Slog Comments


Comments (25) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Rotten666 1
Good rant.
Posted by Rotten666 on February 11, 2013 at 3:42 PM · Report this
wisepunk 2
Throw Goldy, throw.

Last line. After growing up in eWa. this is my favorite rant.
Posted by wisepunk on February 11, 2013 at 3:48 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 3
Seattle property owners are deadbeats.

They won't pay a fair rate on "Best Use".

The situation is like rent control...a lot of long timers sitting on really valuable property, hogging it up, but not contributing appropriately to infrastructure.

Meanwhile, there is this whole phalanx of paid mouthpieces who rant on and on about rural towns people and "spawl" just because we don't need a half mile tunnel that costs $6 billion of our Federal tax dollars.

Ya Hingey!!
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on February 11, 2013 at 3:49 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 4
While your arguments are sound, the Deep Tolled Tunnel, which would have SUBSIDIZED TEN DOLLAR TOLLS each way, makes no sense.

Lower capacity.

More GHG.

And twice as expensive for half the cars, trucks, or tax-exempt "non-profit" electric limos driven to the cushy stadium boxes and private jets from SLU and Queen Anne.

With no downtown exits.

Something has to give. And this .. is what will be thrown out.
Posted by Will in Seattle on February 11, 2013 at 3:59 PM · Report this
I presume they hate Seattle because they lack the ambition to hate New York. I imagine that some of them can only reach high enough to hate Spokane.
Posted by Charlie Mas on February 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM · Report this
@5, thank you for that. That was the best laugh of today.
Posted by goodjobguy on February 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM · Report this
I'm confused, and granted, bad at math, but $25 million is not enough to close the tunnel gap which is $235 million ($400m-$165m)...?
Posted by ap on February 11, 2013 at 4:31 PM · Report this
Also, note that the bad revenue projections were made by WSDOT, not Seattle nor Seattle residents (many of whom didn't want a tunnel anyway).
Posted by Moag on February 11, 2013 at 4:32 PM · Report this
Goldy 9
@7 Are you kidding? The project is bonded over 30 years. That's $750 million at $25 million a year, and probably closer to a billion dollars as sales tax revenue climbs.
Posted by Goldy on February 11, 2013 at 4:51 PM · Report this
Goldy 10
@3 You don't know fuck about the way property taxes work. Or you do, and you're just being dishonest about it.
Posted by Goldy on February 11, 2013 at 4:52 PM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 11
@3 you guys should just use his comments as a new Q&A column. Someone asks a rational question, say about cooking or dog ownership laws in the city, and you copy/paste and random answer from him. It would make as much sense.

Just do a comments database search for all comments by him containing the words Seattle, sprawl, or *urban. It will write itself.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi on February 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM · Report this
I suggest that legislation be introduced in Olympia to require "county equity," a statewide version of the "subarea equity" that Sound Transit uses to divvy up local tax revenues. Guarantee that tax revenues stay in the county in which they are generated. That's a nice, conservative point of view -- let's see how many rural legislators sign on to it.
Posted by Citizen R on February 11, 2013 at 5:01 PM · Report this
Baconcat 14
Care to put it up to an initiative, Goldy?

Not a lawyer so this is just not-a-legal-opinion back-of-an-envelope type stuff, but maybe something like @12's idea about "county equity". Title it something like the "No Redistribution of Wealth in Washington Act" and make it a simple punchy piece that talks about "monies collected in one county may only be spent in same unless used by a special purpose district or as part of federal obligation". I'm sure a lawyer could make that legit to protect things like Sound Transit and cross-county water districts.
Posted by Baconcat on February 11, 2013 at 5:20 PM · Report this
gttrgst 15
@3 Not sure why "spawl" is in quotation marks in your comment, but I do appreciate the Word of the Day. Nice image results, btw, although a dearth of spitting for some reason.
Posted by gttrgst on February 11, 2013 at 5:35 PM · Report this
@14: Unfortunately, I would foresee any such law being challenged and defeated on 14th Amendment equal protection grounds.
Posted by ourkind on February 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM · Report this
CodyBolt 18
I wasn't a big fan of the tunnel but if republican's hate it I love it! :p
Posted by CodyBolt on February 11, 2013 at 6:47 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 19

Are Municipal Bonds Headed for a ‘Train Wreck?’

The problem facing municipal bond investors is a double whammy. First, an investor who buys a municipal bond at a premium over face value (which is common in this price-inflated environment) only gets back face value at maturity, and the difference reduces the total return of the investment.
Second, municipal bonds are callable by the issuer (unlike U.S. Treasury securities and many corporate bonds). When a bond is called, it is redeemed prior to the maturity date and the stream of interest payments is cut short. That reduces the yield that would be expected if the bonds were held to maturity. In muni bond lingo, the measure of this double whammy is called the “yield to worst.”…
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on February 11, 2013 at 7:31 PM · Report this
@17: Governor Gregoire chose the tunnel option for us. Seattle voted against the tunnel. That was not our choice to spend the money on a tunnel that doesn't even serve downtown Seattle. As to the arena, the plan should end up costing the city nothing in the long run, and should even bring revenue to the city. I love how you so quickly dismiss plans for mass-transit as doing nothing to ease congestion despite failing to support such an assertion with anything other that your statement. Our city is aching for more transit, and that's what we are doing. It is not wasteful at all.

You know what abortively will not help improve our schools? Withholding funding.
Posted by ourkind on February 11, 2013 at 8:15 PM · Report this
I somehow combined "absolutely," "certainly," and "positively" into one word. Whoops.
Posted by ourkind on February 11, 2013 at 8:27 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 24
@21 and @12 tied ftw
Posted by Will in Seattle on February 11, 2013 at 9:59 PM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 25
@20: Man, it is killing you that you cannot keep sarcastically saying "progressives" on here because that would really blow your cover huh? "Brilliant minds" just does not have the same punch does it?

Go away Mister G, you have already proved yourself to be one of the dumbest people here, and banned for good reason.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on February 12, 2013 at 5:18 AM · Report this

Actually, the comment @17 was right on point.

Considering the stormfront types that still get to post here, I'm surprised to hear that Mister G was banned. I guess the truth hurts.

Posted by Mr. X on February 12, 2013 at 8:59 AM · Report this

Seattle voters supported the tunnel (largely because they weren't given the option of retrofitting or replacing the AWV and the remaining alternative of pushing all of the traffic onto downtown streets was MUCH worse, but still....)
Posted by Mr. X on February 12, 2013 at 9:03 AM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 29
28 - Because you're exactly the same type of troll, with the same argumentative style, and same hidden comment history. It's an accurate label.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on February 12, 2013 at 12:43 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 30
@25 - you called it.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on February 12, 2013 at 12:47 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.