Extra Fizz: No Light-Rail Vote in November

Good. He needs the time to do some planning.

Anyone else noticing that the City Council seems like all they do is say we don't like stuff the Mayor is doing? They taking any initiative to do anything for this city other than empty platitudes?

I don't necessarily agree with the way Mcginn has gone so far, but snarky comments about mcginn not being realistic from council members who don't seem to do anything is getting obnoxious.

What's obnoxious is a Mayor who should know better, given his extensive participation on umpteen commissions, springing something like another LR vote this year with no coordination whatsoever with Sound Transit.
And this mayor hasn't exactly inspired a lot of confidence with the Council with his original May seawall vote, his proposal to fire 200 Special Advisors with no research into what each one does, which fund pays their salaries etc. (but hey, it was a great sound-bite!), and his defense of Bushnell (a felon and liar). McGinn has earned his snark.

“Don't seem to do anything”? Please. Look at Conlin's Local Food Initiative, his Zero Waste Strategy (even if you hated the bag fee, there are several great programs in there) and Economic Recovery Plan. And then there's Burgess' revamped proposal to deal with aggresive panhandling Even Joni Balter's giving the Council props these days — where have you been?

You must have missed how I said Mcginn hasn't exactly inspired confidence either. I'm quite disappointed with how poorly he's run things. My original fears may have been confirmed, but I cross my fingers he's still getting his feet under him.

All those things you mention seem like relatively small issues that deal little with structural change or improvements. Although admirable on the LFI, Zero waste strategy and even the Economic recovery plan (is this the 20k small bus exemption?, if so this was May of last year) they seem like easy sells in seattle that don't involve truly difficult decisions. I want to see the rest of the stuff. All the “controversial” initiatives they've seemingly caved to status quo pressures or been unwilling to stick their necks out (land use, transit, 520, Viaduct, etc. waterfront redevelopment, funding the bike/ped. plans, etc.), except for the panhandling joke which doesn't seem like the most pressing issue to people. Simply put they haven't been leading on the hot issues of the day.

Why should I care what Joni Balter thinks?

Stop aggressive council panhandling now! They are much more irritating and more expensive than the homeless. And their babblings make less sense.

Hey, watch me do this magic trick where I build two new freeways, and make Seattle carbon nootrel by 2030!

I presume the two new freeways you're on about are SR520 and SR99. Any idea what the S stands for in SR?

So let's see here. Sempervirens isn't too happy with McGinn's plans at:
* light rail
* seawall
* cutting 200 mid-level managers

But Sempervirens is happy with Richard Conlin's:
* “Local Food Initiative”
* “Zero Waste Strategy”
* “Economic Recovery Plan”

Gee, I can't wait to hear the effusive praise for Conlin's Carbon Neutral Initiative, Parks for All Plan, and Keep America Competitive Strategy. Yes, painless, cosmetic, small-bore projects and resolutions with catchy names. They make for great press releases, I'm sure. They all ensure that Richard Conlin is not going to get any bad press or get hammered and ridiculed by anyone. And that's because these things don't do anything to change this city for the better. As clumsy as McGinn may have been so far in his term, at least he's actually trying to accomplish something for this city.

Then again, Sempervirens here must have written this post so deep from within the bowels of inside-baseball Seattle politics that he or she has no idea how ridiculous he or she sounds to the rest of us.

Imagine on the national level–while we're trying to deal with unemployment and health care and energy and long-term structural deficits–if a U.S. senator decided there was a more pressing issue for this nation and introduced a flag-burning bill.

That's a bit like Tim Burgess's suddenly deciding that the big issue to expend his political capital on is panhandling. But I'm sure there was some senator back in the day who was complaining about street fiddling while Rome was burning.

Caved? Conlin has led the 520 negotiations for 12 years and I'm sure the Montlake neighborhood in particular (the most engaged and to-be-affected neighborhood) would disagree that he's caved. Bike/ped? For the 8 years I've been observing his work, he has REPLACED funding for these capital and programatic budgets proposed to be cut by Nickels. Viaduct? He put the surface/transit on the map when WSDOT and SDOT were ignoring Cary Moon. So you don't like the tunnel. Council voted for that fearing WSDOT would cram the rebuild down our throats for capacity reasons. Land Use?? Be more specific and I can give you counter examples. Waterfront development? Council, esp. Conlin, was a primary ally of Allied Arts' visioning process. Panhandling? Yes, homeless advocates feared Burgess' plan would target the already most vulnerable but business owners from across the spectrum — downtown to small neighborhood businesses — have been complaining about the impact of aggressive panhandling on the business climate for years. It's so easy for Seattle progressives to discount these concerns as reactionary but business revenue does, after all, fund bike/ped, human services and most of the other things we demand.

If these aren't hot issues, what are and what are your solutions??? Besides the importance of a lightrail vote this year, I mean.

See my reply to Brian above for some things you might think important. But then, if you hate Parks for All (a campaign McGinn participated in), we'll have to agree to disagree on what's important.

Are you saying the perspective of someone who tracks City process is less valuable than somebody who prefers populist, throw-the-bums-out ignorance?

If S stands for State, why is Seattle stuck with the cost overruns?

If the state wants to build a new SR 99 a particular way against the will of Seattle voters, the legislature can put a statewide bond issue on the ballot.

(Your argument has been dismantled umpteen times. Please find a new argument.)

The ongoing tactic of substituting actual attempts at argumentation with words like “moronic”, “stupid”, “ignorance”, etc, is growing really, really old. It is clear you can't come up with an argument.

Yes, let's deal with aggressive council panhandling.

1) Ban fundraising until six months before a council member is up for re-election.
2) Restore the $400 personal contribution limit that Richard Conlin and others who are long gone voted to remove.

Panhandling by the homeless is less irritating, and costs the city treasury a lot less money.

Don't waste your breath, Brent. Not only has Mr. Burgess joined the rest of the gang of seven in pretending the vote on the tunnel never happened, but seems barely cognizant that we just elected a new city attorney who is much more opposed to the old Sidran laws.

I guess he didn't get the memo.

Read the blog post, Brian. It said:

“Mayor Mike McGinn also revealed that he has no intention of trying to put light rail expansion on this November’s ballot.”

I was responding to Pine Grove's comment about how “ridiculous” I sound.

Council just held a press conference where they released a very detailed and long list of there goals for this year…some small and practical, some large and bold (i.e. Carbon Neutral by 2030)