Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

  |  

Friday, November 28, 2008

City Another Thing About the Great Wall of Chopp

Posted by on Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:05 PM

As I noted in my column this week, state House Speaker Frank Chopp's elevated waterfront tunnel is fiscally irresponsible, aesthetically disastrous, and virtually unfunded (Chopp's plan pays only for a six-lane elevated viaduct; amenities would be paid for by a tax on businesses that move under the freeway). All of which is reason enough to oppose it—and to hope the state Legislature endorses the more fiscally responsible surface/transit solution.

One thing I didn't mention about Chopp's scheme is that, if it somehow did work, it would constitute a massive expenditure of government resources—taxes levied on the businesses underneath the viaduct—on behalf of private enterprise (the Gaps and condos and god-knows-what-all Chopp says will want to move under his viaduct). Hmm... where have we heard that idea before?

Seattle has a long history of activist opposition to government expenditure on behalf of private development. More recently than the aforementioned Commons, there was last year's battle over the viaduct, in which supporters of a new elevated structure argued that the alternatives would just lead to condos and shopping malls for
yuppies.

While I don't agree that development for wealthy people is de facto bad (and I certainly don't agree that "the people's option" is a new elevated viaduct on our waterfront), it would be hypocritical and bizarre for the people who opposed the tunnel and surface/transit options last year to rally behind Chopp's playground for the rich. Whatever you think of the alternatives, Chopp's retail-palace-in-the-sky is not a "populist" option. People who want to "save our waterfront from development" shouldn't get behind the man who's promising a mile-and-a-half-long mall along the waterfront.

 

Comments (18) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
While I don't agree that development for wealthy people is de facto bad


I think you mean "ipso facto."
Posted by lostboy on November 28, 2008 at 2:46 PM
2
I don't think most of us wanted to "save our waterfront from development" (density). We wanted to save our waterfront from a giant highway taking over the valuable public space there. The surface options left on the table are the absolute worst in that regard. They take away the entire waterfront with surface streets and parking lots, and they increase "capacity" (more cars) all throughout downtown.
Posted by jrrrl on November 28, 2008 at 3:21 PM
3
But the surface/bstransit look so purdy.

Since when do the rich shop at The Gap? Chopp's proposal is about the same as the LID for the fabulous streetcar (SLUT). Isn't that what they did?

If businesses or condo owners want to pay for making the grade separated roadway purdier, why would that be a problem for anyone?

Now if the properties that would get the bump in value wanted to pay for the difference to build a tunnel with a LID, I'm sure it would have passed.
Posted by McG on November 28, 2008 at 3:34 PM
4
Oh and the Commons would have taken one person's property for the benefit of another.
Posted by McG on November 28, 2008 at 3:36 PM
5
For the fast readers, Barack Obama's Democrats have agreed to dump billions in transit funding on Washington State -- except for the Viaduct and 520!

Wonder if suddenly Olympia will be talking about how great a surface street would be, now that it's principle purpose of sucking the federal treasury dry has been stymied.
Posted by John Bailo on November 28, 2008 at 3:38 PM
6
That's aweswome, John, it's good to see an incoming administration that finally gets the destruction the oil lobby and people's flat-out laziness and xenophobia have wrought on the U.S.
Posted by Grant Cogswell on November 28, 2008 at 3:52 PM
7
Grant the projects will be roads mostly but only ones that are ready to go - 520 and the Viadut aren't.

What do you think about "buying" electric cars like the Volt for the people?

Posted by McG on November 28, 2008 at 4:21 PM
8
If businesses or condo owners want to pay for making the grade separated roadway purdier, why would that be a problem for anyone?


Well, for one thing, Chopp hasn't proven that business owners or condo owners want to do that. He's also failed to explain what we're going to do in several decades when his wall start to decay just as the current viaduct is decaying. No one is going to want to buy property under a freeway that will start crumbling in 60 years. It's questionable whether anyone will want to rent property in that situation. And, when the structure inevitably starts to fail, Chopp's one-and-a-half mile mall will turn into a ghost town. What a fantastic contribution to the city.
Posted by keshmeshi on November 28, 2008 at 5:06 PM
9
News for ECB: Malls are popular.
Posted by David Wright on November 28, 2008 at 5:12 PM
10
oh keshi,

But ECB posed it as why should we let tax revenues support the wealthy

to rally behind Chopp's playground for the rich. Whatever you think of the alternatives, Chopp's retail-palace-in-the-sky is not a "populist" option.


And the issue of longevity is a separate question. Don't you support putting light rail on a bridge(I-90) that is schedule to be obsolete by 2065?

I think a Viaduct built today with piers that go well into the gracial till will be able to last well over the 60 years the current Viaduct has.
Posted by McG on November 28, 2008 at 5:24 PM
11
@10,

No, she didn't.

While I don't agree that development for wealthy people is de facto bad...


Your shilling for Chopp's worst-of-both-worlds viaduct plan is as moronic as your Obama hate from several months ago.
Posted by keshmeshi on November 28, 2008 at 6:12 PM
12
@9,

No, they're not. A number of malls are facing bankruptcy at the moment. It's also not that unusual for new malls to fail dismally. The common factors for those malls: they were planned by politicians, those politicians failed to consider whether the mall would draw businesses and shoppers, and they assumed what you assume: malls are popular, therefore the situation will resolve itself.
Posted by keshmeshi on November 28, 2008 at 6:15 PM
13
Kesh,

I'm glad O won. Hope he's really progressive. So far not so much. What was that hate anyway?

But you fell for that little trick of saying development for the wealthy isn't bad and then saying what she really believed which, no matter how misplaced, is that she opposes Chopp's idea because it's not "populist" - I would say having stores and cafes would be more populist than $1,000,000 condos.


Malls are popular but most every sector has entities facing bankruptcy.
Posted by McG on November 28, 2008 at 6:35 PM
14
I don't have a favorite in all of these options yet. I'm puzzled why the surface option is popular though. It just seems like a big highway right at pedestrian level, much more of a barrier between the waterfront and downtown than the ugly but useful thing we have now. Why would it be better than Aurora the surface street highway, that makes a very effective barrier between neigborhoods from the Battery street tunnel all the way to 70th st?
Posted by Steve Bradford on November 28, 2008 at 7:19 PM
15
Can we call it Westfield Shoppingtown Chopp Center?
Posted by westside on November 28, 2008 at 7:26 PM
16
Frank Chopp is a fucking moron. To the 43rd District: please rid us of this menace. To everyone else: please collect and publish incriminating photos that will rid us of this menace. The man will not rest until his idiotic ideas are foisted upon the citizens of our state. DOWN WITH FRANK CHOPP.
Posted by 36th District Democrat on November 28, 2008 at 10:34 PM
17
Don't underestimate Frank Chopp's power, or his desire to see this built. He intends to build this. He's as intent on building this as Ahab was on chasing Moby Dick. He's managed to convince, cajole, or threaten a lot of powerful people, including a shocking number of his fellow Legislatures to take it seriously. Considering how much power he has (note to Christine: he's more powerful than you), he may just ramrod this thing through--the future of the Democrats be damned. Unless there are some brave people to spend some serious political capital to oppose him, this thing is going through.
Posted by rod on November 28, 2008 at 11:36 PM
18
@5 is wrong, as are most America-hating Red Socialist Bushies.

In reality, he's not President until 1/20/2009 - and will be shoveling out cash to build any projects ready to build that help improve America's infrastructure.
Posted by Will in Seattle on November 29, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy