Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« We May Not Need Light Rail Aft... | Who Didn't Fred Thompson Work ... »

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Wherein We Tell You How to Vote

posted by on October 17 at 16:25 PM

Our election endorsements just came out. You can read the full lineup (and full-length versions of the endorsements excerpted below) here, but here are a few of the highlights.

Prop. 1 (Roads and Transit): Vote No.

Rather than letting compromised politicians tell us what’s possible, the people should tell the leaders what’s needed: more light rail without massive roads expansion. It’s time to flex some urban muscle. Seattle voters shouldn’t have to fund roads on the Eastside in order to get light rail.

Seattle City Council Position 1: Vote Jean Godden.

She supported a tax on commercial parking that now helps pay for transportation maintenance around the city. She stood up for cyclists when the powerful industrial lobby wanted to eliminate the planned “missing link” from the Burke- Gilman Trail in Ballard, and she says she’ll fight to restore a bike lane on Stone Way. And she has fought hard for her budget priorities.

Seattle City Council Position 3: Vote Venus Velazquez

We believe Venus Velázquez, a public-affairs consultant whom Steinbrueck has endorsed, will be a forceful, independent, and effective voice on the council. Her social-service advocacy on behalf of clients such as CASA Latina, her no-nonsense approach to negotiating issues, and her firm commitment to social justice and working-class people convince us she has what it takes to fill Steinbrueck’s shoes.

Seattle City Council Position 7: Vote Tim Burgess: His past work for right-wing groups like (anti-gay, anti-woman) Concerned Women for America and (anti-sex, anti-birth control) Food for the Hungry gives the apostate progressives on the SECB the willies. [But] He’s in the right place on some of our most important issues, including nightlife and the environment. Sealing the deal: Lightweight incumbent David Della—a seat-warmer who never met an environmental policy he liked—simply isn’t intellectually fit to be on the council.

RSS icon Comments


Burgess truly is a tough decision, but it is the right decision. Fuck Della.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 17, 2007 4:25 PM

Thank you, thank you, thank you for choosing right on Burgess and Prop 1.

Posted by Gitai | October 17, 2007 4:33 PM

Uh, regional spending parity dumbasses. Eastsiders are funding their own roads.

Posted by Andrew | October 17, 2007 4:36 PM

Yippee! Kill Prop 1! Nice kudos for monorail (in the full article -- at least 4 mentions). No more friggin highway expansions!

Posted by Not Prop One | October 17, 2007 4:50 PM

You flipped on Szwaja for a bike lane on Stone Way and nightclub rules?

And endorsed Burgess (whose right wing politics you have so well documented) because Della wanted to expand the parking lot at the zoo?

And you guys attack the left for being petty and irrelevant?

Posted by Trevor | October 17, 2007 4:51 PM

this city needs burgess.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | October 17, 2007 4:56 PM

WTF? Venus Velazquez is a complete pompous ass. I've been around a lot of politicians as a staff member to a politician and she is one of the few who has treated me as rudely as she did. For a rag that has a strong core of younger readers, you should also take into account how that politician treats people who are young staffers or young potential constituents. She doesn't have a great track record on that front.

Posted by John | October 17, 2007 5:05 PM

Ok, so it's not in the SLOG yet, but how could the SECB be so blind as to endorse Gael for Port???? You decry Bob Edwards for possibly having a conflict for taking money from SSA Marine. OPEN YOUR EYES, SECB!! More than $25K of Gael's money has come from Port contractor SAIC and it's employees! That amount of money SWAMPS Edwards measly contribution. Worse, because Gael still owns so much stock, she is going to have to recuse herself from zillions of votes on Port security. And while Gael has tried to play herself as an ethics expert, she violated a few dozen state laws by using government property, and paid staff time, to advance her campaign.

Sheesh -- you folks need to lay off the bong hits or martini bars. Bob Edwards learned his lesson and has been right on the issues 99% of the time over 8 years. Gael Edwards can get through a few months of campaigning wihtout breaking the law.

Posted by Gael Force Abuse | October 17, 2007 5:08 PM

Actually, the bike lane on Stone Way is a bad idea. As anyone who actually rides a bike around here could tell you.

But, overall, even though I disagree on a couple, a really good job.

What you got against martinis, GFA?

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 17, 2007 5:14 PM

I can see why the Ralph Nader Suicide Squad in Sierra Club land would be happy.

Self-destruction is their specialty!

So, let me get this straight, Seattle, 20% of the region's population, is going to "flex its muscles" with the backing of anti-rail Ron Sims, anti-rail Sierra Club, and anti-rail Seattle/State legislators.

Sounds like you guys have got a strong team lined-up.

Can you hold a bake sale with WillIn Seattle to raise money for a light rail-only ballot next year?

Countering your new-found friends at the Seattle Times, who have a lot more consensus in their favor (freeways!) is going to be a bit of, challenge.

Then again, the Stranger endorsed Eyman's I-776 to get rid of light rail (and boost monorail) 5 years ago, so they won't have any problem when Olympia tries to set light rail back 5-10 years next session.

This is what we call "progress"

Posted by JoinTheStrangerCircularFiringSquad | October 17, 2007 5:16 PM

Erica's just upset that ST2 would let people in wheelchairs on board.

Posted by MoTown | October 17, 2007 5:19 PM

Didn't you guys back Stephanie Pure?

I guess it looks like Della is in and Prop 1 is a lock to pass.

When is the last time you picked one right? KC Prosecutor's primary? Oh, wait.

Posted by So Pure? | October 17, 2007 5:19 PM

I, as an Eastsider who also works on the Eastside, will also be voting against Prop 1. I see no reason to hugely increase my tax bill to fund rail I am not going to use just in order to get road work done with more tax increases on me. Let's just have gasoline taxes and car tabs pay for roads and let trains and buses be paid for out of the farebox. That way everyone pays for what they use.

Posted by Fritz | October 17, 2007 5:23 PM

The Stranger is for light rail after they were against it.

Yes to Prop One!!

Posted by yes to prop one | October 17, 2007 5:23 PM

here is what a real newspaper thinks of Prop One.

Just posted on the Seattle PI

Roads And Transit: Pay now, not later

It's not surprising that Seattle is wigging out over the prospect of paying $47 billion for Proposition 1, a roads and transit project promising us more light rail and roads as well as a few other perks.

As we've said before, Prop 1 isn't perfect. It marries two things some see as essentially contradictory -- roads and mass transit -- in one package. The language on the ballot measure upsets some, while the hotly disputed cost (well, in some circles) gets folks in a lather. Some can't fathom dealing with a project that could take 20 years -- or, let's face it, longer -- to complete. We bear the burden of hitting those people with a few awful truths:

1) Roads can be used for mass-transit vehicles. They're called buses. And while this package isn't aimed at improving bus service in a big way, it will have an impact. Roads -- along with sidewalks and bike paths -- are needed, and until those personal jet packs promised to us by sci-fi writers are delivered, we are bound to them.

2) For those who think this package is too expensive now, we promise, if you find yourself reading a similar endorsement 20 years from now (and this being Seattle, that is a distinct possibility), the cost of construction, materials, labor and reconfiguring the city's infrastructure will be considerably higher. Speaking of the future ...

3) It is coming, regardless of how you vote for this proposition.

You could vote no and leave us in the transportation "Groundhog's Day" situation we're in. Or you could vote yes -- and we implore you to -- and free this region from its gridlocked thinking.

Posted by rag | October 17, 2007 5:26 PM

Erica, I have only found a couple of factual errors in your editorial

Starting with the statement that the 405 project is the largest expenditure in the package.

Ah Wrong. Eastlink light rail is the single largest project at over $3 billion.

Do you support east link light rail?

Posted by sloppy | October 17, 2007 5:34 PM

Good question Sloppy.

The answer is no the Stranger does not support eastlink light rail or any light rail extention beyond the Seattle city limits. they want it to Northgate and no further and that is why they are willing to risk this package this year. Getting people out of their cars between downtown and Northgate is good, but it won't cut GHG emmissions. Getting people out of their cars from Bellevue, Tacoma, Lynwood and beyond into Seattle will.

But The Stranger has never been accused of being intellectually honest

Posted by dan | October 17, 2007 5:37 PM

@7- I couldn't disagree more. I've known Venus since my early 20's-- about 8 years. Since I've met her she has done nothing but gone out of her way to provide me with guidance and support, especially with my career. It's really hard to find Latina professionals- especially in Seattle!- who will take the time to mentor young Latinas. Take my word for it.

When Venus wins, it will open doors for all us Latinas who will finally see ourselves reflected on a Seattle City Council seat.

Posted by luna2 | October 17, 2007 5:38 PM

I'm disappointed by the Stranger's stance on Prop. 1.

What land is there to "sprawl" on in S. King or N. Pierce County near the proposed light rail line? It's developed practically all the way from SeaTac to Tacoma. I thought concentrating development in areas where it already exists is what the Stranger is all about.

If Prop 1. happens to lose, I hope those who say we'll get another shot (and soon) for light rail to Tacoma, Bellevue, and Lynnwood are right. It seems, however, like the push will be for a system that does a less comprehensive job of connecting the Puget Sound area's job centers.

Posted by dipper | October 17, 2007 5:40 PM

When Erica was riding around Denver admiring all that light rail, she should hopped hopped off the train, taken a visit to the Denver Transit Allliance offices (housed at their chamber), and actually TALKED to somebody about how they got to the ppoint where forward progress trumped navel-gazing nitpicking.

They reached regional consensus through something called COMPROMISE...something that escapes utopian Polar Bear huggers in Seattle, and road warriors at the Blethen Family Newsletter.

Purist ideologues on both fringes may very well drag Prop 1 down. But what do we get as a result? Even more fracturous in-fighting, more delay, more cost and...the kind of gridlock Seattle is so used to.

ECB, next time you ride that train in Denver, how's about doing a little research. Ask how they got to the point where fringe elements across the political divide could all get to the point where they sat down together...on a light rail train. (hint: they did roads and buses, too)

Good luck building that cardboard wall around Seattletopia. Will Affleck Asch is terrible with the stapler and packing tape, btw.

Posted by JoinTheStrangerCircularFiringSquad | October 17, 2007 5:46 PM

18. So she'll look out for her people, instead of working to serve the city at large?

Good to see she's at least consistent in catering to specific interests, whatever those interests may be.

Posted by Gomez | October 17, 2007 5:50 PM

I like to count on the stranger for a little more depth of thought than to regurgitate the drivel of P-I and Times reporting on the school board. i want my elected officials to be accountable to ME and other community members WAY BEFORE they are accountable to the board on which they sit. Sally Soriano was a whistleblower in the lawsuit you talk about, bringing truth to the table about back door deals which reinforced inequity in Seattle Schools. I hate to think what will happen if voters take the stranger's advice and fail to reelect a voice for the people.

Posted by george | October 17, 2007 5:59 PM

Wheelchairs on rails? Ok. Wheelchairs on buses? Not okay.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 17, 2007 5:59 PM

It’s unbelievable that you called Sally Soriano a bum when she has been a kick ass school board member the past four years, and is one of the most progressive elected officials in the city.

Sally totally respects young people, students, parents, and teachers and is awesome to work with. She fights for the interests of our kids not the corporate elite unlike her opponent who has raised over 100,000 ($12,000 just last week from John Stanton an Eastside millionaire Republican) for a 5,000 seat on the school board.

Vote for Sally Soriano – she’s the only choice.

Posted by Mary | October 17, 2007 6:06 PM

Sally Soriano is a bum.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 17, 2007 6:15 PM

@20. Compromise is great, but it's not cool. I agree that Prop 1 is DOA, but it's DOA because it's been compromised to death. There's so much in it that everybody can find more to vote against than to vote for.

So, Stranger, Seattle Times, and everyone else who votes against Prop 1: it's on your shoulders to come up with something that's cool enough to vote for. Hire Dick Falkenbury. He'll come up with something.

Posted by Compromise? | October 17, 2007 6:22 PM

Nice picks in the Godden and Burgess races. I disagree about Prop 1, but understand the reasons why some (on the left) would oppose it.

Posted by xiu xiu | October 17, 2007 6:30 PM

Perhaps in reality Maier is a bum. You call collecting a paycheck from a group (Schools First)that exists only to pass school bonds a great idea? I don't trust anyone collecting a hefty paycheck under the do-gooder label Maier-style. It's a propaganda machine at Schools First. And how about planning and analysis? Data driven decisions? Those are the things Sally is about and I'll take it. This is planning hell here in Seattle and having a school board member who doesn't jump off the cliff with the lemmings works perfectly for me. We have no capacity in the north end. A little planning and projection illustrates that. Sally was dead on about opposing closures and just about every other thing with schools that she studies, analyzes, and bases her decisions on. AND she meets with her constituents. REGULARLY. Sally has my vote!

Posted by Kate Martin | October 17, 2007 6:54 PM

This is idiotic. We need the infrastucture improvements. These projects will continue to be compromised, get more expensive and there will not be a better tax to pay for it.

Remember when you dropped the ball Seattle. Of course I won't have to tell you that when you are stuck on a Metro "BRT" on the freeways you refused to improve.

Posted by Cale | October 17, 2007 6:55 PM

Big liberal turnout next year. Going to be lots of support for a choice rail package next year, with no crap in it.

And I don't remember dropping any balls, since that was before I was born -- i.e., a long fucking time in the past.

Posted by elenchos | October 17, 2007 7:24 PM

I obviously don't agree with The Stranger's "No" endorsement on Prop. 1, but at least the piece wasn't misleading and insufferably smug like the Times's "No" editorial. I was deeply offended by the Times's "No" opinion; I wasn't deeply offended by The Stranger's "No" opinion.

There was one sentence that truly offended me, though, a sentence which The Stranger writers really should be ashamed of:

The line itself (through a low-density area) may feed sprawl in south King County, instead of promoting the dense urban development that will grow alongside light rail stations in North Seattle.

Claiming that light rail – any light rail – promotes sprawl is akin to claiming that freeways promote density. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

This argument gets into one of the classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" syllogisms of the anti-mass-transit echo chamber. If there's already density in a place, they'll argue, "Well, what do you need rail for? There's already density." And if there's not already density in a place, they'll argue, "Well, why are you building rail there when there's no density to support it?" Unless municipalities make really boneheaded zoning decisions, light rail inevitably promotes density. Never sell short the power of mass transit, especially when we're entering an era of climate change and oil scarcity.

And never mind the principle of it, look where ST2 would be going in South King County. The city of Federal Way is already looking to place residential towers near where the station would be.

I'm afraid The Stranger writers sold their souls to the freeway interests with that one sentence.

Posted by cressona | October 17, 2007 7:29 PM

elenchos @30:

Big liberal turnout next year. Going to be lots of support for a choice rail package next year, with no crap in it.

The problem isn't so much how a 2008 light-rail-only measure would fare. The problem is just getting a light-rail-only measure on the ballot in 2008.

You see, there's a small group of people standing in your way, and they go by the collective name, "Washington state legislature." Not to mention there's a lady who goes by the title "governor." Consider this your elementary civics lesson for the day.

Posted by cressona | October 17, 2007 7:42 PM

#30, of course you don't remember, because it won't happen until november 6th.

I am really disappointed with the Stranger on this one. Seattle is a city of perfectionists. It makes for some good ideals, but MAN we are bad at getting shit done.

I won't hate you guys for this, but if I don't see votes for light rail, bridge funding, and a mercer mess fix next year I am going to seriously reconsider why I want to live in this city long term.

RTID/ST2 still has more good projects than bad, and I am still voting yes for progress.

peace and love Seattle. peace and love.

Posted by Cale | October 17, 2007 7:45 PM

You guys are total sell-outs! And I thought you were progressive...Seattle no longer has any progressive voice in print, except maybe Eat the State!

To endorse Maier for school board (or the rest of his slate, Sundquist and Carr) is to bring back the same crew we had before and who lost all those millions for our kids. they are supported by lets see...east side millionaires, failed board members of the past, people who want appointed boards and politicians for superintendent. There is lots of money supporting that crew, because they want to use our public school system to make lots of money for themselves.

Get real, the leadership Sally has provided has been a refreshing change. She has protected our kids from lead poisoning, fought the unfair and inappropriate school closures, listened to her constituents and analysed every issue she voted on. She is all about keeping our public schools public, supporting our teachers and kids, and doing what is right, not what is profitable for public education.

But I get it, your advertisers are not, and you're probably under a lot of pressure not to endorse her this time like you did last time, because you will loose business. I guess we need some new kind of print medium in seattle, cause now, its all the same.

Posted by Maggie | October 17, 2007 7:49 PM

Booyakasha! This is the real Windstorm '07 I've been anticipating!

Posted by kid icarus | October 17, 2007 7:52 PM

@20 - you're right on the money. Stranger staff are quite naive when it comes to assuming what will happen next year, as if, by their willing it, a new better transit-only package will appear for the people's blessing. If they spent any time at all in Olympia this year they would recognize their folly.

And the other laughable element of their commentary is the notion that light rail in south King County will promote sprawl! If they would ever get off of Capitol Hill for any length of time, they would see that there's no farmland or forest land in south King County to protect -- the area has already been developed in low-density suburban form. Sprawl is what happens outside the Urban Growth Boundary when we let our guard down.

Light rail in south King County will support higher density redevelopment around the stations, and bring to that part of the county some of the same benefits that Strangers see reserved for Seattle alone. That higher density is already being planned in Federal Way, and perhaps elsewhere. And light rail will take years to get there, allowing plenty of time for planning and for the new density to emerge.

Nope, if Prop 1 tanks, it's the status quo for years to come, during which time we can watch the Legislature dismember Sound Transit and turn Link light rail into an airport shuttle -- to the delight of Kemper Freeman and John Niles. Sigh.

Posted by Perfect Voter | October 17, 2007 7:54 PM

@32, cressona...

Just repeating ad nauseam that you know what the legislature and the governor will think is not civics. It's grasping at straws. You can't read anyone's mind and you don't know the future.

If you had an argument for why you think you know what they will do, you would have stated it long ago.

Instead we get repetition and bluffing. Weak.

Posted by elenchos | October 17, 2007 8:04 PM

"Most often, the best messenger is the person who looks like the target audience. This is especially true for a campaign aimed at a public vote.

People want to take care of others who are like them. And people tend to be sentimental with favored groups: kids, seniors and animals. Exploit this sentiment to your advantage, use them as messengers." - venus

The above paragraph is from a presentation found online and lists Venus as its author. For those who have been debating the context of her youtube ( comments, the above words seem to echo them. Again, she states that in the context of an election that it is best if the speaker and audience look alike. Her fixation on communication being dependent upon sameness is then amplified by her remarks that “people want to take care of others who are like them.” All one has to do to disprove that last comment and her viewpoint is to remember how every segment and corner of America came to the aid of New Orleans after Katrina.

Her comments using words like exploit and “use them” in the context of seniors also raises questions. How can a person like this even consider running for office.

Posted by Dave | October 17, 2007 8:21 PM

Burgess, really?

Sorry, I just can't do it. But fuck Della doesn't get my vote either. Guess I'll have to sit that one out. Better yet... "STEVE POOL SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL POSITION NO. 7!!"

Posted by kid icarus | October 17, 2007 8:21 PM

@13 - Toll roads it is then

Posted by Mahtli69 | October 17, 2007 8:37 PM

elenchos @37:

@32, cressona...

Just repeating ad nauseam that you know what the legislature and the governor will think is not civics. It's grasping at straws. You can't read anyone's mind and you don't know the future.

Elenchos, you're right. How dare any of us attempt to predict the future?

  1. Who are we to say that next year Vladimir Putin won't institute a wave of democratic reforms in Russia and then relinquish power?
  2. Who are we to say that next year Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won't give up Iran's nuclear weapons program and normalize relations with Israel?
  3. Who are we to say that next year the Cubs won't win the World Series?
  4. Who are we to say that the sun will come up tomorrow?

It is arrogant of us to play Nostradamus and try to predict the future like this. Better to just roll the dice and leave the entire future of Seattle to a virtual crapshoot.

Posted by cressona | October 17, 2007 8:40 PM

SECB - The least you could've done for Council Pos 7 is organize a write-in campaign. You didn't want to endorse either of those bozos. And it could've been anybody ... Al Gore (who you seem to love), Issur, ANYBODY!

Posted by Mahtli69 | October 17, 2007 8:42 PM

Mahtli69 has it right...we need a write-in campaign for that position. No way I'm voting Burgess, yet I'm not sure I can stomach more Della.

And I know I can't take any more Godden. Hard to believe you went with her.

Posted by gnossos | October 17, 2007 9:03 PM

#42, yes! issur would have set the goyim straight!

Posted by Cale | October 17, 2007 9:04 PM


You are free to speculate. Dare to dream, if you like. Just don't feel bad if you don't convince anybody with nothing more than dreams.

You can reason about the future, however. Like this:

Environmental concerns become more urgent with each passing day. Al Gore is winning this argument, and he will have won even more next year, and the year after.

The road-building solution is looking more and more retrograde. Proponents of the oily way of doing things are losing credibility, or just dying of old age. Time is not on their side. Price of oil is going up, too.

The big presidential race will have liberals very excited, because (here I'll just pretend I'm psychic) we're going to win. The right will be discouraged and demoralized, and will stay home. Down ticket issues like transit will benefit from this next year, unlike this year.

This was the last chance to sandbag transit with roads: if they tried this next year it would be laughed out of town. If we kill this thing, we are not likely to ever see another massive road building proposal again. At most, they will ask for money to fix existing roads, and have a hard time getting even that.

That's a reasoned argument about the future. If you have reasons why you know what the gov and the leg will do, I'll listen.

Posted by elenchos | October 17, 2007 9:05 PM

man. fuck the concerned hoes of america. man they can't keep their legs closed and then blame the gays for their problems. Listen sluts...MAYBE if you CONCERNED yourself with keeping your coochie closed you wouldnt have all of your problems. As for the christians...fuck jesus. your god looks like paris hilton on testosterone pills. why you gotta hate gays when your god looks like a transvestite stripper. MAn....jesus wasn't no carpenter. he was a male hooker who got banged by romans for $1 an hour. in fact, jesus came back to earth last month and has a half black baby. wannna know who the daddy is. KEn hutcherson.

Posted by the troll | October 17, 2007 9:08 PM

[[This was also posted on the prop1 debate thread above, sorry for duplicating-- you have too many threads going]]

I got a Sierra Club mailing with a nice picture of a cute cuddly polar bear on it today. Polar bears are neat, but if you get too close they will eat you.

More to the point, they don't work for a paycheck, take their kids to daycare so they can cover the mortgage, and they sure as hell don't vote. Joe and Jane Sixpack DO do these things, and they aren't going to give a rat's ass about fucking polar bears.

They want to know they can get around, spend as little time as possible commuting and as much time as possible taking care of business. Voting no on prop 1 pushes them and us in the way wrong direction. Voting yes moves us in the right direction- of getting things done, making the commute more bearable, and getting ourselves out of this fucking mess we're in.

Mark my words: ST2 will not be back alone. Not next year, not ever. To think otherwise is naive in the core. Vote yes for a real transit system and some reasonable road improvements.

Posted by clarity | October 17, 2007 9:15 PM

elenchos @45:

That's a reasoned argument about the future. If you have reasons why you know what the gov and the leg will do, I'll listen.

Happy to oblige.

I've been to Olympia. I've talked to legislators. I've been to legislative briefings and kept up with what's going on in Olympia. And if I can give you the observation of a concerned citizen, Olympia's attitude toward light rail borders between dumbfoundedness and hostility. Either they just don't get it, or worse, they're doing the bidding of special interests who want to kill it. (Hey, Ed Murray, don't think I'm talking about you!)

The worst fear if this measure goes down is not that there will be a delay until the next vote but that the measure's failure will give Ed Murray the opening he needs to institute the dreaded "governance reform." Governance reform is Murray's opportunity to gerrymander transportation districts so that light rail gets held in check, possibly for decades.

Even then, I can't count myself an expert on Olympia. Bill LaBorde of Washington Conservation Voters is an expert on Olympia, plus he's a person of impeccable integrity. Bill, in his comments on this blog, was not any more sanguine than I am about what happens next in Olympia. I'd be happy to hear more true experts weigh in.

Posted by cressona | October 17, 2007 9:36 PM


While I can't agree with your endorsement of Burgess (as others, I'd have preferred you suggest a write-in or a no vote campaign...

I just read your Endorsements Page. On it, in your cute little Pro/Con graphics, you say the following about Burgess: "Pro: He voted for Kerry"

Where in the hell did you get that piece of information? I don't believe it, and if Burgess told you that, I'd suspect dishonesty.

I think you owe a clarification to your readers on that.

Posted by Timothy | October 17, 2007 9:52 PM

Burgess and Velazquez are great endorsements. The stranger has fully vetted Burgess's downsides, and without overlooking them, he shines when it comes to his specific beliefs and policies.

End of the day, if you are progressive and agree with the surface transit option for the viaduct, want the city to act on intelligent environmental policies, want more density in the urban core, and don't like the Mayor's attack on nightlife, and you write in a candidate or don't vote, you're voting against these policies because it means you are basically voting for Della.

A vote for Burgess is a smart vote.

Posted by Meinert | October 17, 2007 10:26 PM

Meinert...I'm still baffled by your uber-support for Burgess. I think I know your politics well enough to wonder at this. Am I missing something? Are you employed by Burgess in someway in this campaign? Did Burgess make some promise to the Clubs and your support is payback for that? What gives? Your support is too glowing given the circumstances.

Posted by Timothy | October 17, 2007 11:26 PM

Cressona @32: "Consider this your elementary civics lesson for the day."

Are you really going to keep your promise to move away when RTID fails?


Posted by otterpop | October 18, 2007 1:37 AM

@51 - as I've said many times, Burgess is not the perfect candidate. But he is the better one. I am not sure what is baffling about that. I expect that on certain issues like strip clubs, we'll butt heads. But on the environment, transit, nightlife, density, and many others, we'll agree. More than that I think that these and many other important issues, even more important than nightlife or strip clubs, he will work with intelligent people in the community to create sensible legislation and effectively lead.

And let's get real. Talk of a write-in candidate is about as smart as voting for Nader was.

Look at the candidates' positions. Take into account their past successes and failures, give some credence to the people who have worked with Della and met with Burgess more than once (Times, PI, Stranger, Friends of Seattle, every environmental group) and weigh it out. Burgess is the better choice. You can disagree, but someone who supports Della at sometime needs to argue the issues not just name call. So far no one around here has been able to do so.

I've never made a deal with any candidate nor taken any money from them in exchange for my support, Burgess included. Nightclubs are only a small part of the larger issue of the music community, which frankly, comes after the more important issues of the environment, education and transit for me.

Get over the petty and childish anti-Burgess crusade led by the desperate workers in the Della campaign who have no substance to run on and look a little deeper at the real world choice you have to make in this election. Burgess is better for Seattle.

Posted by Meinert | October 18, 2007 2:22 AM

other than the Burgess thing(no endorsement would have been better) , good call, all of 'em. suck it rtid and insurer's...slogbot has spoken.

hope mong agrees...

Posted by pissy mcslogbot | October 18, 2007 4:23 AM

So Prop 1 fails and goes back to planning. We don't get light rail, or HOC expansion, or more bike lanes. 520 will likely be rebuilt without HOV, bike lanes, or light rail compatibility, and local intersections don't get improved. 405 will still be expanded as that Prop 1 is only a small part of that funding.

In a couple years we'll get to vote again on a more expensive and less expansive rail network. As usual everyone from the Sierra club to The Stranger will pay little attention until the plan is already created then stand around poking holes. This plan has been in the works for five years, with lots of citizen panels, comments, and the like you know where citizens could tell the politicians what should be in there.

I also thought it was funny the Sierra Club lit bombed the U-District. Yah nothings better for the environment then littering a place up with card stock.

And Burgess, I think we have enough Jesus freaks in government already.

Posted by Giffy | October 18, 2007 6:27 AM

It’s time to flex some urban muscle. Seattle voters shouldn’t have to fund roads on the Eastside in order to get light rail.

Seattle (urban) population: 600,000
Rest of King County (suburban/rural) population: 1.3 million

Good luck flexing that "urban muscle," you dumbfucks.

Posted by Bax | October 18, 2007 6:35 AM

I'm voting yes for Prop 1. Your reasoning for rejecting it is not perfect enough for me.

Posted by Deacon Seattle | October 18, 2007 8:32 AM

Though I appreciate the idealism in the Stranger's opposition of Prop 1, it is so much easier to be against something like this than for it. The region needs these infrastructure improvements in the worst way and I’m disappointed the SECB couldn’t see the forest through the trees. Vote YES on Prop 1, if you don’t, you’ll regret it.

Posted by Gabe Global | October 18, 2007 11:15 AM

I love how you pro-RTID posters are so scared of me you have to dig around to find out who I am.

Look into that place you cannot go - you will see me there, staring back at you!


Seriously, tho, great endorsements, even if you got a couple wrong.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 18, 2007 11:33 AM

Your school board endorsements look like they were written by one of the cranks who post to the P-I's Sound-Offs.

You write that the School Board has been "an unaccountable, unchecked, unruly mess for too long now." They come up for election every four years, so I don't know how unaccountable they are. The one incumbent you oppose meets with her constituents on a regular basis. I'm not sure what unchecked power The Stranger thinks they have been exercising, but I'd love to hear about it.

You write that we need Peter Maier's "by-the-book lawyering [to] balance out some of the loopy-di-doops on the board."

Since you called Director Flynn a bitch and Director Soriano a kookie hippie, why be so shy about identifying the loopy-di-doops? Who are they? Your choices are: Cheryl Chow, Michael DeBell, Mary Bass, Harium Martin-Morris, Darlene Flynn, Sherry Carr, Steve Sundquist or Maria Ramirez. I would point out, however, that three of these eight names have your endorsement this year.

You have some explaining to do.

Posted by Charlie Mas | October 18, 2007 12:49 PM

@60: Probably Mary Bass. And, I think Sally still counts as a loopy-di-doop until she gets voted off the board next month.

Posted by J.R. | October 18, 2007 3:55 PM

Comments Closed

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