Why does the Seattle Times hate Seattle?
People who own downtown real estate in the viaduct’s shadow suddenly would gain an equity-boosting view of Elliott Bay. The poor plebe’s view of the bay — that jaw-dropping, soul-raising drive on the viaduct — would be lost. People would sit longer in traffic everywhere and pay more for the honor of it.
Meanwhile Gov. Christine Gregoire has a less-lofty but more-pragmatic mission — replacing existing traffic capacity with a safe, affordable alternative — and a broader constituency, the whole state. Already, at least two far-flung newspapers, in Vancouver and Spokane, have editorialized in support of the governor’s position, urging Seattle to get over its costly fantasy and let the elevated option proceed.
Let me just say — and I mean this in the most respectful way possible — that I couldn’t give a flying fuck what editorial boards in Vancouver and Spokane have to say about their vision for Seattle.
Apparently, having worn out its own credibility, Times editiorial board members like Kate Riley are now reduced to citing editorial boards at far-flung newspapers to support their arguments. But then, editorialists in Spokane and Vancouver probably have as much affinity for and knowledge of our city as Riley, whose most “soul-raising” experience of Seattle comes from driving through it at 60 miles-per-hour.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I am driving on that narrow, crowded stretch of the viaduct, I tend to keep my eyes on the other cars around me rather than gazing out on Elliot Bay!
Tear the damn thing down.
David
Thank you for not being your usual foulmouthed self
The real question is why does David Goldstein consider people who live outside side retarded and stupid?
Is David Goldstein a hand puppet for Greg Nickels and Joel Connelly and Ron Sims?
Kyle,
You need to put the crack pipe down, man.
Kyle @2,
Oh no! I said the word “fuck”! That completely discredits everything I’ve ever written or said! Meanwhile, people like Ann Coulter preach violence, and call for Supreme Court justices to be murdered, and she remains a darling of the conservative Republican establishment.
Maybe if instead of cursing at newspaper editors, I called for killing them, that would make me more respectable? You know, the way Coulter once laughed about blowing up the NY Times building. But use the word “fuck”…? Heaven forfend.
As for disparaging people outside of Seattle, I don’t. But just because it’s a state highway doesn’t mean that folks in Spokane should be able to tell us we must stick a double-decker freeway through our downtown waterfront. It’s not none of their business, but it is way more ours than theirs.
That’s a cute response Shitbird.
Far be it from Seattle liberals to force feed their opinions on issues that don’t directly apply to them……
On Topic says:
“Far be it from Seattle liberals to force feed their opinions on issues that don’t directly apply to them……”
Which issues?
Goldy:
On this issue, the Times is more credible than you have been, by far, and no amount of grabbing-at-the-straws blog posts will change that.
Which Issues?
Look to the left of this screen, under “Old Stuff”
You’ll have plenty of issues to pick from.
BTW, Suck my dick punk
“Why does the Seattle Times hate Seattle?”
I don’t know, but everyone in Washington except those living in Seattle hate Seattle. I think it’s the self-righteous smugness of Seattleites that does it!
It seems as if every third defender of the viaduct in published LTEs cites the view as one of the best reasons for a rebuild. Do these people realize they won’t get a view on the proposed rebuild unless they’re sitting on the bus?
My only comment is in regard to the Eastern Washington editorials.
You may dismiss them as they do not have a vested interest in Seattle, but it is a state highway, and as state funds are at stake, it is not totally fair to dismiss their opinion completely.
The viaduct/tunnel will impact people outside of the city too because it is not a strictly local use road. People statewide drive it for business and traveluse.
Since Seattle wants state funds, the people who pay the taxes have a right to have their voices heard, at least in context to their level of vested interest. Seattle has a greater need to discuss the impact of the design and the impact of construction, but if waste and costs are an issue, that is open season.
Unless Seattle wishes to eschew all state revenue assistence in which case they have the right.
Either Seattle has to accept the input of ALL the taxpayers or they have to ditch the taxpayer money.
goldy, “driving through it at 60mph” really will be a laughable guidance if you have your way. it’s the rare day (occasional saturday or sunday) now that the speed limit is even possible on I5 going through the city.
isn’t it more likely that the non-seattle editorials are an accurate view of how the people, and their elected representatives, view this project? funding still has to be approved, and it would be wise to pay attention to who might try to screw with that.
re 8: So, you don’t know which issues.
On Topic says:
Which Issues?
Look to the left of this screen, under “Old Stuff”
You’ll have plenty of issues to pick from.
BTW, Suck my dick punk
Of course, all measures must be taken to assure that SR99 provides a safe and swift route to Canlis for rich people from all over our fair state.
Re 8: Hot Topic: Just say,”Sorry I shot off my mouth about things that I know nothing about>”
I won’t blame you, You’re just a confused wingnut trying to make sense of the world through a mental fog of stupidity, obstinance, and inflexibly moronic ideology.
Why don’t you tell us about all the times you could have got laid, but bravely said: “No. I’m saving myself for the boy of my dreams.”
LSU, maybe Seattle should forgo state money – and stop paying state taxes. Then let’s see who is dependent on whom.
Until the rest of the state stops freeloading on Seattle-area tax revenues, they should tend to their own steaming mugs of STFU.
I don’t give a bat’s ass about what some red-county welfare queen thinks about how Seattle should spend its money.
@4 Gee, Goldy, it wasn’t so long ago that we all were arguing I-912 should be defeated and the whole state should pay the Nickel Gas Tax because keeping the traffic moving in Seattle economically impacts the whole state.
The facts haven’t changed; the only thing that’s changed is your rhetoric. I appreciate your dislike of the viaduct, but you’re getting emotional about this.
Me, I don’t wanna pay for Nickels’ Folly at the rate of $5.50 a month for life.
Just a friendly reminder to y’all that many of the City Light customers who’ll have to chip in $500 million for the tunnel didn’t get to vote in the advisory election because they live outside the city limits, so the results of that election don’t mean a damn thing.
@9 That’s called “biting the hand that feeds you,” as Seattle taxpayers subsidize roads, schools, and municipal services for a good many folks who don’t live in Seattle.
Ever wonder how those little communities out in the red counties whose business district consists of 1 gas pump, 1 breakfast cafe, 1 grocery store, and a hardware/lawn supply store pay for their shiny new sidewalks? The answer is, they don’t. Someone else does.
@11 The state is only paying for a basic rebuild; so, no, the extra cost of a tunnel does NOT impact people outside the City Light service area. Buuuut … the discussions about surface + transit DO have statewide impact because THEN you are talking about eliminating a state highway of statewide economic significance — and that, in my opinion, indeed is everyone’s business and not just Seattle’s. So, the extra cost of a tunnel vs. surface + transit are two different issues, with very different impacts.
Roger, very good distinction, I have to agree.
It is interesting to contrast this issue, and the general perceptions around it, to how the issue of I-90 transiting Mercer Island was handled not so long ago.
Hint, Mercer Island got the most expensive bit of freeway ever built anywhere constructed at the expense of everyone, not just the owners on Mercer Island who enjoy the primary benefit of a capped section of interstate.
Blethen doesn’t really care for much other than getting rid of the Paris Hilton tax.
Roger Rabbit @ 19:
No, no, no. You just cannot be right about your comments:”Ever wonder how those little communities out in the red counties whose business district consists of 1 gas pump, 1 breakfast cafe, 1 grocery store, and a hardware/lawn supply store pay for their shiny new sidewalks? The answer is, they don’t. Someone else does.”
Because if that were true, and that would be a BIG if, then what you’re saying is that those Republicans in the outlying counties are willfully participating in “Wealth Redistribution.”
One thing we know about Republicans is that they HATE the whole notion of Wealth Redistribution, and they’d be the first to rail against it and shut down projects funded by Liberals from Seattle based on their core principles.
To allow the contrary would be hypocritical of them. And, since when do you find Republicans making hypocritical statements . . . whoops, my bad, those fucking redneck welfare recipients!!
You know, folks in Vancouver and Spokane are going to be paying for this with their gas taxes. Between that and the oft-trumpted and entirely true assertion that Seattle is the economic engine of the state, then the state has every damn right to have a say on what happens to one of the two north-south arterials through downtown.
And it’s the height of hypocrisy to dismiss folks in Vancouver and Spokane while trying to jump through imaginary hoops for some mythical group of strangers/trendoids/drunks in a bar who get to determine whether Seattle is a “world-class city” or not.
Goldy:
Hating Seattle is one of the great Washington State passtimes. Why shouldn’t the Seattle Times have the same fun that the rest of us do?
Heck, Goldy, half the people in Seattle seem to hate Seattle. Nobody seems to live there. They all live in Ballard, or Georgetown or Shoreline or Green Lake or Magnolia or the “U” District or…
I have come to the realization that Seattle is a fictional place, like Atlantis or Belgium.
http://zapatopi.net/belgium/
Is everyones head in the sand!!!!!! We don’t need more roads, we need better mass transit(rail,bus). Also with increasing gas prices and pollution, commuting by car will soon be a thing of the past. Take a tip from cities in Europe who are charging motorist to enter or pass throught the city center. Get with the new century, stop the one in a car commuters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, The Guy. You’ll get very little disagreement here about the need for more and better public transit.
But… We still have this state highway to contend with. There is a current need for it, which isn’t going away any time soon. Remember, the most anyone here is proposing is to maintain the current vehicle capacity.
Much as we might want to do some social engineering, in a democracy such as ours, the desires of the voters must be taken into account. The fact that Hwy 99 is running near or at (or even over) capacity is pretty good evidence that the voters want to have the ability to drive their cars.
So what should we do? Force drivers to abandon their cars? You may think this to be a good idea, but we’re in a democracy, and the voters get to call that shot.
How about maintaining current capacity, while providing more and better transit options, so that as the normal market forces encourage more car pooling and transit use, those options are ready and attractive.
Oh, wait. That is what we’re doing.
I have worked downtown, a short distance from the viaduct, for many years. Quite frankly until this whole discussion I don’t recall complaints. I run beside it, and on rainy days, under it. It does not block my use of the waterfront. We can all have fantasies of what might be, but let’s not forget what is right now. Any alternatives must not ignore the regional economics. Eastern Washington does indeed have an interest in freight mobility through the port. And Seattle is a CITY. FOlks ofter forget the flip side of growth management, you preserve the green spaces by concentrating development in the urban areas. THe viaduct is an urban arterial.
As usual, Barelli seems to be one of the few who argue rationally on this issue. For my part, it seems obvious to me that the tunnel has only two visible reasons behind it. The obvious one is that it is an attempt to get the working people out of the way of the views of the rich, who want nice clean views from their condos. The viaduct is the people’s chance to enjoy for a few minutes the beauty of our harbor. The tunnel will get those unwashed down where they don’t interfere with the Mayor and his wealthy buddies. (This is the same issue as the proposed eight dollar toll for the new 520 bridge. Get those poor people off the bridge so the people with bucks have a nice free drive off the lake. We are turning our civic structures over to the primacy of wealth. Hey, how about letting people pay to drive the HOV lanes, one at a time? Another good idea to free up the roads for the rich.) The other curious idea is that The harbor is primarily an esthetic experience, so something as base as a working highway is damaging the natural beauty. People seem unable to admit that this is a city, a working city where people live. We are trapped between water with only two primary north/south roadways, but these esthetic people want to remove one of them. We need US 99, the people need to be able to get from West Seattle to Queen Anne. This is not the Grand Canyon fighting a proposal to make it the nation’s landfill.
It is fascinating to me to read good liberal democrats buying the tunnel and the esthetic arguments, completely abandoning the people who make up the working class bulk of the city.
Okay, K also is intelligent and rational. Last night we had a phone message repeating one of the big lies of the campaign: THE VIADUCT CUTS OFF AND BLOCKS THE HARBOR FROM DOWNTOWN! It is a simple and outright lie, yet here are good liberals using the GOP big lie technique. Every single street downtown goes right under the viaduct, as we all know, there is no disconnect. But if you lie loud enough and long enough it can turn into truth. No difference from “Defend my marriage from those gay people having civil rights!” I will never vote to support people who embrace that scare lie technique in campaigning.
Goldy I thought the same thing when I read that editorial. There is an attitude that Seattle is the nuts-and-bolts make-due-with-what-we-got, nothing-too-fancy-here kind of place. I think the idea that we would go above and beyond the simple replacement of what we have flies in the face of the self-imposed practicality that Seattle has come to possess, and the Times is perpetuating this self-limitation.
Why are we not allowed to imagine a waterfront different than one we have already? Why not put a limited tunnel underneath for freight traffic and implement increased transit on the surface level while dismantling the viaduct before it dismantles itself? In short time we will have a significant increase in transit options through downtown Seattle – why do we discount it so much?
BTW – Its very un-Seattle of you to say fuck…
Seattle is not the first city ever to face replacing an obsolete elevated freeway.
Forget the Embarcadero – everyone here knows that was a spur, not an artery. Let’s talk about more analogous situation – the collapse and replacement of New York’s Wist Side Highway. It carried an estimated 110k vehicles/day before collapsing in 1973. Proposals were made to replace it with a hugely overpriced tunnel/elevated highway boondoggle (the Westway.) 12 years of political wrangling followed. Sound familiar?
It turns out the limited-access surface highway that ultimately replaced it works well. Yhe new Hudson River Park along its western edge is popular even without pedestrian overpasses. A small number of traffic lights has proven sufficient, and the road carries as much traffic as the AWV does now at a design speed of 40 mph.
So, why exactly do we need to spend $17k an inch on a replacement viaduct or tunnel?
As an aside, the “Yes on 2” astroturf brigade should be ashamed of their “OMG the Port will close!” line. Even the concrete-crazed WSDOT admits that port traffic on the viaduct is negligable, with something like 99% taking rail, I-90, or I-5.
The proposal for the city to fund a significant part of the tunnel expense through utility taxes is no slam dunk. Any who pay relatively close attention will have noted City Light has lost challenges to fund street lights, Percent for Art and Greenhouse Gas Reduction from utility fees.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....se19m.html
There must be a clear nexus between the expense and the funding source. And yea, I know there are utilities hanging from the present viaduct. Anyone want to bet the amount Ceis and Nickles intend to collect in utility fees is the actual cost to relocate those utilities? I’ll take you up on that bet.
Local governments, cities and counties, often look to their utilities as a funding source. There are state constitution issues which prevent unless the nexus is there. Sure, they play games (ask an inside player about Culver Funds), but challenges do prevail.
@27 Mass transit is fine, as far as it goes, but can’t carry freight or even shopping packages, and doesn’t always go where you need to go, when you need to go there.
@27 I would like to see you take a new mattress home on the bus.
@32 “Why are we not allowed to imagine a waterfront different than one we have already?”
Imagine anything you want. Hell, make it a reality! But not on my dime.
I voted yes, yes.
tunnel first or rebuild.
it is all over but the shouting and it still comes back to posts here two years ago—
someone very clearly said – ” it is a state hiway, state money, and Gregoire will tell Seattle to shut up and proceed to build”
That person, who was it Goldy, not you, was right on target.
Goldy has become convinced the new agers, hipsters and excessive greenies of C. Hill are Seattle. They are not, just a verbal not well organized enclave, and don’t even vote much.
But their universe is small, insular and cynical at heart. Disconnect, Goldy of wit and depth, from the Stranger. Goldy, get back on your track.
You are ten times more intelligent than the self promoting mental midgets there.
The tax export stuff is sort of accurate, but not really – ALL the money once collected is called the general fund and the giant pot belongs to the state and every member/citizen of the state without regard to neighborhood.
Also don’t get carried away in the the metro-Sea-centric thing. Many strong and thriving small pieces of this state, Vancouver, Tri-Cities, Spokane, Tacoma, Everett/Skagit, Bellingham etc, and etc. The are not charity case sisters, and they resent that they are portrayed that way, by the rubes in Seattle who are so Sea-centric…….those centrics are sure not cosmopolitian or modern thinkers or doers….
And the centrics don’t accomplish much but love the sound of their own voices
Gregoire will rebuild, the mayor will bellow a lot more, Peter will piss on the dozers for a photo op to cover up the lack of leadership for six years (drama queen to the max), and the next challenge remains loomingly — more mass transit, as soon as possible, to compensate for the mistakes and lethergy of the past and the growth that is coming.
Seattle does far better with Dems in power in Olympia, that flying fuck you don’t care about — that Goldy is the sound of Gregoire going down.
And the R’s gaining seats in the Senate. Every move in this legislative session has implications for Gregoire, every step.
Washington is famous for ticket splitting, and 2008 is looming.
And frankly, you need a deeper voice to say flying fuck with any weight.
Good on the radio, get some unique topics.
Roger Rabbit sez,
“Seattle taxpayers subsidize roads, schools, and municipal services for a good many folks who don’t live in Seattle.”
That’s a myth asshole, and you know it! Stop lying, Roger!
I am so f*ing tired of hearing about losing the view. It’s a goddamned freeway, people need to be driving their cars, not looking at the scenery.
Celisea @ 39:
Give me a list of the Senate seats you think we’re going to lose in 2008. Come on, smarty-pants. Let’s see your list.
Some guy @ 41:
If you look at the plans we don’t get the view even with a rebuild. Modern highway standards require a solid guardrail that will be higher than most cars.
Lets tear the damn thing down and use the money for traffic flow improvements throughout downtown as well as transit.