City Council Voting on Conlin's Signature on Tunnel Study

Comments

1
Tantrum!
2
I think of all the kids who dream of a career in public service, and I feel a little sad. I suppose they'll decide to go out and try to make themselves a quick buck rather than waste their lives as somebody else's rubber stamp.
3
Are you fucking kidding me?

Take no policy stance on the policy proposed, just move it forward? Jesus Christ, the thing could say Conlin's house was being bulldozed and he'd still have signed it if it meant winning points against McGinn.
4
Some people only start fights. Some only finish them.
5
You can't justify an illegal act after the fact.

Hitler tried to do that after occupying countries.

Didn't work then.

Won't work now.
6
@4: Appropriately put, because when you attempt to finish a fight without preparing for it, you're more than certainly setting yourself up to lose.

All this after the Council accused McGinn of moving fluidly through the particulars of contracts, negotiations and studies, saying he's not acting out of good faith, when they've signed a document that will guide a major part of their policy decisions for the next few years without even reading it.
7
"If all we need in city council is nine monkeys and one pen, frankly, I can recommend better-read monkeys.'

Why not? We have an alt-weekly full of monkeys with pens (or keyboards), and barely any knowledge of the tenets of journalism or the topics about which they write.
8
Studies like these are normally signed by the head of a city department at the mayor's purview—in this case, the Seattle Department of Transportation.


Untrue. In this case, the State of Washington is the lead agency. The head of SDOT would sign only if the City of Seattle were the lead agency. As the City Attorney explained, there is no legal meaning or binding effect to having the City Council President (or any other City official) sign this document. A signature by a City official has exactly the same weight as an e-mail to The Stranger in support of the tunnel. The State just wants political cover.
9
8 commnets and 1 untrustworthy s.o.b.
Some people only start fights. Some only finish them.

oh shit that was posted yesterday who reads on the weekends anyway. my salary stays the same if i post a post 1 times a day or 5. breaks will not be given, gloomy gus, you Crazy Cat :)
10
@6, that is it exactly. That the Council has the nerve to entrust to staff the rereading of the 600-page redraft... I see red.

If I wanted city electeds to delegate things, I would not have made it my habit to pencil in "do it all by yourself" next to their names on the ballots. Only McGinn seems to have read my ballot note, bless his heart.
11
Delegation is what you do when you want to backstab the public but make it appear to be unintentional while you loot the corpse.
12
@10: If they had their staff read it, they would have said so. Bagshaw said point blank that moving the process forward was being done regardless of the underlying policy.

That being said, I think that if they'd read the actual documents, they wouldn't be so gung ho on the issue. Then again, this all might have to do with their major campaign contributors and lobbyists.

http://www.seattle.gov/ethics/default.ht…

This is sort of staggering in light of Citizens United.
13
Wait, so SDOT can't be relied on, and/or Council are all puppets of the donors? Perfect circle of an argument. I bow down.
14
ok, let's all break into song (as sung by Fieldmarshal Richard Conlin):

"I am the very model of a modern Tunnel backer.
I ignore voter's wishes and I call opponents fanatical.
I have no scruples left that aren't for sale to highest backers all.

Because I represent the Billionaires and those who donate to my PayPal."

(and so turns the Mikado)
15
Will -
a) I'm sort of comforted to learn you have absolutely no sense of meter;
b) mixing Penzance and Mikado is BULLSHIT.