The Seattle League of Women voters recommends no. Hardly a Fox news loving bunch of conservatives, but they are concerned about working and retired women and what this levy would mean to them.
I love the smell of oligarchy in the morning.
It wouldn't mean much in pure dollar amounts.
I've expressed my own reservations about Prop. 1 under another post. I haven't come close to filling out my ballot. I'll probably end up holding my nose and voting yes.

About Faye Garneau's sinking so much money into the no campaign, I've got to think there's a point of diminishing returns with such an investment or that the investment will even backfire on her. City of Seattle elections don't exist in a Citizens United universe. We know who's giving how much money to which campaign. The fact that Ms. Garneau is trying to influence the electorate in such a ham-fisted and desperate way, like she's trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer--well, that's got to put a bad taste in a lot of Seattle voters' mouths.

It's like Faye Garneau is trying to be the Koch bros. of Seattle, and if being the Koch bros. of anywhere doesn't exactly go over well somewhere, that somewhere is Seattle.

I have to think a little further what I mean by the Kochs association, but I do mean many things.
You also have to consider the view from north Seattle (where much of Garneau's business is). Bike lanes are being put in around here that are largely devoid of riders, while the roads are nothing but potholes and there are no sidewalks (affecting drivers, cyclists, AND pedestrians). This perceived lack of action in this district doesn't compel north Seattleites to vote for a levy that will likely do very little for us.
Why is the Stranger so willing to give Ed a billion dollar check (which will raise rents for struggling families) while at the same time criticizing him for only catering to the private sector? What gives people any faith that he is going to do anything better with our money than he did with Bertha? I know it's going to pass anyway but you better believe I'll be the first one to say "I told you so" when this turns sour.
Maybe if it wasn't a blank check to Ed. The city can change their mids and spend on their pet projects instead of actually fixing bridges and pot holes. Think of all the cool things we did with our streets the past few years, and yet there is a backlog of bridge work that needs to be done? How is ignoring bridge safety for pet projects ever going to stop if they can fund 10 million dollar bike share projects?
I have no doubt that the levy could do a lot of good, necessary work to improve transit and infrastructure, and help people move away from cars, which is necessary in the biggest population boom since the gold rush. But even though I rely on transit, it's (at least slightly) less of a priority on my hierarchy of needs than affordable housing. I don't know for sure yet, but I may vote no for the City of Seattle prop 1. I'll probably still vote yes for King County prop 1 because it looks like a much smaller amount, and it goes for life-saving social services that deal with some of the city's biggest social problems. I'm definitely giving myself until the end of the week to mull it over, which I decided since the day I got the ballot. Constructive feedback is more than welcome.
@7 you're voting no because you don't personally agree with how 1% might be spent? This is why we can't have nice things.
I suspect that a lot of this money is not her own; that perhaps "shill" donations are being made.
Garneau is in her 80s. She's of the generation that voted against Seattle's bid for a federally funded subway (that Atlanta now has.)…

Soon, she will be dead and we'll still be stuck in gridlock.

No, we're voting no because it unclear how the overwhelming majority of the money will be spent. It's too slushy. Come back with three staggered, accountable levies and I'll say yes. But not to this one.
It's something like an extra $22 bucks a month on Chez Vel-DuRay's property tax. I'd happily pay that to make the old bat miserable, so I voted yes, but I don't think it will pass.
@8 one of the largest obstacles to affordability is the amount of money people have to spend on cars and gas in the absence of transportation alternatives..
Faye is estranged from the majority of her family, whom she and her deceased husband have fleeced at odd times over the years, for a damn good reason. The BS she spills into my grandmother's ears is frustrating in the extreme.
This is the woman who called me an "idiot who'd starve to death" for refusing to shop at Walmart. She has money so, of course, she must be more right than anyone in the room.
Damn, Seattle, I'm so sorry
@15: No inheritance for you, young lady!
@5- "You also have to consider the view from north Seattle."

I'm a North Seattle resident and I am voting yes without reservations. People bitching about bike lanes bitch about bikes in their car lanes and bitch about bikes on their side walk and bitch about people in cars on the road in front of them. Some people are just gonna complain and shit on everything. The rest of us need to ignore them and make a better city. Bikes and buses are the reason I can afford to live in this city.
@16 - ha! I'll live without it - hell, I'm pretty sure I won't even starve to death.
@17: Don't worry, if it doesn't pass you'll still be a able to ride a bike or take a bus.
I watched a new story tonight on KING TV about her and the supporters of the measure and sure enough, lets not talk about the money and have a solid argument of the merits of the levy and the projects, but attack her. That the game, attack the messenger, never talk about the merits. She at least talked about how she felt about it and never once attacked them, but true to form they attacked her and blasted her. This is the argument they have which is not an argument at all. If they had a true good argument and could tell you exactly where the money is going to be spent then great! but at this point it can't stand on the merits.

So in repeating what I posted earlier, basically it's this, Between the City and the State, We have a tunnel machine stuck, two years late and a billion over? We have street cars over a year late and who knows the cost of the problem. A sea wall that's 71 t0 100 million over and a year late and a continued waste of money from this city government. I was in a city government one time. Because of limited resources we had to make sure all was done on time and within the budget we told the public. I worked for a company where we had projects where we had projects running into the 100s of millions of dollars and they had to be ON TIME AND WITHIN BUDGET Period! And for the most part they were. This council and city has no concept of money or how to run projects. They continue to rip the people off with no real idea on how to use OUR money. Its not their money by the way. I am all for good transportation options but until these people start showing all of us they can handle it I will vote no until they figure it out! So ya, VOTE NO! give them a message to be more responsible with OUR MONEY.
Tell Louis Garneau, manufacturer of cycling accessories, that this is a great opportunity to redeem his name and promote his brand.
Do we know if she opposed the bus tunnel under 3rd Ave dug 30 years ago and favors the Gregoire waterfront tunnel, or just this particular levy proposal?
Dear Stranger, an article about how one citizen spent obscene amounts of her own money to try to defeat a ballot measure she feels strongly about is not an argument for the ballot measure. In fact, just as the spending of the obscene amounts of money may have exactly the opposite of her intended effect, so may articles like this.
What is truly concerning is that as of this morning comments by Stranger readers, who's self-interests should be overwhelmingly pro are running about 50-50 for and against the measure. Though I'll vote knee jerk yes because I'm a staunch transit/bike/ped proponent, perhaps given the regions recent boondoggles(Bertha, Seawall, Streetcars, half-assed bike infrastructure, proposed Pronto prioritization over Bike Master Plan implementation) the naysayers have a point
mahoots: Dear Stranger, an article about how one citizen spent obscene amounts of her own money to try to defeat a ballot measure she feels strongly about is not an argument for the ballot measure.

No, it's not an argument for the ballot measure, but it is unseemly, and it's not Slog's responsibility to pigeonhole every piece of news on Let's Move Seattle into a simplistic pro-or-con narrative. I have my own issues with Prop. 1 (like you I'll probably "vote knee jerk yes"), but this post was about Faye Garneau apparently trying to buy an election, and I have no compunction about registering my disapproval of Ms. Garneau and her behavior.
Am I mistaken, or is The Stranger only concerned about campaign spending in opposition of its endorsements? Why no coverage of the big out-of-town dollars supporting I-122? And is Paul Allen's $upport of I-1401 okay because the "SECB" has endorsed it?
@19 on shitty potholed roads with less routes and more delays.

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.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.