Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

LIQUOR: Voters didn’t reject privatization

Letter by Denis Rosnick, Gig Harbor on April 13, 2011 at 1:23 pm with 5 Comments »
April 13, 2011 1:38 pm

You were just flat wrong in stating that the voters rejected two proposals to privatize liquor last November (editorial, 4-13). Rather, the vote was split between two conflicting and confusing initiatives, one of which – Initiative 1105 – was heavily backed by liquor distributors.

Had Initiative 1100 been on the ballot on its own, it would have captured practically all of the favorable votes for privatization and passed. That was the voters’ intent, and that’s what the Legislature should keep in mind.

Leave a comment Comments → 5
  1. Neat! What color is the sky in your dream world?

  2. Fibonacci says:

    “Had initiative 1100 been on the ballot on its own, it would have captured pracitcaly all the favorable votes…” And you base this on? “That was the voters intent” and now you can read minds. Since you kow what everyone wants, why bother with a ballot, just ask you.

  3. the3rdpigshouse says:

    At the time of the vote – the issue was deliberately made misleading so it would not pass. When the socialist democrats in Olympia started to run out of other peoples money (taxes), they had no choice but to propose the liquor distribution transfer and other cost cutting to stop from raising taxes.

  4. SSounder says:

    Confused, no, give the electorate some credit, they concluded both initiatives were bad ideas.

  5. Conversely, had I-1100 been on the ballot alone it would have captured all the NO votes. I voted against it just because it was a Privatization Scheme.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0