Mar 7, 2011
commented on Protect Seattle Now
@11 - if the tunnel was a "good enough" solution I would be happy to spend a billion dollars extra on it. but the tunnel has an incomplete financing plan, no downtown exits, high tolls, will flood the downtown streets with cars (and not FIX those streets / I-5, like the surface option would), AND has the risk of massive cost overruns that could bankrupt our city (last year's budget process was ugly - want it to get 100x worse?). its not tunnels that are the problem, its that this tunnel plan is terrible.
@14 - sometimes coalitions are made up of unlikely or unusual partners... she is one of many people & groups involved here, not the only one.
@ people complaining of process - if your concern is safety, remember that the tunnel leaves the viaduct up longer than i-5/surface/transit. also, a note: the powers that be are manipulating the process (not studying i-5/surface/transit in the EIS, for example) to make it play out to their desires. not cool. they say "seattle never said no to THIS tunnel" as an excuse to go forward with it. no longer!
Dec 1, 2009
commented on Fault Lines
@Kevin Keagan - please provide evidence to back up your claim that it was a $15K bond, not $190K bail as Eli writes in the story you commented on.
Dec 1, 2009
commented on Health-Care Deal Breaker
It is disappointing that they would draw a line in the sand and reject the public option if it does not include public funding for abortion -- but not draw a line in the sand and reject the overall bill if it does not include a public option. The message that sends is that public funding for abortion is a critical priority, but public funding for healthcare for all (i.e. a public option) is not. It's too bad that they aren't taking a strong stand for the public option, and all of our uninsured neighbors who are not being served by the current terribly broken private-insurance system.
If our senators scuttle the healthcare reform bill because they can't get public funding for abortion in the public option, then they will end up with no healthcare reform (i.e. uninsured people dying) and no public funding for abortion in the public option (because no public option). In my opinion, that would be a tragedy.
Then again, the quotes are not as dramatic as the headline/subheadline make the story appear, so I don't think we know yet where the senators will go on this.
@TylTay and @RipCity -- although the Stranger comment area tends to attract offensive comments, please let go of the personal attacks (in both directions). TylTay points out correctly that the point of debate is to "persuade the opponent", but the abrasiveness of your comments (tone, word choice ["Obama care" in all caps], etc) will only push your opponents away. Ditto on RipCity. It seems neither of you really want to persuade your opponent(s)... and that, in one blog comment section, illustrates the problem with our national discourse. Obama talked about this in "The Audacity of Hope" and I really had hopes for post-partisanship, but it's only getting worse (and truly depressing) at the national level -- pundits but electeds too. Let's try to have a real discussion of the issues here.
Nov 5, 2009
commented on Ballot Box Vandalized
Seriously? Elections didn't pick those ballots up and take them to their secured location at 8pm on Tuesday? Man.
Oct 22, 2009
commented on McGinn Eats Mallahan Alive
@24, 25: it's a pity the press can't differentiate between Hutchison and Mike's positions on light rail. She says do 520 INSTEAD of 90. He says do 90 for sure, first and foremost. But also do 520. Those are completely different positions. The press then says "McGinn agrees with Hutchison on 520 light rail". Ay! C'mon, press!
Sep 28, 2009
commented on Guess Who Else Has a Plan to Save Puget Sound, Weatherize Homes, Provide Infrastucture for Electric Cars, Increase the Tree Canopy...
Dominic reports: "On the heels of mayoral candidate Mike McGinn issuing a plan this morning to create green jobs, challenger Joe Mallahan released a plan this afternoon that's, well, strikingly similar."
Charla says: "I'm happy to have Mr. McGinn follow our lead."
Wait. Seriously, Charla? That statement is amazingly out of touch with reality, that is, chronology.
Aug 6, 2009
commented on Nickels Losing Ground
@8: 19-11=9, not 11.
@10: Nickels is getting through the primary. To stop Mallahan's stealth candidacy, vote for McGinn, not Nickels. Then it's Nickels vs McGinn. If you vote for Nickels, you help Mallahan continue... perhaps you are tricking us into helping you support Mallahan?!
End @10's stealth comment-acy!
Seriously though, McGinn is the only candidate who offers a real alternative to Nickels. He's against the tunnel. That's an actual position. He has real positions on education, transit, information infrastructure. Some people like his positions; some people dislike them. That's how democracy works. But the point is, he HAS positions. You know what he stands for. I still don't know anything about Mallahan except that he likes attacking Nickels and says he will do it all better because he has corporate experience. That's not enough.
McGinn is the only chance for a real mayoral race. (No stealth here...)