Yeha, heaven forbid the big daily undermine their credibility as an original new source by crediting a 'lowly' alt-weekly.
Whatever. Frank Blethen's propoganda tool is what it is.
I don't live in the 43rd District, but I have to think that Frank Chopp is horribly out of touch with his own district. There was the issue of health care and large employers (i.e. Wal-Mart). That's a bit too complicated an issue for me to have an opinion on myself, but I have no doubt Chopp's position on that was hardly the one shared by his constituents. As for the viaduct -- even though there's hardly any agreement among progressives about what to do on the viaduct, I'm sure the great majority of voters in the most urban and progressive district in the state don't want to see a new, 50%-wider viaduct get built.
So... Even though I don't live in the 43rd, if Stephanie Pure or Cary Moon (assuming she lives there) or some other progressive friend of Erica Barnett's wants to challenge Frank Chopp in the Democratic primary, I'll be the first person to sign up to volunteer and donate for the campaign. Or let this just be my plea -- will someone with some stature and some environmentalist credentials please run against Frank Chopp in the 43rd?
Have fun wasting your time working on a doomed campaign, Cressona - Chopp will crush any challenger handily.
Is that dog shit you're smoking over there, cressona?
Earth to Cressona:
Chopp stalled the Fair Share Health Care bill to provide cover to Democratic Reps. Tami Green (D-28), Geoff Simpson, and Pat Sullivan (both D-47), who all were targeted by the GOP for defeat. He explained that he did not want Wal-Mart pumping millions of dollars into the state against Democratic candidates.
All those races were in serious doubt when he made that decision, but Green cruised to re-election with 55 percent of the vote and both Simpson and Sullivan were around the 60 percent mark.
So we can expect to see plenty of action on that front in this session.
Stephanie Pure is running for chair of the 43rd District Democrats. Cary Moon couldn't beat Frank Chopp with an AK-47.
You're the one who's out of touch. I'll wave to you when I cruise by on the new viaduct.
Ivan: Chopp stalled the Fair Share Health Care bill to provide cover to Democratic Reps. Tami Green (D-28), Geoff Simpson, and Pat Sullivan (both D-47), who all were targeted by the GOP for defeat. He explained that he did not want Wal-Mart pumping millions of dollars into the state against Democratic candidates.
Well, if that's how it went down, it sounds like Chopp made a smart call on this. As I said, I didn't really have an opinion myself on that bill.
Ivan: You're the one who's out of touch. I'll wave to you when I cruise by on the new viaduct.
On that issue, I don't think so -- at least not when it comes to the 43rd. But hey, if I am out of touch with a population that wants to build a massive, anachronistic elevated freeway along its downtown waterfront at a time when the most pressing issues facing this nation all come back to our utter dependence on the automobile -- well then, I'm happy to be out of touch. I suppose Greg Nickels and seven of nine City Council members are out of touch too.
"I suppose Greg Nickels and seven of nine City Council members are out of touch too."
The polls show exactly that.
A lot of active Democrats in the 43rd might be anti-viaduct, but they are pro-Chopp and certainly pro-
Ed Murray, whose position all along has been that there is money for a viaduct, period.
The 36th District Democrats voted recently on the anti-viaduct resolution that Nickels had circulated to all the Districts. Even though their State Senator, Jeannie Kohl-Welles, introduced the motion, at her own function, which doubled as the 36th's business meeting, it went down to a crushing defeat.
In the 34th, at the other end of the viaduct, the 34th District Democrats, where I am rumored to be active, saved our homeboy Greg's face by tabling the motion. If it had gone to a vote, it would have crashed and burned, probably by a 2-1 margin.
To answer your question, yes, the mayor and seven of nine City Council members are indeed out of touch.
Mr. X, the polls are actually quite mixed. We all know The Seattle Times' editorial position, so it should come as no surprise that they asked Elway to ask just the question to get the maximum Ralph Nader effect. That is, make the tunnel and the no-build two competing choices, even though the City Council and the mayor have picked up on the no-build as a backup to the tunnel.
Goodness knows how else Elway was able to achieve the desired result. It's easy enough if you skew your sample toward older voters, for example.
Of course, the pro-tunnel group got Evans/McDonough to come up with a much different result. According to the P-I:
52% favor tunnel when told a new viaduct would be bigger and create more shadow
55% favor tunnel when told a tunnel would reduce pollution and make downtown more enjoyable
Funny, I don't think the Times ever reported those results. Not newsworthy, apparently.
I still cannot understand the love people have for the overgrown driveway for West Seattle that is the Viaduct. The rebuild option sucks (harms the waterfront for another 50 years, ugly, promotes SOV commuting...) The Tunnel sucks (expensive, no downtown exits, crazy engineering challenges...) The surface option is weak (no serious plans for transit, adds traffic to downtown roads...)
What I can't figure out is why there isn't more interest or support for the Cable-Stay bridge idea.
WSDOT has fairly weak reasons for throwing it out:
1. Tough to engineer. (Which of these aren't going to be difficult civil engineering projects?)
2. Permits, particularly environmental. (Again, why is this unique? Can you imagine the fiasco that will ensue if a Native American settlement is unearthed during construction of a rebuild or tunnel?)
3. The waterfront will look different. (Who doesn't like a suspension or cable stay bridge? With a good design competition we could have a beautiful new bit of iconic architecture.)
4. Makes port operations a bit more difficult.
In my opinion WSDOT discounted the biggest plus of a bridge: less disruption to the waterfront during construction.
The tunnel is basically priced out of contention. Surface option is a tough sell because of the capacity requirements for funding. The rebuild is a horrible bit of urban planning. Why not reconsider the bridge now?
Ivan: A lot of active Democrats in the 43rd might be anti-viaduct, but they are pro-Chopp and certainly pro-
Ed Murray, whose position all along has been that there is money for a viaduct, period.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Ed Murray was a tunnel supporter.
Oh, and about those no-new-viaduct resolutions, State Sen. Ken Jacobsen introduced one at the last meeting of the 46th District Democrats. It passed 30-10. My favorite line from the resolution: "That it would be a tragedy to apply 1950's logic..." And by the way, this wasn't a pro-tunnel resolution; it was simply a "no new viaduct" resolution.
Jacobsen sure didn't intdroduce any anti-viaduct resolution at the last meeting of the 46th, because I was there. You must be referring to the previous meeting, in October.
I don't think Murray is opposed to a tunnel per se, and you know what? Neither am I.
It's just that there isn't the money, there isn't going to be the money, and wishing won't make it so.
So UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OBTAIN IN REAL LIFE, and not the circumstances that obtain in some people's esthetic wet dreams, I say rebuild the fucking viaduct already.
I live in the 43rd and I think Speaker Chopp represents us quite well. Now, can we move on?
Ivan: Jacobsen sure didn't intdroduce any anti-viaduct resolution at the last meeting of the 46th, because I was there. You must be referring to the previous meeting, in October.
As for Murray, I thought his position was literally pro-tunnel, anti-new-viaduct. Again, I could be wrong.
As for the questions surrounding the funding of the tunnel, shouldn't the same questions be surrounding the new viaduct as well? Yes, the expanded viaduct is fully funded provided they work some magic with tolls, but the 520 rebuild is not. And everyone knows that 520 is a far more critical thoroughfare to our region than the viaduct. So where's the bulk of the $4.5 billion or so for 520 going to come from? The RTID? Can anyone here explain how we're supposed to fund both 520 and a new viaduct?
It strikes me as odd that the viaduct project has managed to get its hands on funding before the 520 project. Isn't 520 also vulnerable to natural disaster?
i've always wondered about this -- all this talk about the money for the viaduct always looks to state and local sources of funding. meanwhile a light rail TUNNEL to the udistrict got a huge chunk of its money from the federal govt. that coupled with an article in the seattle times about the increasingly powerful role patty murray is going to have in DC... and naturally i have to ask: why not take this to congress and try to get them to help pay. ted stevens got a BRIDGE TO NOWHERE fer crissakes (insert west seattle joke here) ;)
I could've sworn our friend Ivan here was misrepresenting Ed Murray's viaduct position. So I went searching for past statements from Murray and came across these money quotes.
This from the P-I, September 7:
"After careful review of the Expert Review Panel report, I strongly believe that the tunnel is the best option of the residents of the City of Seattle," Murray said in a news release. "Replacing the Viaduct with a cut and cover tunnel will reconnect downtown with the waterfront and provide new open spaces and parks for every citizen of Seattle."
This from the P-I, September 8, concerning the city's position:
"This has explosive political implications," Murray said during the August meeting, noting he, too, prefers the tunnel approach. But, he said, making a second choice that reduces road capacity violates the promise politicians made with voters when they increased the gas tax, he said.
"If we are now talking about a no-build (alternative), Olympia is going to blow up," he said. "I can see (legislative) members lining up to reduce the gas tax."
If legislators are ready to line up to reduce the gas tax, why not line up to channel those funds to 520?
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).