Search Results for: viaduct

The sun is shining, the Seahawks are demolishing the hated Giants… what better way to celebrate than to kick back with a cold beer and “The David Goldstein Show” tonight on Newsradio 710-KIRO, 7PM to 10PM?

7PM: Is it time we stop electing judges? The Seattle P-I thinks so, and I agree. We dodged a bullet Tuesday in the Alexander-Groen race when WA voters rejected a $2 million smear campaign against a sitting, centrist justice, but that’s just a hint at the kind of special interest and out of state money putting the independence of our courts at risk. Don’t believe me? Former WA Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn will join me to talk about the $1.5 million the US Chamber of Commerce spent to defeat her (read “The Secret Chamber“,) and the hundreds of millions they’ve spent to elect right-wing judges nationwide.

8PM: Tunnel, rebuild, or no-build? Now that the latest cost estimates have come in, it doesn’t look like we can replace both the Alaska Way Viaduct and the 520 floating bridge for much less than $9 billion, raising the question of whether we can afford to replace them at all. The Stranger’s transportation maven, Erica C. Barnett joins me to discuss our region’s transportation quandary. We’ll also be joined by an advocate of the controversial “surface street” option, which essentially replaces the Viaduct with, um… nothing.

9PM: Is torture an American value? President Bush and the Republican leadership seem to think so, and so far the American people have failed to rise up in protest. David Neiwert of the blog Orcinus says the President is leading our nation into a “moral abyss,” and he pins part of the blame on the “abysmal […] performance of the press.” David will join me in the studio to take your calls.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Apparently, the whole blogging craze has pretty much run its course, because other than me there wasn’t a single active, political blogger on the panel last night. (Political bloggers are so July.)

Joining me were non-bloggers Sandeep and Laura, former bloggers Will and Carl, and non-political blogger Gavin. So of course we led off our conversation with the biggest political issue of the day: Snakes on a Plane! No really… tune in and listen to how we cleverly connect this seemingly unrelated topic to Ned Lamont’s victory over Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. Other topics of discussion included Mike!™ McGavick’s career path through Washington D.C.’s lucrative revolving door, the Seattle Storm’s imminent move to Oklahoma City after their fan support collapses in the wake of their disappointing playoff loss, the John Bircher behind WA’s estate tax repeal initiative, Will’s manly love for John Edwards, replacing the Viaduct with nothin’, the GOP’s intentional non-grammatical use of the term "Democrat" Party instead of the proper "Democratic" Party, Kyle Taylor Lucas’s strong challenge to faux-Democratic Sen. Tim Sheldon in the primary, and the hypocritical, mean-spirited Rev. Joe Fuiten.

The show is 53:49, and is available here as a 41.1 MB MP3. Please visit PodcastingLiberally.com for complete archives and RSS feeds.

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for producing the show.]

In addition to my normal Sunday night slot, I’m subbing for Frank Shiers tonight on Newsradio 710-KIRO, from 7PM to 10PM.

7PM: How do we achieve energy independence in WA state and nationwide? Rep. Jay Inslee joins us to discuss the New Apollo Project and the Renewable Energy Initiative (I-937), plus a congressional update.

8PM: Can Seattle afford to fix its transportation problems? Can we afford not to? The Stranger’s Erica C. Barnett drops by to give us the latest on the Viaduct, the 520 Floating Bridge, expanded bus service… and how we’re gonna pay for it all.

9PM: Can politicians continue to lie in the age of the blogosphere without looking like, um… liars? We’ll be talking to Darryl of Hominid Views about how his debunking of a Mike McGavick fib managed to quickly wend its way through the newspapers, and how this might change political campaigns for the better.

Tune in or, um… don’t.

Way back in November I proposed that one of the funding mechanisms for coming up with the extra bucks to replace the Alaska Way Viaduct with a tunnel should be a “special taxing district,” much like the local improvement district that is funding half the costs of the South Lake Union streetcar line. And just for good measure I repeated the suggestion again in March.

Well, whatever his inspiration, it is gratifying to see Mayor Greg Nickels asking property owners who stand to benefit most from the tunnel alternative to consider exactly that — a local improvement district that could defray as much as $250 million of the project’s cost. According to Office of Policy and Management deputy director Michael Mann:

“It’s an appropriate way to help fund it,” he said “There are clearly properties that will benefit, so that’s what we’re working on.”

Sure, this is a pretty obvious piece of the funding puzzle so I’m certainly not suggesting that the Mayor is getting his budgeting cues from the pages of HA. (Though he could certainly do worse.) Still, you can’t blame me for patting myself on the back for being so far out in front on such a creative revenue proposal.

And it wouldn’t be the first the time.

After the recent ruling invalidating Initiative 747’s property tax revenue limits, Governor Christine Gregoire and other elected officials were quick to reassure voters that they would restore some sort of property tax relief should the decision survive appeal. But before Olympia jumps to re-legislate Tim Eyman’s ridiculous one percent cap — or even some higher, more reasonable figure — I hope they carefully consider a proposal I have been pushing for nearly three years: a Property Tax Homestead Exemption.

The concept is simple; every homeowner is offered a flat exemption on their primary residence — their “homestead” — while property tax rates are increased to offset any lost revenues. Because the proportion of property exempted declines the higher the relative price of the home, the amount of relief provided, both in real dollars and percent of total burden, declines accordingly. Essentially, the lowest priced homes see the greatest tax relief while the highest priced homes would see a modest tax increase.

Sound confusing? Link on over to TaxSanity.org where a handy chart shows the impact a $30,000 homestead exemption would have had on average property taxes back in 2004. Forget about the actual numbers, as that part is up for negotiation. The point is that only the top 4% of homeowners would see a rise in property taxes, while owners of low priced homes would realize substantial tax relief.

Like my proposal for a local improvement district to help pay for a tunnel, the Property Tax Homestead Exemption is not some harebrained idea I pulled out of my ass… indeed 37 other states already have a similar exemption, credit or circuit-breaker to help protect low- and middle-income homeowners from the tax impact of rapidly rising property values. Over the past few years such an exemption was twice introduced to the Legislature, and was an integral part of Ron Sims’ tax restructuring plan when he ran for governor.

I raise the issue again now because if lawmakers are going to consider tax relief, they need to start considering tax fairness as well as total tax burden. Washington state has the most regressive tax structure in the nation, and it is interesting to note that all that separates us from number two, Florida, is the fact that they happen to have a homestead exemption on the books.

Even if the state Supreme Court eventually upholds I-747, the lower court decision has given us an opportunity to have a reasoned public debate over the wisdom of tax cutting policies that inevitably give the greatest benefit to our wealthiest citizens while heaping the greatest impact on those who can afford it least. Many local taxing districts, particularly those in rural areas, are on the verge of insolvency due to unrealistic revenue growth limits that fail to accommodate for inflationary pressures on fire, police, public health and other vital public services, let alone increases in demand. And while the promise of “tax relief” surely has great political appeal, any policy that ignores adequacy and fairness is irresponsible.

It is time for our elected officials to stop reacting to anti-tax demagogues like Tim Eyman, and start proposing proactive, creative solutions. It is time for a little leadership.

Man, there’s a lot of stuff to write about. Good thing thing I’m not the only one writing.

• Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and his staff have a sense of humor. Who knew? Read about it in the P-I, or watch their video “The Committee to Save Big Ugly Things.”
• Andrew and the folks at NPI don’t normally show much of a sense of humor, but they do have a new version of the Pacific Northwest Portal, the largest compilation of regional liberal blogs. Read about it here, or take a peek here.
• Betcha former Enron exectives Ken Lay and Jeffery Skilling aren’t laughing, now that they’ve been convicted of conspiracy.
• Mollie, our Liberal Girl Next Door, joins the fray attacking the Seattle School District’s deeply flawed school closure process. Nothing funny about that.
• I’m heading off to Town Hall tonight to meet President Jimmy Carter, First Lady Rosilyn Carter, and their son Jack Carter, who is running for US Senate from Nevada. Stop by, tell me a joke to cheer me up, and help Jack Carter help the Dems retake the senate.

Laugh amongst yourselves.

UPDATE:
Oh… and last I checked the Seattle Times editorial board still hasn’t apologized to Ron Sims. Or acknowledge he was a local visionary on global warming. I’ll accept either.

Looking for something to talk about? George Howland has a very informative, even-handed piece on the proposed tunnel replacement for the Alaska Way Viaduct. It’s worth a read.

Here’s a starting point for all those who prefer the Viaduct rebuild option because you just love those sweeping views from your car… there won’t be any.

On my first visit to Seattle back in 1989, my future ex-wife took me on a tour of her beloved hometown, which of course included the downtown waterfront. Walking hand-in-hand through the shadows of the clamorous and crumbling Alaska Way Viaduct, I subtly remarked on how the structure dominated the sites and sounds of an otherwise charming tourist trap:

“I can’t believe they built a fucking freeway through the waterfront!” I gently screamed in her ear… to which she quizzically replied: “What?!”

Of course, I understand the historical circumstances that led to this gashing, open wound through a neighborhood that would otherwise enjoy some of the highest property values in the state. And I certainly share the pragmatic, financial concerns of those who oppose a more expensive tunnel replacement.

But really… can anybody honestly tell me that rebuilding this monstrosity is the preferred alternative, especially after we now learn that a replacement Viaduct would have to be 50 percent wider than the existing structure, with columns twice as thick, just to meet current seismic and traffic safety standards?

Let’s put this in perspective. Imagine the Viaduct had never been built, and SR 99 currently passed through the waterfront at grade, traffic lights and all, like any other street. (You know… the way it currently runs through much of Seattle.)

Now suppose we wanted to alleviate local traffic snarls by allowing 99’s thru-traffic to bypass Alaska Way. Do you believe for a moment that any politician in their right mind would propose plunking down a massive, double-decker, view-destroying, elevated freeway, essentially cutting off the waterfront from the rest of the downtown? Do you believe a single editorial board would come out in support of such an outrageously ugly, noisy and expensive transportation folly? Do you really think our state Legislature would have provided $2 billion of taxpayer’s money towards such a controversial proposal?

Of course not! Financial priorities, aesthetics, and common sense simply would not allow it.

A lot has changed since the Viaduct was constructed over 50 years ago, and modern, world-class cities no longer wall off their waterfronts with massive freeway projects; indeed, any urban planner who proposed such a project would be laughed out of the profession. Yet it’s the rebuild boosters who seem to be laughing as if their opponents are out of touch with reality: money is tight they patronizingly explain to us… we simply cannot afford a tunnel.

Right.

Over the last decade taxpayers have spent a billion dollars building and refurbishing stadia and arenas to the benefit of billionaire sports team owners, and maybe, just maybe, the bonds on the now demolished Kingdome will finally be paid off before the next round of extortion begins. Yet we’re told we can’t afford the extra billion dollars for the tunnel alternative, despite its estimated life-span of at least 100 hundred years… twice that of an elevated viaduct.

I find that hard to believe. And besides, it shouldn’t be up to state legislators to make that decision. The state has ponied up it’s $2 billion bucks, and if local voters want to tax themselves to turn our waterfront into a world class destination, well then, that’s up to us. Now that the Monorail has been permanently derailed, let’s give voters the opportunity to use the local MVET to help finance the tunnel and other road improvements. And why not start talking about a special taxing district — much like the one financing South Lake Union development — so that those property owners who stand to reap the biggest rewards from the Viaduct’s removal, also pay a higher percentage of the cost?

And if we still can’t find the money to pay for a tunnel, well… we can’t do what we can’t do. But that still doesn’t make a replacement viaduct the preferred alternative.

It’s time for our state and local civic and political leaders to get their heads out of the 1950’s, and start imagining the city with a fresh perspective. It’s time to start giving serious attention to a third replacement option, one which I would argue is far preferable to replacing the existing Viaduct with a new, bulked-up model: the waterfront boulevard.

That’s exactly what San Francisco did after the double-decker, Embarcadero Freeway collapsed during the 1989 Loma Prieta quake… a change that revitalized the waterfront. And citizens liked the results so much that they just opened a new 6-lane boulevard to replace a portion of the Central Freeway, right through the heart of the downtown.

I believe that much of the legislative opposition to the tunnel stems both from institutional timidity, and urban Democrats’ justified fear that their opponents will seize on the tunnel as a symbol of out-of-control, profligate spending on the part of the party in charge.

But I also think that opposition stems from a lack of imagination. The generation in power now grew up with a loud, ugly, double-decker freeway cutting through an otherwise spectacular waterfront, and they simply cannot envision the city without it.

Well not me. I came to this city as an outsider, and I’m here to tell you that the Viaduct sucks. And you know what…? Rebuilding it 50 percent wider can only make it suck at least 50 percent more.

One of the myths put forth by I-912 proponents was that the gas tax did not include enough money to finish proposed mega-projects… that state taxpayers would eventually be asked to foot the rest of the bill. Well, in the case of the Alaska Way Viaduct, that’s simply not true.

The new gas tax, validated by voters this week, commits $2 billion to the viaduct’s replacement. The federal government says it will contribute another $250 million. With that money, plus other state funding already committed, the state said it has enough money to build a new viaduct.

The cost of replacing the crumbling viaduct with a similar structure is estimated at $2.5 to $3 billion. The tunnel alternative preferred by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels would cost an additional $1 billion, none of which will come from the state. Yesterday, the Port of Seattle agreed to budget $200 million towards replacing the viaduct and the waterfront’s aging seawall with a tunnel, taking a sizable bite out of the billion dollar difference. But where will the rest of this money come from?

Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis is confident the city can come up with the extra money, and said it includes up to $300 million from city utilities for the relocation of utility lines, up to $200 million from the city’s own transportation fund, up to $250 million from the Army Corps of Engineers for replacing the seawall, and money from a regional tax package yet to be placed on the ballot.

With all those “up to” caveats, I’m guessing those numbers are optimistic. But an unrelated transportation news story suggests one overlooked source of funding.

Construction of a new South Lake Union streetcar line is expected to start in the spring, now that the vast majority of area property owners have agreed to pay $25.7 million

Share:

• Tweet
• Email
• Print

In touting his qualifications to manage King County’s $3.4 billion budget, David Irons Jr. likes to talk up his “25 years of successful small business experience,” even bragging to Northwest News that he “formed three start-up companies.”

Thus it was with some disappointment that I found the Seattle Times’ profile of Irons’ business background to contain nary a word explaining, um, exactly what it was he actually did at any of these “start-ups”… you know, his responsibilities, duties, accomplishments… the actual executive experience that allegedly prepares him to manage a county government larger than that of thirteen states.

Well, there’s apparently a good reason why the Times’ failed to detail Irons’ day-to-day management responsibilities at All Points Cable TV, Brigadoon.com and CCPI… according to sources at all three companies, Irons didn’t really have any. Indeed, a close examination of his resume reveals that far from the “25 years of executive experience” he claimed on Up Front with Robert Mak, Irons really only has maybe 3 or 4 years to his credit… and even that is suspect.

Let’s start with his parent’s company, All Points Cable TV. In a 1997 resume, Irons made some truly impressive claims:

Wow. That’s quite some resume. On paper, this guy sounds like a can-do, jack of all trades. Of course, a 1999 resume from his first Council run was slightly less effusive:

But under the scrutiny of a high-profile campaign, Irons’ 2005 website is cautiously more concise, reducing his tenure at the family company to a single bullet point: “VP & co-owner All Points Cable TV – 1982 to 1995.”

Okay, let’s forget for a moment the question of whether Irons actually lied on his resume, for this isn’t really about lying on his resume, no matter how much of a lie his resume apparently is. This is about what he actually did at All Points Cable TV (as opposed to the lies on his resume), and whether it gave him any of the vaunted management experience Irons claims to possess. For example, I mentioned to his sister Di that “VP & co-owner” made it sound like her brother had a significant role running the place… and she actually laughed. “David…?” she chuckled, “he fixed the trucks.”

Hmm. That seemed odd.

So when I talked to Irons’ mother, I made a point of reading to her the rather effusive prose on her son’s 1997 resume, and… well… she laughed. “99 percent of what he wrote, there’s not one bit of truth to it,” Janet C. Irons told me. According to his mother, David occasionally went out on construction jobs, but mostly worked alone in the garage, maintaining vehicles and equipment. He was “an excellent mechanic” his mother told me, but didn’t get along very well with people.

I didn’t talk directly with Irons’ father, but the Times reporter did. And what did David Sr. have to say about his son’s role at the company?

David Irons Sr., while acknowledging that his son had the title of vice president, said he was a co-owner only in the sense that he held company stock. He said his son’s role was limited mostly to construction work and maintaining the company’s trucks. “He did a lot of welding,” Irons Sr. said.

A lot of welding. Uh-huh. Perhaps that’s Irons’ plan to fix the Viaduct should I-912 pass?

The real owners of All Points Cable TV, Irons’ own parents, insist that during his 13-year tenure, he was not involved with the management and operations of the company… at all… and that he didn’t even have an office. (On the radio last week, Irons’ mom referred to her son as a “grease monkey.” ) And Irons has presented absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, the timeline makes it indisputably clear that Irons could not possibly have “formed” the start-up as he claimed; his parents started the company in the late 1970’s while David Jr. was still up in Alaska working on the pipeline — you know… welding. The Irons did not bring their son into the family business until 1982, and didn’t start compensating him with stock until several years after that.

But once again, this is not really about Irons’ completely bogus resume, and how he bogusly lied on it. This is about whether his tenure at the family business gave him any of the management experience he boastfully touts. And the answer must be no, for even at its height the company never employed more than a dozen people, none of whom reported to David Jr… a fact he has never disputed.

Thus from the 25 years of successful small business experience and 3 startups Irons claims to have formed, we must subtract 13 and 1 respectively… so we’re down to 12 years and 2 startups. Still, not too shabby, but not at all what Irons claims.

On to Brigadoon…

On all of his resumes, Irons claims to have served as Chief Operating Officer of Brigadoon.com from 1995 to 1997… which I suppose he credits for 3 of his 25 12 years of successful small business experience, and 1 of his 3 2 vaunted startups. In fact, while I couldn’t pinpoint his actual start date, it appears his entire tenure at Brigadoon was only about 15 months, less than a year of which he served as COO. Furthermore, it was far from “successful”, unless of course, you measure success by how many millions of dollars your company ends up owing investors, vendors and employees when it finally goes belly-up… in which case Brigadoon could be described as an enviable triumph of free market capitalism.

So, how did a grease monkey like David Jr. end up as COO of a multimillion dollar dot.com bust like Brigadoon? The same way the cussing, wrench-throwing welder earned himself the title of “VP” at a local, cable TV company: daddy.

After the sale of his cable business, David Sr. had a few million dollars burning a hole in his pocket, and what better way to multiply his fortune than to invest in a company with the brilliant business plan of giving away free internet service to schools in a risky gambit to dominate a saturated dial-up market on the cusp of being decimated by broadband? (Yeah, yeah, I know… I have the benefit of hindsight… but I’m on a roll here, so bear with me.) As nutty as the entire Irons clan might now seem, David Sr. was a fairly well known and respected Eastside figure back then. A self-made millionaire and a former US Coast Guard Commander and Chief of Aviation — who Jr. himself used to refer to as “a hero” — David Sr. could not only bring a desperately needed cash infusion into the ambitious company, but also provide the credibility necessary to lure in other investors.

And so when Brigadoon’s predecessor started into negotiations with David Sr. in the latter half of 1995, one of the first things they did was offer a sales/marketing position to his recently unemployed son, David Jr…. despite the fact that the marketing department had few if any trucks to maintain. (On the other hand, there weren’t many loose wrenches lying around either, so it was a relatively safe hire.) And so at the age of 43, David Jr. finally got his first office. Or… maybe it was cubicle. Either way, it wasn’t in a garage. Um… I don’t think.

By February of 1996, David Sr. had invested over $400,000 and loaned Brigadoon an additional $100,000, controlling 23% of the outstanding shares, and earning himself a seat on the Board. Shortly thereafter, David Jr. was promoted to COO, a meteoric rise for a mediocre man, who up until that point barely had any experience managing his own anger, let alone a staff.

At this point the Irons family and my sources at Brigadoon tell starkly different tales of what was really happening at the company, but from both accounts one gets a pretty clear picture of COO David Jr.’s initial role: he was a mole installed to protect the family’s interests. Irons’ parents claim that they soon discovered Brigadoon to be under-capitalized, vastly mismanaged, and rife with illegal and ethically questionable accounting and stock maneuvers. However, my Brigadoon sources cite frequent, harassing letters from the Irons’ attorney-daughter Janet A. as evidence that the family was merely flinging trumped up accusations in an effort to seize control of the company. By June 5, 1996, after weeks of negotiating and angry letter writing, Brigadoon bought out David Sr.’s stake in the company… but as noted in a timeline provided by the Irons family: “DWI Jr. remains an officer.”

It was a month later that David Jr. sent a letter to Brigadoon’s board, which the Times’ article attempted to spin into a noble display of business ethics.

By July 1996, David Irons was just about fed up with Brigadoon.com, the Internet startup where he was chief operating officer.

He typed a letter to the board of directors, warning of “irregularities” including questionable stock sales and “manipulation of numbers” to boost the company’s image for investors.

Unless the company hired a securities expert to correct the problems, Irons feared, he could be held personally liable. Though he wanted to stay, Irons wrote, “my family and my personal integrity must come first.” He’d resign if the problems were not fixed.

Let’s be clear. By July 1996, David Jr. had only been COO for a few months, and not only didn’t he “type the letter”, he didn’t even compose it. As an accompanying cover letter explains, this letter, like all those associated with the Irons-Brigadoon disputes, was written by attorney-daughter Janet A., and in such context appears to be more of a mild blackmail note than an effort to genuinely fix problems at the company. Indeed, the letter closes with the following threat:

I will keep the contents of this letter confidential if the Board acts, however it is bound to become a topic of discussion within the company if I am forced to resign on August 15. I desperately hope that will not be necessary.

The letter alleges serious irregularities and securities violations “too numerous to list in their entirety”… but apparently not so serious or numerous that he ever bothered to notify authorities or warn other investors. In fact, David Jr. stayed on at Brigadoon, despite the alleged irregularities, profligate spending and shaky finances until February 1997… at which time he exited with the plum rights to one of the company’s only profitable assets.

How did David Jr. manage this little business coup?

In a July 2000 expose of the financial chaos that was Brigadoon, the Times mentions a little episode that David Jr. likes to spin into a tale of his own selfless, Christmas spirit:

Before Christmas 1996, Hansen promised employees they’d be paid, but he failed to follow through when an investor backed out. Irons said he was furious and put $50,000 on his credit card to make payroll.

But the truth behind this incident is much more Dickensian than David Jr. lets on, for it was good old-fashioned greed rather than holiday goodwill that prompted Jr. to whip out his credit card. COO David Jr. was intimately aware of the company’s precarious financial straights, and as Randy Fink, a former vice president at Brigadoon put it, this was an opportunity to “get out of there with some skin.” David Jr. had the company over a barrel, and so he collateralized his $50,000 emergency loan with the rights to one of Brigadoon’s only profitable assets: the convention center contracts that now form the basis of David Jr.’s current company, CCPI. When merely two months later David Jr. called in the loan, he knew that Brigadoon could not pay… and so he resigned as COO in February 1997, taking with him the lucrative contracts, and most of the employees from the business unit that served them. That, and $100,000 from his parents, put him in business on his own.

“He took advantage of a situation there and obviously feathered his bed at the expense of the Brigadoon shareholders,” Fink said. “It was one of the last major assets that was available and he ended up with it.

Brian Nelson, Brigadoon’s former general counsel is even more blunt in his assessment, characterizing the transaction as “loansharking” terms. “David was an officer, and he had a fiduciary responsibility to do what was best for all the shareholders, not just himself,” Nelson told me. “This deal did not appear to meet those obligations.”

The incident raises a number of unsettling questions in addition to that of whether David Jr., as COO, violated his fiduciary responsibility to shareholders… the most obvious being whether he received better treatment than Brigadoon’s many other creditors — most of whom came away with nothing — and if so… why? One can only speculate, but it seems reasonable to wonder if the spectacularly one-sided deal that put the company’s last major asset in the hands of an unhappy ex-COO had anything to do with his threatening letter from July 1996? Whatever the merits of the family’s allegations, Brigadoon saw fit to first buy out David Sr.’s shares (plus interest), and then eventually buy out David Jr. as well, giving him a sweetheart of a deal that apparently satisfied him enough to keep him quiet on his charges of wrongdoing.

And while Brigadoon wasn’t forced into bankruptcy until a little more than a year after David Jr.’s departure, it is also fair to question his claim that he had no role in the company’s failure. Surely, the loss of the lucrative convention center business must have exacerbated Brigadoon’s faltering bottom line. And if we are to believe that David Jr.’s own mismanagement didn’t contribute to the company’s well documented problems, one must ask… what exactly is it that Jr. did there during his brief tenure anyway?

Well, don’t look to his resume for answers, for according to Nelson and others, David Jr.’s Brigadoon blurb is just as self-aggrandizing as his fantastic tales of his years at All Points Cable TV. For example, the 1997 resume specifically names a number of corporations and organizations in which David Jr. claims “personal negotiation of Internet service contracts”… claims refuted by some of the people who actually did the negotiation. David Jr. did in fact attend some of these meetings, but according to one source, he was told to “sit in the corner and keep his mouth shout.”

So how thin is David Jr.’s Brigadoon resume? Well, one of my favorite bullet points is particularly telling:

Publications; Determined time-line to profitability was beyond resources of company and crafted elimination of department and reallocation of staff;

Um… so… in talking about his role in the Publications Department, he’s actually filling space on his resume by telling us what he didn’t do. (And by the way, the department he eliminated and staff he reallocated…? It consisted of a single person.)

The problem for David Jr. is that when it comes to Brigadoon, he tries to have it both ways. He wants to point to his brief tenure as COO as evidence of his management prowess, yet he refuses to take responsibility for any of the company’s problems. He tries to claim that the company slipped into bankruptcy only after he left, yet in internal documents and interviews with reporters he paints a picture of a company that was dramatically mismanaged and financially shaky from the day he arrived to the day he left. It may in fact be true that apart from stealing away one of Brigadoon’s only profitable assets, David Jr. did not contribute directly to the company’s eventual failure… but it is hard to argue that he did anything to help prevent it either. Far from fixing the company’s problems like the hands-on, can-do executive he pretends to be, David Jr. simply up and quit.

Former Brigadoon employees and officers describe him as anything from a “dangerous mole” to a “harmless figurehead”, and while some avoided him as a “bully”, others seemed to genuinely like him. But nobody, on or off the record, could recount to me a single accomplishment… which I suppose explains why the Times’ profile is equally thin in reporting his actual role at the company, beyond his title.

In fact, Irons held the title of COO for less than year, at a company that in no way could be described as “successful.” By his own account, he was not a founder, and did not “form” the startup. He was just a manager, hired and promoted at his father’s behest, with no prior qualifications to recommend him for the position, and no pertinent educational preparation. (It’s not like he was one of those snotty, newly-minted MBAs that started to infest the dot.com world during the mid 90’s… he never even graduated from college.) Finally, it is not at all clear what, if anything, David Jr. actually did at Brigadoon during his very brief tenure, other than sign his name to all those threatening letters penned by his sister Janet.

So from his alleged 25 12 years of successful small business experience, and 3 2 startups he supposedly formed, we must subtract 3 and 1 respectively, for a new total of 9 years of “executive experience” and 1 remaining startup. That brings us to CCPI, a company that rents temporary internet access to exhibitors displaying at Seattle’s WA State Convention Center, and several other venues.

I could only find a single CCPI employee willing to speak to me, and very off the the record, so I can’t really add much new information to what little has already been written about the company in the mainstream press. But I can tie up a few loose strings.

As has previously been noted, CCPI was not your typical “startup”, having essentially sprung fully formed from Zeus’s head at the time David Jr. left Brigadoon, convention center contracts and staffers in hand. Thus, with CCPI, David Jr. didn’t so much “form a startup” as he did purchase a fully functional business unit, and then slap a new name on it.

Having neither the technical expertise nor the managerial experience to operate a “high-tech” company, David Jr. has reportedly been a hands off CEO since the company’s founding, leaving the day to day operations in the hands of the managers who ran the business unit for Brigadoon… perhaps the wisest executive decision Jr. has made during his 25 12 9 years of “successful small business experience.” CCPI employees consider David Jr. to be an “absentee owner”, rarely seeing him at the company’s Bremerton offices… a long commute from his Sammamish home. And David Jr. himself has admitted to reporters that he has spent no more than 4 to 6 hours a week on the business since choosing to run for County Council in 1999.

Instead, David Jr. claims that he is responsible for the company’s “vision”, telling the Times that he’s learned a lesson from the high-flying, nose-diving Brigadoon, preferring a slow growth strategy for CCPI that may not be sexy, but is guaranteed to last. To which I respond with one cautionary word of free consulting advice: “WiMAX.”

Unlike David Jr., I have actually formed a technology startup with nothing but an idea, some credit cards, and a foolish dream, and thus I’ve had the opportunity to be personally reamed by vendors like CCPI while exhibiting at various convention centers around the nation. When an ethernet cable and three days of spotty internet service costs more than a year of residential DSL, you can be sure that exhibitors are searching for an alternative. So far, CCPI has resisted the trend to move its convention centers from hardwired ethernet to wireless WiFI networking, and over the next few years, as broadband WiMAX networks become established nationwide, CCPI’s business model will go the way of the dinosaurs… just like Brigadoon’s dial-up market.

So much for the vision thing.

Still, despite hiring a former pizza salesman with no technical experience to run his company in his absence, CCPI has managed to stay in business since 1997… so I suppose David Jr. deserves a little credit for that. So lets charitably give him two years of successful executive experience from 1997 to 1999, plus maybe half a year of experience for his 5-hour work-weeks since then.

So if you’re hiring David Irons Jr. based on his claim of 25 years of successful executive experience, here’s a more realistic assessment of his resume:

All Points Cable TV: 0 years of executive experience
Brigadoon.com: less than 1 year of unsuccessful executive experience
CCPI: 2.5 years of successful executive experience. (Maybe.)

As to the number of startups he’s formed, I’d say the answer is none… though I suppose an argument could be made that CCPI vaguely fits the description. But however you add up the numbers, there is no doubt that Irons has vastly less executive experience than he boastfully claims on any of his resumes.

Irons likes to point out that by comparison, Ron Sims has no private sector experience… but what Sims does have is nine years as executive of one of the largest county governments in the nation, managing a $3.4 billion budget while earning triple-A ratings from all three top credit agencies, even as many other municipal governments around the state teeter on the edge of insolvency.

While the Seattle Times may have failed to sufficiently dissect Irons’ resume for its readers, there’s a reason why its normally Republican-leaning, strongly pro-business editorial board enthusiastically endorses Ron Sims, and soundly rejects the candidacy of his overmatched opponent. Of David Irons Jr. they write: “his resume and leadership skills pale in comparison.”

And that’s putting it charitably.

Washington Defense is holding a demonstration this morning, 10 AM, at the 1st Ave. S on ramp of the Alaska Way Viaduct, to warn drivers of the imminent danger, and demand that WSDOT post permanent hazard signs along the length of the structure. Yard signs will be made available to those who attend.

This is not the well financed “official” No on I-912 campaign, but rather an independent, grassroots effort, that nonetheless has managed to raise enough money to print yard signs. Just another example of the growing opposition to I-912.

I’m oddly flattered. I just got off the phone with an executive at a very prominent Seattle-area business, who called to urge me to drop my “stupid little stunt” seeking an injunction to shut down the Alaska Way Viaduct, the 520 bridge, and other dangerous roads. “Executive X” warned that should my lawsuit succeed, the region would lose thousands of jobs, and cost companies like his millions. I replied that no court would issue such an injunction without overwhelming evidence that these structures present an imminent danger, and thus stunt or not, a successful lawsuit would be a great public service.

He was unimpressed, and needless to say, he declined to contribute to my legal offense fund.

Actually, I think he was just feeling me out, trying to get a sense of whether I am serious about pursuing a lawsuit, and whether or not I have the legal or financial resources lined up to follow through. (I am serious, but no, I don’t yet have the resources.)

In any case, it was a brief call, and the conversation quickly turned to Dino Rossi. Executive X told me that both he and his company contributed to the Rossi campaign because they felt that he would be more sensitive to the needs of the business community, and was less likely to play politics on important issues (I had to suppress a giggle on that latter point), but… that Rossi could not be assured of similar support come 2008. He said that he had few complaints with Gov. Gregoire’s performance thus far, and that many in the business community would take a wait and see attitude. He also expressed extreme disappointment that Rossi had allowed himself to be used to promote Initiative 912.

Executive X would not say if he has had any private conversations with Rossi about the transportation improvement package, and the initiative that would repeal it. While he believes Rossi is “aware” of the strong position his and other companies have taken in opposition to I-912, he’s not sure that Rossi “fully appreciates the potential political ramifications.” He wouldn’t elaborate on what those ramifications might be.

This was not a friendly conversation; he told me that my blog was “irresponsible” and “dangerous”, and that he feared that my efforts opposing I-912 were counterproductive… that I should leave the No campaign to the “professionals.” (Like I haven’t heard that before.) He also expressed doubt that I would keep my promise to protect his anonymity, and thus refused to provide many details.

Personally, I just think he was having a bad Monday morning.

But he made one thing absolutely clear: defeating I-912 is a big deal to him and other members of the business community… a big enough deal that he bothered to take a couple minutes out of his busy schedule to call up and complain to an irresponsible, dangerous, untrustworthy blogger like me.

So the question I have for Executive X and other business leaders is: “Where’s Rossi?”

You wouldn’t know it from looking at the Seattle Monorail Project’s website, but apparently, the Monorail is dead:

The City Council today yanked its support for the Seattle Monorail, dealing a blow that council members declared would kill the embattled transit project.

In a unanimous vote, the nine-member council passed a resolution saying the city will deny street-use permits for the monorail’s proposed 14-mile Green Line.

A unanimous vote.

While the pragmatist in me agrees with the Council’s decision, I can’t help but feel wistful for what might have been. The Monorail was a bold, outrageous and exciting dream, and as columnist Danny Westneat poignantly observes in today’s Seattle Times: “Cities would wither without dreamers.”

And so rather than mourn the death of the Monorail, I’ve decided to celebrate the imagination and passion of the dreamers who envisioned it, by proposing a truly unique elevated transit vision of my own: The Seattle Rollercoaster Project.

Of course, it will take a couple hundred million dollars to determine the final route and design, but I’m guessing existing elevations would surely support a gravity-powered track along the West Seattle to downtown portion of the SMP’s proposed Green Line… and unlike the Monorail, the SRP would rely on a tried and true rail technology that has been widely used in thousands of locations for over 100 years.

Still, all transit technologies have their plusses and minuses. On the plus side, the SRP could potentially speed passengers from West Seattle to the downtown waterfront in under a minute… depending on the number of loop-the-loops and hair-raising, hairpin turns. On the minus side, the return trip back up the long, rickety, chain-driven ramp could take well over an hour, and the open-air cars aren’t well suited towards our rainy clime. (And of course, the biggest drawback is that you have to be taller than Mickey to ride.)

But in a city where voters have four times approved an elevated rail system based on Disneyland technology, why not just choose the most popular amusement park ride of them all? I’ve never seen anybody zig-zag through a 45-minute line with two, screaming, sugar-jacked kids in tow, just to ride a city bus… but a rollercoaster would virtually guarantee ridership, even under the worst conditions. Indeed, no transportation alternative is more likely to coax Seattlites out of their precious cars and onto public transit than the SRP.

But why stop there when we can truly turn Seattle into the most magical place on earth? We could recreate the pioneer days of the original “Skid Row” by building a giant flume ride down Yesler! And don’t tear down that Viaduct, when with few modifications we could transform it into a frighteningly realistic knockoff of the “Earthquake” ride at Universal Studios!

Yes, all it takes to solve our region’s transportation needs is a little imagination and a dream.

Or, barring that… I suppose we could settle for a coherent, multi-modal regional strategy, and a boring transportation package that tediously prioritizes fixing and replacing the decaying infrastructure we already have.

Still, that rollercoaster sure would be fun.

I have been researching the engineering reports on the Alaska Way Viaduct, the 520 floating bridge, and other fast deteriorating bridges and structures in WA state… and the more I learn, the more frightened I get. It will not require a major earthquake or other natural disaster to bring down some of these structures: one of our run-of-the-mill, winter wind storms could easily sink the 520 bridge, while the Viaduct is slowly toppling over onto the waterfront, all on its lonesome. And yet, one of the typically smug taunts I routinely get from I-912 proponents whenever I raise these issues is, “If it’s so dangerous, why is it still open to traffic?”

Hmm.

And so I would like to make an appeal to any attorneys in my audience, or other concerned citizens willing to contribute materially or financially, to join me in suing WSDOT and other responsible public agencies to immediately shut down the Viaduct, the 520 bridge and other structures that present an imminent danger to public safety. Really.

I suppose there are some in this region who simply do not believe that these structures are unsafe, or who are willing to gamble that “the big one” won’t strike during their lifetime, or at least, when they or their loved ones are traversing one of these hazardous roads. It is human nature to procrastinate in the face of possible, yet uncertain, deadly disasters (hence, New Orleans inadequate levees.) But how many voters are willing to cancel or delay the state transportation improvement package when faced with the imminent threat of adding an hour or more to their daily commute… each way?

If the Viaduct closes, it will not only spill traffic onto the surface streets, but onto an already congested I-5… which will in turn push traffic onto the even more congested I-405. And if the 520 bridge closes, I-90 will crawl to a virtual standstill for much of the day. Close them both at the same time, and… well… good luck to those regularly commuting across or around Lake Washington.

Don’t get me wrong; this is not just some Machiavellian ploy. These roads really are that unsafe, and if the only alternative is inaction, we would be doing a public service by shutting them down. But in the weeks leading up to the vote on I-912, something needs to be done to drive home to voters the truly dangerous state of our decaying infrastructure… and I’m not afraid to be the one cutting the reality check.

No doubt a successful lawsuit would deliver a huge blow to our regional economy, but I have talked to several elected officials who would privately welcome somebody taking such a politically untenable action. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina our collective paralysis is unconscionable, and anybody who understands the engineering reports understands the moral imperative to act now.

The 520 bridge is brittle and crumbling, its pontoons springing leaks faster than they can be patched up. The Viaduct’s columns rest on unstable soil, and no amount of reinforcement can keep it from falling over. These and other structures are public hazards that need to be replaced immediately, or removed entirely… and I intend to make my case in a court of law.

I have neither the legal training nor the financial resources to pursue this on my own, so if you can substantially contribute money or legal expertise, or know of others who can, please drop me an email. I hope to file suit by early October, and if I can generate enough interest to proceed, I will open a “legal offense fund” so that others may contribute according to their means.

Of course, none of this would be necessary if Republican “leaders” like Dino Rossi would take a responsible, public stance on this dire issue, persuading their core constituents to vote no on the foolishly obstructionist I-912. But barring such an uncharacteristic fit of candor, I will be forced to follow the only lead Rossi has ever given the people of this state, and turn to the courts to achieve an objective I might not be able win at the polls.

I just have to go back to yesterday’s article in the Seattle Times: “Who’ll be to blame if viaduct, 520 bridge collapse?” Some of the comments are truly stunning.

Gov. Christine Gregoire said state engineers told her the viaduct probably would have collapsed if the 2001 Nisqually earthquake had lasted 15 more seconds.

Since that quake, the viaduct has shifted more than four inches. If it moves much more, the state plans to shut it down.

Um… just to be clear, by “shifted more than four inches”, what they mean is that it has started tipping over towards the waterfront by four inches. And the tilt is increasing at a rate of about an inch a year.

“Our best advice is to get off it five minutes before the next quake,” state Department of Transportation spokeswoman Linda Mullen quipped earlier this year.

Laughing yet?

“It’s not a little problem, it’s not a maybe problem,” said Mark Hallenbeck, director of the Washington State Transportation Center at the University of Washington. “The viaduct is just a question of when. If you’re on the lower level when it goes down, you’re dead.”

I’m guessing being on the top deck ain’t too safe either.

Gregoire says every political leader should be losing sleep over the state’s long-neglected bridges. “There’s no question in my mind

Share:

• Tweet
• Email
• Print