For former monorail staffer and formerly relevant monorail activist Michael Taylor-Judd, this is all about Michael Taylor-Judd. Perhaps someone at TCC did not kiss his ring or pay sufficient homage to his eminence.

So it's an original sin to get paid to be a transportation activist? So while the likes of ExxonMobil are paying activists to pursue their agenda, the good guys are supposed to take a vow of poverty? I'm sure Michael himself would jump at the opportunity to get paid to be a full-time transportation activist, and then he would come up with all kinds of convenient rationalizations that completely contradict his current convenient rationalizations.

So it's a sign of corruption to be seeking political compromises? Gosh, by this standard, anyone who holds elected office and does anything more than grandstanding is guilty. People in the real world make tough compromises.

What's really sad about this is that making this paradigm shift towards transit and density is enough of a political struggle without transit supporters having to fight among themselves.

Advocacy groups that don't understand the purpose of compromise aren't even going to get in the door. It's not the pressure of "pursuing funding" that leads groups like TCC to make compromises; it's the plain fact that lawmakers have no interest in groups that maintain both extremely rigid minority viewpoints.

And if "pursuing funding" means "holding positions that people are inclined to support with dollars and not just words", how is that a bad thing?

The fact is that the "pedestrian community" and the "bicycling community" are fringe minorities. Yes, their points of view are valuable and interesting. But they're not going to get what they want 100% all the time, and especially not if they loudly proclaim they are not interested in "political compromises".

The halls outside the chambers of government are filled with kooks who can't get heard, and shouldn't be heard, because they're not interested in political compromises, IN THE POLITICAL SPHERE. That's kind of what defines a kook in the first place. People who don't think there should be any politics in politics are kooks.

TCC don't sound like kooks to me, which means they're likely to end up being part of the discussion. That's a good thing, right? There are powerful forces aligned against you, but those people have exactly the same rights to government that you do.

If the policy that's enacted includes all four of TCC's points, that will be a huge victory for pro-transit people in Seattle. (I liked Erica's comment that she thinks cars ought to be banned from Seattle. I understand the sentiment - boy, do I! - but if that's representative of what self-described transit activists think, they'll never be happy.

Now, don't go being all huffy at Mickymse, Michael's actually correct that very few people who are transit advocates agree even one iota about the underwater tunnel - which would not only burden us with ten times the cost of the monorail green line for 30 years (or more) - that's a few thousand dollars a year to you car-owners - it would add ZERO capacity and require you to pay TOLLS on an elevated Viaduct that if rebuilt with the state money would have ZERO tolls.

That part of TCC's actions very few transit advocates support. It actually REMOVES transit lines, if you look at the plans, if you build an underwater tunnel with zero downtown exits.

Oh, and if Greg manages to convince you to allow city council to force you to pay for an underwater tunnel - without a vote - there will be ZERO dollars for any transit projects in Seattle until 2040.

Think about that.

It's NOT a joke.

Michael Taylor-Judd: I can’t really speak for other people, but... Bbbbuuuuutttttt...... I have also been recently lobbying City and County Council members on transit issues in Seattle, and I have had more than one of them ask me to start a pro-transit organization.

No, Transportation Choices Coalition may not recognize Michael as a great transit leader, but there are certain people in high places who do. Actually, I would really like to know the identities of these elected officials who are clamoring for Michael Taylor-Judd to take a prominent role in transportation advocacy. If they're nutty enough to want to look toward Michael for leadership, then perhaps that's a sign they may not be up to the whole elected official thing.

Anyway, Michael, go right ahead and start your own transit advocacy organization. Your primary mission can be taking groups like TCC to task for not taking a hard enough line. And if (as I suspect), you're not really so righteous about the mercenary motives, write up a funding proposal to ExxonMobil. I'm sure they would be glad to subsidize you.

• Underwater tunnel.
• Ten times the cost of the monorail.
• No transit in Seattle until 2040.

• "A lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth."

Sounds like Michael has one prospect already to sign up for his new group. Or maybe Will can start his own group, "Transit Advocates for Elevated Downtown Freeways." Now that's a cause I'm sure ExxonMobil could rally behind.

Whoa there, cressona... I hardly consider myself to be "formerly relevant" or frankly ever "relevant." I also have not asked anyone to "kiss my ring."

What I said in my comments, my e-mail to Josh, and my conversations with TCC is that I have simply been talking to people. Lots of people. Some of them real, honest to goodness, relevant activists and electeds on transit issues.

I'm not opposed to Transit Now or to any solutions that increase transit in Seattle. I've simply been speaking to folks about the fixes some of us would like to propose, and listening to others who have very strong reservations about what TCC is currently doing.

That's it. And I have encouraged TCC to get back to being the COALITION in its name and to hold a meeting where everyone could be invited to talk about those problems.

Now, what exactly are YOU doing to improve our city? Or is it more fun to just bitch about me?

Prove I'm wrong, Cressona.

I know you can't.

I speak Truth. You just don't want to compare similar builds and the inevitable cost overruns - heck, Greg Nickels has done oversight on many projects with up to 400 percent cost overruns, and I'm sure Dan Savage can back that up, or one of the Stranger news crew.

And Michael's right, we need to do something about transit NOW instead of wait another 40 years before the tax revenue becomes available again (which is what happens if Greg Nickels gets his way).

TCCBS.

Michael Taylor-Judd: What I said in my comments, my e-mail to Josh, and my conversations with TCC is that I have simply been talking to people. Lots of people. Some of them real, honest to goodness, relevant activists and electeds on transit issues.

I'm not opposed to Transit Now or to any solutions that increase transit in Seattle. I've simply been speaking to folks about the fixes some of us would like to propose, and listening to others who have very strong reservations about what TCC is currently doing.

That's it. And I have encouraged TCC to get back to being the COALITION in its name and to hold a meeting where everyone could be invited to talk about those problems.

Michael, what, are you ashamed now of your position? Suddenly you're backing away from your fundamental issues with TCC, like you're trying to play Mr. Nice Guy:

• That they are sell-outs for not taking a revolutionary hard line.
• That they have the temerity to actually try to earn a living as activists.

I guess it's easier -- and less accountable on your part -- to just keep repeating, "People are unhappy with TCC. People are unhappy with TCC."

That said, I would be happy to see TCC hold a meeting where people can vent whatever random problems they have with the organization.

More Michael: Now, what exactly are YOU doing to improve our city? Or is it more fun to just bitch about me?

Michael, I've actually supported TCC with a lot of my money, and I've supported its campaigns with a lot of my time and energy. But hey, I guess it's more fun for you bitch about them.

Geesh, Cressona, he's a TCC member too, just like me. Lay off already.

I thought Transit Now was for the King County vote to increase local bus service, anyways.

Grant Cogswell: TCCBS.

Folks, I believe Transportation Choices Coalition has just received the "Grant Cogswell Stamp of Approval." What's that? It means that, if Grant says a progressive activist is full of shit, it's a good sign that this progressive activist is doing things that may actually produce some favorable real-world results, as opposed to completely backfiring.

Will in Seattle: Geesh, Cressona, he's a TCC member too, just like me. Lay off already.

Good advice for Michael actually. But hey, with members like him, who needs enemies?

Interesting.

I've heard many of the same things Michael says from Council members re: TCC. I understand the perils of a non-profit group pursuing funding and the need for compromises that inevitably arises from that process. I know TCC has done many good things in its history.

Perhaps, rather than bashing Michael - which is the bulk of your posts, cressona - you could tell us why you think TCC is doing a good job right now, and how they're living up to their mission.

oh, you di'n't! yo, Cressona, you been called out!

cressona, I'm not really sure what you think my "position" is.

Of course it's not a sin to be paid to be an activist, and it's certainly necessary to craft political compromises sometimes.

I just don't think that's what TCC's mission should be. I don't think we need a new political lobbying organization. We have some of those already. We don't even need a new activist group. We've got plenty of those, too. They're supposed to be a COALITION representing the views of its membership.

They should be a place for discussing issues, crafting messaging, and encouraging contacts with politicians and bureaucrats who want to know what transit activists and environmentalists and the like are thinking. They should be constantly conversing with their membership and affiliated organizations.

If they want to be the statewide organization lobbying on behalf of all of these folks and empowered in some way to make political compromises, then they need to get buy-in from everyone who has supportem them in the past.

It doesn't seem to me like they have done that. And their support for the Mayor's Cadillac Tunnel is a really good example of where they don't seem to be in line with many of their former supporters. So, who exactly are they representing?

I'm shocked and laughing that you started a post because of a comment a troll left on a previous post of your's.

It looks like the never-compromising hard-line anti-reality bench is pretty full these days, with many posters here leading the charge. With all of you enjoying playing the role of the predictable and easily marginalized purists, why should TCC or anyone else crowd you out for the position?

If ECB and friends get their way with their 'purist' demands, soon we'll be stuck with an ever bigger rebuild on the waterfront. That'll show Greg, eh? Pretty shallow. Hooray for the rest of us -or not. Nice work on that Monorail, too, Michael and Grant. You're awfully suspect critics for effecting change on this topic, IMHO. Lots of luck to ya.

<a href=http://erosive-esophagitis.net>erosive esophagitis</a> all about