Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, December 3, 2008
City Your Public Comment Is Not a Vote
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:10 PM
In this week's news section, I tear into some West Seattle residents (and drivers) who oppose a proposal to reduce Fauntleroy from four lanes to three (two traffic lanes and a turning lane). In my story, I quote four residents who turned up at an open house at High Point this Monday to protest the change:
"When I try to get on the West Seattle Freeway [sic], if I don't get out in front of ferry traffic, it can add another seven minutes to my commute!""I drive every day, and I don't think I've seen a dozen bikes on Fauntleroy. Why the hell are we spending all this money for them?"
"They should ban bikes on Fauntleroy until bikers get licenses just like drivers."
"Do you really think you can still go through with this now that the people have spoken?"
The selfishness of the first two comments is obvious, as is the idiocy of the third (as soon as my mode of travel is as heavily subsidized as yours, I'll happily pay a few bucks for a cycling license, guy). But it's the fourth comment that really stunned me. It was directed at a city traffic manager, whose calm response—"We're not taking a vote here"—infuriated the man who made it. He and a woman next to him immediately began sputtering about how if they weren't given a vote, then what was the point of even holding a public hearing?
I've got news for that guy and anyone who thinks that a few dozen zealots ought to be able to overturn city policy: Your public comment is not a vote. Just because you and your friends organized and showed up and all railed and screamed against making Fauntleroy safer for cyclists, that doesn't mean you get your way. Want to put a measure on the ballot? There's a process for that, and it doesn't involve showing up at one public meeting. If city planning was based on who showed up and screamed the loudest, we'd have no light rail, no Burke-Gilman Trail extension, and a massive new freeway on our waterfront.
1
Being a city employee, who is paid to work out in the field, amongst the people, I frequently encounter people who want to scream at me about things that I have absolutely no control over. (The mayor, the monorail, the zoo parking garage, the bag ban, zoning regulations, the National Electric Code, etc, etc, etc)
I just let them vent and then change the subject.
I just let them vent and then change the subject.
2
It's interesting that I heard the same comment from a non-biker here at work about cyclists not paying tax (i.e. car tab) so they should not be on the road. I alternate between riding a car and riding my bike to work. So I do pay my car tax just like most people. Maybe I should get a refund on the days I ride my bike.
3
your open contempt for those of your neighbors and fellow citizens who have opinions so obviously incorrect for not being yours always forces me to rethink any political opinons I realize to my horror that I share with you
4
I like comment #2. Maybe he/she doesn't see any bikes on Fauntleroy because the street currently sucks for bikes. And ain't that the point?
5
Does ECB really have that short of a memory?
If we put things to a vote we get...let's see...light rail and no new freeway bridge.
I think what the people are complaining about with Fountleroy not being put to a vote is kind of the same thing that would happen if 520 was suddenly expanded to a 10 lane superhighway on the taxpayer's dime, without being put to a vote. But, that's just my 2 cents.
If we put things to a vote we get...let's see...light rail and no new freeway bridge.
I think what the people are complaining about with Fountleroy not being put to a vote is kind of the same thing that would happen if 520 was suddenly expanded to a 10 lane superhighway on the taxpayer's dime, without being put to a vote. But, that's just my 2 cents.
6
ECB - it would be nice if you had a link that breaks down the tax argument - I'd bet that car owners pay for over 95% of roads - not that the whole argument is very important.
- there should be a bike license required for adults with all the revenue going to bike safety expenditures - the license would decrease theft and insure that the bikes are properly outfitted at least once at year.
- there should be a bike license required for adults with all the revenue going to bike safety expenditures - the license would decrease theft and insure that the bikes are properly outfitted at least once at year.
7
McG@6: Everyone pays for city roads, via property taxes and sales taxes. If "car owners pay for over 95% of roads" that would only be because 95% of people own cars (which may or may not be true). For those of us who don't own cars, we still pay for the roads, but inflict relatively little damage upon them.
9
Newsflash - ECB - public comments are supposed to actually influence public policy under SEPA.
You want selfish? The 2-3% of commuters who use bikes as their mode of choice demanding that we give over significant lane space that is used by the other 68% of Seattle residents who rely on cars to get around (and who will experience significantly increased travel times and inconvenience) sounds pretty selfish to me.
You want selfish? The 2-3% of commuters who use bikes as their mode of choice demanding that we give over significant lane space that is used by the other 68% of Seattle residents who rely on cars to get around (and who will experience significantly increased travel times and inconvenience) sounds pretty selfish to me.
10
Wait. I thought this was about the children. In the article about this in the paper, Erica said this would SAVE CHILDREN!!!!
You people who don't care about CHILDREN make me sick.
Tell them, Erica. Tell them how many CHILDREN we're going to SAVE by removing lanes. That will shut them up.
CHILDREN! CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You people who don't care about CHILDREN make me sick.
Tell them, Erica. Tell them how many CHILDREN we're going to SAVE by removing lanes. That will shut them up.
CHILDREN! CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11
Funny how a loudmouthed zealot like ECB can't deal with the trivial inconvenience of biking on residential streets rather than demanding a length of existing arterial for her selfish convenience. What else is new?
12
#9 is right. We need to reduce the percentage of daily car commuters to as close to 0% as possible. There are lots of laws we can enact on car drivers to do this. Mandatory armed forces service to ensure their oil supply? Compulsory environmental work to repair the destruction they cause? Large fees to subsidize the roads and oil and car companies we currently all pay for? Sponsoring healthcare costs and forced organ donation for the thousands of victims of car-related injuries? All of the above? Sure, it wouldn't eliminate all of the damage car commuters cause, but it's a start. Listen to Mr. X and stop being so selfish.
13
...considering how well funded and organized the bike lobby is, I find ECB's sour grapes acknowledgement that they got their asses handed to them on this issue quite satisfying.
@12,
We live in this thing called a society, in which people need to be able to get from point A to point B. There were lots of injuries and fatalities back when people still relied on the horse and buggy if they wanted to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time or to be able to bring stuff with them when they went, but it still beat the heck out of walking.
@12,
We live in this thing called a society, in which people need to be able to get from point A to point B. There were lots of injuries and fatalities back when people still relied on the horse and buggy if they wanted to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time or to be able to bring stuff with them when they went, but it still beat the heck out of walking.
14
How is the 2nd comment selfish? He or she doesn't see bikes being used and proposes that it seems illogical to add a lane for a small minority -- I can see the flaw in the argument, but it's not inherently a selfish statement.
15
People in wheelchairs are pretty damn scarce, but every corner in my neighborhood has curbcuts, or is being retrofitted for them. Damn those cripples! Sidewalks are for the able-bodied!
16
"Your public comment is not a vote. Just because you and your friends organized and showed up and all railed and screamed against [it] doesn't mean you get your way. Want to put a measure on the ballot?" There's a process for that...
I'm reminded of Prop 8.
I'm reminded of Prop 8.
17
Doug besides the fact that the vast majority own cars those car owners tend to be in higher income brackets and therefore spend more per capita and live in more expensive housing, ergo they pay even a more than their percentage of population.
A quick check seems to indicate that only 25% of the city's transportation budget comes from the general fund. Some comes from the real estate excise tax which would be skewed to car owners.
http://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment…
page 380
Anyway Doug please show us some facts.
A quick check seems to indicate that only 25% of the city's transportation budget comes from the general fund. Some comes from the real estate excise tax which would be skewed to car owners.
http://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment…
page 380
Anyway Doug please show us some facts.
18
funny to see this topic trifled with by the writer who famously declared that a trip to West Seattle meant 'leaving the city' - is life in the rest of the city that dull at the moment?
20
@15: But curbcuts don't do anything to disadvantage anyone -- they also help people with strollers, carts, or suitcases on wheels. Your example isn't remotely comparable.
21
Erica - "If city planning was based on who showed up and screamed the loudest, we'd have no light rail, no Burke-Gilman Trail extension, and a massive new freeway on our waterfront."
David Hiller, take note.
David Hiller, take note.
22
Catalina Vel-DuRay must be a meter maid.
@11: Have you ever tried to navigate through West Seattle on residential streets? Fauntleroy is a serpentine street, and it's fucking impossible to get around there without get ensnared in it.
@11: Have you ever tried to navigate through West Seattle on residential streets? Fauntleroy is a serpentine street, and it's fucking impossible to get around there without get ensnared in it.
23
I could never cut it as a meter maid. Math is hard, and the more meters I read, the more inaccurate I get. It would be a fiscal disaster for the utility.
Truth be told, I am a Traveling Electrical Hostess. If you ever build a new house or alter your service entrance (which sounds dirty, but isn't) you will consult me, or one of my co-workers. Or you won't, and your house will burn down, and it will be all your fault.
I also handle the odd questions that the call center can't or won't. Questions like "Why can't you do something about the rats in my attic?" and "I think the neighbors are using the transformer to torture me at night. Can you help?"
Truth be told, I am a Traveling Electrical Hostess. If you ever build a new house or alter your service entrance (which sounds dirty, but isn't) you will consult me, or one of my co-workers. Or you won't, and your house will burn down, and it will be all your fault.
I also handle the odd questions that the call center can't or won't. Questions like "Why can't you do something about the rats in my attic?" and "I think the neighbors are using the transformer to torture me at night. Can you help?"
24
@17
The only motor vehicle specific taxes in the state are licensing and the gas taxes.
If you go to pg 417 in the document that you link to, you will see that the majority of the funding comes from non-motor vehicle specific taxation. The 'other' category you grabbed onto in the summary section includes levies, interlocal funding, etc.
Only $14 million of the City's expenditures come from gas tax (code 436087), less than 10%. You could argue over the proportion of State and Federal grant money that came from motor vehicle specific taxation, but that still only brings you another $30 million out of a $205 million operating budget.
Your own document makes the point pretty well.
The only motor vehicle specific taxes in the state are licensing and the gas taxes.
If you go to pg 417 in the document that you link to, you will see that the majority of the funding comes from non-motor vehicle specific taxation. The 'other' category you grabbed onto in the summary section includes levies, interlocal funding, etc.
Only $14 million of the City's expenditures come from gas tax (code 436087), less than 10%. You could argue over the proportion of State and Federal grant money that came from motor vehicle specific taxation, but that still only brings you another $30 million out of a $205 million operating budget.
Your own document makes the point pretty well.
25
you know what REALLY delays car commutes on busy arterials and freeways? it's NOT bikes and it's NOT bike lanes.
also, i'm fucking sick and tired of paying good money to fix all the damage caused by cars. and to think of the TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS spent on freeways that i can't even use! fuck that. those free-booting car drivers (whoops, i own a car too!) need to step up to the plate.
and so the wheels turn. i still ride my bike past your little traffic jams, you still honk and occasionally threaten me with violent death.
also, i'm fucking sick and tired of paying good money to fix all the damage caused by cars. and to think of the TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS spent on freeways that i can't even use! fuck that. those free-booting car drivers (whoops, i own a car too!) need to step up to the plate.
and so the wheels turn. i still ride my bike past your little traffic jams, you still honk and occasionally threaten me with violent death.
27
Good thing city planning is mostly run by property developers and their friends.
What?
Didn't you know that?
What?
Didn't you know that?
28
Wow Steve you actually looked. As I said it was only a quick check.
In addition to the gas tax $14M, there is commercial parking tax of $9M, Street use and curb cut $12.7M, Sound Transit (MVET is part as well as Rental Cars) .7M, Federal Grants 14.8M (highway fund?), State Funds (MVET??) 15M
My main point was that this claim that bikers pay their share because the city streets get their money from sales, B&O, property tax, etc. hasn't been backed by data. I don't think that bikers need to pay their full share necessarily but it is clear that even city streets get significant money from car taxes.
I'm sure other revenue sources are car owner skewed and equally sure that no tax is bicycle skewed.
In addition to the gas tax $14M, there is commercial parking tax of $9M, Street use and curb cut $12.7M, Sound Transit (MVET is part as well as Rental Cars) .7M, Federal Grants 14.8M (highway fund?), State Funds (MVET??) 15M
My main point was that this claim that bikers pay their share because the city streets get their money from sales, B&O, property tax, etc. hasn't been backed by data. I don't think that bikers need to pay their full share necessarily but it is clear that even city streets get significant money from car taxes.
I'm sure other revenue sources are car owner skewed and equally sure that no tax is bicycle skewed.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS