report this user
Nov 17 cressona commented on King County Set Ambitious New Climate Goals Yesterday. Here's What That Means..
One more note. There was an intriguing article recently in The Atlantic about how to bend the supply/demand curve on coal:…
Nov 17 cressona commented on King County Set Ambitious New Climate Goals Yesterday. Here's What That Means..
I'm mainly motivated to comment here just to say, nice writeup, Ms. Brownstone.

At first I couldn't help but scoff at the whole notion of King County maintaining a Strategic Climate Action Plan. It brings back memories of Mayor Greg Nickels's silly, ineffectual effort to make Seattle a leader in the fight against climate change. What ever happened with that? If it was little more than political pandering, it scarcely even accomplished its goal considering Nickels couldn't even make it out of a primary.

I can't help but scoff at little, old King County pledging to reduce its carbon emissions 80% by 2050. While we're at it, I pledge to become a billionaire by 2050. Good thing we're just talking "goals" here. I can't help but scoff at a municipal government giving the impression that it can do anything unilaterally to combat climate change.

All scoffing aside, though, I find this plan by and large reasonable. By presenting a story about how we can buttress ourselves against the effects of climate change, and by presenting an image as a leader in renewable energy and conservation, we probably make ourselves more economically competitive, not less.

And I like Sydney's take here: But here's another way to think about the value of regional climate plans: They're opportunities to fashion cities into more efficient and more equitable places from the bottom up.
The changes we might want to make to reduce our carbon footprint (however quixotic by themselves) will make our region a better place to live, regardless of climate change.
So, while I'm good with this feel-good best-intentions act-locally stuff, it doesn't get around the reality that the only way to do anything about climate change is for the major powers to come up with an agreement that puts a price on carbon (good luck with that) and which, by reducing demand, doesn't make fossil fuels cheaper in the process for the non-compliant nations.
Nov 2 cressona commented on Seahawks Win Terrible Football Game.
neo-realist @6, why make it an either-or between soccer and hockey? We're fortunate enough in the USA and Canada that the two sports' seasons don't overlap so much, and even when they do overlap, it's when one season is getting going and the playoffs are in full swing in the other. Saturday evening my background music was enjoying my Pittsburgh Penguins thrash the Toronto Maple Leafs on Hockey Night in Canada. Then Sunday of course it was the Sounders and the rest of the MLS playoffs.

And since this is a football post, I should disclose that I'm coming at this as someone for whom football is a guilty pleasure. What I find surprising is that, for me this season, the pleasure has been lacking too. As boring as the Steelers-Bengals game I checked out Sunday morning was, I can only imagine it was an absolute thrill fest compared to that 13-12 affair.
Nov 2 cressona commented on The Move Seattle Levy Projects Aren't Guaranteed, but That Doesn't Mean It's a Slush Fund.
I agonized over this one. As I'd commented in previous posts, I just couldn't imagine myself voting no. Instead I was going back and forth between (overcoming my reservations and) voting yes and just abstaining. In the end, I voted yes.

I understand the concerns of Baby Blue @7 about wasting money on frivolous projects. From my standpoint, I can see the project list; it's a good one; there's not that much frivolous in there; and I can't see myself using my vote to take out my frustration with SDOT for past frivolous projects.

Ultimately, for me it came down to two things:
1. Whether a yes would make it that much bigger a lift to come back to voters/taxpayers in 2016 to ask for more money for Sound Transit 3, which to me is potentially the transportation ballot measure we can't afford to reject.
2. Whether to trust that SDOT would do a good enough job of delivering on its project list.

As for 1, I just don't know. Probably no difference one way or the other. I hate being in a position where I feel I'm being forced to prognosticate about the effect of one initiative on another.

I'm more confident about 2. These are the sorts of projects that are entirely in SDOT's wheelhouse. Not exactly risky endeavors.
Oct 30 cressona commented on Guest Editorial: Meet the Eyman Supporter Who Is Almost Single-Handedly Trying to Stop Our Transportation Future.
RDPence @10 nails it. Faye Garneau's naked attempt to buy a no on Prop. 1 is unseemly, but trying to hold up Faye Garneau as a reason to cast a no vote smacks of a certain condescension toward Seattle voters, like we're these emotional lemmings. We're perfectly capable of evaluating this measure on its merits. I know there's no avoiding this sort of standard-issue hit piece by a political operative, but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

And not only do Ms. Garneau's motives not really matter, I'm not sure Aaron Ostrom has a handle on her motives. He writes: "Garneau is an anti-tax extremist who doesn’t want to pay her fair share on the massive property holdings that have made her rich." At what time in the future would her savings in property taxes if Let's Move Seattle was defeated allow her to break even on a $325,755.02 investment? How long would she have to live to see a payoff?

In the one Seattle Times story, she said she'd just pass along the higher taxes on her properties on to her tenants. Again, not that her motives matter, and not that we have to take her at her word for her motives, but I seriously doubt pure financial self-interest is what's driving her. I can only think this is more in line with William F. Buckley's definition of a conservative as "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so." Seattle's changing underneath her and she just don't like it.
Oct 30 cressona commented on Sounders Celebrate Halloween Early with Exorcism of Demons.
Nice writeup, Mr. Friedman.

I shared Spike's pessimism heading into the match. If the Galaxy were any other team, I would have felt a lot more confident about the Sounders' prospects, what with the way the Galaxy were falling apart down the stretch. But it's the goddam LA Galaxy (like the LA Lakers used to be), and dragons like that are not so easily slain.

And to think the Sounders did it without their glue guy, Ozzie Alonso. Just on the basis of Alonso being out and the Sounders having an apparent LAG complex, one could have reasonably picked LA.

Of course, maybe the Sounders never had a complex about the Galaxy. Maybe the Galaxy were always the better squad, just like their now-returned goalkeeper Donovan Ricketts used to be the most intimidating presence in goal in the league, and now he's a discombobulated, slow-on-the-uptake shell of his former self. Kasey Keller aged far more gracefully in goal, and Seattle's current GK Stefan Frei delivered where Ricketts couldn't. I'm thinking of that perfectly timed leap to deny Zardes his second goal.

Now if only Alonso and gang can do some healing by Sunday.
Oct 29 cressona commented on Faye Garneau Has Now Given As Much of Her Own Money to Kill the Move Seattle Levy as the Pro Side Has Raised in Total.
mahoots: Dear Stranger, an article about how one citizen spent obscene amounts of her own money to try to defeat a ballot measure she feels strongly about is not an argument for the ballot measure.

No, it's not an argument for the ballot measure, but it is unseemly, and it's not Slog's responsibility to pigeonhole every piece of news on Let's Move Seattle into a simplistic pro-or-con narrative. I have my own issues with Prop. 1 (like you I'll probably "vote knee jerk yes"), but this post was about Faye Garneau apparently trying to buy an election, and I have no compunction about registering my disapproval of Ms. Garneau and her behavior.
Oct 28 cressona commented on Faye Garneau Has Now Given As Much of Her Own Money to Kill the Move Seattle Levy as the Pro Side Has Raised in Total.
I've expressed my own reservations about Prop. 1 under another post. I haven't come close to filling out my ballot. I'll probably end up holding my nose and voting yes.

About Faye Garneau's sinking so much money into the no campaign, I've got to think there's a point of diminishing returns with such an investment or that the investment will even backfire on her. City of Seattle elections don't exist in a Citizens United universe. We know who's giving how much money to which campaign. The fact that Ms. Garneau is trying to influence the electorate in such a ham-fisted and desperate way, like she's trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer--well, that's got to put a bad taste in a lot of Seattle voters' mouths.

It's like Faye Garneau is trying to be the Koch bros. of Seattle, and if being the Koch bros. of anywhere doesn't exactly go over well somewhere, that somewhere is Seattle.

I have to think a little further what I mean by the Kochs association, but I do mean many things.
Oct 22 cressona commented on About Bill Bradburd's Campaign Slogan.
treacle @6, I found your exercise at sloganeering amusing.

Also, I'll assume that Gracefulloflove @17 is someone different than Seattle's own Grace Love of Grace Love & The True Loves.
Oct 16 cressona commented on Guest Editorial: The "Let’s Move Seattle" Levy Will Modernize Our City's Transportation System.
Charlie @21, appreciated. I have my share of reading to do on this one.