Seattle Times Car-Tab Malfeasance Continues

The Times Oct 22^nd editorial “Addressing The Confusion I-976 Created” continuing their slavish support for Sound Transit qualifies as journalistic malfeasance: “wrong doing or misconduct”.   Again they chose to disparage the messenger rather than the message.   

It’s journalistic “misconduct” to suggest Tim Eyman’s legal problems justify I-976 rejection.  The Times claims, “The dishonesty is Eymans” yet gives no examples.  It was Sound Transit who “misled” voters with their 7/08/16 post claiming “An adult owning the median value motor vehicle would pay an additional $43 per year in MVET if ST3 were passed.”  

Yet the Times abided Sound Transit’s response to objections to the higher taxes in an April 2017 post headlined “Sound Transit 3 car tab rollback threatens light rail to Everett” claiming, “During the campaign, Sound Transit was completely transparent about the taxes.”

The message is a Joel Connelly June 8^th, 2017 Seattle PI article concluded that mendacity enabled ST3 since it would get “only 37% support were voters given a do-over”.   Yet the Times continues to abide Sound Transit mendacity.  That Sound Transit claims the $6.5 billion loss out of their projected $64 billion in tax revenue. per 2019 budget, will add 20 years to light rail completion.

The Times claims this proposal will also “eviscerate transportation solutions chosen by gridlocked communities across our state” such as “sidewalk repairs”.  Yet the Times laments the fact “voters hundreds of miles from Puget Sound can weigh in.  Apparently concerned “communities across our state” aren’t that supportive.

Even the Times admits the car tab taxes are based on inflated car values.   That the “lawmakers should have reformulated the tax to better reflect car values”.   Yet the Times neglected to include that legislation as one of their top ten priorities.   

The bottom line is any “confusion” about car tab taxes is more the result of Sound Transit mendacity and the Seattle Times continued support.  That surely qualifies as journalistic malfeasance.