Jason Hagey reported Monday that Pierce County Republicans are hosting a we-love-Sarah-Palin debate-watch party Thursday evening at Maxwell's Speakeasy + Lounge. Find details here.

I asked Pierce County Democratic Party Chairman Nathe Lawver if he knew of any pro-Biden gatherings.

He said the 27th Legislative District Democrats will be at the Varsity Grill, 1114 Broadway, Tacoma. The 25th Legislative District Democrats will be at the Puyallup Library, 324 S. Meridian, Puyallup.

The Pierce County Council Tuesday voted unanimously to buy the Tacoma Narrows Airport near Gig Harbor for $5 million.

Under an agreement approved at a special meeting at the airport, the county will pay $3 million of the purchase price. The Peninsula Metropolitan Parks District will pay the other $2 million and will get the adjacent Madrona Links Golf Course.

The City of Tacoma has been trying to sell the money-losing airport for two years. County officials say they can break even or better by consolidation operations with the county’s other airport – Thun Field.

County officials see the Narrows airport as an economic development tool. They also want to keep it in public hands to control its development.

County Council Chairman Terry Lee, R-Gig Harbor, said the county will host community meetings to seek public input on an airport business plan.

From Les Blumenthal in our D.C. bureau:

While admitting it's far from a “cure-all” for the nation’s economic ills, Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray says she will support a $700 billion Wall Street bailout package when it comes to the Senate floor this evening.

“It’s an attempt to keep an already bad situation from getting worse,” Murray said in a statement. “This is not the legislation I would have written. It’s not legislation I wanted to support.

“But this is not the time to tell American families ‘Sorry, you are on your own’ and hope for the best.”

Update: Washington state's other senator, Democrat Maria Cantwell, voted against the bill, saying she was not “turning the keys of the U.S. Treasury over to the private sector.”

In a brief but heated speech on the Senate floor, Cantwell said the bailout essentially represented a misuse of federal tax dollars which are traditionally used to leverage private investment in rescuing ailing companies.

“The problem with the legislation before us is we are choosing winners and losers,” she said.

Murray said “I will support this package because the American dream of owning a home or going to college is simply too important to take a back seat to politics or to be put at risk by the misdeeds of Wall Street.”

In a lengthy statement, Murray said she had heard not only from such companies as Weyerhaeuser, Microsoft and Avista but also people who are worried the credit crunch may make it impossible for them to get home mortgages or student loans.

“Across the board there is deep and genuine concern about market collapse and the potential impact on jobs, credit and retirement accounts,” Murray said, adding she too was angry because the situation was preventable. “But the reality is that those who created the problem won’t be those who are hurt most. The hardest hits will be taken by average Americans.”

The bill, which was defeated in the House on Monday, now includes provisions extending major tax breaks, including one allowing the deduction of state and local sales taxes on federal returns. That tax break has saved Washington state residents between $350 million and $500 million annually.

The fact that Sound Transit's ballot measure next month has the same number (Proposition 1) as it had in 2007, and the fact that the dollar amount they are using is the same ($17.8 billion) would make it appear that the same plan is on the ballot this year.

Not so! The one on the ballot this time is actually smaller. (But the tax amount for transit is exactly the same: a 0.5 percent sales tax.)

I'm not sure why Sound Transit decided to describe this year's Proposition 1 as a $17.8 billion package. I guess the Seattle newspapers so browbeat them over the cost last time around that they decided to overstate the cost rather than understate it. They even included the $17.8 billion in the ballot description.

Here's why they aren't the same: The $17.8 billion price tax for the 2007 ballot measure was the cost in current year dollars. That is, if all the light-rail stuff and Sounder stations and buses were bought today, they would have cost $10.8 billion, and if all the highway projects in that package were built today, they would have cost $7 billion. The total: $17.8 billion.

The $17.8 billion price tax for THIS YEAR'S ballot measure is stated in "year of expenditure" dollars. That is, the rail line and stations will be built over a 15-year period and a station built in 2023 is going to cost more than a station built today, because of inflation.

Apples and oranges!

Here's the apples-to-apples comparison: Last year's $17.8 billion is really $9.3 billion in this go-round, for construction. Partly because there are no highway projects in this year's ballot measure. And partly because the $10.8 billion transit component in last year's package has shrunk to $9.3 billion. (That's why light rail is not getting as far as Tacoma in this year's plan.)

If you had used "year of expenditure" to describe the 2007 ballot measure, that $17.8 billion would have been $37.8 billion. The construction timeline was five years longer, through 2028.

There's also a maintenance and operation component of both packages, but that's an item for another blog post.

Yesterday was the last day on the job for Mike Groesch, senior staff coordinator for the state Senate Transportation Committee.

I take note of his departure for the same reason I paid attention to the departure of David Schumacher, who used to have a similar job with the Senate Ways and Means Committee until he left to go work for The Boeing Co. That happened last month, too.

My journalism colleagues are bemoaning the loss of fellow members of the Olympia press corps, and I'll miss them, too. But if you're a statehouse reporter and you're supposed to know how the Legislature is spending public funds, Groesch and Schumacher are the go-to guys. Just ask Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee.

I first got to know Groesch when he was writing the capital budget for the Senate. He's the guy I would seek out to find where in the budget lawmakers had put money for the University of Washington branch campus in Tacoma.

In fact, Groesch brought the same itemized approach to the state transportation budget as was used to write the capital budget. That is, there now are specific projects in the transportation budget and dollar amounts assigned to them. Used to be, the Legislature just lumped billions of dollars into a category, like "safety" and it was hard to track.

Groesch is also the only Olympia staffer I know who wants the UW Tacoma to get its own football team -- the Amocats.

I'm posting this blog item mainly to give Mike's co-workers and staffers a chance to rag on him by posting their own comments.

It wasn't paid for by the state. The City of Tacoma commissioned and paid the artist $50,000 to put those patterns on the retaining walls around the bend on northbound Interstate 5.

My colleague, Adam Lynn, wrote about that in January 2007.

Tacoma's public art administrator Amy McBride confirmed that yesterday. So did Lloyd Brown, chief spokesman for the Washington Department of Transportation.

Despite what Tim Eyman is trying to imply in Initiative 985, the state doesn't set aside 1/2 percent of highway construction projects for public art. The public art you see generally is paid for by someone else, maybe Sound Transit, which has a 1 percent for art policy, or, in the case of I-5 project, Tacoma.

The next time you see DOT pay for public art probably will be when it the agency gets around to building a new $30 million regional headquarters building for the Olympic Region in Hawks Prairie area. The art set-aside applies to buildings, not highways.

Here's Brown's email to me:

The city and WSDOT negotiated a $50,000 payment for the art texture. The city hired the artist and WSDOT didn't contribute to that. I don't have a copy of the agreement - I've been traveling today to our Northwest and North Central regions today. The walls would have been built anyway, so covering the cost of the concrete forms was appropriate for the city. It was the city's idea and we supported the idea as a good neighbor.

=> Read more!

Pierce County turned down last year's Proposition 1 by a greater margin than either of its sister counties up north, and there's even less for Pierce County (from a light rail standpoint) this time around.

The Sound Transit board designed a plan that puts a lot of light rail in King County and pushes up to Lynnwood in Snohomish County. But the main spine comes only as far south as the northern city limits of Federal Way, and never crosses the border into Pierce County.

Tacoma could get an extension of its downtown Link if the city or someone else ponies up half the money to match Sound Transit. Instead, Pierce gets more regional bus service and Sounder trains and parking at train stations.

Most of the e-mail feedback I've been getting from readers suggests they feel slighted by the plan.

All of which begs the question: Will King and Snohomish counties approve this second $18 billion plan by wide enough margins to overcome a predominantly "no" vote in Pierce County? It's an all-or-nothing proposition, by the way.

Here's a look at last year's results, county by county, for Proposition 1:

Pierce County
YES............54,333....42.61 percent
NO.............73,170....57.39 percent

King County
YES...........170,982....44.75 percent
NO............211,070....55.25 percent

Snohomish County
YES.........41,444......44.36 percent
NO..........51,993......55.64 percent

NOTE: I used only the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority votes, not the Regional Transportation Investment District totals of the combined ballot measure for 2007. For Pierce County, they were identical.
If you'll recall, the last ballot measure had about $11 billion for transit and $7 billion for highways.

I recently interviewed the four candidates for Pierce County executive for profiles that will run in Sunday’s paper. The interviews were wide-ranging. We talked about the candidates’ experience and priorities, of course. But I also sought their opinions on issues like public funding for Chambers Bay Golf Course and impact fees to offset the cost of providing services to new housing developments.

The resulting articles are spread over two pages in Sunday’s paper. But there’s never enough space in print to give the candidates their full say on every topic. So today I begin posting audio excerpts from the interviews. It’s a chance to let you hear what the candidates have to say in their own words.

First up: the candidates weigh in on Sound Transit’s proposed $18 billion regional expansion plan.

Voters in November will consider an $18 billion Sound Transit expansion measure. Do you support the measure?

Republican Shawn Bunney: “No. I think roads and transit are both a priority,” Bunney said. But he said the county’s top priority should be finishing Highway 167 and the Cross Base Highway. Listen to his full response here.

Democrat Calvin Goings: “If I would have been county executive I would have advocated for a different proposal … While not a perfect package, as citizen Calvin Goings, I’m probably going to vote yes.” Listen to his full response here.

Executive Excellence candidate Mike Lonergan: He doesn’t support the measure, citing its effect on sales taxes and its lack of attention to Pierce County needs. Listen to his full response here.

Democrat Pat McCarthy: “I don’t think the time is right to put a measure on the ballot, especially given the economic climate we’re facing.” Listen to her full response here.

Coming tomorrow: the candidates’ take on more public funding at Chambers Bay Golf Course. Future excerpts include their opinions of current Executive John Ladenburg and their thoughts on whether the building and real estate industries have too much influence on county government.