Readers have asked Cascadia Report for input on Seattle-area ballot issues. So here’s our logic, in brief, on some key measures:

— Washington Initiative 933: No. The measure would overturn land-use rules developed democratically over the last 15 years to manage growth. Sure, those policies need to be fair, consistent and not hurt the little guy. Instead of gutting the rules with this measure, hold elected representatives accountable for the hard decisions necessary to handle the region’s growth.

— Washington Initiative 920: No. Cascadia is steeped in the idea that individuals should carve their own fortune, not inherit it. The estate tax helps preserve a level playing field by affecting only the very wealthiest citizens. The fact that a few rich sponsors paid signature gatherers to get this measure on the ballot and then have misrepresented it as a “death tax” that affects everyone makes this vote even easier.

— Washington Initiative 937: Yes. We’re generally not fans of legislation by initiative. But requiring that large utilities generate 15 percent of their energy from new renewable sources by 2020 is a reasonable goal. This should stimulate resourceful industry and force the state to deal with thorny details like siting and building costs.

— King County Prop. 2: Yes. We would prefer a progressive tax to finance transportation. But this .01 percent increase in sales tax dedicated to more bus service along the area’s busiest routes is still an essential step toward building a regional transit system.

— U.S. Senate: Maria Cantwell. She advocates energy efficiency and protection of this region’s environment, and is an essential check on the Bush Administration. Republican challenger Mike McGavick could have made a very effective senator but took a wrong turn in his campaign, especially with divisive gambits like calling for drug testing of welfare mothers, oil drilling in a national wildlife refuge and wasteful spending on an ineffective wall along the Mexican border.

— U.S. House, 7th District: Linnea Noreen. This young Independent believes Seattle should be represented in Congress by someone who wants to work for realistic solutions to heath care, education and transportation problems. Incumbent Democrat Jim McDermott has marginalized himself with extreme positions. Listen to the candidates on KUOW’s afternoon interview show.

— U.S. House, 8th District: Darcy Burner. This is a vote against the Bush Administration’s policies. While there are more qualified Democrats to hold the seat (they chose not to run), incumbent Republican Dave Reichert is mostly a rubber stamp for policies that are bankrupting the country with a disastrous war and costly yet ineffective tax cuts. The Republican majority he supports also blocks conservation measures important to this region.

— Washington Supreme Court: Susan Owens. She’s a nonpartisan judge who takes her responsibility seriously. Challenger Stephen Johnson is an ideologue Republican state senator with a conservative agenda to push on the court. He’s mostly funded by the Building Industry Association of Washington, whose main goal is to gut regulation — no matter how popular with the public.

— Seattle Initiative 91: No. This measure would prevent almost all city spending on sports despite the spillover economic benefits that can result. Make sure elected officials make wise decisions, but don’t tie their hands with this crude measure requiring an arbitrary level of return on investment.

— Seattle Referendum 1: No. Seattle’s tame strip clubs don’t need more draconian regulation. This is a legitimate industry that serves consenting adults from around the region. The city should spend its time solving real problems, not legislating morality.

— Seattle Prop. 1: No. This would increase property taxes to pay for basic services like roads and bridges. The city has sweetened the deal by promising $38 million for bicycle paths. Defeat this measure so the city has to prioritize critical projects within its budget.

The Seattle area is still having trouble running glitch-free elections — at least if this experience is an indication.

Before the primary election in September I received two ballots, one each at both my current and old addresses. The ballot at my current address included instructions to ignore the extra one. It seemed a sign that King County’s well-publicized problems holding a vote had been fixed.

Then, this week, I received two ballots for the general election, at the same two addresses. But now the current and old addresses were switched, with the ballot at the old address instructing me to ignore the one sent to my correct address. I also received two new voter-registration cards with wrong information. When I called the elections department to correct the error, I was told that someone had switched my information again, and they have no record of my current address — just the old one.

Mistakes can always happen and surely the people at the elections department are doing their best. Regardless, it seems we need to brace for more reports of election mix-ups that may mar the outcome of close races.

Here’s some shocking news: voters’ view of an issue changes depending on the information they have.

That’s seems to be the case when it comes to replacing Seattle’s earthquake-damaged viaduct freeway. A poll earlier this month of 400 voters (40 percent over age 60), found 47 percent support for a new elevated freeway along the waterfront and 29 percent support for a tunnel. Politicians who can’t decide have used the poll as proof of public support for a new viaduct.

But another poll of 400, mostly younger, voters found that 52 percent supported a tunnel when told of the cost and larger size of a rebuilt viaduct. Fifty-five percent supported a tunnel when told that it would create open space downtown. The second poll was sponsored by business and anti-viaduct groups.

The results suggest that representatives need to lead on this issue, rather than look to polls for support. Replacing the viaduct with a combination of improved surface streets and transit remains the least costly and most effective way to handle this opportunity to reshape the core of the city.

The Port of Seattle and King County announced plans Tuesday to give the county ownership of a 47-mile suburban train line and the port control of Seattle’s secondary airport, which is now county-owned. The stakeholders need to tread carefully.

Consolidating management of the region’s airports makes sense. Currently no fewer than four governments control the major airports closest to Seattle, leading to competition that doesn’t benefit taxpayers or travelers. Look at King County’s attempt last year to lure Southwest Airlines from port-owned Sea-Tac, a move that would have added to road traffic and hindered the airport’s regional role.

Unfortunately the latest plans may waste the valuable rail corridor, a 100-foot-wide swath that could easily accommodate a multi-use path alongside a commuter rail operation for much of its length. King County Executive Ron Sims seems focused on ripping up the rails to build a bike path, which would be a personal legacy, according to an earlier press release, but wouldn’t significantly improve the region’s mobility. Instead, retooling the train corridor could dovetail with Sound Transit plans for light rail and buses to serve job centers on the Eastside, and with additional commuter trains south of Seattle. Parcels that don’t fit could be sold to help pay development costs.

Those details seemed far away during the announcement Tuesday. When asked what the deal would cost, according to the Seattle P-I, Sims said: “A lot. Wow, I don’t think we’ve ever…I don’t even know how to start counting. Hundreds of millions of dollars.”

There are still many pieces that need to come together for the deal, which also involves other property and rail lines. But the focus needs to be on improving the mobility of the region and on getting long-term value for taxpayers, not the vanity of another bike path.