Comments on Shut Up, Nick

licata's wrong about this, but he's a guy who takes the right stand on a lot of other issues--e.g. the drug war. and he doesn't seem like he's going to fight hard for a rebuild. no need to try to get him out of the council.

You think he's bad, check out Strange Bedfellows at the P-I: Jan Drago is still trying to push a tunnel, one that would carry 60 percent of what the viaduct carries.

Jan? That was tunnel lite. 70 percent of the voters voted against it.

Time to fix the viaduct and see if the surface + transit crowd have any ideas beyond "cars are icky."

I love Nick and have been a big supporter over the years, but he's beginning to lose me on this.

I just hope he starts taking some advice from other than the inner circle.

I'm not single issue enough on the rebuild yet, but I'm headed there and I suspect there are others in the same boat.

Nick wake up and smell it already, man. Call Peter and figure a way out of the cul-de-sac.

Cars are icky; could Seattle do something like this?

http://www.tramway.paris.fr/

Dan - For chrissakes, name another local elected that you have agreed with more than Nick. Get a grip. This is one issue.

Here are the other issues, w/which you shared his position, that he has LED on:

monorail
teen dance
added activities
impound
stadia
arts
media dereg
poster ban
renters rights
convention center
westlake park
district elections
drug testing for city employees
I-75
noise ordinance
olympics
police accountability
parks exclusion

Refresh yourself with Nick's record and your own position on these issues before you call for his ousting for crying out loud.

http://www.seattle.gov/council/licata/up00adex.htm

kisses,

Lisa

A vote between retrofit and surface/transit: surface/ transit would clearly lose.

A vote between a rebuild that isn't 40 percent larger and surface/ transit: surface/ transit probably loses.

A three way vote, between retrofit, surface/ transit, and tunnel (and tunnel will never happen), in which you can only chose one: are you so sure surface/ transit would come out on top?

Or, let's talk about a vote from ALL the taxpayers being asked to pony up money, not just Seattle voters. How about an all-King County vote? Or an all WA State vote, since this is a state road? If 55 percent of Seattle voters oppose a rebuild, what percentage would you guess would outside Seattle? If Nick is thinking beyond Seattle's city limits, don't you think that might make his comments sound a little more sane, no matter what you think of the rebuild option?

How low can the Stranger go with this anti-car kick? I respect the call for surface/ transit. But calling for Nick's ouster just as Peter's leaving the Council? Are you nostalgic for the days of 9-0 votes, when the City Council was a wholly owned subsidiary of downtown developers in the early 1990s? Is this where the Stranger's smart growth politics are leading it?

Lisa @ 5,

I'm a big fan of Dan and all the Stranger writers, so I'm sure he was just venting. (Remember, they've endorsed many politicians, including Nickles and former guv Gary Locke, after taking them to the editorial woodshed many times in these pages. Remember when they ended up endorsing Mark Sidran for some office in a primary after he lost the mayoral bid a few years ago?) Still, I felt the same way you did when I read his post, so cheers to your response.

@9:

I suggest a runoff vote: Tunnel, rebuild, retrofit and surface + transit. Use the IRV system so that if there's no majority, we'll tally up people's other choices and determine a winner that way. Let's set the vote for the August primary. I think, for one very big reason, that would be an excellent time for such a vote.

Matt from Denver: Lisa Herbold works for Licata as his legislative assistant, hence the impassioned post.

trevor @ 6 -- no doubt the vote is silly. and who knows what would come of a three-way vote, though if surface/transit were actually on the ballot and given coverage by someone other than the stranger, i think it'd have a decent chance.
but seattle voters don't get to vote on what the rest of the state does with the tax money we're sending away (the money flows from the population outward--west to east--seattle to surrounding areas, etc.--the tax base is here), so it's a little misleading to play the faux-populist angle of the big city spending everyone else's money.

55 to 45 is losing badly ??

i'd call that pretty close in a bullshit advisory vote that is only going to result in more clusterfuck nonsense and further wasted time.

stick to your guns, nick. you're on the right path.

Thanks Eric - I was just gonna tell Matt from Denver the very same thing.

I don't necessarily expect out of towners to know that I work for Nick. But, I certainly hope you realize that my list and link wuz "just the facts," hardly impassioned and if I wanted to deceive I would have posted anonymously. Many locals that read SLOG know who I am, cuz I've said so countless times. Who else do you know - that does my work - posts on SLOG by their own name?

@10:

You're entirely correct that money flows from Seattle to the rest of the state. However, you are not going to convince anyone of that who doesn't already believe it right now.

Right now, I guarantee you the perception of Seattle outside of Seattle is that of Seattle as a spoiled bunch of brats who think they're entitled to special treatment even though they can't make a decision. Any other city in this state would've made a decision on this five years ago and be moving on it by now.

Now, I know a lot of you give more a shit about what trendoids in New York and Paris think about Seattle than people in Spokane and Vancouver, but the latter have much more of a say as to what happens in Seattle than some aesthete on the Left Bank. And right now they think we're a bunch of idiots.

dude: hypotheticals about what would happen in a region-wide vote rather than citywide vote are no more misleading than pretending that seattle is the center of the universe.

I have to agree with Lisa, sorta...

Nick has an admirable record, except on transportation.

He worked hard to try and destroy Sound Transit instead of working to make it better. At the time he was advocating BRT (bleah)

Then he was instrumental in writing a blank check to the incompetent monorail crowd. He led the charge to take the monorail out of the "Transportation" committee under Conlin, who might have asked enough tough questions early enough to save it. Instead he led the softball monorail committee with pompoms and balloons for a year.

And now he favors the worst option of all--a new, monstrous elevated freeway. This stunning lack of vision may play with the part of his base that used to be represented by Charlie Chong, but it sure ain't progressive.

But Dan, you are wrong. Nick still has a lot to add to Seattle, just not in the transportation field.

Dan also claimed that gays and lesbians were going to stop donating to the Dems due to Howard Dean claiming that the Democratic Party opposes same-sex marriage. There's nothing wrong with being impassioned about a single issue, even if it leads to making threats that are unlikely to happen.

Licata's welcome to be a free agent all he wants, but he either needs to shut the fuck up on the Rebuild or be big enough and step down as President of the Council. It's that simple, he can't be both.

This was a rigged election, designed to get surface supporters to vote yes on the "hybrid" tunnel--didn't work--and to get retrofit supporters to vote "no" and "no"--did work (see Art Skolnik and Peter Sherwin, two of the most prominent retrofit supporters).

A surface option regularly polls 10-15%. The elevated, in every poll, kicks the crap out of every other option.

There's a reason the Mayor and City Council didn't put the surface/transit option on the ballot. It would've been obliterated.

If 45% ain't a basis for action, then NO OTHER OPTION has any basis for action, least of all a surface option.

Biff's right.

Biff has a good point, Dan. This was no ordinary election. No option has 50%. If you parse out the numbers from tonight it comes down to

• 45% elevated
• 30% tunnel
• 25% no/no (surface/transit + retrofit)

Are you suggesting the 25% is the basis for action, rather than 45%? I suspect Licata’s not losing any sleep over this.

Cynic's IRV suggestion is a good idea--this would be the perfect issue for it. Gotta change state law, however. Only legal in Pierce County right now.

God, this rag is becoming more shrill and irrelevant day by day.

I wonder why I'm surprised.

Blob, you're no better at math than poor Bob.

Adding up the percent that favors apples with the percent that favors oranges and subtracting that from 100 does not tell you the percent that favors pears.

This was a stupid vote and tells us nothing about who would favor surface/transit. And, yes, the S/T option might well lose, but the only thing we can get from these results is that very strong majorities are opposed to either a tunnel or rebuild and any politician who doesn't get this and try to work around it is missing the boat.

Nick is great councilmember, but he's wrong on this one. I just hope we can convince him of it.

Biff's wrong. Licata is wrong. Sherwin is wrong. Gregoire is wrong. Fnarf is wrong, refreshingly so. Steinbrueck is right. ECB is right. Savage is right. Sims is right. Cary Moon is righteoously right. And now Nickels is right. It's time to plan the ST option as a possibility in its own right, rather than as a reaction to 2 plausible but unavailing alternatives.

tiptoe tommy@15 writes:

I have to agree with Lisa, sorta...

Nick has an admirable record, except on transportation.

He worked hard to try and destroy Sound Transit instead of working to make it better. At the time he was advocating BRT (bleah)

Dude, working hard to make Sound Transit better is futile. Sound Transit lied to the voters about the costs of their system, or they were stunningly incompetent in developing the cost estimates. Sound Transit has failed to deliver anything on time or on budget. Sound Transit has built one of the most expensive rail systems in the country that moves white suburbanites into downtown Seattle at a cost of 30 dollars per rider per trip. Sound Transit's light rail system runs at grade for significant portions of its route, thus making it vulnerable to many of the same disruptions as bus systems. Sound Transit is also going to be getting most of its ridership for that line from riders on existing bus lines, which won't reduce global warming one bit. Sound Transit's bus routes are doing nothing that Metro, CT or Pierce Transit couldn't have done. How the fuck do you make this better? Oh, and while we're at it could you explain exactly what the fuck Sound Transit is ever going to do for anyone who lives in West Seattle, Magnolia or Crown Hill? And please, don't tell me about their fucking bus routes, Sound Transit's bus routes are no more convenient than Metro's.

Sound Transit is a feel-good government agency, it's run on a faith based model "if we build light rail they will come". It's not going to happen, but Seattle's progressives and environmentalists are total suckers, come to them with a proposal to get cars off the road and they'll hand you their wallets and drop their pants and bend over, regardless of how stupid that proposal may be.

It's also interesting that you sneer at BRT, you sound like one of those Seattleites who bitch about cars but can't be bothered to get off their asses and ride the bus. No, you want a rail system that runs from your house (but not too close because it might affect your view, property values or you don't want the noise) to your job and doesn't let any handicapped people on because they slow things down.

If Seattle residents really gave two fucks in a choirboy's ass about improving the environment and making transit more efficient they could do so in a year or less and make the city more efficient for transit and for cyclists. Here's how.

1) eliminate all on street parking on Broadway, East 15th, 45th NE, 15th NE and Eastlake (and a few other streets).

The curb lanes that are currently used for parking cars get turned into a dedicated bus and bike transit path. This makes bicycling a lot safer as cyclists don't have to worry about dodging around parked cars (and getting clocked when someone opens a door in their path) and means that buses can run faster because they don't have to merge into traffic as often. You lose the money from parking in these areas and it makes things more difficult for merchants getting deliveries, but I think (as someone who rides a bike) that the increased safety for bicyclists and increased convenience for buses makes up for this.

2) Start charging more for on-street parking.

Why can you park for free in Belltown after 6PM? Or on Capitol HIll. The city is passing up major league revenue by not charging for parking in certain areas in the evenings and on weekends. While the city is at it they should start charging for on street parking in densely populated neighborhoods such as Capitol Hill and Eastlake. That's right, no more free on-street parking. The city should put kiosks in all of those areas and start charging say, 5 bucks a day for parking. Can't afford to pay? Then get rid of your car and take the fucking bus. This would do more to encourage the kind of car free neighborhoods that Peter Steinbrueck wants (but of course doesn't live in) than reducing parking requirements for new development (which is basically a handout for developers).

Of course neither of these proposals will ever pass? Why, well because it would require Seattle residents to put their money where their mouth is, to walk the walk and not just talk the talk, for the overwhelming majority of them asking to do that, well, it's like asking members of the College Republicans to actually join the military and support Bush/Cheney by putting their tender little asses on the line in Iraq.

Oh, and as a side proposal. Let's take away Greg Nickels limo and Peter Steinbrueck's car. If public transit is good for the masses then it ought to be good enough for them. Let's introduce the two of them to an exciting new concept called "leadership by example" which would replace their current "do as I say, not as I do". While we're at it Nickels doesn't need to fly his fat ass to any more global warming conferences. Listening to either one of these hypocrites, Nickels with his limo and Steinbrueck who lost control of his bladder and bowels when he lost his free parking, talk about global warming and mass transit is really, really, really irritating.

Lisa H @ 12 (and Eric F @ 9), thanks for the heads up. I did live in Seattle for 8 years and voted for Nick twice, but getting familiar with his (or any other council member's) staff wasn't something I did, even though I had read Feit's (now ECB's) column every week...

polling doesn't matter for dick.

the rebuild LOST - we voted no.

we elect leaders to LEAD, not turn every decision back to the peanut gallery - that's not how a REPRESENTATIVE democracy is supposed to work. might i remind you that nearly 50% of seattle voters are below average intelligence?

in the end, scandinavian seattle wants the cheapest option - i.e. the kingdome. we MUST rebuild the seawall, and we MUST tear down that deathtrap viaduct. everything else is optional.

i think both Licata (who drove the Sonics to friggin' Renton - i'd rather see them in OK than adding to eastside highway congestion 41 nights a year.) & Dimbulb Della are on the Hit List.

I'd take on Della myself if i wasn't such an angry pothead anarcho-syndicalist adulterer 90% of the day.

Sound Transit is a land use tool, not a transportation agency.

Licata
Is
Clueless
About
Transportation
Agenda

wil_e: while "leadership by example" sounds nice in theory, city leaders need to be available to get all around the city to meet with constituents, groups, etc. I'd rather have my city leaders get from point A to point B and be efficient at running the city, than have them take a bus from A to C to D to B just to prove a point. Maybe when they go see an M's game they can take a bus, but in reality they need a car.

And your rant on Sound Transit is misguided in several respects. First, rail is superior to a bus because it doesn't get stuck in traffic, and has priority at intersections. I say this as a bus rider who sat in traffic this morning on I-5, arriving 10 mins. late. Second, people WILL ride transit.
http://www.soundtransit.org/x3833.xml

Rebuilt or repaired, I expect to be driving on the Alasken Way Viaduct 20 years from now, long after Max Solomon, the Scandinavian-hating "design professional," has left for a place where people appreciate him more.

"most expensive rail systems in the country that moves white suburbanites into downtown"

maybe you need to drive down Pac highway? Sea-Tac? The MLK corridor? it is where the majority of working class african american, latino, new immigrants and working class whites who cant afford Seattle live in the thousands of apartments in that area. specially in the apartments that are behind all those hotels near the airport. many take the long and painful rides in those buses now and will be glad when they can ride the train into downtown. If you have not looked at those south county suburbs maybe you need to get out of your white enclave. south county is way less white than anything Seattle has, with the exception of the MLK corridor which is where sound transit will run.

Regardless of Sound Transit's faults ( there are many) It got built! Despite all the hissy fits?

I don't understand the argument that voters in the rest of the state would oppose the surface/transit option because it means Seattle is spending their money - wouldn't that option involve spending less of their money?

SAVAGE Wrote:
"Says State Senator Ed Murray: “A loss is a loss. Legislators who lose 55 to 45 don’t get to be legislators.”"...""

Murray is correct, and to take it a step farther, advisory votes that don't garnish 50% of the eligible vote are utterly meaningless.

---Jensen

Fine and pretty site! Very good owner!