News
Sep 29, 2014 at 2:11 pm
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
We've got Tom Rasmussen and Chas Redmond, and rumors swirling that another couple are in the pipeline. Up to 1/5th of your readership is waiting on your snark!
Still, that's one point against him.
Also, N. Seattle doesn't have sidewalks because the property owners never built them. The city has never been in the business of installing sidewalks. That has always been the property owners responsibility. Think back to the famous building story change that created the Seattle Underground. All the roads were like walls, and if you didn't want to build your new sidewalk, you could fall off the road to your death. N. Seattle wasn't ignored by the city, people there just didn't want sidewalks when the area was developed.
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Ave…
Also, I am dreading the new regional City Council.
Those are very different groups of people. I'll look into barriers for families for homeless shelters but wonder what the facts are. THis may not transplate, but publicly supported medical insurance (Medicaid) in many states is much more accessible to a female with children than a single male.
As far people with pets and those who can't comply with clean/sober rules-- if their life depends on it-- need more than shelter and a DSM V diagnosis... but not sure the city is going to be able to provide that magic. That's where I differ, maybe, from the religious inspired, noble cause folks. How exactly do you obtain free housing options for "Fierce, independent, free- to get high and drunk and avoid Society" folks", Pastor?
and yes, the public cost of sidewalks is suspect and outrageious. so is the "cost" of the ped bike bridge to northgate -- they wanted THIRTY SIX MILLION DOLLARS FOR THAT. what the fuck! that's the cost of building what, an apatrment building with 125 units? for one little bridge not carrying busses, or cars? what?!? the costs of many public projects are wildly inflated because we don't hammer the people involved to cut out the waste and exageration. the "sidewalk" cost usually includes building part of the sewer system, too. the drainages. anyway, in madison park they have had NEW SIDEWALKS put in like 10 or 12 times since they joined the city. general fund pays. but if you don't have sidewalks you don't get them replaced. this is unfair, and it's a total rip off, and anyway, you need sidewalks in a city. duh! we can afford $200 million for fucking trees on mercer? we can afford parklets and a $400 M water front park and $17 million for elephants to be tortured? and we can't START on SOME sidewalks? wow. people in other districts some of them, some people, are really mean. what someone did sixty years ago isn't the point, the point is we're a city promoting safety, walking, and transit so hello, you need sidewalks so your city doesn't look like appalachia. and it's not just district 5, there's lots of south end sidewalks we need, and lots and lots of CRAP we spend on and don't need. here's an idea! let's call the sidewalks ART! then they can be funded with 1% for the arts, another program we can afford that seems to be higher priority than mom and the kids north of 85th having a freaking sidewalk like it's sooooo greedy to want something so basic. jesus. build the fucking sidewalks.
The annex of the northern property in the 1950's, according to Historylink, was that Seattle would build sidewalks.
It really wouldn't be a big deal but metro runs buses on some two lane roads that are identified as sharrows, that have open rainwater ditches on both sides, it's a recipe for disaster.
Now the city wants to grow a couple urban villages driving up the volume of bad things happening.
Think about it--it would be HUGELY expensive. I live on NW 83rd, and I've walked a bunch north of 85th, and there's nowhere to put these hypothetical sidewalks (the resulting upkeep of which is then the responsibility of...the property owner, not the city) that property owners haven't already put into use for parking, drainage, landscaping, etc, etc. Everyone would lose 10 feet off their lot that they'd already been using.
Thanks for the responses! Im not against putting in sidewalks in N. Seattle on principle, and there may be certain higher density areas where the city could help, but in this city sidewalks are property owners problem/responsibility. I just dont think we should make exceptions to that law in general. Its one of those laws that lets you do what you want to do, it just says you have to pay for it.
@17
The streetcar is different from sidewalks in 2 big ways for this convo. 1) it is public transportation. 2) a property owner could not build it unless they owned the entire area. It operates entirely in public right of way.
Expanding the city's housing programs to provide shelter for people with drug and alcohol addiction problems has four main benefits:
(1) It takes homeless alcoholics and drug addicts off the streets.
(2) It saves money currently being spent on ER visits and arrests.
(3) It encourages people in the housing to drink less.
(4) It gives people struggling with addiction easier ways to get help.
Here are a couple of links discussing the economic and public health angles.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03…
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/…
I don't mean to put you on the defensive. I just don't think the city should enter into the business of building sidewalks, in general. You would certainly have my support for a law requiring all street-facing property to pay for and maintain sidewalks, not just new developments. I agree that N. Seattle should get sidewalks if they want them, I just don't think that N. Seattle should be the only part of the city to get government-paid-for sidewalks.
That said, I really disagree with your characterization of North Seattle as a "marginalized" area. It is mostly classic bedroom community development, with high property values. It is slowly turning sort of urban, but not really due to SFH zoning restrictions.
I don't think social justice is the right way to argue for the city to pay for these sidewalks. North Seattle is mostly well-off, mostly-older, and mostly white. Having the city give them something that everyone else has to pay for themselves doesn't look like social justice.