Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Skillet | The Gay 60s »

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Re: The Ron Sims News

posted by on September 27 at 13:52 PM

In the death by 1,000 cuts syndrome, environmentalists, Ron Sims, and road warriors like Kemper Freeman aren’t the only ones lining up against the $17.8 billion transit/roads package.

A new campaign group, Neighbors Against Proposition 1, registered with the Public Disclosure Commission earlier this week.

So far They’ve got three contributions totaling $2,025.

Small potatoes right now. But those contributions come from some pretty fancy addresses in the Roanoke neighborhood. And according to member Fran Conely, their support stretches from Laurelhurst to Eastlake to Madison Park to Broadmoor to Wallingford. And that highlights the significance here: It’s a coalition of disparate neighborhood groups who were previously at odds over the plan for 520. But now, members from all those community councils have found some common ground and formed a splinter group that’s united against the roads portion of the package because the plan doesn’t satisfy their priorities for improving the corridor.

If you think the zealous environmentalists at the local Sierra Club are willing to set aside some liberal goals to oppose 50 miles of light rail, wait until you see how riled up otherwise pro-transit Seattle neighborhood groups can get.

The roads package was wedded to transit by the politicians in Olympia so that roads expansion could count on Seattle’s massive bloc of liberal voters. Ironically, those liberal voters may be the reason the package fails.

RSS icon Comments

1

If defeated, it will not likely be because of money raised, more by hubris of supporters, tax sensitivity in the suburbs, and long view environmentalists in Seattle knowing that they could have a chance at a transit only measure down the road. This is sort of an R-51 replay in the making.

Posted by TheTruthHurts | September 27, 2007 2:00 PM
2

Nah, we're cool. Those are Jamie Pedersen's constituents. He's on-board (get it?).

He'll put the word out for yes votes to his peeps.

Posted by relax | September 27, 2007 2:05 PM
3

I thought the plan for 520 is still up in the air, even if the package goes through? Same with all the road projects no?

Posted by Cale | September 27, 2007 2:11 PM
4

josh do have a direct link to contact info? i've been amazed how little attention has been paid to the massive plans for 520 including a viaduct over the union bay ship canal, 10 lanes wide through wetlands, adding 2500 cars into the city putting more pressure on city streets and it's another floating bridge that will need to be replaced in 75 years.

Posted by whatever | September 27, 2007 2:43 PM
5

I am so tired of paying for roads and more roads, and then another road. I vote against roads; too bad they tied a brick around the ankle of mass transit and threw it in the river along with the "more roads" part.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | September 27, 2007 2:50 PM
6

#2: Never underestimate rich white people with too much time when faced with a perceived threat to their property. They've shut down concerts, sports fields for kids, driving ranges, and homeless shelters. Now they're trying and will likely be at least partially successful in shutting down bars across Seattle, Children's Hospital's expansion, and work assistance for immigrants.

If the Iraq War caused the Sand Point Naval Base and Fort Lawton to open back up, the war would have been over in 2004.

Posted by jamier | September 27, 2007 2:52 PM
7

I too am so tired of paying for new roads that increase global warming for anti-tax suburbs.

It's time to just say NO.

Reality is that global warming is NOW. Not tomorrow.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 27, 2007 2:53 PM
8

As Ron Sims wrote: it's not just the roads but the transit portion as well. It's a bad plan all the way around. 60% of the rail not done for at least twenty years will not do anything for GW in time.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003907464_websims28m.html

Posted by whatever | September 27, 2007 2:56 PM
9

@4 The reason things are so silent on 520 is that those in the mediation group are sworn to secrecy. I am NOT in the mediation group, but from rumors I've heard, there's a lot of talk about a tunnel under the arboretum.

That'll go over well with the anti-tax suburbs.

Posted by 520 rumors | September 27, 2007 3:20 PM
10

What @6 said.

Opposition to the SR 520 Pacific Interchange option on Capitol Hill seems centered around homeowners concerned about a slight imperfection in their million-dollar view.

No wonder they couldn't get a super-majority to endorse Prop. 1.

Posted by MHD | September 27, 2007 3:22 PM
11

MHD - was it just bad white rich landowners that stopped the RH Thompson?
Was that a bad thing?

How can you anti-viaduct city beautiful fans not be outraged by the idea of buiding a ten lane wide freeway through the Arboretum. The traffic will always be packed on 520 unless you take the poor off it with tolling providing fast sprawl inducing commutes for the well heeled. Build LR on I-90 providing transit for the better off to Overlake, as we know that only the poor will ride buses. And hey with the easy commute to OL the well off can get into their car and drive even further.

Posted by whatever | September 27, 2007 3:39 PM
12

Whatever,

The Pacific Interchange Option isn't 10 lanes. It's 2 GP lanes and one HOV lane in each direction, with a direct connection from over the water to a transit hub at Husky Stadium.

HOV lanes + direct transit access = good. RH Thomson Freeway = bad. They're not even remotely similar projects.

It's nice that you hate rich people, but do you want them to get out of their SUVs or not?

Posted by MHD | September 27, 2007 3:46 PM
13

@11 - actually, I'm fine with the Pacific Interchange version. Which was sought by people in ... wait for it ... Montlake and the parts of Capitol Hill that have that freeway right in front of them.

Heck, I even went to the secret meetings (hey guys! great work!) thanks to the Stranger's giving us the 10-4 on that.

But, regardless RTID/ST2 is going down. It's just plain bad and doesn't even fund HALF of the 520 bridge replacement.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 27, 2007 3:50 PM
14

I wouldn't exactly say that "environmentalists" are lining up against RTID. In fact, more are lining up for it. Sierra Club is against it, but Transportation Choices Coalition, Washington Conservation Voters, and Futurewise are not.

Posted by emorybored | September 27, 2007 3:50 PM
15

@8

60% of the rail not done for at least twenty years will not do anything for GW in time.

so we should never build anything because it's not going to do anything for GW until it's built.

We should only approve projects that will be ready in the next fifteen minutes! Fuck twenty years I need my greenhouse fix right now!

Ridiculous.

Posted by Andrew | September 27, 2007 3:51 PM
16

Will,

For once we agree on transportation! Pacific Interchange is the best.

I thought the partial funding for SR520 was because the state and tolls were supposed to chip in? Aren't we for tolling?

Posted by MHD | September 27, 2007 3:58 PM
17

yeah, 520 doesn't need full funding from rtid. state will kick in to help.

for anyone in the mediation right now..

go pacific interchange!

Posted by Cale | September 27, 2007 4:01 PM
18

I applaud Ron Sims personal decision to vote NO on RTID. I thanks his wife who counseled him to go public. His voice matters. He was very clear and succinct about why RTID is not an earth friendly plan and how the generations to come will pay dearly in taxes and the net effects of global warming. We should have more leaders like Sims.

Posted by charleen | September 27, 2007 4:02 PM
19

Charleen @ 18,

Did you read Ron Sims's op-ed? There is *one* mention of RTID -- the proposed lid on SR-520 in Medina. Everything else attacks Sound Transit 2, not RTID.

His boilerplate on global warming is nice but completely unrelated to any of his other arguments.

Posted by MHD | September 27, 2007 4:08 PM
20

MHD - look at the graphics of the new 6 lane 520 with wide shoulders on both side in each direction. It's not just 1/3 wider. It's 131' wide.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/Plans/CS_6Lane.htm

Will - some in the neighborhood support the PE to avoid 7 day a week gridlock. Chris Leman and Virgia Gunby put out an op-ed supporting a four lane with cut-outs and obviously this new group doesn't agree with the PE. And Will since you always dis any opinion outside Seattle why don't stick to Fremont. As you would say to others - we don't care what you think.

Andrew - maybe not 15 minutes but more like a decade than three. People that see GW as a major issue and feel we need to use GHG reductions as a key decision making factor agree that the next decade is key.

Posted by whatever | September 27, 2007 4:23 PM
21

@14 - total numbers. Sierra Club is bigger than all the other enviro groups put together, and you know that (in fact, you quoted their membership on another slog post I think).

Greg! Yo, Greg! Want to be Seattle's Mayor and stand up for the environment? Step up and join Ron Sims in saying No to RTID/ST2 so we can bring back ST2.1 in Feb 08!

You know you want to ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 27, 2007 6:09 PM
22

@20 - and I thought you supported it as part of the deal to refab Husky Stadium and make them build a parking garage ... and thus reduce game traffic in your neighborhood.

silly me, I've been reading between the lines and figuring it out, instead of believing the public statements ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 27, 2007 6:12 PM
23

Will wtf are you talking about - I've no problem with Huskies parking in the hood and in fact I opposed the seahawk stadium in SODO but supported Allen's first idea of using Husky stadium. Unlike the asshats in Fremont that didn't want concerts in the park I figure I'm lucky when compared to S. QA.

Posted by whatever | September 27, 2007 7:03 PM
24

Just silly me - political payback?

Kemper Freeman payoff to Sims?

Olympia mandated solutions in the future which by pass the local ass hats?

Sims is planning to go to DC with the Dem president - mark my words, so now is the time of strange politics.

And if you study the politics of the Sierra Club over time it has always been self serving, classist, and very white.
A decade ago they were as bad as the Arizona militia on immigration, under the guise of lesser population.

They love the Kings Forests idea - giant reserves allowed only to the rich elites. The Robin Hood story - where common folk dare not pick a flower or eat a rabbit for fear of the vengance of the King.

Posted by Raphael | September 27, 2007 9:48 PM
25
Posted by Terry Mitchell | September 27, 2007 10:34 PM
26

I commend Sims' courage. Light rail is going to be a major "vehicle" for attaining sustainability while giving low-greenhouse-emission-options for getting around...and I'm sure Sound Transit will come back soon with a light rail expansion ballot measure. Because of this, and because of the 150+/- miles of new freeway lanes included in Prop. 1, I will be voting NO.

Posted by The polar bears | September 27, 2007 10:47 PM
27

@26 Did you read the same Op-ed? He came out opposing a regional Light rail plan! This is not political courage, it's political maneuvering.

Also for all the people who oppose this on the ground that "golly gee we really need to stop Global Climate change now, so no RTID". Do you really think that opposing this plan will save the environment. Look at the big picture, federal regulations on car emissions and fuel efficiency, regulations on polluting businesses and international agreements will be the REAL solution to climate change, not opposing the ONLY chance we will have to build a real regional mass transit system.

I don't like all of the new roads in the plan but those extra roads and cars will not make or break Climate Change. If we want to get people out of their cars it won't come from brow beating them onto second rate bus transit and then wondering why they don't stop driving.

Posted by Chris | September 27, 2007 11:11 PM
28

IMO, from what I've been able to determine, everyone can vote yes for these taxes, assured that the only thing that will actually happen is that they will be collected.
No guarantee on where or how the money will be spent.
Allocated to pockets, yes, but specific projects with due dates and accountabilities, no.

Rest assured that whatever your goal, transit or more roads, this tax will not be enough, and you will have another chance to vote for more.

Posted by old timer | September 28, 2007 8:00 AM
29

The roads package NEVER should have been "wedded" to the transit proposal.


I want to vote just for the latter. I do not want to vote to approve the former.

I've only got one vote, and because of that format it will be a NO because of the "wedding."

Posted by NoRTID | September 28, 2007 9:53 AM
30

Executive Ron Sims did the right thing by speaking out against this ill-conceived transportation measure. The short-sited roads-heavy content of this measure is evidence of the poor leadership demonstrated in negotiating the projects. That blame lies squarely with King County Councilmember Julia Patterson. Patterson has screwed over Seattle, the environmental community and taxpaying citizens for the last time. Time to pay the toll Patterson--you screwed up and now you are grasping at straws by making personal attacks against Sims. Thank you, Ron, for your honest and sincere assessment of the ballot measure. Vote NO!

Posted by JonS | September 28, 2007 10:34 AM
31

Chris @ 7 wrote:
"Also for all the people who oppose this on the ground that "golly gee we really need to stop Global Climate change now, so no RTID". Do you really think that opposing this plan will save the environment."

You obviously understand jack shit about climate change. No one thing can reverse global warming. It's going to take a lot of things...like STOP BUILDING FUCKING HIGHWAYS.


Posted by otterpop | September 28, 2007 10:36 AM
32

sorry - i meant to cite Chris @ 27.

Posted by otterpop | September 28, 2007 10:37 AM
33

@31 - love your last sentence.

Exactly. Just. Stop. Building. New. Highways.

If they want a new highway, they should do a local tax for it, not get three counties to pay for it.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 28, 2007 11:03 AM
34

Why should we vote 1 Billion Dollars (of OUR money) for a new 520 to be use to build one of the two present designs which are disasterous to Seattle traffic flow and its natural environment?

Posted by Urban Person | September 28, 2007 11:38 AM
35

Seattle 520 Tube from I-5 to Lake Washington where it would surface and connect to a new floating bridge…..is Financially Viable and Environmentally Preferable but neither City nor State Politicians want to pursue the idea. Why, WSDOT would have no part in the design or construction.

Also the new Seattle Corridor 520 Tube could accommodate light rail across the lake but of course WSDOT’s floating bridge can not.

The neighborhoods that you call “the rich white neighborhoods” in this blog got together and hired 2 global engineering firms each the size of Microsoft to do a Feasibility Study. The price they came up with is almost identical to what WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) wants to pave over the Arboretum building a colossal freeway the size of 3 Kingdomes threw Montlake.

Now the 520 Mediation Team is scrambling to do some work in 4 months they have only had 1 meeting! They haven’t even hired the engineering firms they were supposed to instead hiring virtual nobodies in the field of giant transportation solutions.

Seattle Politicians (I exclude Ron Sims, Ed Murray and Frank Chopp) the rest don’t have the political will to do what is right just what is easy and is perceived as the biggest feather for their re-election efforts.

Vote No on the RTID

Posted by Seattle 520 Tube | September 29, 2007 9:53 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).