The oil and chemical industry involved in making plastic bags sells an estimated $4 billion/year to stores. It is big business making throwaway bags. Spending a million dollars to try to stop a movement toward reusable bags is not a lot to them.

The public needs to realize that if they sell $4 billion dollars in bags to stores in the US that it is consumers not the stores that ultimattely pays for those bags. The stores pass the cost on. There is no such thing as free grocery bags. You pay for them.

The way to stop paying for them and put the money in your pocket is to use reusable bags which quickly pay for themseles. We also pay for the bags in terms of waste, litter and disposal costs. Bags will still be available at other stores not covered by the fee.

The key point is that it is not a tax - if you bring your own resuable bags you will be charged nothing.

Thank you for a nice show. I recently discovered Peter Nickerson's website and I was glad to see that you allowed someone thorough, well-informed and articulate to finally address the disposable bag situation here in Seattle.

A reminder for those not paying attn: "Peter Nickerson, a participant in the Northwest Economic Policy Seminar, has no financial tie to bag producers or the grocery industry. Learn more at http://www.seattlebagtax.org (courtesy of an archived Seattle Times byline).

Both sides of this campaign have used lies and misleading political rhetoric, and I hate that:

- Tax vs Fee: Schauffler did a good job defining "tax" which went uncontested by the pro-referendum guest.
- Although the food banks won't be handlers of the proposed tax, they have already been effected by it (see the sign at the foodbank I frequent at 9747 Greenwood Ave N, which went up right after the original law was enacted -- no more bags will be distributed or provided to those in need). And really, foodbanks were only brought in to this because CAMP tried an experiment that showed that people with little means would pay this new tax significantly.
- $$$ - What about the two or three permanent staff/management positions that will be created to enforce the law and collect the nickles? The pro-tax voters statement only refers to "funding environmental programs" not new positions -- which would be totally unnecessary if the purported goals are to me achieved.

As an ardent left-wing Democrat and lifelong environmentalist, I hate to see the plastic everywhere in the grocery aisles and homes and yards of 21st century America. And I hate to find myself on the same "side" of anything related to big oil, but I don't think a symbolic Seattle lifestyle change is any more environmentally beneficial than peeling off the HumVee logo off your big plastic car.

Thanks again, KING5 and Allen.

Why don't we add to the "bag tax" a ban in Seattle of "disposable" diapers. They do not break down in a landfull either if my information is correct, and go around the world many times!

Steve--

I don't buy your definition of a fee versus a tax. A sales tax can also be largely avoided. What's really at stake here is that the city cannot enact a new tax without legislative approval. Fees, on the other hand, are exempt. This could be considered a fee if the city were providing the bags (it is not) or if the money from the fee went only to administer or pay the cost of disposing of the purchased bags but it does not. Calling this a fee, in other words, is simply a little sleight of hand.

The bag fee is not imposed on Food Banks and all that needs to happen is that Food Banks reverse any policy they now have. That is no big deal as the proposed fee is not required of Food Banks.

The bags that people now use are not free. They cost consumers nationally something of the order of $4 billion. The also cost in terms of disposal, litter and environmental damage. They contribute to the buildup of toxic waste in the ocean ecosystem because plastic acts as adherent to toxic chemicals. The plastic with attached toxic chemicals is ingested by zooplanky ton which then works its way up the food chain to organisms at the top like killer whales and humans.

There is no away for plastic as it does not biodegrade. We have a choice for our future as to how we want to deal with toxic chemicals and waste and our health. For a change of habits, by using reusable bags, we can contribute to a healther planet and a healther lifestyle.

Or we can continue to ignore it all and leave it for our children to deal with our oceans teeming with plastic toxic waste accumulators and no longer eat seafood.

We are rsponsible for our choices. I'm voting for referendum 1 and urge you to join me.

Go to http://greenbagcampaign.org/referendum-1/
for more information.

it was good that Allen Schauffler corrected the misimpression they created about I-1033 3 weeks ago. They said it 'limits property tax increases' and both our side and even the opponents pointed out the error. I-1033 puts a limit on the growth of general fund revenue for the state, counties and cities. They'll all get an automatic increase each year and if government thinks that I-1033's automatic increase isn't a big enough increase, then they can go to the voters and ask for an even bigger increase. Excess revenues collected above the limit? First, a fixed percentage gets transferred into the constitutionally-protected rainy day fund. Any excess tax revenues above that gets refunded back to taxpayers via lower property taxes.

But in their correction today, KING 5 screwed up again: their opening screen before the commercial showed "Initiative 1003" -- ugh, it's "1033".

keep trying KING 5 -- probability is in your favor that eventually you'll get it right.

http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com

The Seattle bag tax is NOT a contest between the chemical/oil industry and environmentalists, but rather this is a tax proposed and passed by an arrogant mayor and minnion city council to punish residents who do not agree with them. The bag tax was proposed by radical environmental zealots and merely adds costs to not only grocery purchases but also prescription drug purchases. It is not a fair tax as sometimes it will be collected, like at Bartell's or Safeway, but the same items purchased at Macy's or your local beauty salon would not charge the 20-cent bag tax. When you get your prescription drugs at Group Health or at Bartell's or at your local hospital, they place the drugs in a paper bag and presumably, you would pay a 20-cent tax for that bag. State lawmakers long ago removed the sales tax from groceries and from prescription drug purchases, so why now should we allow local government to add a tax to the purchase of food stuffs and prescription drugs? Vote NO on Referendum #1.

Political Environmentalists said that paper bags ruined the environment and that we should use plastic bags to save it. What changed?

In my humble opinion, this is a crock. I mean, if the people behind this truly believed in it, Macys, Nordstroms, Les Schwab, etc would not be exempt from the tax. I'm for saving the environment. This proposal is more political than environment saving.

Perhaps we should tax lunatic ideas. We could cut our deficit and improve our environment at the same time.

*** BRING BACK ROBERT MACK ***

Last night's show was biased. The show lead with the host's nanny state commentary / opinion bit, and then went into Nickerson's comparison of bag "tax" with fremont fair - with multiple edits to reinforce his key points. Then the hairspray host man went on to read points from the chemical lobby's print piece out loud.

Robert Mack would have done his research.

Robert Mack would have presented both sides evenly.

Bring back Robert Mack!

Robert Mak (not Mack) is making $150,000 as a personal PR aide to Mayor Nickels. Mak's whole job is to get this arrogant two term mess-of-a-mayor re-elected and it is our tax dollars being used to pay for the mayor's PR machine.

Speaking of mis-using tax money. How about the mayor and the minnion council agreeing to spend $1 million to buy cloth bags for every resident in Seattle, even those rich resdients living in Broadmoor, Magnolia, Seward Park and Innis Arden. And, if we have 500,000 residents and if each gets a 99-cent cloth bag, where does the extra $500,000 go? Like the bag tax money itself, that extra $500,000 will be sent to environmental groups. Make no mistake, this is about BIG MONEY on BOTH sides of the issue.

Actually, I thought allowing the bag tax proponents a chance to respond to the mailer was a nice touch.

There are things to consider about this tax;

1. As Alan stated, this is nothing but a tax. Fees are for services rendered and go to the people rendering that service. This tax goes into the City's general fund.

2. If plastic bags are bad, ban them, don't tax them.

3. Just a few years ago we were told by the environmental community to use plastic not paper, now they are saying plastic bags are bad. Which is it? What will happen when cloth bags start filling up the landfills?

4. Paper bags are reusable and recyclable; if this provides an envirnmental benefit, why are we taxing them?

If this grocery bag tax passes, and I hope it does not, then grocery clerks should be required by law to take a class on how to properly bag groceries. A couple of weeks ago I went to the M Street Grocery store on 8th and Madison and bought a few items. The clerk put them into two paper bags. They were small items and took up less than an eighth of the space in the bags, just lining the bottom. Had he put everything into one bag, the items would not have taken up even half of the bag. This is something that frequently happens when I go grocery shopping. People are going to end up needlessly paying for bags that they did not need.

This is nothing more than an attempt to seize more power and control people's lives, by arrogant, self-appointed, holier-than-thou individuals who believe that they know better than everyone else. This tax will do absolutely nothing that proponents claim, and will punish people needlessly. All in the name of political correctness, so they can feel warm and fuzzy about themselves. S-T-O-P this foolishness. This is a "solution" where no problem exists. Vote "NO" loud and clear.

The proponents of this travesty are trying to cast it as fighting back against those E-V-I-L oil and chemical companies. Don't buy it for a minute. They are patently dishonest, and trying to distract us from the real issue here. This proposal is an attempt to capitalize on environmental extremism and political correctness.

Here's to Seattle for bringing this issue to the people and to the light. One only need look around to see that plastic bags are a problem in our communities. They are littering our landscapes, wetlands and finding their way into the Puget Sound.

I began a small scale plastic bag recycling program in my community a couple of years ago. I use these "single use" shopping bags and upcycle them into washable and reusable totes purses and backpacks.

I am now recycling for 15 families and together we have kept over 3000 plastic bags out of our waste stream or worse yet our oceans!

It's a simple change to bring your own bags! When we all do our small part we really can change the big picture.

Sincerely,
Christi Spangler
Recycle Crafter
http://www.FatBottomBags.com