What better way (and earned) to become Mayor than to offer the winning compromise to the Viaduct mess of "Repair & Prepare." (Saving many politicians a great deal of grief, except Nickels.)
Josh, you sound so infantile -- nah nah he gave us an interview and not the Times. If you are going to make such a big fuss, you should back it up with some big scoop or revelation but I read the reporting and there is hardly anything more to it than he is going to fight the viaduct full time, which is what the Times said.
An open offer to the other Peter S - I have a top level position for you, as previously privately offerred, at Repair.Prepare - why we may even have something in administration.
Habitat @ #2,
Let's see should I quote Lou Reed ("by the way, that's Maureen on drums, that's Sterling over there, and that's my brother Doug on bass...") or should I quote Sam Cooke ("Touch the hem of his garment.") ?
Why is he wasting time on a minor issue in a congested area that will literally grow from 4-story and 10-story building to 20-, 40-, and 80-story buildings within the next decade, no matter what he does?
I mean, take a clue pill.
he has all the baggage of the do nothing years of the courant city council
and, more baggage,
the looney left as embodied in the
Stranger, sorry, you do get into bad political acts
Iraq war OK, taunting Jamie, oops what happened to out pet project - the Mono, etc.
I think he wants congress, and I think Daddy left some money - trust fund baby?
Tell us Josh
Peter's no trust fund baby, despite what the bitter pills want to believe. Victor thought accumulating money was morally wrong.
Allow me, Josh.
i was the only idiot at the paper that thought the Iraq thing might be a good idea. Josh, et all, were vehemently opposed -- and absolutely right. My most notorious pro-war piece was a 700 word sidebar to a 2000+ word feature by Josh opposing the war. And we ran lots of pieces in opposition -- check the record.
Also, Jamie deserved to be taunted. And since when is taunting politicians taboo?
Our pet project: We were right to support it, we're proud to have supported it. It's our support of Greg "Mayor Gridlock" Nickels that we should slammed. Greg lied and lied and said he backed the monorail -- and then when the monorail, like all big infrastructure projects, had its crisis moment, Greg killed it. Yes, by putting it up to a vote -- so didn't the voters kill it? Yes and no. If all big projects were put up to new votes during their crisis moment -- say, Sound Transit's light rail? -- none would survive.
Nickels had many other choices. He could have done what he did with Sound Transit and told the Momorail Board to take a time out and get its house in order -- "or else."
Many other options.
For shame, Greg.
City Comforts: Sound Transit's financial house is so far out of order it is not funny. I'll prove it - just TRY to link to ANYWHERE at soundtransit.org where it says how much tax money ST intends to spend to complete Phase I. Hint - its not there. They don't even have reasonable estimates of that at this point.
I like the PI headline here:
Steinbrueck angry! Steinbrueck hit viaduct!
While I respect this move by Peter and I agree with his convictions I am also worried. Mr. Steinbrueck is not very good at uniting people. He is hot headed, prone to tantrums and ranting fits. He yells at people and digs himself in on issues by making strong pronouncements that he can never back away from. I am totally with him on not wanting a new elevated but I worry about his ability to bring people together to forge a compromise. That really does not play to Mr. Steinbrueck’s strengths as a leader. Peter nature is is more agitator and an obstructionist. I seriously doubt his ability to forge a politically agreeable compromise. I hope that he doesn't cause more problems than he is trying to solve by appointing himself as the spokeperson for the No New Elevated effort. Hope he proves me wrong.
I wonder if that is why Peter has been quiet about his support for "Repair & Prepare" i.e. it has the makings of a grand compromise which can satisfy virtually every interest.
Regardless of what you think of Peter, I think this is a gutsy, principled and very astute political move on his part. He is sticking to what he said at the last council hearing. He is willing to give up his job for this. A well paid one.
I think we have to get serious in this city about transit and the need to move people effectively in a growing city such as ours. This city can be so dysunctional at times.
The council and the current Seattle administration have been the biggest deterrents to progress and effective transit. Peter at least is taking a step in the right direction.
Ladies and gentleman, we have a candidate to run against Nickles.
Peter publicly announced he was not re-running so he could focus on the viaduct.
But the Stranger WAS exclusively the first to report the story in the Stranger.
Hey, nice going!
IF the Stranger were to break this story first it wouldn't be a shock, since Erica has her tongue deep up Peter's ass.
16 -- yes indeed, as in metaphor
and will be a political problem for Peter
the new Seattle that is emerging is not a fixated C. Hill perspective, and to be honest, gives a rat's asshole who saved the market
that glory ride on Dads fame is used up and tattered - good for retirement homes alone
Peter will not be working for free, the type of consultant/advocate/organization leader get far, far more that city council types
I am waiting for the photo, very hippie 60ies, when he and Dan chain them selves to something to stop the rebuild
Laugh away, Freddy.
But there are an awful lot of people in Seattle who would join-in on some sort of peaceful civil disobedience.
zetc veiz qpmzugdwl zqogwflnt hvekp tfekmjo wmbjqaup
tgawsov idawmhgeb ctwzsepr nuyrlxigp lquzbih bqpdct kpui rkge jgwzur
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).