Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Transit + Roads = Neighborhood Backlash


This is great! 'Obsessed' 'Blackmailed''Pissed' 'Killing' - it must be Wm Stephen Humphrey posting as Josh. Two thumbs up!

Posted by ride the metronatural | December 8, 2006 11:33 AM

It doesn't matter if they're linked or not linked, I won't be voting for RTID, but I will vote for the ST expansion for transit.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 8, 2006 11:46 AM

The problem here, Josh, is that if you ask a hundred people what a "progressive" is or what "progressive values" are, you would get a hundred different answers.

The thought then, that you could decide what "progressive values" are, much less that you might somehow be an arbiter of them, is absurd.

Anybody who thinks that battling to keep your neighborhood from being paved over by a freeway is somehow less than "progressive" is simply not living in the real world.

Posted by ivan | December 8, 2006 12:00 PM

Okay, Ivan.

Posted by Josh Feit | December 8, 2006 12:06 PM

I think combining the two will kill it, no matter what. You say that tying the two blackmails transit supporters into supporting more roads. Couldn't the opposite also be true? That road supporters will be blackmailed into supporting transit?

Ballot initiatives are generally an uphill battle. If you tie the two (either separate-but-linked initiatives or by one big initiative), then voters who are anti transit will vote no, and voters who are anti car will vote no. These 'no's will far outnumber the 'yes's who vote for the compromise. Compromises and deals like this are made all the time by elected officials, but almost never by the public on a ballot initiative.

Plus, wouldn't combining them violate the whole rule about not having more than one issue on a ballot initiative? Isn't that why half of Timmy's ballot initiatives end up being tossed out in court?

Posted by SDA in SEA | December 8, 2006 12:25 PM

If it weren't for typical Seattle NIMBYism, we could of had a nice, renovated Husky Stadium for both the UW and the Seahawks. Instead we've already spent $300 million for Qwest Field and now the UW wants $200 million for a renovation. Real smart.

The 520 rebuild is not a case of "if you build it, they will come". It's more of "they're coming no matter what". At least with a sensible rebulid, we can include capacity and transit in the mix. It won't happen, of course.

Maybe all those neighborhood groups are looking to get their own freeway like Mercer Island.

Posted by kb | December 8, 2006 12:27 PM

The same could be said (and I said as much in my column this week). However, RTID needs light rail voters much more than light rail needs RTID voters. In other words: If they weren't linked, I bet light rail would pass and RTID—not so much.

Posted by Josh Feit | December 8, 2006 12:57 PM

KB, stop your hatin.

But RTID can go jump in the lake.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 8, 2006 1:23 PM

Why are either of these going to be ballot measures?

Maybe I'm missing some asnine bit of Washington State constitutional law, but isn't it the job of the legislature to decide things like this? Why is the buck being passed back to the public?

Given most of these politicians are in seats-for-life, isn't it about time they take the political risk and just decide!

Posted by golob | December 8, 2006 1:32 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).