City The FoS Party
posted by on February 7 at 14:05 PM
Not to be contrary, PartyCrasher, but last night’s Friends of Seattle party was much cooler and less old than you made it out to be. Yeah, the drink specials were cheesy, but the room was packed (I would guess 300-plus people, including neighborhood activists, city officials, and campaign veterans) and the energy was incredible. And their policy goals are specific (read ‘em here)— they don’t include anything on education because, well, they’re an urban-planning and transportation-centric group. Transportation Choices doesn’t have anything to say about the estate tax, but that’s because they’re a transportation group. And the viaduct is FoS’s main concern right now because, well, we have an election coming up in a couple of weeks. As FoS steering committee chair Gary Manca put it (somewhat hyperbolically), “what we do with the viaduct will determine what kind of city we live in for the next 100 years.” (The Stranger supports a “no/no” vote, by the way.)
Anyway, sorry to pick on you, Paul. But I had a blast mingling and talking to folks (young folks! who mingled! and actually broke out of their little cliques!) about why they’re excited to be a part of this new organization. When Steinbrueck asked how many people had walked to the party, three-quarters of the crowd put their hands in the air. When he asked how many had driven alone, about half a dozen folks sheepishly raised their hands. A friend whispered excitedly, “These are our people!”
Speaking of “our people,” here’s a group who definitely aren’t: Friends of Seattle’s “hall of shame,” featuring a half-dozen prominent contributors to the pro-new-viaduct campaign. Topping the list: Monorail hater (and estate-tax-repeal supporter) Martin Selig, who donated $10,000 to the pro-rebuild effort.
FoS is as confused as many others who have endorsed the surface-transit proposal. ST will reduce the amount
of land available after a viaduct tear down. ST will multi-boulevard Alaskan Way and place a barrier to public access to the waterfront...more so than current Viaduct ever has. ST construction will negatively impact existing business on the corridor and those north and south businesses who traditionally utilize the Alaska Way corridor.
The cable stayed bridge will not do
any of the above. It will create a
significant architectural structure fronting the city and allow full utilization for future transit, housing, business and recreational uses.
In the end, although I too (as someone who gave a few thousand to the Monorail effort) support the Rebuilt Viaduct, suggest the real pro-environment choice is a No-No vote. It's too bad most of the local enviro groups are giving in to blackmail and changing their No-No stances to only publicize the No-Viaduct part.
But any money spent is just tax subsidization of cars and trucks, when you add it up. The tunnel is the worst of course, since not only is the subsidy per vehicle higher, but it removes possible transit choices.
Bygones. The poll numbers show we're getting a Viaduct since the enviro groups are too cowardly to take the right stance and communicate with their members. I'll wave to you when I drive the Viaduct with the sun shining on me.
1: Nobody's advocating a six-lane surface freeway on the waterfront. The viaduct is already a "significant architectural structure." That's the problem.
There's an interview with Frank Chopp today where he mentions that he's open to the transit option. We just need to make noise in the next month or so, so that people know a lot of us care about this.
There is no chance in the world that the old fogies who vote and pay the taxes in Seattle will agree to simply tear down the Viaduct cold-turkey without the transit infrastructure already in place.
Those of you who favor tearing down the Viaduct should consider the interim stage of Repairing the Viaduct until we get the surface improvements in place and are ready to tear it down in an orderly fashion.
3: Friend, you are simply wrong if you think the current Viaduct is a significant architectural design. Frankly, there wasn't really much design work put into it.
Secondly, nobody may be advocating a six lane freeway on the waterfront, but what has been proposed so far by Surface-Transit supporters isn't and certainly won't be far from it. What you advocate is the interplay of 50 metric tons of tractor trailer speeding at 50 mph while negotiating with people attempting to access the waterfront. You might as well put up cement barrier.
A cable stayed bridge is the only acceptable compromise to an in situ Viaduct, a tunnel or a surface-transit proposal.
If only they'd have held this kickoff on a night when I *wasn't* teaching. Any way for us working stiffs to get involved with FoS even though we didn't hit the shindig?
The viaduct fiasco is more proof that Seattle has a deeply dysfunctional democracy. The city council is merely Nickels' rubber stamp, and nobody aside from the Stranger seems to be pointing out to people the absolute necessity of a No-No vote. Sigh.
Thank you to everyone who came last night. To learn more about us and how to get involved, go to www.friendsofseattle.org. We're currently signing volunteers for anti-viaduct campaigning.
@5 - are you daring me to file a historical application ...?
8: Will, that certainly would throw a wrench into the process. I wonder if it has been considered. Frankly, I'd get a good laugh out of it if someone made the attempt.
FoS et al: very well intentioned but you're killing the good at the altar of the perfect. We need some type of a through corridor there, both politically and practically. Massive transit improvements would suffice but alas we have no monorail.
A retrofit and eventual teardown or a smaller capacity tunnel are the only viable options. If you think otherwise, please explain how trucks go from Ballard Interbay to points south without a through route and how we manage the impact of those trips (5% of all viaduct trips last I checked were truck trips)
a NO/NO vote is just idiotic.
Their website says absolutely nothing about the tunnel. If they’re only campaigning against an elevated, they’re simply whoring out for the tunnel.
To wit: “we have yet to see a fiscally-responsible proposal from the city or state that meets these goals and has the support of the state legislature.”
Sounds like they don’t like the tunnel, but lack the courage to just say so. Typical planners, terrified of taking on City government, and already sucking up to the Mayor. Very sad.
Tear that schitt down
Maybe a no/no vote is idiotic, but what's the difference? We have a football stadium and no monorail. In this city, it's voting at all that's idiotic.
nugoevbdx echzan rokqadtu lxwuch igaezdvux urhfvp ywdxzlb
mjlknyb gqlmcsiz zahg rpzitxs aimc uqjfbxzkl yrkjbm http://www.juhpkg.jguvb.com
mjlknyb gqlmcsiz zahg rpzitxs aimc uqjfbxzkl yrkjbm http://www.juhpkg.jguvb.com
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).