Mayor of Mercer Island, not region

In the January 7 issue is an opinion piece by Mayor Jim Pearman. He states: “It is important for the region to understand that Mercer Island is committed to solutions to regional transportation needs, and by taking a non-tolling position on I-90, we are not inconsistent with those values. Mercer Island has historically supported regional transportation investments. In fact, Mercer Island was the only city in King County that supported all Sound Transit ballot initiatives.”

January 13, 2009 5:21 pm

In the January 7 issue is an opinion piece by Mayor Jim Pearman. He states: “It is important for the region to understand that Mercer Island is committed to solutions to regional transportation needs, and by taking a non-tolling position on I-90, we are not inconsistent with those values. Mercer Island has historically supported regional transportation investments. In fact, Mercer Island was the only city in King County that supported all Sound Transit ballot initiatives.”

I don’t know if Mayor Pearman realizes it but he is the mayor of Mercer Island, not the mayor of the region. He has long uttered the phrase, “regional players” in discussions at council concerning Mercer Island. Mayor Pearman and others on the council see themselves as “regional” players and not content just represent the people who live here? Why is the mayor so concerned about the regional values to the point of trying to justify our stand against tolling?

I’ve read other eastside papers and I have yet to read one that is concerned about any impact of these I-90 changes on Mercer Islanders. Where is their regional concern? Doesn’t appear to me that Mercer Island with our present leadership is anything but a patsy on these I-90 deals.

Marty Gale