ECB, it sounds like she's plagiarizing from your cook book. The bitch.
yay market when it provides super markets downtown, boo market when it provides condos downtown?
@2
Yes, I think right around 50% of the time markets do stupid shit. If monkeys ran our economy it would come out about the same.
"Take One Piece of Anecdotal Evidence. Add Outrage. Stir."
Hey, you just also described each of Dan's anti-pitbull posts!
Paying for a better quality of life is not the same as planning for it. What's missing is the sort of changes to neighborhood layout that Vancouver brought along with its development. Instead density here means mere density, especially when it comes to cars. There's no problem in principle with reaching 20 year growth targets provided that the amenities and infrastructure keep pace, but they haven't. How is she not right about that?
The new Kress IGA is a Wonder of the Modern World!
I bought milk there on my lunch hour.
Well, actually, Nicole lives near a park, and she does indirectly bring up our severe lack of increased transit to match the growth in population - even if she stays away from the word transit in favor of the other "amenities".
If we're going to keep up with our current growth rate, we have to start demanding that Seattle get the 40 percent of the new transit (BUS, not streetcar) that our tax base PAYS for, instead of the abysmal 20 percent we get under the Lame-Suburbs-Subsidized-By-Urban-Dwellers formula.
That might help.
That plus Uzis so the cops can down those pitbulls.
ButButBut.... Seattle IS growing at near-reckless speed! And real rapid transit is years and years away...
Quality of life in the Puget Sound basin is eroding at a nearly audible rate, levies be damned.
In other words, growth isn't paying for growth, existing taxpayers are.
You do know what concurrency is, right?
So she questioned Seattle's long-term growth plans. I don't understand what Erica has against Nicole. Her column is harmless and cute, and she's a pretty nice person who volunteers with 826 Seattle (which is how I've met her).
I know Erica has bigger and better things to refute than this, and I know she could address this issue without specifically tearing apart this personal column. This is at least the second time she accuses Nicole of intellectual inferiority and insufficient feminism. Why?
Why? Because Erica clearly has a problem with her sister journalists.
Because Erica hates women. Duh.
@10 - Huh? Show me where in my post I compare my intellect to nicole's or even MENTION feminism, much less say hers is inferior.
I'm sorry. I should have said OR, not AND. This is the one where your thesis is that her argument is anecdotal and invalid compared to yours which predicts the future of Seattle much more clearly.
I didn't mean to be rude-- I am genuinely curious. I was just remembering this one, and wondering why you have focused on refuting a column that is just puffy observations.
Meowr! Cat fight!
I like all the new libraries. I used the new Montlake when I lived on 19th, and now I use Cap Hill. Urban amenities. Yum.
Seriously, is an attempt at humor? You're picking a fight with Nicole Broder over something you're consistently guilty of on a daily basis?
Seeing Kathleen Wilson's name on here the other day reminded me of a time when the Stranger was a fun, interesting read. But it's gone downhill lately. Seems they've hired a crop of braying know-it-alls who spend more time thumping their chests and criticizing their peers than out in the field reporting. The Stranger has become predictable, bloated and boring.
A transparent thought process:
hmm Seattle seems pretty suburban and empty to me......
Wiki on Seattle population:
"In 2006, after growing by 4,000 citizens per year for the previous 16 years, regional planners expect the population of Seattle to grow by 200,000 people by 2040"
Wow that's scary!
What the % growth rate?
20%??
40%??
Hey let's do math!
Um, okay take the 2040-2006 span of years that'd be 34 years.....growth of 200,000 in 34 years is 5,882 per year or an uncompounded ...um need the total population for the denominatory thingy.....total population in 2000 was 563K about same as 1960 (557K), Wiki says (hey that's not much growth WTF??)
...add 4K a year for six years to get to 2006 .....
that's 24K ....
so total base population in 2006 was 563+24= 587K.
So going forward growing say 6000 a year (always good to round to the scary side, right?)
on 587,000 base is ...is.... wow long division....
a shockingly high growth rate of 1.02 % a year! Gulp, ohmygod Malthus was right!
Lock the doors! Pretty soon there'll be another grocery store downtown and we can't have that!
Erica, when I read Brodeur's column earlier this morning, I just *knew* you would jump on it. But, as usual, you entirely missed the point she was trying to make. I have to wonder if you even read these columns before you, undies bunched, write your screed. Go back, take a deep breath (or two or three), reread her column, and then come back to us.
OMFGECBRU4REAL?
@12 for the win!
Nicole Boredom's columns make me hurl. Go daily newspapers in America!!!
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.