Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on This Week' Stranger News Section


Suzanne "Suzie" Burke is a big time donor to the Republican party and Republican candidates. In fact she gave Rick Santorum $500 in August 2006.

Yet she sits on the Fremont Chamber Board of Directors. Does this woman really speak for the people of Fremont?

Remember, every beer you drink at the Red Door puts pennies into this woman's pocket. She owns the building.

Posted by DOUG. | July 18, 2007 5:10 PM

Did anybody edit the bike story? Stone Way runs N-S and 35th runs E-W. The Burke-Gilman trail is in Fremont, it doesn't need to go up Stone to get to Fremont.

"For example, the city estimates westbound through traffic on Stone Way will increase nearly ninefold from 2001 levels in the next three years, that right-turning traffic onto Stone Way at 35th Street will increase fivefold, and that traffic turning south onto 35th Street will increase by a factor of 10. "

And using the biker stats stating that if the growth rate continues for up to 13 years 5% of commuters will be biking without giving the underlying numbers is pure propaganda.

Posted by whatever | July 18, 2007 5:11 PM


I've never even been to the Red Door, but I'm still wary of punishing a business for having the wrong landlord.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 18, 2007 5:27 PM

@1 - very true. but she's a friend.

@2 - also very true. but it is also true that a lot of people turn LEFT as they go N on Stone Way and RIGHT as they go S on Stone Way to get to Fremont - it's a pain to go up to N 39th and then weave in and out and go thru five lights just to go 4 blocks using 10 blocks of gas.

@3 - exactly. plus, all my friends like it too.

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 18, 2007 5:32 PM

This isn't about News, but Dan, having to tell a guy he needs to play with his girlfriend's clit? Come on! I want to hear about diapers, shit, and wanting to tickle-fuck your stepmom.

Posted by Gloria | July 18, 2007 5:45 PM

If the mayor fucks up the bike implementation much more beyond this, he just lost my vote.

It's fucking impossible to get from the Burke-Gilman to upper Wallingford.


Posted by Cale | July 18, 2007 6:45 PM

Boy, am I glad to see someone talking about the ugly developments going up all over the city.

I work for City Light. I handle residential issues. My district is Ballard, and I am so disgusted by what is being allowed to be built there. Whole blocks of neat old homes are disappearing in favor of ugly new developments.

I'm not anti-density by any means, but let's at least have some consideration for the neighborhood, and have some good design. As it stands now, I can't see why people are paying the prices they are for the crap that is going up.

Posted by Catalina Vel-Duray | July 18, 2007 7:29 PM

no, you're not anti-density, it's just that density always seems ugly to you. this argument pops up time and again. as though rows of crafstman homes aren't monotonous or cookie cutter. i think the townhomes look good. but perhaps my aesthetics aren't so ozzie and harriet.

Posted by funny | July 18, 2007 7:54 PM

Catalina @7, I'm with you on the "Townhome Invasion" story. I'm with Vlad Oustimovitch on not wanting to see some of these townhouse developments fall under the radar.

However, my big gripe with the townhouse development I'm seeing these days is a bit different. What I hate is when the developers take a single parcel of land where one house used to stand and plop four townhouses in its place. So there you have four townhouses in one spot and another four townhouses in another spot, and they stick out like sore thumbs in the context of their neighborhoods. It's a bit like designing your kitchen in a colonial style and sticking an ultra-modern kitchen island in the middle of it.

Don't get me wrong. Townhouses/rowhouses are a good thing that. Just, so far in Seattle, they've been been done very badly thanks to an apparent lack of planning.

One thing I would love to see is more townhouses mixed in with condo developments. That gives a greater diversity of ownership, it provides more family-friendly density, and it can be quite aesthetically pleasing.

Posted by cressona | July 18, 2007 7:56 PM

Will in Seattle: Since she's a "friend" she gets a pass? Suzie Burke, et al are turning Fremont into Little Kirkland. Enjoy it, chump.

Posted by DOUG. | July 18, 2007 9:21 PM

actually, @9, the single-family neighborhoods are the ones that need townhouses, as that is the only way they will develop sufficient density to sustain frequent transit service, and the only way the city will move toward the rezoning that is necessary to reach the growth management goals we've set to try to reduce carbon emissions. so yes, more combinations of condos and townhouses for diverse neighborhoods, but also more movement away from huge tracts of single-family zoning. change isn't always pretty--i can think of few building booms that looked pretty in their early stages.

Posted by f- | July 18, 2007 9:31 PM

cressona@9: "One thing I would love to see is more townhouses mixed in with condo developments. That gives a greater diversity of ownership, it provides more family-friendly density, and it can be quite aesthetically pleasing."

Ah, which do you see as the family-friendly option?

Developers favor townhouses in residential neighborhoods because the profit is greater. They're allowed greater lot coverage than when they put up a condo building (and design review boards usually have no problem allowing them even more than the code prescribes). They'll claim no one will insure condos anymore because the mean lawyers keep suing over bogus claims of improper, leaking construction by owners (notice all those buiildings getting their outer sheathing redone? Not bogus).

Posted by tell me another one | July 18, 2007 9:40 PM

Oh funny - you're so funny. If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I am *not* a fan of "craftsman". And if you knew anything about Ozzie and Harriet, you'd know that they weren't fans of Craftsman either.

All I'm asking for is something with a bit more pizazz than the regulation box with Juliet balconies and little dormers to make it seem "northwesty". That crap is pulled directly out of some developer's ass, and designed for the lowest common denominator.

Give me Ballard's post-war apartment buildings, with their reality based apartments, unique stylings, and real balconies any day.

A little creativity. A little design. A little less banality. We're supposed to be "world class", but our mass-produced housing is worse than that shit they threw up in Vancouver in the 70's - and that's plenty ugly.

Posted by Catalina Vel-Duray | July 18, 2007 10:28 PM

For god's sake, what is it going to take for a viable candidate to run against the Mayor?? Am I the only one who'd elect the perennial sign-toting, angry-ranting guy outside Pacific Place, just to be rid of Nickels?

Posted by seattleeco | July 18, 2007 11:00 PM

You can see more info about this issue at Cascade's advocacy site:

The bike master plan seems like a no-brainer. If you drive a car, more bikes means more, and thus cheaper gas for you.

If you ride a bike, well duh.

And if you're a developer, how do you think folks are going to get around in the new high-density Seattle that's gonna make you rich?

Given how slow and smelly transit is and is going to stay in Seattle, lots more bike commuters may well mean the difference between condos that sell and condos no one can or will want to get to or from via anything...

Posted by bakfiets | July 19, 2007 12:37 AM

On CounterIntel and the effort to save net radio . . .

Has Josh Feit been copying test answers from Dave Meinert again?

It's unfortunate Josh Feit didn't do a little more thorough investigation of the death threat facing internet radio. Yes, it's fine to have the three large webcasters pay more, but no one seems to be interested in the 1,000 small webcasters who will be shut down if they grow one listener over the threshold. And many of them play artists who will *never* get airplay on the really large web stations.

The problem with the SoundExchange compromise is that if one should be even a bit too successful during the year then they'll be slapped with retroactive fees that will bankrupt them. A more rational approach would be to increase their rates in the *following* year rather than have a retroactive penalty.

But this is not really about paying artists. When have the RIAA and the Big 4 record companies ever been interested in paying artists (other than their top big name pop artists)?

What the whole fight over internet radio royalty fees is about is extinguishing a broadcast medium (i.e. net radio) that the RIAA and Big 4 can't control. It is about extinguishing an alternate, viable business model that threatens the stranglehold on musical diversity that has been in place since the payola days of AM/FM stations.

Dead net radio stations don't pay royalties to anyone, and the RIAA and the Big 4 (and now Josh Feit) would rather have artists not get paid than have a new viable medium flourishing which they can't control.

Read the facts here

Posted by seattle salmon | July 19, 2007 8:56 AM

Doug, do you like Fremont? Do you know that Suzie and her family have shaped the development of the area for about 50 years maybe more. Suzie has supported the Sunday market and the outdoor
movies. The Red Door was moved from Fremont and 34th to its current location instead of torn down because of Suzie. She's quirky and I don't like much of her politics but she has had more to do with making Fremont what it is than anyone else.

Bakfiets - your arguments are specious. The one percent of people that have moved from cars to bikes here will make no difference in fuel prices in the world and the slowing of traffic and increased fuel consumption results in higher fuel expenditures. As for condo sales, I would say the 97% that don't ride bikes to work would pay more for a condo in an area that bans bikes from arterials thus speeding up traffic including buses (electric, propane, hybrid and biodiesel), trucks and cars. Also, since distance commuting will be more and more time consuming, in-city living will be more desirable. By the end of the next decade I'm betting on electric, hybrid, biodiesel cars being in the majority. We should build a network of bike ways that use secondary streets or trails which would be better for everyone.

Posted by whatever | July 19, 2007 9:07 AM

@17 Well your counter is simply wrong. (So there :-)

It's already 3% in Seattle, higher in Portland and increasing faster than almost any other kind of alternative transit. Electric biodiesel heaven sounds great, but it's a) not coming anytime soon, b) does nothing for congestion or the obesity epidemic. Separate bikeways sound great too, but they're expensive (and thus not going to happen much, either.) Secondary streets are can be slow, and thus not much use to commuters.

You can fit a lot more bikes on the roads than cars. So while a given bike may sometimes slow down a particular car (what folks remember), in a city with roads approaching capacity (i.e. here) more bikes actually means better traffic flow overall.

The International Energy Agency says the era of cheap oil is over for the forseeable future (unless the world economy goes into major recession, in which case you get to drive all you want until the war comes :-)

Those few brave bikers are saving your gas for you. Be nice to them and there will be more (of both).

Posted by bakfiets | July 19, 2007 9:30 AM

@17: I have no respect for anyone who gives money to Rick Santorum. Especially from 3000 miles away. Do I like Fremont? I certainly don't like the direction it which it has ventured in the past 10 years. The building at the corner of 34th and Fremont is a travesty.

Posted by DOUG. | July 19, 2007 10:14 AM

bakfiets - the number that matters is how many bikers are going from cars to bikes - not transit to bikes or walking to bikes or van pooling to bikes - as for congestion, taking away a lane will clearly reduce it, not! As for obesity, how about a brisk walk with the family in the neighborhood after a vegan meal.

If there was a way to measure pollution on a bike arterial vs. a non bike one, I'd put the last dollar on the non bike street.

Stop riding your bikes, get a V-8 (that's an engine) and help drive up the price of gas so we get those plug in electrics even sooner. Build wind power like we built dams and charge those bats at night when power is cheap.

Doug - I said I wasn't a fan of most of her politics but she has done a lot of cool things in Fremont and the U-Dist (Church at 42&Brooklyn) - oh ya she help start the Fremont Bank and fought them changing it to Northstar which then was bought out by Frontier - she wanted real local bank for Fremont. You don't like the building on the corner and I don't like the library, so what? The point was she preserved the Red Door building. Next you'll blame her for Cha Cha, Manray, Bimbos....

Posted by whatever | July 19, 2007 11:03 AM

Burke would've torn down the Red Door if she could've gotten away with it. Welcome to Santorumville!

Posted by DOUG. | July 19, 2007 11:41 AM

Doug is there a law against tearing down bars? If so, call ECB and JF right away and you can save the most important dives in Seattle. Doug, hate the act not the person - funding right wing repubos, bad;saving a cool bar, good.

Posted by whatever | July 19, 2007 12:18 PM

Who cares about frickin bikes?!! What about the poor couple who got busted after the WSP (or abusive asswipes as they should be known) interogated their child and then ignored the fact that THEY HAVE A FRIGGIN RIGHT TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
Pissed me off so much I wrote to the King County Prosecutors office to protest and ask that the officers be reprimanded.
Everyone else should do the same or they'll be knocking on your door next!!!!!

Posted by Asswipe WSP | July 19, 2007 2:44 PM

Who cares about frickin bikes?!! What about the poor couple who got busted after the WSP (or abusive asswipes as they should be known) interogated their child and then ignored the fact that THEY HAVE A FRIGGIN RIGHT TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
Pissed me off so much I wrote to the King County Prosecutors office to protest and ask that the officers be reprimanded.
Everyone else should do the same or they'll be knocking on your door next!!!!!

Posted by Asswipe WSP | July 19, 2007 2:45 PM

Who cares about frickin bikes?!! What about the poor couple who got busted after the WSP (or abusive asswipes as they should be known) interogated their child and then ignored the fact that THEY HAVE A FRIGGIN RIGHT TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
Pissed me off so much I wrote to the King County Prosecutors office to protest and ask that the officers be reprimanded.
Everyone else should do the same or they'll be knocking on your door next!!!!!

Posted by Asswipe WSP | July 19, 2007 2:46 PM

@22: Enjoy a Santorum Nut Fudge at Cold Stone Creamery for me!

Posted by DOUG. | July 19, 2007 3:05 PM

Whoops!! Sorry 'bout the triple post. My trigger finger got stuck.

Posted by Asswipe WSP | July 19, 2007 3:07 PM

Erica and Josh:

Mayor Nickels may have made the correct call on Stone Way North even if it does please Suzie Burke.

The tough part of complete streets is the implementation on arterials where SDOT plans call for more than one mode to have priority. Priority means first above others and it cannot be given more than once.

Suppose Stone Way North is important to multiple modes: auto, freight, and transit; and, SDOT wants to add bike lanes and make pedestrian crossings safer. Something has to give.

The comp plan does call for improved biking. But it also calls for improved transit flow and increased transit ridership. How can transit be more attractive if SDOT chokes down streets and makes them slower for transit?

Trucks and buses must use the arterials with wide turning radii. Cars and bikes may use many other streets effectively.

Stone Way North does take trucks to and from the DPU transfer station between North 34th and 35th streets. It also allows trucks to reach SR-99.

Stone Way North is served by Route 16 between North 40th and 45th streets and by routes 31 adn 74 between North 35th and 40th streets.

Three-lane profiles have been used by SDOT to provide bike lanes. But they also have to effect of slowing transit flow as each bus stop becomes a bus trap; there is likely a steady flow of traffic in the single through lane preventing the bus from re-entering the traffic flow. This increases the dwell time at stops and slows transit, making it less attractive, and that is counter to the comp plan objectives.

Consider the three-lane profiles on several transit arterials and what happens at bus stops (e.g., California Avenue SW and routes 54, 55, and 128; Delridge Avenue SW and Route 120; Beacon Avenue South and Route 36; Madison Street and routes 12 and 60 on First Hill and Route 11 further east; Broadway and Route 49; North 45th Street and Route 44; and, Greenwood-Phinney avenues North and Route 5). It is not by accident that transit speeds over the past 20 years; there are more cars in the way and Seattle has choked down key transit corridors. (Recent improvements to University Way NE and 3rd Avenue downtown are a welcom counter to that trend) It is the unintended consequence of adding two-way left turn lanes and choking traffic capacity.

How many two-way left turn lanes do you see in Vancouver?

I am a bicycle commuter and I lived near Stone Way North twice: between 1980 and 84 during grad school and again in 1995. Stone Way North has a topographic advantage for cycling between Fremont and Wallingford as it is the saddle point. But I usually had no problem using it. going downhill, I kept up with traffic. Going uphill, I gutted it out or shifted to Wallingford Avenue North. It provides a gentle climb and is calm. Transit service was removed north of North 40th Street in 1998.

SDOT could encourage cyclists to use Wallingford Avenue North. It can be reached from either Fremont or the Burke-Gilman easily. Bikes could be given priority on Woodlawn Park Avenue North, just two blocks west of Stone Way North. It is a former streetcar ROW and is wide and calm.

SDOT could also be more creative in restriping arterials. Why retain car storage? Why give scarce lane space to two-way left turn lanes?

Consider this option on Stone Way North:
retain four through lanes;
retain parallel parking but add bus bulbs southbound; this is where Route 16 would have more folks waiting;
eliminate the parallel parking on the northbound and uphill side of Stone Way North;
add a bike lane there, going uphill, where cyclists cannot keep up with traffic;
convert some of the east-west side streets to one-way with angled and metered short-term parking to assure it turns over for the businesses on Stone Way North.
and, a crosswalk could be added at the bus bulb as it would narrow the crossing distance; this was done on NW Market Street at Ballard Avenue NW.

In Europe, cities do not retain car storage on important arterials. If they need to protect pedestrians, they install bollards.

In such a complete street treatment, traffic would be speeded and not slowed; freight would still have four lanes; and, bikes would get a lane going uphill when they most need it. Slow cyclists may be attracted to Woodlawn Park Avenue North.

The battle should shift from bikes v. transit and freight to bikes v. car storage.

Cale at #6: please try Wallingford Avenue North.

Posted by eddiew | July 19, 2007 10:32 PM

@28: Your argument is flawed, for no bus runs on that stretch of Stone Way, yet the #16 DOES run up the stretch where a bike lane will be added.

Posted by DOUG. | July 20, 2007 8:11 AM


Routes 31 and 74 use Stone Way North between North 35th and 40th streets. That is in my post and on the street.

Route 16 will probably be further slowed by the restriping between North 40th and 45th streets.

Just looked at Stone Way North. It has been resurfaced and the restriping is in place north of North 40th Street. There are bike lanes on both sides.

So, the Erica disappointment is only south of North 40th Street.

Does SDOT intend to paint sharrows south of North 40th Street?

Posted by eddiew | July 20, 2007 11:19 AM

eddiew, thanks for one of the more thoughtful and interesting transportation comments or posts i've read here in a while. and doug, don't be so lame trying to knock someone off bc you disagree with them--pretty nitpicky and wrong to boot.

Posted by thank you | July 22, 2007 3:01 AM

vtjoz nrbhe hlubkjyz ouxal ylgavm kbxyoa rwnzdlp

Posted by nukvye hjumxngw | August 2, 2007 12:25 AM

xctajsrh zeogbac swtngf bzpwtrunv wzsqnjhex egrifdc ymgr [URL=]ivbjcnt sbpqa[/URL]

Posted by ifouart wlxkmbvj | August 2, 2007 12:26 AM

eawu ieupg vsipbqfa weov yneg ubrl tyqz [URL][/URL] vpcxmauob retm

Posted by eofiyjtdp dwpxjqs | August 2, 2007 12:28 AM

eawu ieupg vsipbqfa weov yneg ubrl tyqz [URL][/URL] vpcxmauob retm

Posted by eofiyjtdp dwpxjqs | August 2, 2007 12:28 AM

Comments Closed

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