5 Replies to "Another viaduct vote?"

• Aral June 25, 2007 (9:56 am)

  I love that “get real” is how he petulantly and childishly starts the argument, and then never actually gets around to explaining why a new elevated road–as compared to any other option–is actually better.

• Eric Roberts June 25, 2007 (10:46 am)

  Seriously, we need like 4 more votes before the city does not do anything.

• Joe June 25, 2007 (12:50 pm)

  His points concerning the vote are valid. We should have had three choices. Viaduct, Tunnel or no-build.

  The ballot was a shame and they knew it the minute the approved it.

  Just imagine if in 1992 we had the following choices:

  1) Bill Clinton (yes or no)
  2) George Bush (yes or no)

  Ross Perot wins!

• Sue June 25, 2007 (2:51 pm)

  I love the comment on the PI site that says “I used to live in West Seattle, and in the two years I was there, I used the viaduct perhaps twenty times. I doubt that the viaduct is all that important to West Seattle traffic.” My bus uses the viaduct (as do many buses, as well as other traffic); I can understand that not everybody in WS uses the viaduct due to destinations, schedules, etc., but to sit there and say that it’s not very important to WS traffic as a blanket statement? Wow.

• Jan June 25, 2007 (5:46 pm)

  well, I suppose another vote might be OK…but…let’s make it a vote for Mayor…and let’s make it a vote for a whole new city council..and not an incumbent in sight…

Sorry, comment time is over.