Slog
News & ArtsThursday, September 10, 2009
Politics Capitol Hill Loves Sea Turtles
Posted by Bryan T. Bissell on Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:44 PM
As if we didn't know that already!
The Seattle Times has a map up breaking down the precinct-by-precinct results for the bag tax vote. The map shows green areas where the referendum passed by significant margins and red areas where it failed. As would be expected, the 43rd Legislative District which includes places like Capitol Hill, the U District, and Wallingford, overwhelmingly voted yes.
The rest of the city, not so much. Check out the map for yourself here.
2
If the rest of the city were more like Capitol Hill, then Capitol Hill wouldn't be so extra special anymore, would it?
3
Interesting map. It looks like the very high income and very low income areas in Seattle both had strong no-s.
5
Jenny got it. The extremely rich and extremely poor neighborhoods hated it.
Again, I'll note that while checking at a Queen Anne supermarket, I saw a lot of customers bringing bags, so it's not like there's no significant movement for it in the area. But voters in the area didn't buy the bag tax.
Again, I'll note that while checking at a Queen Anne supermarket, I saw a lot of customers bringing bags, so it's not like there's no significant movement for it in the area. But voters in the area didn't buy the bag tax.
6
What is telling... is how much influence on politics Cap Hill doesn't have..
but let's not let the hipsters in on that little secret mmmk?
McGinn could use this little map when projecting where he will and won't get votes.
Wanna bet it falls right along the same lines?
but let's not let the hipsters in on that little secret mmmk?
McGinn could use this little map when projecting where he will and won't get votes.
Wanna bet it falls right along the same lines?
7
if they really want to do something, I'm fine with that, I live on the hill, I walk and carry my own bags like 98% of the time, so I'd have to pay here and there, but thats not the point ...this tax was passive aggressive feel good crap, I'd be for something meaningful like an outright ban, until then stfu about those stupid adorable sea turtles.
8
I voted No on it. I think the costs and increase in government oversight that would have resulted if it passed were ridiculous. My friends tried to argue with me that the money obtained by the 'fee' would go towards paying the salaries of the two new King County positions created as a result thereof.
Of course, let's look at the logic of that argument. You want to implement a program in order to, in essence, stop people from using a certain product. So you impose a fee to do just that. But now you need to get paid, so you are banking on the fact that people will not stop using the product. If they stop, where are you going to generate revenue to compensate those two new employees? That does not make sense. To my friends: fail.
Of course, let's look at the logic of that argument. You want to implement a program in order to, in essence, stop people from using a certain product. So you impose a fee to do just that. But now you need to get paid, so you are banking on the fact that people will not stop using the product. If they stop, where are you going to generate revenue to compensate those two new employees? That does not make sense. To my friends: fail.
9
@7
Not sure I follow you. Somehow, no bags is "meaningful," but fewer bags plus more municipal revenue is "passive aggressive feel good crap"?
All-or-nothing fallacy much?
Not sure I follow you. Somehow, no bags is "meaningful," but fewer bags plus more municipal revenue is "passive aggressive feel good crap"?
All-or-nothing fallacy much?
10
@ 9: green washing an issue to gain more municipal revenue is almost always passive aggressive feel good crap, especially when it's only a half step that obsfucates deeper consumption patterns and realities.
11
Next up: ban plastic drink bottles of less than one liter. They're a million times worse than bags.
Though I did just read about a slum in Mumbai where one of the cottage industries is melting down water bottles recycled from as far away as the UK into pellets for toy makers. But I doubt that our bottles make it that far, or anywhere at all, most of them.
Though I did just read about a slum in Mumbai where one of the cottage industries is melting down water bottles recycled from as far away as the UK into pellets for toy makers. But I doubt that our bottles make it that far, or anywhere at all, most of them.
14
Can we please stop referring to Wallingford like it's the 'burbs, now? (see also: light rail vote, Obama vote, etc...)
16
Looks like a green, puss filled zit surrounded by healthy pink and red areas. I suggest we squeeze it and pop it out for good.
17
I'm surrounded by green.
Mewling greenies who throw their plastic water bottles and dog poo on my parking strip, believing in the trash fairy.
Mewling greenies who throw their plastic water bottles and dog poo on my parking strip, believing in the trash fairy.
18
Capitol Hill doesn't love sea turtles. Capitol Hill environmentalists are elitest snobs. It is absolutely offensive to make consumers pay for the harm of a corporations' product. It's like asking ME to pay for Firestone's faulty tires while they keep making the faulty tires. It was an absolutely ridiculous notion and just goes to show how out of touch with reality these liberal environmentalists are. 20 cents may not mean much to someone who can afford yoga, dance classes, and the perks of middle classness, but to the single mother who has to make five trips to the grocery store per week on the bus, it adds up. I'm glad I voted against this bag tax. Liberal enviros: FAIL. Try again, this time by targeting the ones CAUSING the pollution.
was the tax aimed at bag makers? NO. It was aimed at you. Businesses that are smart are willing to pay a little to continue to make a lot. Find out how much bag makers make in profit and you'll probably find that 1.4 million dollars is a good business investment. this is exactly the lack of common sense that is holding up true environmental protections. by the way, i work for an environmental law firm that DOES sue polluters.
was the tax aimed at bag makers? NO. It was aimed at you. Businesses that are smart are willing to pay a little to continue to make a lot. Find out how much bag makers make in profit and you'll probably find that 1.4 million dollars is a good business investment. this is exactly the lack of common sense that is holding up true environmental protections. by the way, i work for an environmental law firm that DOES sue polluters.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (18) RSS