SeaTac’s Proposition 1 would create a $15-an-hour minimum wage for an estimated 6,300 workers at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and its nearby hotels, car-rental agencies and parking lots. That represents a 63 percent increase over Washington state’s current hourly minimum of $9.19.
The measure also calls for annual increases tied to inflation, paid sick leave and tip protection. Airport-related employers would have to offer more work to part-time employees before hiring additional part-timers. And if an affected business is sold, the new owner would have to keep existing employees for at least 90 days. Those requirements can be waived in a union contract.
Supporters say it would lift low-wage workers out of poverty, give them more money to spend at local stores and restaurants, and reduce staff turnover. Supporters include labor and community groups.
Opponents say employers would be less likely to hire young, inexperienced workers, and local-taxpayer money would be diverted away from things like parks and police to cover the law’s enforcement costs. Opponents include Alaska Airlines and other affected businesses, including hotels, car-rental companies and restaurants.
Initiative 517 would give initiative sponsors an additional six months to collect signatures, make it illegal for anyone to maintain “an intimidating presence within twenty-five feet” of a signature gatherer, and prohibit local government from blocking votes on ballot measures.
Opponents say the initiative also contains language that would vastly expand where signature gatherers could go, including inside stadiums where the Seahawks and Mariners games are held. A coalition of groups and individuals, including the Seahawks, the Northwest Grocery Association and former state Attorney General Rob McKenna, oppose I-517, arguing it takes away the right of private businesses to decide when and where signature gathering can occur on their property.
Supporters say the measure would not change where signature gatherers can go, citing a 2007 state Attorney General’s opinion that says case law lets stores “place reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on the activity.”
Supporters say the main purpose of I-517 is to prevent local governments from blocking a vote on measures that qualify for the ballot. They argue that in Vancouver and Spokane, and elsewhere, court challenges too often have prevented a vote.
Initiative 522 would require raw agricultural products that are genetically engineered (popularly called GMOs), and processed foods with such ingredients, to be labeled beginning July 1, 2015, for sale at retail.
There would be exemptions for alcoholic beverages, food sold in restaurants and milk and meat from animals that ate genetically engineered feed.
Proponents say consumers have a right to know what is in their food. Some believe GMOs are bad for human health and/or the environment, and are concerned that most genetically engineered food to date has been created to resist herbicides such as Monsanto’s Roundup or to fight off pests. Major financial backers include Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Mercola.com Health Resources, the Organic Consumer Fund and the Center for Food Safety.
Opponents say the measure’s exemptions make it confusing and inconsistent, and that it would drive up food prices if consumers rejected foods with the GMO label. They say a label is unnecessary, because genetically engineered food is safe to eat, and that the new law would be publicly policed, essentially creating a “trial lawyer’s dream.” Their top financial backers include Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
Charter Amendment No. 1 would amend the King County charter to create a department of public defense. The amendment is part of the process -- following a class-action lawsuit regarding benefits -- of making public defenders county employees, rather than contracting with non-profit corporations to provide that service.
Supporters say this step is necessary to implement a new public-defense structure resulting from a the lawsuit’s settlement agreement. Public defenders became county employees July 1, requiring restructuring of the system.
There is no organized opposition to the amendment, and no statement against it was provided to the county.
King County Proposition No. 1 would give a six-year extension to Medic One emergency medical services, which provides paramedic and ambulance services countywide. The measure would cost the owner of a $300,000 home a little more than $100 a year.
Supporters, including the entire Metropolitan King County Council, say the countywide EMS system is well-regarded and deserves funding. The county’s nine biggest cities also had to agree to place the measure on the ballot.
Opponents say governments should plan for spending on services like EMS within existing budgets, instead of asking voters to approve recurring levies.
Charter Amendment 19 would change Seattle City Council elections from nine at-large positions to seven members elected by geographical district and two at-large. Under the proposal, the city is divided roughly into seven districts each with about 88,000 residents. The districts generally follow geographical boundaries, with West Seattle one district, for example, and Southeast Seattle another.
Proponents say electing council members by district would give every area of the city a representative who is familiar with local issues and would work to get a share of city resources for the district for street repair, parks and other improvements.
Supporters also say candidates would only have to reach voters in one part of the city instead of citywide, making it cheaper to run and giving younger, grass-roots candidates a better shot at election.
Opponents say district elections result in pork barrel politics where every member is looking out for their own district with less focus on city-wide problems and priorities. They say the current city council is diverse—three women, two gays, one minority—and its strength means it can be an effective check on the mayor. They say it limits voters’ choices by allowing them to vote only for one district representative and two at-large members. Currently, everyone in the city votes for every position.
Proposition 1 would largely fund the campaigns of Seattle City Council candidates with property taxes. If candidates raised 600 private contributions of at least $10, they’d receive a $6 match in taxpayer funds for every $1 raised in small contributions, up to a maximum of $210,000. If approved by voters, the program would collect $2 million from taxpayers next year.
Proponents say the cost of council campaigns keeps good candidates from running. They say taxpayer funding would decrease the influence of private contributors in City Hall, while also increasing the diversity of candidates.
Opponents say Prop. 1 is misguided, and that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to finance candidates they don’t like. They point to research that shows public-financing has not made election races more competitive in jurisdictions that have adopted it.
