Jean Godden Says 63 Percent of Seattle Residents Are "Like the Birthers"

Comments

1
whaddya expect, her judgement is questionable based on the fact she used to fuck emmett watson and knute berger.
2
Once again, my correct statement that the Billionaires and Millionaires think we Seattle Citizens are their serfs, instead of their masters, is proven correct.

We're SEATTLE CITIZENS, damn you! And WE are in CHARGE.
3
EWWWWW @1 - I really do NOT need to have the image inceptualized into my brain!
4
You are being a complete dumbass on this. The State Constitution prohibits non-uniform taxes as well as the State from compelling a City to levy a tax. There is no fucking issue.

God this debate is tiring. Slog is fast becoming pure shit.
5
So this is a tunnel to Kenya?
7
Didn't the Stranger endorse her, due to the FUD of her opponent that she and her consultant whipped up?
10
Way to disrespect voters, Jean.

This is the sign of a failing campaign, attempting to paint a massive road project (anti-environmentalist, catering to a small subset of roughly 30,000 residents) as so important that disagreement is close to treason.

And what about fearmongering, Jean? Not even the most ardent supporters of the tunnel can justify it aside from pointing out how it's so vital and so important, even though the numbers aren't there to support its importance. They scream about how it'll cut off the waterfront if we put a surface option there and how it'll flood downtown with traffic, kill freight and so on, even though the tunnel plan itself still relies heavily on a surface option, eats up tens of thousands of square feet in vital industrial and commercial areas, chances fate by digging under skyscrapers and keeps the viaduct open until at least 2016.

And about keeping it open? Remember how we were told we absolutely had to ratify whatever decision the state made or people would die? Remember that WSDOT said if we don't move forward and tear it down by 2012, the risk of failure or collapse was almost absolutely guaranteed? And the tunnel supporters screamed about the surface/transit option being a red herring and how we needed a tunnel as soon as possible! ... and then flip-flopped and pushed back closure of the viaduct by 4 or more years?
11
Jean Godden said no such thing about Seattle Residents, asserting so reveals your agenda. S

he said that the people pushing the propaganda are like birthers, not the people who responded to a poll. For that matter, just because some poll got some number, doesn't at all mean that it represents the greater population, even when indicating the "plus or minus".

Not surprising at all that the pumpers of F.U.D. having aligned themselves with the rest of the anti-government crowd have been able to get some response in polling, but to project that on to Godden as some kind of an assertion about the population of Seattle in general is pretty sleazy.
12
@4: So you know who's going to pay, then? Or will they just work for free if they hit the spending cap? Or is there precedent for the state paying overruns on a project of this magnitude?
13
batty old cow.
14
catering to a small subset of roughly 30,000 residents


A lot more than 30,000 people use the viaduct every day.
15
@11: She specifically said that anyone who questions the ability of the state to complete the project on-time and on-budget are like birthers and qualified that these same people and the mayor were engaged in "propaganda" like those that "have been used to prop up dictators, popularize wars, and sell soap".

In her attack on the mayor, Godden presented this metaphor: "It's interesting to see how many propaganda techniques the mayor has used in his mission to blow up the tunnel."

Similarly, tunnel supporters have implied that anyone who doesn't support the tunnel want to see people die on the viaduct.

No, a good portion of us are opposed to an open-ended situation with no resolution like this one. And another sizable portion of us wants to see the viaduct closed, period. Tunnel supporters, by and large, are unconcerned with either, although they presented those as the crux for ultimately picking the tunnel.

Remember, the experts say we should close the viaduct IMMEDIATELY and work on a solution afterward: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/op…
16
@14: What percentage are necessary trips that require full use of the alignment and cannot be absorbed by excess capacity in the existing street system? Mind you, the tunnel does a good job of eliminating 75,000 or more by restricting access to downtown and cutting Interbay, LQA and most of SoDo off from the tunnel.

I'm sure you knew that, you've read up on the tunnel, right?
17
Another awesome thread, yo. If I may use "yo" at my age. And it's fun having you and your whirring blades back, Baconcat.
18
Baconcat is right.

Not all of us can ride around in limos like Jean can, or catch a ride in the Suburban Times helicopter.
19
No, she didn't. She wrote: "Like the "birthers... the "cost overrunners” are hell bent on spreading their propaganda"

Dom and you seem to equate "two thirds" of Seattle residents with "cost overrunners", meaning the people active in spreading F.U.D. - which is not the same as the population that may or may not be represented correctly in the King5 poll.

Just because some one is "concerned" doesn't mean they actively spread F.U.D., as does McGinn and a bunch of his rabid anti-car supporters.

That sure as the hell is not equivalent to making any assertion about any portion of the population of Seattle. Saying that the mayor is engaged in F.U.D. is legitimate, but no such assertion was made about a larger portion of Seattle. Just the "cost overrruners" - do you identify as such? Do you expect others to identify as such based on that King5 poll? If so, that's a hell of a stretch. It's like saying that someone who is concerned about government spending has aligned themselves with the birthers.

What a bunch of bull, Dom!

People will oppose just about any change if you cast enough doubt. I've yet to see McGinn try to promote some kind of change, any kind of change, rather than just line up as opposition.
20
Jean Godden just called said you are as dumb as birther for not wanting a 1.6 Billion tunnel for your kids to pay for. What you gonna do? jean.godden@seattle.gov
21
@12 The same thing will happen as happens when any major project goes over budget. When it happened with Sound Transit the scope of the project was scaled back. Other projects have been cancelled when they spiraled out of control.

In most cases money is transfered from elsewhere to cover them.

Its not like the State just writes blank checks for projects. There is always an amount budgeted. No matter what we do now, there will be a debate if it goes over. The current legislature can pass all the laws it wants, but nothing is stopping a later leg from undoing or changing them.
22
@19: Building a tunnel is not a change, Aaron. Expanding road capacity beyond need and what can currently be absorbed is not change, Aaron. It's simply forcing a solution without considering the ramifications.

You seem to assume that Jean was making any sort of nuance in her statement, that she was being overly specific and targeting specific people. Her statement, period, is that believing or accepting that there is a risk of cost overruns places you in that category. She also makes a sweeping comparison to a variety of overly-cliched political regimes in order to discredit McGinn's questions.

What Jean is doing is trying to wrench people out of that category of questioning the lack of settled funding, saying "if you don't think we can do this, you're just being conned and you're a coward" -- it's utter bullshit.

So far as you, giffy, you offered absolutely no response other than a strange boilerplate "we'll figure it out later". You can't do that with a tunnel that's expected to break ground within a couple of years. And the state is absolutely not going to simply give up the project for lack of funding. Do you think the state will walk away from this project? As we've seen from Jean Godden's strange meandering diatribe that compares McGinn to everyone but Satan himself, the state and city council are absolutely prepared to force this tunnel into existence.
23
Also, Godden is quoting Hitler in her article.

Jean Godwin.
24
I strongly disagree with the Stranger on most things Viaduct (OK, pretty much all things Viaduct), but heartily agree that Godden's piece was truly disgraceful.

25
We're getting closer to the Council saying things like "For the greater Good," and "Seattle Prevails!" Their stance is clearly winning over members of the public without a direct financial stake in the construction of the tunnel.
26
@21:

How the hell do you "scale back" a tunnel?
27
Baconcat, fuck you for your patronizing tone, Baconcat.

Actually, there has been a great deal of considering the ramifications all around. It's just that a lot of us are on board with the consensus that has built around a DBT, and don't agree with McGinn's assesment as to the risks involved, as opposed to a new overhead highway or loss of existing right of way and gridlock.

Keep trying to tell me and the rest of the DBT supporters that we don't understand and see how far it gets you.

I take her quote at face value, she is making an assertion about the people propagandizing this issue with cost overrun hyperbole. She has not made a statement about the population of Seattle.
28
@15,

The former head engineer of WSDOT says the Viaduct can be cost-effectively retrofitted. I'd say he's an expert, too.

29
This editorial piece was a giant misstep by Crosscut. It was especially painful because the bottom of the article solicits donations and memberships to Crosscut, asking people to "Support high quality local journalism." Yikes.
30
@20 Just because Godden has an email address doesn't mean she knows how to use it.
31
@27: You offer no numbers, no traffic data, no WSDOT projections, nothing. Until you offer up more than just that, you're pissing in the wind.
32
@28: But given the timeframe presented, his retrofit still falls into the exact same gambits of time and risk that the experts cite. He could make it invisible and impervious to any kind of geophysical disturbance but the experts would still say "there's no time".
33
Got $10,000 sitting around doing nothing?

Jean Godden thinks every Seattle household does.

But then her kids aren't going to school ...
34
#32,

WSDOT has lots of experts who do risk management (not to mention the State AG), and they have a very different view.

35
@34 not according to their internal documents that the Stranger published.

They say it's risky.

Very risky.

A lot.

Try reading sometime - go to the top of SLOG and look at that link for Billionaires Tunnel and read some of those articles.

And then bow down and serve your mistress Queen Godden. Because you're a lowly serf.
36
@34: Not really, they say that there's still risk inherent to a retrofit that stands beyond simply removing it:
Risks of liquefaction as a deterrent to simply retrofitting: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6D6…

Evaluation of the most advanced option: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3E6…

Evaluation of most cost-effective option: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8D9…

Independent study circa 2008 of all options: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C4C… -- quote below:

Therefore, because current seismic risks are high, and these risks would remain high during phased retrofit construction, there is a pressing need to demolish, rather than retrofit, the viaduct, in keeping with Guiding Principle 1, “Improve public safety.”


From the same report, regarding cost-effectiveness:

The costs of all retrofit schemes proposed to date are high relative to the cost of completely replacing the viaduct with a new elevated structure.
37
Those documents, by the way, are here: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct…

Included in the independent retrofit studies is numerous references to tearing down the viaduct before proceeding with any option, even if the option selected has the central waterfront portion removed within the 10 year maximum threshold (circa 2006) for removal. That 10 year maximum was contingent upon basing the primary need for replacement on public safety.

WSDOT's own paid-for independent studies are saying that removal and then building a replacement (or not) afterward is the safest and most hassle-free way of approaching the issues with the AWV.

The DBT, from any matrices, plots, plans or comparisons, fails to meet the standards initially set forth in the nearly 10 year old state, city and county resolutions in every way except for speed and property value*, it also presents us with the most dangerous of all scenarios presented by keeping the viaduct up to the absolute limit of safety.

*For example, the state likely has a high stake through TDRs for things like approaches, portals and emergency exits (similar to the Big Dig, Atlantic Yards, etc.). At Royal Brougham, the state will acquire property that will become an interchange and will thus acquire air rights over several hundred thousand square feet of property, which is millions of dollars for the state. Not to mention basic property, should they decide to go that route. And that's only one small portion of the state-owned project area.
38
The Viaduct remains open because WSDOT has determined that it is safe to do so. I'll happily take my chances and use it later this evening, and for the next 20 years if WSDOT lets me.
39
Dang but I love those sunsets.

They remind me of really really old people.

Like Queen Godden.
40
Not exactly, and that's the problem with people advocating keeping it up for the duration of WSDOT's timeline: it flies in the face of numerous recommendations from various independent firms and the UW. If public safety is a concern -- or THE concern, really -- then the viaduct, they say, must come down immediately and a replacement option would then be made contingent upon need after enough time has elapsed.

Instead, it would seem that to the governor's office and WSDOT that it's more financially sound to risk collapse since it's uncertain when a failure would happen (if it's at 3am, there's practically 0% chance of more than a couple of people dying; moreover, peak usage constitutes only 25% of the entire day) and how bad failure would be. Far better to simply go forward and "happily take [...] chances" as you say.

When a project is pushed to the top of the heap by making financial concerns more important than public safety, there should be an issue.

This isn't fearmongering, these are studies presented by firms studying the viaduct, studies that are currently online (and also saved on my hard drive now). Their certainty of failure is chilling. But only really a concern if you're interested in public safety.
41
Two days ago safety concerns over the existing viaduct were considered something only non-tunnel-fighting squares talked about to bolster their bogus arguments about proceeding. Now it's the #1 reason to kill the tunnel. Funny what finding a new political angle to play with can inspire.
42
Nah, safety is more a reason to just tear down the viaduct now and work on whatever solution comes naturally after that point. Not necessarily a reason to kill the tunnel nor a method of opposition. It's fairly agnostic toward any end.

Of course, the biggest fear of tunnel advocates is, surprisingly, viaduct closure. Not because of potential congestion from initial confusion, but because any veneer of manageability after closure and the whole tunnel plan would come down faster than the viaduct in a 6.3 temblor.
43
Jean Godden's age is irrelevant. The fact that she seems to have stopped thinking, and to be parroting nonsense, is releaent.

Jean Godden's sex is irrelevant. Her words would be just as silly coming from a man... and in fact, she is being the spokesperson for the men on the council, except for Mike O'Brien who has a mind and voice of his own.

Where is Bruce Harrell? What are his thoughts? Or Tim Burgess? Hiding out, I think
44
I think Godden was talking about Dominic.

What is plan "B" after the legslature changes the language?
Not stand in the way?
45
Dominic take your fucking medication. Godden and with the rest of the city council were elected by a larger majority than Mayor McFatty was.
46
Why aren't the cost overrunners going after Nick Licata? He voted for it, will vote for it.
47
Listen, I sure don't support the tunnel, but... two-thirds of people will agree with anything if someone repeats it around them loudly enough times. 63% of people may want cost overruns sorted before going forward, but that doesn't mean they have any idea what they're talking about or that they give a goddamn in any context except "someone asked me a yes-or-no question."
48
Also, now that I read the comments - specifically @1 - ugh. Why is Seattle so fucking incestuous? The whole city's like one big, issue-laden polyamorous clan. In which some of the members are cousins. Also, "members." And they're only cousins politically but it's an analogy, dammit.

Anyway, I'd like to thank the nice fellow who was hanging out in my front yard watching the Greenwood Seafair Parade and gave me some tasty shots to thank me for letting him hang out in my yard. You're a good dude, dude, and you pour heavy. Woooo seafair parade!
49
@46: Did you read the article and notice the curious word usage by Godden? For example, replacing Brown's references to "downright lying" with "The Big Lie"? Or perhaps "pinpointing the enemy" with "scapegoating"?

I think that has something to do with the "cost overruners" -- LOL, WHAT -- not going after Licata in this instance.
50
So glad I gave to Godden's opponent in 2007. Will The Stranger reopen that Dorsol Plants poll now for anyone who voted for councilmembers besides Godden?
51
@50 for the Do It Again Stranger Poll win!
52
Sally Bagshaw says "Virtually every Lawyer in Seattle says the responsibility clause is unenforceable".

Go Figure!
53
You can say anything you want - but until each Yes on the City Council signs a legally binding promissory note for all their worldly goods for perpetuity to pay if the State succeeds in taxing Seattle citizens for this, it means as much as a Fox News report - as in nada.
54
(apologies to Mrs. Burgess on @53 - yes, we do want to take your house ... but ...)
55
Mayor Mike doesn't like the tunnel because it costs too much. Other than that, I suppose he doesn't mind it as an option. Oh and the cost overrun thing. I agree that has to be rectified. Did you read about that prick in the legislature who wrote the original provision? He said it was something about not having Seattle tack on a bunch of park money, or other little add-ons. He said it wasn't really about the tunnel. Well then why don't they just rewrite that part and say park money and toilets and drinking fountains if that's what they really meant. 'Cause they are pricks.

Does anyone remember the pictures from the Bay Area earthquake that had the collapsed viaduct in them? Anyone? That via duct is a noisy, dirty, dangerous, opaque piece of crap, and I can't wait to see it demolished.

56
I see you haven't read the Tacoma News Tribune op-ed from this weekend, @55.