In decisive fashion, Seattle voters voted against putting another freeway on the waterfront.
I spent much of the night at the Spitfire. I’ll wait until tomorrow to weigh-in in depth, but here are some thoughts.
How much bigger would the “No Elevated” vote have been if Mayor Nickels had read the writing on the wall? The tunnel plan was blown away, over two-to-one. If the Mayor had pulled his support for the tunnel (an embarrassing thing for the Nickels team, I’m sure), they could have run up the score.
Stefan is funny. This is perhaps the “spinniest of spins” I’ve read thus far. A close second is Nick Licata:
City Council President Nick Licata, who supports another viaduct, called the nearly 45-percent vote in favor of it “a pretty solid base.”
It’s like when the Seahawks are down by three points at the end of the game. They didn’t really lose, they just have a good base, you know? It’s the new math, people.
In my humble opinion, here are the big political winners:
Cary Moon Does she want run for City Council? Folks at the Spitfire party said she’d be a shoe-in after going toe-to-toe with the big boys and kickin’ ass. Eric Earling As much as it pains me to say it, he was one of the first of the GOP to realize that the top two options were bad and worse. Cynara Lilly (and everyone else at Friends of Seattle) After fighting the monorail, she redeems herself by torpedoing the rebuild option. All is forgiven, says this old monorail die-hard. Enviros who ditched the tunnel for the surface option You know who you are. Gutsy. Peter Steinbrueck MVP (Most Valuable Pol) for standing up to Olympia without wavering. Danny Westneat Even though the Times endorsed a rebuild, Danny didn’t fall in line. Good on ya’.
Here are some political losers:
David Della He’s vulnerable, and he favors a rebuild. He’s up this year. The viaduct will be an issue. Greg Nickels Well, at least 30 percent agreed with him. Frank Chopp Will he ignore the vote and rebuild the viaduct? While Frank’s bulletproof, his viaduct ideas get weirder and weirder. The Seattle Times Editorial Page They’re wrong- again- on an issue concerning local Seattle politics. They guy aren’t even trying anymore. Cue a Joni Balter column on how “goofy” the vote was and how Gregoire should “be tough” on Seattle and build that freeway. Puh-leeeaze. Joel Connelly, Nick Licata, and Gene Hoglund These guys see rebuilding the viaduct as a part of Seattle’s “class struggle,” meaning we have to build another viaduct or the “little guy” gets screwed. While only five percent of the traffic on the viaduct is freight, you’d think it was a thousand percent. Sheesh. After all, Steinbrueck wants to give freight much higher priority in the surface plus transit plan.
Some folks who neither win, nor lose:
The Governor She got her vote, and now she’s heard the answer. It’s up to her to decide whether to cooperate with Seattle or fight it right up until Election Day. Here’s to hoping a little birdy by the name of Ed Murray or Ron Sims whispers in the Gov’s ear and says, “go with the third option.” Dino Rossi He’s too busy beating his kids at basketball to weigh-in. Remember, he’s not running for Supreme Court (they handle viaduct stuff, right? Right?) People who drive cars in the city Honestly, over time, things won’t change that much for folks who decide they can’t live without their cars. Traffic jams happen in other big cities. But those big cities tell complainers to take the fucking train (I really heard that from a local pol, seriously) Waterfront businesses Let’s face it: Ivar’s fish and chips will be delicious no matter what happens to the viaduct. It’s full of tourists now, and always will be. God bless’m!
Oh, and I forgot: David Sucher is neither a winner nor a loser. He’s just irrelevant. His odd comments (such as accusing Goldy of being for the tunnel) and cryptic personal attacks (read any Slog post on the viaduct to find one) have put me off to his argument (“Repair and Prepare”, which is actually quite good). If you want to win people to your side, to get them to think the way you do, do the opposite of everything Mr. Sucher has done concerning the viaduct.
Stay tuned!
You totally missed the boat, Will. The big winners tonight are Roadkill McGavick, Motherbeater Irons, Ellen Craswell, John Carlson, and cigaret smoke.
Finally, somebody (or something) besides Low Tax Looper is more unpopular than them.
But if it’s any comfort to Mayor Nickels, his tunnel is more popular than the president of a certain major country.
And Roger Rabbit wildly more popular than any of ’em!!! Endorsed by Darcy Burner, over 1 million rabbits, and rabbit lovers everywhere!
Those Aren’t God’s Bones After All
A scholar argues moviemaker James Cameron misinterpreted what the inscription on the bone box actually says. That ain’t The Magdalene in there — just a couple of chicks who lived down the street.
http://tinyurl.com/yt3qhc
Gonzales won’t resign over prosecutors’ firings
http://tinyurl.com/3dzpsy
Top general won’t apologize for gay remark
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ozw75
Republicans = people who refuse to take responsibility for their actions
Roger Rabbit @ 1
Low Tax Looper got less than 20% of the votes in the uncontested Republican primary for state Senator in August 1998. And that was BEFORE he murdered his opponent in October 1998. Over 80% of the Republican primary voters either left the state senate race blank or wrote someone in.
If Roger Rabbit (or even Bill Clinton) had been printed on the Republican primary ballot, Low Tax Looper would have surely lost the Republican nomination.
By the way, Low Tax Looper ran as an independent in 1996 for Putnam County Assessor. At the county level in Tennessee, the county party organization can refuse to hold a primary, and instead have the county party leaders pick the nominees (or not put up candidates at all). The Putnam County GOP leaders didn’t like Looper (especially since he had changed his name legally to Low Tax Looper by that point), so they didn’t hold a primary. Looper had to run for Assessor as an independent — and won.
New Contracting Scandal: Jeb Bush Crony Sold Defective Pumps to Corps of Engineers for New Orleans
“By CAIN BURDEAU
“AP
“NEW ORLEANS (March 14) – The Army Corps of Engineers, rushing to meet President Bush ‘s promise to protect New Orleans by the start of the 2006 hurricane season, installed defective flood-control pumps last year despite warnings from its own expert that the equipment would fail during a storm, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
” …[T]he Corps and the politically connected manufacturer of the equipment are still struggling to get the 34 heavy-duty pumps working properly. The pumps are now being pulled out and overhauled because of excessive vibration, … overheated engines, broken hoses and blown gaskets, according to the documents obtained by the AP. …
“The 34 … drainage-canal pumps were custom-designed and built under a $26.6 million contract awarded … to Moving Water Industries Corp. of Deerfield Beach, Fla. …
“MWI is owned by J. David Eller and his sons. Eller was … a business partner of … Jeb Bush in a venture … that marketed MWI pumps. And Eller has donated about $128,000 to politicians, the vast majority of it to the Republican Party, since 1996, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
“MWI has run into trouble before. The U.S. Justice Department sued the company in 2002, accusing it of fraudulently helping Nigeria obtain $74 million in taxpayer-backed loans for overpriced and unnecessary water-pump equipment. …
“Misgivings about the pumps were chronicled in a May 2006 memo … written by Maria Garzino, a Corps mechanical engineer overseeing quality assurance at an MWI test site in Florida. The Corps confirmed the authenticity of the 72-page memo, which details many of the mechanical problems and criticizes the testing procedures used. … Garzino told corps officials that the equipment being installed was defective. She warned that the pumps would break down ‘ … under normal use … in the event of a hurricane.’
“The pumps failed less-strenuous testing than the original contract called for, according to the memo. … Of eight pumps that were load tested, one was turned on for a few minutes and another was run at one-third of operating pressure, the memo said. Three of the other load-tested pumps ‘experienced catastrophic failure,’ Garzino wrote.
“The memo does not spell out what would have happened if the pumps had failed in a storm. But the Corps has acknowledged that parts of New Orleans could be hit with serious flooding if the floodgate pumps could not keep up. …”
Quoted under Fair Use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://tinyurl.com/2wppv5
Time Magazine says: “Cheney is the Democrats’ most valuable asset. And reversing that situation is getting close to impossible.” http://tinyurl.com/3yey9s
The article, called “Cheney’s Fall From Grace,” goes on to describe how Cheney is losing power (and arguments) within the administration, and a growing number of Senate Republicans regard him as passe.
@4 Low Tax Looper set the standard for all other Republicans to strive to fall to: He got 4% of the vote on a ballot on which he was the only candidate, losing 20-to-1 to a Democratic write-in candidate. His achievement is unlikely to be excelled by anyone, but an ambitious Washington GOPer could set his sights on getting less than 30%. That might be attainable if WSRP keeps pulling its candidates out of the BIAW barrel.
A name change didn’t work for an Idaho farmer formerly known as Marvin Richardson, who billed himself as “the most conservative politician in Idaho.”
Running for governor last fall under his new legal name, Pro-Life got only 1.6% of the vote.
New Revelations in McKay Firing
The Seattle Times reports today that:
— Karl Rove was involved in Washington’s 2004 governor’s election
— Chris Vance pressured McKay to pursue an investigation
— McKay was not on the list of U.S. attorneys slated to be fired, but his name was added after he rebuffed calls from Doc Hastings and Vance
The Times quotes Vance as saying, “Republican activists were furious because they … had a Republican secretary of state [Sam Reed], a Republican county prosecutor in Norm Maleng and a Republican U.S. attorney, but still … saw the governorship slipping away ….”
http://tinyurl.com/3dkcgo
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Now stop and think about Vance’s remark for a second. The GOP base in our state didn’t give a hoot whether Gregoire won fair and square. They wanted Reed, Maleng, and McKay to use the power of their offices to deliver the election to Rossi, or, barring that, to seek retribution against the Democrats. Regardless of evidence, regardless of whether they had a case. And Rove got involved, and Hastings and Vance acted as the messengers.
The next question is: When Maleng decided not to prosecute Lori Sotelo for her crimes, did someone talk to Maleng, and if so would that constitute obstruction of justice?
I think the Legislature should open an investigation into Maleng’s decision not to prosecute Sotelo to determine whether Maleng received political pressure from outside his office.
RR you got it right. There’s no reason that vicious cunt Sotelo shouldn’t be sitting in jail eating pussy right now. She clearly violated the law and if the tables were turned, that transvestite Steffy would spend 24/7 displaying faux outrage that “the rule of law” had been ignored.
Will, you don’t know whata personal attack is.
Will, did you write Frank Chopp is bulletproof? You mean he can do as he pleases in FUWA and no one can stop him? Are you blogging he’s your “benevolent” dictator for the Viaduct Rebuild? Hmmm…?
Btw, I never ever accused Goldy of being for the tunnel. That’s BS. It’s BS because Goldy WAS for the Tunnel up until fairly recently….November? And frankly it is not such a seriuous accusation. Many reasonable people I know have been for it; I think they are wrong in their priorities but resonable people can disagree,
What I said (and I will say it again) is that many people such as Goldy (I have no idea of your opinion, Will, as I haven’t paid attention) and Barnett, Moon, Westneat and of course the Mayor & Council have helped to make this Viaduct debate a dishonest process by buying into the convenient lie that “the Viaduct must be REPLACED” and couldn’t be Repaired.
If you take that as a personal attack, I am sorry.
If I have inadvertently made what appears to be a personal attack, I apologize.
But what I won’t back down from saying that people who have looked away from the possibility of Repair have bought into a “convenientg lie” and have actually helped the stupid Rebuild by decreasing awareness & discussion of other alternatives such as the Repair and the Bay Bridge.
FOX ATTACKS: BLACK AMERICA
http://foxattacks.com/
The tunnel is dead dead dead!
The viaduct which did get 45% is far from dead.
The surface/ transit/ reduced capacity/ reduced parking option will now get a very close look.
This is a good thing but as a non Seattle resident, I have to say that I lack comfort in the cities ability to make a decision at all. Let alone to make a good informed decision and then stick with it. Delay costs huge money and I hope protracted delay if it occurs is somehow going to be charged to Seattle.
Seattle has spoken, and what it said was “Do nothing.” Great! Let’s cancel all pending viaduct plans and use the money for Sound Transit 2 and 520 bridge replacement, and let Seattle live with its decision.
If so much as a dime gets spent on the viaduct corridor before it crumbles into dust, I will be very disappointed.
Well written post; i was almost going to complement the little guy, and noticed a different author.
good one
it’s things like this that make me happy that i live in tacoma. sad to see that seattle’s favorite pastime seems to be to constantly complain about traffic, but never do anything to fix it.
Will –Great Summary
I disagree on only two issues:
Ivar’s Fish and Chips .. gack!
The Guv. You are correct, she COULD use this skillfully bit that would mean transmogrificatio into a leader. I do not believe she can do that but would like to see it.
There is a real answer. REGIONALIZE the problem. As you (and Peter S) say, it is ludicrous to build a new viaduct to solve the 5% of commercial traffic. If it is true that most of the Aurora:Alaska traffic is int and out of Seattle, the waterfront should be optimized to deal with that issue. Once one realized this there are all sorts of interesting opportunities to improve traffic.
Regionalization re-opens other issues. North South traffic is NOT only a west side issue. Any rational plan needs to address the future of freeways between Bellevue and the mountains as well as eat-west corridors to get to these routes.
Finally, returning to Seattle and reopening a long closed clam, I would like to see a reconsideration of the RH Thompson, not as a connection to 520, but as part of a new NS route connecting Lake City Way and the emerging MLK Way. The only neighborhood extensively huirt by widening the Montlake/23rd corridor is betweeen the north end of the UW and 75th. Creating a boulevard would improve the economies of MLK, the Rainier Valley and the Lake City area.
Oh yeh, and find a bette rplace for Fish and Chips!
PRICE TAG OF “REPAIR AND PREPARE” – 1.1 BILLION DOLLARS.
NOPE. SORRY. THAT’S NOT GONNA FLY.
JUST HEARD THAT SHOWBOATING CRAPHEAD SHARANSKY ON KUOW. STEINBRUECK SLAPPED HIM DOWN GOOD. LOOK FOR WAILS OF “MOONBAT” COMING FROM THAT PIT OF HATE AND DESPAIR – (UN)SP.
11 “The Seattle Times reports today that:
– Karl Rove was involved in Washington’s 2004 governor’s election
– Chris Vance pressured McKay to pursue an investigation
– McKay was not on the list of U.S. attorneys slated to be fired, but his name was added after he rebuffed calls from Doc Hastings and Vance”
Aside from the trolls, did anyone doubt that Vance and the people from Hastings’ office were lying through their teeth a week and a half ago?
It’s been rather interesting to note the metamorphosis of the tunnel’s political status over the last six months. There was a time when it became something of a rallying cry for the righties, apparently bacause (1.) it was Nickels’ big thing; (2.) Nickels is supposed to be a “filty lib’rul”, and (3.) the most recent major urban tunnel project, Boston’s “big dig” was (a.) planned under a Democratic administration and (b.) has some problems, thus proving that (c.) the very idea of people driving in their cars through an underwater tunnel is a filthy, pinko, Communist, friends-of-the-terrorists plot to drown us all.
Not everyone who lives in Seattle works in Seattle. I’m a West Seattle resident who works in the Eastgate area of Bellevue. There’s no transit that will get me there in one trip. What happens to people like me with the surfact/transit option?
King County in general but Seattle’s leadership in particular make no bones that they’d prefer if everyone would just check their motor vehicles at the County Line and walk.
Anything less than that really causes the likes of Mayor Nickels big-time heartburn. Parking in the Emerald City is impossible and City hall likes it that way. So this latest attempt to make Seattle even less accessible is no surprise.
Fortunately for the rest of the world, SR 99 is still a WSDOT road. Right or wrong, sooner (but we all know it will be much later) or later the viaduct will be replaced.
My bet is after a 6 point kills it.
But is that such a bad thing? Most of the buildings along that same path could also be ready for demo by then.
That can make the whole process a lot simpler.
Roger Rabbit @ 11
I keep reading more and more documents on the U.S. Attorney firings.
John McKay was appointed to a four year term, which started sometime around late 2001 or early 2006 when he took his oath of office. That term expired in late 2005 or early 2006.
Had John Kerry been re-elected, John McKay would have been forced to resign or fired prior to the expiration of the four year term to which he was appointed.
John McKay had no expectation of reappointment by President Bush, and President Bush in fact did not reappoint John McKay. Instead, John McKay was allowed to remain in office for a number of months after the expiration of his statutory four year term. Then he was asked to leave the office.
It would be just like a superior court judge who wasn’t re-elected for another four year term, but was hired for several months on a temporary basis as a substitute judge by the other judges of the court. If the formerly elected judge was no longer given substitute judge work, you could hardly say the judge was “fired”, since their actual term of office ended when their elected term ended.
So unless any of the eight former U.S. Attorneys were still serving the original four year term to which they were appointed, they should stop saying that they were “fired”.
Actually, President Bush has not reappointed ANY of the U.S. Attorneys whose terms have expired. The law allows a holdover of a U.S. Attorney whose term has expired, until the President either releases them or a new U.S. Attorney is appointed.
Maybe Congress should change the law, so that a U.S. Attorney can be fired only for cause during the four year term for which they have been appointed. And President Bush should send all the holdover U.S. Attorneys back to the Senate to be re-confirmed for new four year terms.
So what’s worse?
President Bush having a personnel management (and public relations) problem in letting go of eight holdover personnel whose terms had expired?
Or Mrs. Gregoire totally fumbling the ball on a multi-billion replacement of a vital transportation artery, which moves hundreds of thousands of people and tens of millions of dollars of goods every day, and which is at risk of sudden catastrophic seismic failure?
re 28: Richard Pope: The issue is: WHY were they fired, not if it is technically legal that they were fired.
The oft repeated saw that the U.S. Attorneys serve “at the pleasure” (a phrase which gives the submissive passive/authoritarian leanings of many conservatives goosebumps) of the president, is irrelevant.
These U.S. Attorneys were investigated and questioned by the Senate before their approval. Their subsequent politically-inspired firing and replacement with people who have NOT been approved by the Senate is at issue as well.
And anyway, as you well know, the Congress can investigate anything it wants to “at their pleasure”.
It seems Republicans can’t function when power is a two way street.
I imagine the eight US Attorneys were fired for the same reason that the Clinton Administration fired all 93 US Attorneys in 1993. Except it was ok when they did it because, well….It’s Bill and Hillary! It’s not ok when the Bush Administration does it because, well…it’s George Bush and besides, the New York Times told me it was bad. So there!
I live above Uptown and use my car or walk. My biggest problems when driving are:
1) getting on the southbound Viaduct (Elliott) or trying to get past the traffic waiting to get on the Viaduct.
2) when cutting thru downtown (do it all the time) passing bottlenecks caused by cars waiting to get on the Viaduct (from downtown ramp).
3) trying to go east from Uptown – the great wall of Hwy 99 blocks most paths.
Why should a few commuters have priority over me? I live here, they don’t.
Headless Lucy @ 31
Regardless of the present controversy, the statutes on appointment of U.S. Attorneys (28 USC 541) and U.S. Marshalls (28 USC 561) don’t make sense in a very important respect:
1. Each position is appointed for a four year term — the period specified in the statute.
2. Each position serves at the pleasure of the President. So the incumbent can be fired at any time. But a replacement has to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
3. If the four year terms “expires”, the incumbent stays in office until a successor is appointed (or the incumbent is “fired”). If a President serves eight years, the incumbents are simply held over after expiration, rather than being formally reappointed.
4. If a new President takes office, then all the incumbent U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshalls get fired by the incoming President, especially if the incoming President is of a different political party. So if the appointing President serves only one term, every single incumbent (and there are about 95 of each — one per federal judicial district) is fired before the expiration of the term for which they were appointed.
The provisions for temporary appointments in the case of vacancies does differ for the two positions.
Under 28 USC 546, a temporary U.S. Attorney can only serve for 120 days by Presidential appointment (technically, the Attorney General makes the temporary appointment, but we know who the AG works for). After 120 days, the federal judges of the district have the power to make a temporary appointment. The temporary position can be filled by someone whom the President wants to appoint permanently, but the Senate does not have to act on confirmation within this 120 days. The Attorney General cannot appoint someone to a temporary position after the U.S. Senate has rejected them in a regular floor vote (i.e. the full Senate voting, versus being filibustered or buried in committee). However, a temporary appointee actually rejected by the Senate for a permanent position (i.e. rejected after the temporary appointment) could continue in office for the original 120 days, and even longer if the local federal judges approve of this.
Under 28 USC 562, the Attorney General may make a temporary appointment for U.S. Marshall. Someone already rejected by a full Senate vote is not eligible. A temporary appointee who is subsequently rejected by the full Senate can only serve 30 days more after the rejection. On the other hand, if the full Senate never votes on confirming the temporary appointee (i.e. buried in committee or actual or threatened filibuster on the floor), that person can serve until 30 days after the current session of the Senate expires, and nothing would prevent reappointment of the same person to see whether or not the next session of the Senate would actually vote up-or-down on their confirmation.
To make matters even more interesting, 28 USC 546 on temporary U.S. Attorneys is apparently superseded by some uncodified portion of the Patriot Act, which apparently allows a temporary U.S. Attorney to serve permanently, instead of just for 120 days. So unless the person was already rejected by a full Senate vote before their temporary appointment, they can serve forever as a temporary U.S. Attorney (at the “pleasure” of the President), and perhaps even after they have been rejected by a full Senate vote.
Regardless of the political considerations that would shape the final product, it would be nice for Congress to rewrite these statutes to make them logically and internally consistent.
And besides, what’s this got to do with wasting taxpayer money on roads you don’t need? Are you guys still building that Monorail like on the Simpsons? Funky!!!!
Loser: Seattle’s image in the rest of the state: The worst side of Seattle came out as Seattle looks like a selfish primadonna who expects special treatment but can’t make up her mind on anything.
We’re right on issues like Iraq and gays and that, but there are very good reasons why the rest of the state thinks we’re all idiots here. While I know that a lot of you worry more about what they think about us in SoHo and the Left Bank, the truth is that people in Spokane and Vancouver have more of a say in our future. And we’ve proved Seattle critics right.
What the heck. I’ll take a retrofit while the PWC tries to decide what to do with the ball. I’ll just pop open a beer and laugh.
@28 No, it’s not like a Superior Court judge who … etc. etc. This is different, Richard, and I know with your intellect you understand that it is, and you’re trying to spin away what amounts to procuring of malicious prosecution — a felony. McKay was fired because he refused to file false charges. That’s the story.
#36:
Aren’t the good folks in Vancouver still arguing over the new bridge?
http://www.columbian.com/news/.....109770.cfm
Then there’s Spokane – “Since 1946, highway planners in eastern Washington have considered building the North Spokane Freeway…”
http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/Ro.....kanewa.htm
–
Enough said.
You left out a winner . . . the hookers who’ll have an Elliott Bay workplace when the viaduct gets replaced by an Aurora Avenue-on-the-waterfront.
Seattlers are probably seen as winners around the state for refusing to go along with poorly designed and presented options for replacing the AWV. From the press conference, it looks like Gregoire, Nickels and Sims are unwilling to admit their poor leadership. Weasels. But I still suspect WSDOT and the power of the highway lobby more than any posturing politician. WSDOT still plans to leave the AWV above Elliot and Western Avenues, an action that costs less but saves no money in the long run; just more rotten engineering.
There is a plan to put up a temporary bridge over the railroad tracks at Broad Street during construction. Consider making this bridge permanent.
Way to go, Seattlers! You done good!
What are you guys smoking?
As soon as the public is educated that the present viaduct will remain open during construction, you will see a resounding majority backing a new elevated structure.
With all the rich land developers and their pie in the sky liberal cohorts trying to obfuscate their way to a tunnel, many people(45)% saw through the bullshit and voted for a new elevated structure.
The way I see it, more people want a new elevated structure than a tunnel. So, Frank Chopp and the Gov should declare victory and build a new viaduct, while shouting from the rooftops that the present structure will still be used while they build the new. That, my friends, is called hardball, and the pro-tunnel folks just got beaned.
Hey Lavabrain
Clinton did not fire all his US Attorneys because they refused to use the power of federal government to interfere with elections.
Your smallminded fascist Republican White House did.
Or, is that too hard to get through to your “I’m a Republican first, and believer in the US Constitution second” mindset?
Actually if you look at the data the vast majority voted for some kind of freeway through that corridor.