiner for the Seattle School District to be a de facto park area used by students and neighbors for passive recreation and would be lost if the trees are cut.

4. SMC 25.05.675 N Plants and animals. City SEPA law states that it is “the City’s policy to minimize or prevent the loss of wildlife habitat and other vegetation which have substantial aesthetic, educational, ecological and/or economic value. A high priority shall be given to preservation and protection of special habitat types… A high priority shall also be given to meeting the needs of state and federal threatened, endangered and sensitive species of both plants and animals.”

5. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources through its Natural Heritage Program has classified the habitat in the west grove as a rare plant community in King County. The plant association includes Douglas fir, Pacific Madrone and salal. Pacific madrone trees are in decline in the region and need to be protected.

6. The band-tailed pigeon, which feeds on the fruit of the madrone tree, and has been seen in the Ingraham neighborhood, has been listed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as a priority species. “Priority species require protective measures for their survival due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration ….”, according to the Department.

7. The Seattle City Council’s recently passed tree grove resolution stated that , “Section 25.05.675(N) of the Seattle Municipal Code allows for preservation of trees as mitigation when a project would reduce or damage rare, uncommon, unique or exceptional plant or wildlife habitat, wildlife travel ways, or habitat diversity for species of substantial aesthetic, education, ecological or economic value”

8. The Seattle School District’s DNS (Determination of Non-significance) is not a mitigated DNS. This means they are under no obligation to do anything they say they will do if they cut the trees – like plant more trees or protect the east grove of trees. The Seattle School District has a terrible record at Ingraham of trees dying that they previously planted.

9. Removing the trees creates drainage problems because the trees help control runoff and absorb water.

These are some points you can make but please write up in your own words your personal comments. Add any other reasons that you believe as to why the trees should be saved.

You can send comments 3 different ways:

1. Click on this link and you can just fill in your comments right now and send them in for the project. http://web1.seattle.gov/dpd/LUIB/CommentEmail.aspx?BID=358&NID=8971&P=3009549&D=10/16/2008

2. Send comments to: Tamara.Garrett@seattle.gov

3. Send comments to:

DPD/Attention Tamara Garrett
700 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
PO Box 34019
Seattle, WA 98124

Please include your name and address so you can be kept updated on the project, and be notified when there is a public meeting.Note the comments are on Permit Application #3009549 on the Ingraham High School Renovation.

Please send a blind copy - bcc to me at stevezemke@msn.com so that we can track the response and input we are getting if you send by separate e-mail and don't use the form in the link above.

Even a few short sentences are helpful. We need to show strong public support from as many people as possible for saving the trees and moving the addition to another site, like the North lawn area at Ingraham.

The DPD on their website gives the following suggestions for making comments:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Notices/Public_Comment/How_To_Comment/default.asp#Tips Tips on Making Effective CommentsAlthough the quantity of letters DPD receives regarding land use activities may indicate the extent of neighborhood or agency interest, it is the relevance of the comments—the information they contain—that will most affect a project’s outcome. Here are some tips on making your comments effective:

Briefly explain who you are and why you are interested in the project.
State your concerns clearly and succinctly using objective language.
Comment only on issues relevant to the decision being made.
State opinions and preferences, ask questions, and propose alternative solutions to particular issues. State informed opinions and, where possible, include data to support your opinion.
Review the project’s technical reports or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) data, comment on conclusions, assumptions and the data collecting methods.
Keep focused on your objective. You want DPD to hear your concerns and be compelled enough to investigate further.
Identify the topics you want to include in your letter and how you want to organize them.
Ask for studies that you think are important but have not been provided.
If the proposed project is subject to SEPA and you think it will have significant environmental impact, request that an EIS be prepared.
Provide your own information.
Identify project features that you like and think should not be changed.
Provide any comments about the project’s compliance with the Land Use Code.
Ask to be added to the project mailing list and request a copy of the notice of decision. (Copies are sent via U.S. mail, s o please provide your mailing address when making request

For reference:

Here is the environmental checklist for the project:
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/facilities/BEXIII/Ingraham/2nd_revision_IngrahamSEPAChecklist.pdf
Here is the environmental policies and SEPA laws for Seattle:
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=25.05&s2=&S3=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect1=IMAGE&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CODE1&d=CODE&p=1&u=/%7Epublic/code1.htm&r=1&Sect6=HITOFF&f=G

see also

www.MajorityRules.org/blog - numerous posts
http://saveingrahamstrees.info/About_Us.html
http://www.saveseattlestrees.org/Ingraham.htm

Judge halts Tree Cutting near Ingraham High School - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008112745_trees14m.html

Judge – Tree Cutting at Ingraham High needs city approval - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008138212_trees26m.html

Thanks for your help!

Steve Zemke
Save the Trees – Seattle
stevezemke@msn.com
206-366-0811

Please call if you have questions.

Please forward this link to others who might respond. Thanks

PS. Save the Trees - Seattle still owes about $4000 to their attorneys. If you can help with a contribution it would be appreciated. Checks can be made out to “Save the Trees – Seattle” and sent to Save the Trees – Seattle, c/o Steve Zemke, 2131 N 132nd St, Seattle, WA 98133

Please note revised date for sending in comments. The current updated date is by Nov. 13, 2008.

Rossi to Fight Supoena in BIAW Lawsuit

In a press release earlier today, Knoll Lowney of Smith & Lowney stated that:

"Today, lawyers for gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi indicated that Rossi will fight the subpoena that requires him to testify under oath as to his role in the illegal fundraising campaign of the Building Industry Association of Washington("BIAW"), which is currently being prosecuted by the State Attorney General. "

You can catch the current King 5 news report here on YouTube.

You can see last week's King 5 news reports here.

Lowney noted that a separate lawsuit was filed last week by former Washington State Supreme Justices Faith Ireland and Robert F. Utter regarding Republican Rossi's alleged collaboration with the BIAW's massive fundraising effort to swing the Governor's race in favor of Republican Rossi.

The BIAW has a war chest of $3.5 million which it is spending opposing incumbent Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire and supporting Republican Dino Rossi. Under state law contributions directly to candidates are limited to $1600 per election for state wide office.

No such limit apples unfortunately for so-called independent PAC's which is what the BIAW is claiming their PAC's like ChangePAC and It's Time for a Change are. But independent means just that - there can be no collaboration between the candidate and the so-called independent committee.

The irony here is that the BIAW actually asked for an interpretation of what independent meant in 2004. The answer seems pretty clear. In a memorandum dated June 15, 2004, written by Susan Harris, Assistant Director of the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission she stated a no answer to the following:

Tim Harris, General Counsel for BIAW, has asked whether a candidate may solicit funds for a political committee (PAC) that would make independent expenditures in support of that candidate, if the candidate:
(1) has no say with respect to the spending of the PAC or other content of the message;
(2) would not encourage or approve the actual specific expenditure; and
(3) would not otherwise collaborate with any PAC officials regarding the expenditure?

Staff believes the answer to the question is no. Not all of the elements of an Independent Expenditure as defined in RCW 42.17.020(24)(a) could be satisfied.

....., the definition of “independent expenditure” includes a four part test in RCW 42.17.020(24)(a). Each of the four parts must be met in order for the expenditure to satisfy the definition. The circumstances posed by BIAW fail two of the four parts.
Specifically, subdivision (iii) requires that the spender not be a person who has received the candidate's "encouragement," and subdivision (iv) says the candidate and the spender may not have "collaborated for the purpose of making the expenditure," when the expense pays for political advertising supporting that candidate or opposing that candidate's opponent.

Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary defines "encourage" as: "1. To inspire with hope, courage or confidence: HEARTEN; 2. To give support to: FOSTER; 3. To stimulate."

One of the most fundamental ways a candidate could encourage a person to purchase political advertising supporting that candidate is to help make sure that person has sufficient funds to undertake an effective advertising effort. Assisting a PAC in fundraising fosters that committee's ability to make the political advertising expenditure benefiting the candidate. As such, the PAC expenditure is not sufficiently removed from the candidate to qualify as an independent expenditure.

Collaborate" is defined in Webster's as: 1. To work together, esp. in a joint intellectual effort; 2. To cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupying one's country.

Staff is of the opinion that if a candidate solicits contributions for a PAC by, for example, referring potential contributors to the committee, putting a link to the PAC's website on his or her campaign website, or referencing the PAC in his or
her own campaign literature, then the candidate and the PAC are working together for the purpose of making a political advertising expenditure. That collaboration disqualifies any resulting expenditure from the definition of independent expenditure.
Based on a reasonable application of the definition of independent expenditure that is consistent with the intent of the statute, staff is recommending the Commission find that if a candidate assists a PAC in fundraising and the PAC then undertakes political advertising supporting that candidate or promoting the defeat of that candidate's opponent, that expenditure does not satisfy the definition of "independent expenditure."
Examples of fundraising assistance include helping the PAC identify potential contributors, referring potential contributors to the PAC, and referencing the PAC on the candidate's website or in his or her literature.

If the BIAW and Rossi had complied with this memo they would not be in court now. My guess is that the BIAW decided to ignore this memorandum, realizing they could spend millions of dollars supporting Rossi and the worst they would face would be a fine of a few thousand dollars. The cost of trying to skirt the laws and put Republican Rossi in the Governor's seat would be a pittance compared to what the BIAW would gain by having their ally as Governor..

Maybe the Court should fine them the total amount of their illegal campaign spending. That would certainly get their attention.

Most of Initiative 985 Money to go for Road Building

What a surprise. The bulk of the money siphoned by Initiative 985 from the Washington State General Fund will go for "increasing road capacity". It's not really about carpool lanes or traffic synchronization, except as a gimmick to convince voters to set up a special fund to "increase road capacity."

Initiative 985 is really a stealth attack to siphon money now committed to education and public safety in the state budget and spend it for building more roads - an approach that has been shown elsewhere to not reduce congestion but just increase more cars on the road.

Eyman likes to say it will not increase taxes but the reality is it will take new taxes to make up the cuts in money now allocated to other state programs like education and public safety in the budget or it will entail cutting education and public safety.

The Washington State Office of Financial Management has released their revised financial impact of Initiative 985 to be in the voter's pamphlet.

Their analysis does a breakdown of where the approximately $573.9 million dollars, mostly siphoned out of the state's general fund over 5 years, will be spent.

The bulk of this money will come from the 15% transfer of sales and use taxes on motor vehicles from the general fund to Eyman's congestion fund.

After you do an initial synchronization of traffic lights just how much money is needed each year to keep such a system operating? The state's Office of Financial Management estimates some $65 million over 5 years would be spent.

The cost of opening carpool lanes is the most expensive, some $224 million over 5 years to install and modify variable speed limit and lane use control systems.

Just how many tow trucks are needed and what does this cost? The OFM estimates some $18 million over 5 years would be spent.

Some $312.9 million is left over for "other projects."

After the initial cost of setting up this traffic gimmick proposal over 5 years, the money left over for "other projects" will continue year after year to accumulate in Eyman's Traffic Congestion Fund.

The key point is that I-985 is really a Trojan Horse Initiative. Besides the above named items, the money removed from the State's General Fund and deposited in Eyman's special account can only be spent according to I-985 on "any other purpose which reduces traffic congestion by reducing vehicle delay by expanding road capacity and general purpose use to improve traffic flow for all vehicles"

The kicker is that I-985 says that "Purposes to improve traffic flow for all vehicles do not include creating, maintaining or operating bike paths or lanes, wildlife crossings, landscaping, park and ride lots, ferries, trolleys, buses, monorail, light rail or heavy rail."

Yes this is the fine print on the back of the initiative most people never read before they signed the initiative. The ultimate result if I-985 passes will be to set up an ongoing fund committed to more road building. After the initial setup costs, the bulk of the collected money can only be spent on building more roads and not for transit or other projects that are proven to reduce congestion. Initiative 985 is an anti-transit proposal.

Increasing road capacity only puts more cars on the road, which when filled to the new capacity becomes congested. This is what other cities around the county have learned is the result of building more roads for more vehicles rather than spending the money on buses and public transit and park and ride lots.

I-985 is a failed approach to solving congestion problems. It deserves a resounding NO vote by Washington State voters.

An added note. Considering that the bulk of the money ultimately goes for road building, why did Attorney General Rob McKenna's office not write the ballot title and summary to more accurately state what the majority of the money will be spent on over time? Why did they not mention that the money can not be used for things like transit or park and ride lots?

All in all the ballot title obscures the real impact of what the initiative does and does not accurately reflect the long term impact of the initiative.

You can read the ballot title and summary below:

Ballot Title Initiative Measure No. 985 concerns transportation.This measure would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary This measure would: open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all vehicles Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday nights from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and 6:00 p.m. Friday to 6:00 a.m. Monday; require traffic light synchronization, and mandate increased funding for roadside assistance. Certain existing revenues, including 15% of state sales and use taxes on vehicles, certain traffic infraction penalties, and certain tolls would be dedicated to traffic-flow purposes.

You can read the text of the Initiative 985 by going to the Secretary of State's website page on current initiatives.