Pointlessness at the Polls, T minus 1 week

March 6, 2007 at 6:22 am | In Viaduct vote | 4 Comments

-Four state legislators (including our West Seattle rep) say, even before the votes are counted, it’s time to revisit The Third Option.

-In the transcript of his online Q-n-A session, lame-duck Councilmember Peter S says no/no will “send (politicians) a message” — but then in the next breath says he’ll ignore the vote results if they turn out “yes elevated.”

-The Muni League says voting no/no isn’t enough — vote blank/blank.

-Dylan says, don’t even vote.

-Blue-Eyed Buddhist ‘fesses up to a yes tunnel/no elevated vote.

4 Comments

  1. I can’t wait until we get to vote on what message our vote sent.

    Comment by Bubba — 9:20 am March 6, 2007 #

  2. well, all I know is this…I live and work in West Seattle. I rarely have to go over the bridge in the morning, but had an early doc appt. today. I live near 42ndSW and SW Admiral Way, left at 8:45am. It took me 1/2 hour just to get over the bridge to the 1st Ave. exit. I was headed towards Beacon Hill. and this is just on a regular morning, a nice almost spring day. What will happen to West Seattle – if the tunnel is the option, with no viaduct for what they say is 3 years? I guess I vote on what seems to be the best scenario for where I live, and frankly, I almost agree with the Muny League…what’s the point if our city gov’t. will do as they choose anyway..sigh…

    Comment by Jan — 11:17 am March 6, 2007 #

  3. City govt can’t do as it pleases in this case because they don’t hold the purse strings. But this discussion is, like, ho-hum! Most everyone has already made up his or her mind. I voted for the viaduct and I won’t change my mind. I think most people, likewise, have an opinion and aren’t likely to change. The surface option is devastating to waterfront businesses and the family wage jobs the industry supports; the tunnel is too expensive and cost and safety are ambiguous at best. I have always liked the viaduct and would love to see a safe replacement.

    Comment by Dis — 11:51 am March 6, 2007 #

  4. We have to have something… and it’s a shame it’s not a monorail. Whether we like to admit it or not, sooner or later this city is just going to have to spend a higher percentage of its transit money on mass transit, as opposed to roads. It’s inevitable.

    I’ve been looking at a few houses up in West Seattle and have been tempted, but one thing that does definitely bother me is the traffic- and as things get more dense up there, without any serious alternative via mass transit, the traffic is only going to get worse and worse and worse.

    In any case, I agree that the vote seems almost ridiculous. First the City Council was adamant that we vote. Then they weren’t. Then the state demanded a vote and said they’d go with it. The Council balked. The state said “okay, no vote, you’re getting a viaduct. Then the Council said they’d have a vote prior to the legislative session ending. Now the state is making “screw the vote, you’re getting a viaduct anyway” noise, plus threatening to hold 520 improvements hostage…

    …does it get this dysfunctional in other cities and such? I mean, seriously- this is like a bad joke.

    Comment by Paul — 7:43 pm March 10, 2007 #

Sorry, comment time is over.

All contents copyright 2014, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Header image by Nick Adams. ABSOLUTELY NO WSB PHOTO REUSE WITHOUT SITE OWNERS' PERMISSION.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^