Comments

1
Bye, Nikkita.
2
Moon, good luck.
3
I read both Durkan's and Moon's voter pamphlet statements. Jenny focused on her resume and endorsements. Cary wrote about the city's problems and ways to solve them. Vote Moon.
4
Durkan as a federal prosecutor, put activists in jail and set up a grand jury to interrogate them. They were put in federal prison. Public pressure got them out.

She has said she will continue the cruel sweeps of the homeless. Knowing this why would any compassionate person vote for her?
6
Article understates the number of outstanding ballots by about 50% according to the latest Ballot Return Snapshot. (Seattle Ballots Returned - Ballots Ready For Counting= 3,642)
8
No. They usually end up on the streets and there are not enough suitable services. You are misinformed. This is the city’s fault. They have ignored the homeless and have the police
force people out of the tents with no where to go. The whole scenario is cruel.
9
I was answering #5 thank you.
12
Nikkita should step aside in the name of democracy. Words are great, but we need real action here.
13
Cary wrote about the city's problems and ways to solve them.

Her "solution" to the decaying SR-99 viaduct was an attempt to stop the tunnel we're now building. It's just another similarity she shares with McGinn.
14
@13 Cary understood from the get-go that the problem was not fixing highway 99 but the City itself. It was the question that was wrong not her answer.
15
Where do you old cranks think Nikkita Okiver is going? She's still going to be doing what she's always done. It's not like the cops are all of a sudden going to not fuck up any more. Or Seattle's selfish class is going to unhook their claws from their many privileges without a fight. It would be great if nobody gave her any more reasons to keep organizing and speaking out but we all know that's not happening.

I'd work on getting used to her. Remember how you guys were going to get rid of Sawant? Yeah, not so much, right? Running these women of color who make you uncomfortable out of town is not one of your skills, dudes.
16
@13
The tunnel doesn't replace the viaduct. The tunnel has no stops downtown. The surface route replaces the viaduct, and that's actually what Cary advocated for.

The tunnel is really just pointless unless you commute from West Seattle to south lake union. That same route is getting a light rail connection that will be much faster than driving. Meanwhile we spent billions on the big bertha tunnel...

17
What @16 said. Just to give a little background: A committee was formed to look at the issue. You had people from various walks of life -- representatives from the port, environmentalists, and just ordinary drivers. They sat down, looked at all the data, and came up with two suggestions. One was a new viaduct, that would be quieter (because it wouldn't be split level). The second was a mix of things. It would involve a surface road, but also improvements to I-5, along with transit. This became known as "the surface option", and commonly misrepresented as "do nothing". But spending millions on improving I-5 and adding needed transit was not "do nothing" -- it was a critical part of the proposal. The committee also looked at a tunnel, but determined that it was too expensive.

Then Nickels ignored the committee findings, and pushed for the tunnel. The tunnel went from three lanes each direction, to two. Gone were not only the downtown exits, but the ramps at Western. That is a key ramp, which connects Ballard, Magnolia and West Queen Anne to SR 99. That will go away soon, which means all that traffic will flow east, through Fremont, to Aurora. Or it will go to Mercer. Or it will slog along the surface streets. Regardless, it won't be good for traffic, which is one of the key reasons this is a waste of money. This won't be good for cars or for transit.

Of course one benefit is that the waterfront area (especially Pike Place) will be a lot nicer to be around. Fair enough. But for a lot less money we could have capped I-5 between Denny and Pike. Doing so would connect downtown with Capitol Hill in a way that hasn't occurred since the freeway went through.

The problem with the tunnel is that it was very expensive for what it will get us. In terms of automobile mobility or pedestrian amenities, it is a huge waste of money.
18
@8: the homeless crisis is NOT the City of Seattle's fault. it is America's fault - this is a national crisis that the Federal Government doesn't even discuss. we're just bearing the brunt of it.

expect Reactionaries (@10) to react. BTW, Dave, $55 million would build about 250-300 units, IF you can find land to build them on. there are 5,000 sleeping on the streets every night in King Co. the problem isn't misdirected funding. its massive UNDERFUNDING in the face of an ongoing emergency.

19
Support the candidate who won't get shit done! VOTE MOON!! It''l be just like McGinn except with a vagina. And for the modern left that's all that matters!!
20
@18 I agree with you that this is a national crisis, especially since homeless people in Seattle come from locations outside of the city as well as from around here. That-said, we will not be having a national mental health program any time soon to solve this. That leaves cities with the problem and sometimes that needs to be a mix of compassion and law enforcement. $55m per year/300 units over time would be one solution.
21
There's no immediate need for Nikkita to "step aside"(and in any case there will be a mandatory machine recount because Moon's lead over her for second place is well below the 2,000 vote threshold required for that). And not conceding probably helps in Nikkita's efforts to make sure the votes of all who tried to vote are actually counted.

One way or another, it will all be sorted out in a couple of weeks. Let's just let it happen.

In any case, it's petty to act as if Nikkita had no business even running for mayor. There's an age difference between her and Moon, but Moon hasn't served in elective office before, either. And it's not as though Moon was somehow simply entitled to the votes Nikkita received...yes, Moon can be called progressive, but as an "urbanist", she represents an elitist, technocratic, top-down notion of progressivism-a form with no connection to grassroots politics, people of color, or the poor. Urbanism is never about empowering the powerless in any meaningful sense.

In a two-way race between Durkan and Moon, I'd vote Moon. But does anybody honestly believe Moon would do anything transformational as mayor, that she would ever stand up to Amazon or Microsoft or any other regional corporate behemoth?

If it is Moon V. Durkan, Moon is going to need to prove to Nikkita supporters that the assessment I made in that last paragraph is wrong...that she will have a vision of change-from-below, of a process in which voices from below matter at least as much as(if not more than)the voices of folks like Jeff Bezos. If she can be open that, she's got a chance-the only votes up for grabs are votes to her left, so she needs to connect with those who wanted something bolder than her personal vision.

22
#i8 I agree that it is way bigger than this city,

Since Salt Lake City etc. has done such a great job with Housing First why has that not been done on a big scale? By this city. Housing First gives people choices. Does not use force
but this city government does. I have witnessed sweeps and it is cruel.
23
#i8 I agree that it is way bigger than this city,

Since Salt Lake City etc. has done such a great job with Housing First why has that not been done on a big scale? By this city. Housing First gives people choices. Does not use force
but this city government does. I have witnessed sweeps and it is cruel.
24
@16, @17: You made the same mistake Moon made. You looked at an industrial highway along Seattle's working waterfront and concluded its primary purpose is ... to move commuter automobiles to downtown. Really.

This is why the surface + transit option was never viable: it had no place for all of those trucks to go. No urban planner worthy of that title should have taken it seriously. (That's why the SR-99 tunnel has no downtown access: those trucks don't need to go downtown, they need to bypass downtown.)

(And the "transit" part of surface + transit is very much alive, even though neither of you seem to know the term RapidRide.)

@17: Your silly little history lesson could use some facts. Watch and learn:

In 2007, Seattle voters were offered two options for replacing the viaduct: a new viaduct, or a "tunnel + transit" option. We rejected both. In 2011, we voted 3:2 in favor of the current tunnel plan, which was brought to us by then-Gov. Gregoire and our state legislature -- not by Mayor Nickels.

So, Moon's idea was never viable in the first place, and has long since been rejected by an overwhelming majority of Seattle's voters. If she's lucky, no one will ask her about it.

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
Preview

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