Comments

1
Absolutely unacceptable.

What's interesting is that this whole attempt to suppress tens of thousands of citizen signatures costs more than the infamous "Umbrellagate" or any of those bike boxes that pro-tunnel road warriors attack when they aren't trying to convince us that four wheels good, two wheels bad.
2
Neither the citizens of Seattle, nor my wife, get to vote on every goddamned thing.
3
...but on the other hand, it's not like Holmes is doing anything else right now. He's got time since he's not going after problem cops, open air drug markets, defending the rights of medical marijuana users in Seattle, overhauling an inequitable application of traffic laws that are tipped against cyclists, pursuing problematic figures like Silas Potter, challenging any burden inflicted by unfair state initiatives or anything like that.

Nope.

Just going after a whole lot of people that oppose a project he evidently supports. And then claiming "but we're doing it for your own good and I'm not doing this because of my support for the tunnel". Right.

Pete, we voted for you. What will it take for us to get your ear before the next election?
4
@2: Nor do you get to choose what your fellow citizens want to vote on.

Sorry about that, kiddo.
5
The City Attorney's job, first and foremost, is to uphold the law. I trust that Pete Holmes is not bought-off by the business community. Instead, he carefully examined the law and took action.

We all admire Pete's decency and honesty so I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt on this. To do otherwise is to suggest he is either corrupt or incompetent. I believe he is honest and very competent.
6
@5 oh tell your fed friends to stop whining
7
And yet, that's just a pittance compared the cost the city attorney's office would have had to spend fending off all the similar lawsuits after the vote if they hadn't filed now.
8
@5: "To do otherwise is to suggest he is either corrupt or incompetent" -- no, you're poisoning the well. It's entirely kosher to suggest a political entity is wrong about things or ineffective. Trying to push people into shouting "corrupt!" or "incompetent!" is trying to up the ante on rhetoric.

People disagree with him. He's a politician. It happens.

Are you shocked?
9
@6 Fed friends? Are you changing the subject Willie?
10
@4 - The citizens of Seattle, and my wife, can want to vote for whatever they want to vote for.

I believe this is a question of can, not want.
11
@8 No, Pete is not just a political entity. He is our lawyer, not our state legislator. The question involved here -- whether the Council's action was legislative or administrative in nature -- is a matter of law. He is not exercising political judgment here, he is interpreting the law and taking action in accordance with the law. If you disagree with him on this, you are saying he misread the law and misunderstood the governing legal precedents.
12
@11: You're trying to make me question his judgement on the legal matter at hand, which is ridiculous. The actual legal basis for any act on his part is immaterial to the fact that his position is political and always will be. He's bombarded daily with questions of legality on a variety of topics -- a few I've mentioned above -- but he isn't going to tackle them all, is he? Does that make him any more or less competent?

On the other hand, because his office isn't apolitical, we have the issue of picking his battles. We've heard it mentioned repeatedly that they're assuming a future battle upon the release of the EIS, so it's not like they are expecting this to be the last fight. What is at issue, however, is the nature of the fight he's waging.

Separate the legal question and focus on what matters in this: the political aspect.

You are no judge, and regardless of whether or not you're associated with pro-tunnel activists like LMF, Holmes' office or work on the 2nd floor, you are no better judge of the eventual outcome than anyone else and shouldn't try to push criticism into the realm of superficial technicalities like "well, he knows stuff about laws and junk so let's not question him".

After all, for all my words I still hold a trump card in the form of a vote.

@10: And you're no judge. Got it?
13
7 is right.

The City Attorney's office has those people on staff to begin with. They didn't hire a whole bunch new people to do this very simple filing and pleadings work.
14
Filing dubious referendums is costly. By jumping on this proactively, however, Holmes will save us 10 times this amount defending lawsuits.

Pete Holmes should be Seattle's city attorney and mayor.
15
@12 This is a legal dispute between the Mayor and Council (at least, 8 of 9). Resolution requires the application of the law, not some vague notion of politically choosing sides. Pete has taken an oath to uphold the law. Legally and ethically, he cannot just choose to ignore an illegal initiative. I seriously doubt that Pete relished the idea of jumping into the middle of this fight. He felt compelled to do so by his oath of office.

You criticize me for twisting this issue. I think you are the one who is fundamentally misconstruing Pete's rationale for taking action. Obviously, the courts will decide whether Pete is right or wrong on the substance of this issue. But no one should doubt his motives for taking action.
16
@15: Wrong.

I'm not volunteering on behalf of the mayor, nor is anyone else who I got to sign the petitions. The mayor may be cheerleading this effort, but it is not his and it will never be. He would simply be on a winning or a losing side. You can try to draw out connections and positions, but it is not his effort. I never once saw him gathering signatures or at any signature gathering function, nor have I seen statements from him under the Protect Seattle Now or Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel header. You are grossly misrepresenting this entire fight because you want a scapegoat. Let's stick to this very specific case of Holmes' choice to move forward on this.

Make no mistake, if we were electing a City Attorney based on her/his legal skill alone and not her/his professed principles and values, Tom Carr would still be in office because he had a strong track record. He was an extremely skilled attorney but he lost his way when it came to upholding Seattle's values, according to the voters. This is why Pete Holmes won as strongly as he did. If you'll remember the campaign, a wary eye was cast upon Holmes' ability and skill as an attorney when contrasted against Carr's, but Holmes being on the "right" side of what Seattle wanted eventually got him the boost he needed to stomp Carr out of office.

If we were going to assume the office is solely a technical office and not one of personality, we'd be yelling at City Attorney Carr still.

Again, his seat is political and the question is of his political judgement and not his ethics and the law or whatever tired trope you have to trot out next. Like suggesting he had to ask for judgement in this case when it's not even close to a cut and dry situation. Calling it an "illegal initiative" is a reach you are not justified in making with any finality or certainty when it is assigned to and yet unheard by a rather specific judge. Even Holmes was adequately cautious in suggesting he only probably had it right.

Your derangement in this case is almost mind-boggling.
17
The tunnel opponents just added another $80,000 to the price tag of the tunnel that will be dug anyway.
18
I wouldn't be so hasty in criticizing.

Between all the money spent stopping the stopping of the tunnel.

And all the money spent simply not building the tunnel (millions according to Governor G) we're probably adding hundreds of jobs and thousands of dollars to the local economy.

The stop the tunnel lawsuit could be the new WHOOPS...where hipsters can make $30 an hour paralegalling with time for slopes and coffee.
19
And the mayor just pissed away 95k on a sinecure job.

Talk about unfortunate timing.
20
Mayoral Derangement Syndrome (MDS) is at a fever pitch among tunnel supporters. Like the mystery (and, don't let this one out of the bag: non-existent) "predatory gay" and "forced abortion" we're warned about by similarly disengaged GOPers, they feel the need to reach as deep as they can to bring it all back to a single enemy.

Disagree with tunnel supporters? Well, you're one of those McGoons, the Mayor's hired army that's always lying in wait to stymie road projects and attempts at curbing those pesky cyclists.

Questioning the costs of the actions of a tunnel supporter? Well, you certainly didn't hear about McGratuity tipping an unconventional 28% last week?!

You support tax increases for social services and things like transit? You're part of McGrifter's shakedown!

Pointing out escalating emissions in the tunnel? You're clearly eating up McGreenhouse's Gore-bull Warming line like the cowed lambs you are!

You say you disagree with some or lots of what he says? That doesn't matter, you're simply a lying bike-riding ivory tower McGliberal and we're on to you.

Fight the real enemy, Seattle! Fight Emmikeuel McGoldstein! Damn, I mean Mayor McGinn! Your Two Minutes Hate begins... now.
21
Can anyone explain the boner that pro-tunnel idiots have for the tunnel and why they seem to be so obsessed with calling anyone who disagrees obstructionist? As someone who lives in a neighborhood bounded on the east and west with tunnel construction (Capitol Hill) and who DOESN'T own a car AND doesn't have an extra billion dollars in between my couch cushions, this sounds like just another bunch of politicians who make a shitload more money than I do making decisions "in my best interests".

This is not a fight between the Mayor and the City Council. The Mayor has declined to sign on to the lawsuits. Councilmember O'Brien opposes the tunnel. Don't equate the 7 whores for power on the Council with "The Council". This a fight between the people of Seattle and the thugs on the City Council and Governor Frankenstein. It's pretty sickening to see all the Council groupies acting like Brown Shirts for the Tunnel. Are tunnel opponents going to start hearing a knock on the door in the middle of the night? Why do you fuckers hate democracy so much?
22
@13 Maybe they should have.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.