Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on "Eco"? Eh.


Oh Erica.. Why don't you put your energy toward lobbying for the "sensible strategy" that you really (in your heart of hearts) want to see in place...

A State Law requiring that all residents must live within walking distance of where they work

-Or- (-and-?)

outlawing private ownership or operation of internal combustion engines.

Try expressing your vision for the future as a positive proposition presenting a solution (I think either of the two laws suggested above should get you there) instead of just pissing on everything.

Stop whining and lead for a change...

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | May 16, 2008 1:38 PM

ECB is a Microsocialist.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | May 16, 2008 1:45 PM

Thanks for making that point about wetland "restoration". It'll most likely be a sterile pond in the middle of a lawn somewhere.

Posted by STJA | May 16, 2008 1:52 PM

So if someone drives a single-occupancy Toyota Prius 50 miles each way to and from work, and lives in this eco-home, are they better or worse than a beef-grilling sports-watching guy who hunts wildlife on safaris to Eastern Washington ... but who walks two blocks to work.

I'm thinking the latter is the eco-savior and the former is the eco-destroyer.

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 16, 2008 1:52 PM

@4, that's not the comparison we should be making. The better comparison is between the prospective "eco-home" commuter and a commuter within the same region.

Also, not sure what watching sports has to do with anything.

Posted by joykiller | May 16, 2008 1:58 PM


It depends, which one is a) A Liberal b) A Socialist or c) A Feminist. (Points are awarded thusly A=1, B=2, C=3 and compounded for individuals with multiple traits. The one with the most points is the most eco, regardless of actual practices.)

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | May 16, 2008 2:01 PM

The bottom line I think Erica is trying to make is that development should not have been built in the first place since other efforts have NOT worked.

This is just sprawl with the prefix "Eco-" to make buyers feel less guilt ridden. And Erica, right on about how employees at Starbucks or other retail cann't afford a $300K mortgage.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | May 16, 2008 2:11 PM

Don't get me started on SnoCo's bullshit. Farmland, hell; people are getting permits to mow down FOREST to build their crappy "cluster developments right next to salmon streams, laws and regulations be damned. "Wetlands" isn't code for "pond in a lawn", it's code for "mound of forest debris around bulldozed gash". "Cluster development" means "cul-de-sac twenty miles from the nearest services". They're doing it NOW. I can show you exactly where:,+wa&ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ll=48.277367,-121.763492&spn=0.010139,0.028152&t=h&z=16

Posted by Fnarf | May 16, 2008 2:12 PM

For once I somewhat agree with the conclusion here, though: one of the best things you can do for the environment is to live near where you work. Obviously, this isn't possible for everyone, but it's something to strive for.

The problem isn't just the exurbanites buying "eco-friendly" homes in Snohomish County, though. It's also the urbanites who delude themselves into thinking that living in a walkable neighborhood in Seattle and commuting to Redmond or Issaquah is somehow eco-friendly.

"It's ok if I commute by car across 520 every day, because I walk to the farmers market and buy organic vegetables once a week. Oh, and to assuage my guilt, BUILD ME SOME LIGHT RAIL FROM BALLARD TO REDMOND, STAT! I can clearly afford to live closer to work, but I like living in Ballard/Fremont/Capitol Hill."

Posted by joykiller | May 16, 2008 2:38 PM

Yeah, but Will in Seattle's mythical 100-story condo towers (or the Stranger's generally blind support for any and all in-City building projects) are going to change the reality of how our region is developing.

Good luck with that....

Posted by Mr. X | May 16, 2008 2:41 PM

The people who are moving to rural SnoCo and commuting to Everett in their Dodge Ram 3500 trucks think they ARE living close to where they work.

Posted by Fnarf | May 16, 2008 3:12 PM

Ummm...go drive out to where they are proposing this (or look at google maps) and than realize that less than 1/4 of a mile west of this developmment, there are already houses in subdivisions that have been built in different phases since the early to mid 1980's. This area has been planned for development since the 1980's. I'm not saying its great or the best use of the land. What I'm saying is that its a bit late to be pontificating about them proposing to build a major subdivision in this area.

Also, this isn't Eastern Snohomish County. One would classify that more as anything east of Highway 9. This is just west of Highway 9 where the landfill was.

Posted by Brian in Seattle | May 16, 2008 4:55 PM

Also, if the people who move into this development say work at Boeing or somewhere in Everett, the distance is no greater than driving from Seattle to Bellevue/Bellevue to Seattle and less than all the Microsoft people who drive everyday from Seattle to Redmond.

Now if these people move here and commute to Bellevue everyday than,yes the distance and gas consumption is much greater. But one doesn't know who is going to move in and who is going to work where.

Posted by Brian in Seattle | May 16, 2008 5:05 PM

how about a streetcar from Ballard to the lightrail?

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 16, 2008 5:41 PM

When gas prices climb to $20 per gallon (I predict we'll see $5 per gallon gas prices before the year is out), these exurbs and even less "out there" suburbs will become slums. It's all explained in the documentary film "The End of Suburbia." And for you naysayers who think we won't see $20 per gallon gas anytime soon, just ask yourself what would happen in a NY minute if we drop the big one on Iran...

Posted by Mud Baby | May 18, 2008 2:15 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).