City Comforts, the blog

How do they pave that road to hell?

What attracts many in Seattle to support the "Viaduct tear-down" approach is that they feel we should Stop catering to cars. Of course that's the way anti-car people would put since it sounds a whole lot better than "stop catering to drivers."  But spin aside, here's the way The Stranger characterizes the tear-down approach:

...the current third option—which intends to move 30,000 of the 110,000 vehicles that currently use the Viaduct to transit options...(italics added)

It's that word intends which bothers me. There are no transit options now. The Mayor and City Council killed the monorail (for which the voters had actually had authorized real, hard $$$$) and so now there are no options for moving people through the viaduct corridor. Hand-waving will not move people.

I'd take the tear-down approach more seriously if it was associated with some basic facts about the nature of the trips on the Viaduct. Who is driving on it? Where are they coming from? and going to? How many Single Occupant Vehicles? All the standard origin-destination study items which traffic engineers already know. The tear-it-down folks would strengthen their case if they had facts and not just intentions.

While I'm dubious about the tear-down, I am even more dubious about the wisdom of the tunnel. I think others are as well. And because the Mayor is pushing forward a plan which promises only (no pun intended, through it's apt) a bottomless pit, it's inevitable that the political dialectic will propel, one way or another, the tear-down approach onto the fall ballot. I hope that the proponents are ready with more than hopes and dreams and good intentions. But they don't seem so ready right now. Unless they come up with something of a real plan, with specifics, they'd be better positioned if they were not on the ballot, (which is meaningless anyway,) so that they can maintain their dark-horse status.

•••

Welcome...to visitors from Sound Politics.

I've been posting quite a bit on the Viaduct. It's got all the makings of first class civic catastrophe; that is one thing on which probably everyone agrees. I have blogged on it here several dozen times at least. Use the Google search function (right hand column) to find more posts if you, too, find the Viaduct a compelling issue..

A family experiment

The Alan Durning family goes Car-less in Seattle.

Interesting experiment. It's not my cup of tea at all but they definitely have the makings of a book....maybe a significant one.

All I ask is that they don't pull punches. Don't make their recounting of the experience a political tract about how much happier they are and how the world is so much better because they don't have a car. In other words, tell the truth. Tell us the good and the bad. Don't let the desire to have a car-free world write each sentence. Let the chips fall where they may. Tell us when they miss the car, too.

They should do this for a year, at least. Keep a good diary etc etc...I'd even suggest a blog, with each family-member posting, but I'd be concerned they'd become so wedded to the image of being a cool car-free family that they would lose their credibility.

The good news is that whatever they do, they won't be able to fake it.

How long will we be without the Viaduct corridor?

It was with some surprise that I read a news report some months ago (Revamp may close viaduct) which stated that — contrary to first understandings — the existing Viaduct would have to be torn down at the start of any construction. (See also Boring away at tunnel advantages) If we decide to go with a tunnel, the Viaduct would have to be removed at the initiation of that construction, even though the lay person might imagine that they could operate side by side. One of the putative advantages of the tunnel was that the corridor would be open throughout the construction period. That was a general misunderstanding. The issue is something to do with construction logistics and the hiatus was supposed to be 3-4 years.

So anyway, the construction schedule for a tunnel is supposed to be something like 7-9 years. (The "facts" keep changing so it is hard to know where the truth lies.)

So it seems to me that no matter what plan we choose (except for the retrofit) we lose the total use of the corridor for far more than the 3-4 years I had suggested in a previous post. Nine years without the viaduct corridor is (to me) like thirty years — it's more-or-less a permanent condition. The logistics & time frames of this project should have a strong influence on our final decision.

Can anyone out there help me sort out the best information available? Or point to an authoritative and trustworthy source? Comments are open.

That option costs too little

Reader Jim Nibblett wonders:

I've yet to figure out why there is so much push to prevent dialog about reinforcing and retrofitting the viaduct.  Maybe I just have too much respect for people than to think that what they're about is wanting to sit at the 'cool kids' table.  As far as I can tell, the Mayor has taken it as a crusade.  Maybe what's going on is that he wants to be the 'strict parent' and 'do what's best for us' regardless of the realities of the situation.

Good question and what follows is pure conjecture on my part.

But I think that the key players at this time -- the Mayor et al and the People's Waterfront Coalition (PWC) under the admirable leadership of Ms. Cary Moon -- both dislike the idea of a retrofit because it cuts against their own vision for the viaduct corridor though for different reasons. The bottom line is that neither wants a low cost solution.

(Yes there are other players and I don't mean to ignore them but the Mayor and Ms. Moon are excellent metonyms for their respective clusters.)

If the Viaduct could in fact be rehabbed/repaired/retrofitted or simply used as a template for reconstruction then the Mayor's argument for a tunnel and Ms. Moon's argument for the tear-it-down approach would be dramatically undercut. The Mayor relies on the >$2 billion cost of a complete rebuild to narrow the distance to his >$4 billion (minimum) tunnel. And the PWC relies on the same figures to argue that their approach is not only more delightful (and no one says that the Viaduct is ideal) but cost-effective.

There seem to me to be a mutual (though I assume unstated) agreement to keep the rehabbed/ repaired/retrofitted/reconstruction option off the table. When you raise the issue the response is an airy "Oh no one believes that can work." Of course the facts are otherwise: see A simple and cheap viaduct fix.

Of course, I have no facts — only lack of a better explanation & logic — to back up my conjecture. There is no memo in my possession in which anyone says "And let's all be quiet about simply repairing it." But there does seem to be a willingness by almost everyone — and this goes way beyond the principle protagonists — to set-aside the possibility that the existing structure might be rehabbed/repaired/retrofitted or simply used as a template for reconstruction. It is odd and it reminds me of how we got into Iraq.

And it's not just the polar extremes — the Mayor and Ms. Moon — who dismiss the possibility of a repair. I've had people who have never even built a deck tell me firmly and with total confidence that the Viaduct is toast. They often add that the seawall is collapsing, too. Is it simply a fascinating example of a collective desire to believe facts which people want to believe?

•••

Btw, I believe that the Mayor's proposal is deeply flawed from an urban design perspective — it's not extensive enough by half. If we are going to go to the enormous expense of a tunnel it should daylight at about Mercer Street, well north of where the Mayor proposes. Of course that would raise the cost even more. But the half-way measure which the mayor proposes is too expensive for its benefit. Daylighting the tunnel near Mercer Street would connect two vibrant neighborhoods: Lower Queen Anne and South lake Union. The arguments that this is a 100 year decision cut both ways — do it right the first time. A twelve block-long tunnel which daylights in front of the Pike Market's major outdoor space is bad way to spend >$4 billion.

I also urge a hard, sophisticated look by traffic experts at the PWC's plan. I personally don't believe that the PWC's plan will work, but I am no traffic engineer. Their plan deserves an honest hearing not the casual dismissal offered by WSDOT and the Mayor, much less the hysterical dismissal of the Seattle Times. In fact the quickest way to demonstrate that the PWC plan won't work is for the WSDOT to sponsor a really fair-handed study using national consultants. Let the chips fall where they may.

Of course WSDOT is itself in a bit of a bind. It plans to tear down the viaduct (with no replacement for 3-4 years) as part of construction. No matter what plan we choose, we will do without the viaduct for years. So WSDOT has to simultaneously convince us that

1. PWC's plan to do without the Viaduct won't work
2. WSDOT's plan to do without the Viaduct will work.

Neat trick.

 

Sierra Club vs. (I hope) ACLU

The  policy-wonk wet-dream of congestion pricing is the enemy of privacy.

data "will be routinely erased, except for the most recent gas pump receipt"

Data is NEVER, EVER, NO WAY, NO HOW, EVER erased.  Understand. Commit this to memory.  Remove any doubt. Unbelievable that anyone still tries to claim otherwise. The divorce lawyer will supoena the record to prove infidelity. The police will bust alibis.  Search warrants will be issued based on suspicions generated from travel patterns. We can talk about good/bad but forget about any claims of confidential or private.

You can create any Rube Goldberg system you want but I do not believe that in a world of the Patriot Act, data on trip movements — who, where, when, how long etc etc — will remain secret from security authorities.

Fear is so transparent

The Seattle Times editorializes: Eliminate viaduct "no build" option.

The Seattle establishment doesn't even want to discuss it. It's rare to see such palpable fear. And likely to produce exactly the opposite: an overwhelming focus on the "no-build" option. If this option is not on the ballot, the vote will be lacking in credibility and fatally flawed.

Of course the vote is already a sham, not being an authorization to raise funds to cover the shortfall between the State funds of $2 billion and the $4 billion (at least) which the Mayor's tunnel will cost.

The purpose of the vote — a "beauty contest" — is a mystery. Why a vote at all when the question is simply which option the voters "prefer?" Votes don't count unless they are connected to the raising of dollars or spending of already existing funds. As of now, we don't have the money for the tunnel. So why vote at all? Unless it is to authorize a tax?

Like a lot of things in life, if it's free, I'd like one. Ask me to start paying and the answer may be different. Of course I'd like the tunnel if it were free. But do I want to pay for it? No way. Not when there are dozens upon dozens of other ways for Seattle taxpayers to spend >$2 billion to improve our city.

The political difficulty with the viaduct tear-down approach

It immediately becomes a Left - Right argument. The tear-down opposition is coming out of the wood-work (though I wonder how many even live in Seattle) but their vitriol is well-illustrated here: Viaduct Madness. The antis want to make handling the viaduct corridor a litmus test for their own bizarre form of political correctness.

As any reader of this blog will know I am dubious that the tear-it-down approach would provide sufficient capacity on the west side of Seattle. But I'd like to see some fair studies -- and of course the real-world experiment which any replacement will require -- before I make up my mind for sure. But the transportation and economics experts at the site to which I link above all know exactly what will happen and are anxious to spend billions on their own hunch. So much for conservatism.

Go! Cary!

Option to tear down viaduct appears to gain some traction

Amid all the debate about whether the Alaskan Way Viaduct should be replaced with a tunnel or another bridge, a third proposal is quietly gathering steam: Tear it down.

As I have written here before, it's a good idea — if it works. In any case it ought to be studied carefully and fairly. Both of the leading plans require a period of years between tearing down the existing viaduct and the opening of its replacement. My own hunch is that it will not work — but give it a close look, because in any case we will be without the viaduct for 3-4 years so we should figure out how to mitigate the problems. So planning for no viaduct has to be done in any case.

My further conjecture is that the result of such study will scare the bejeesus out of the authorities — because a reasonable case for a tear-down might well emerge. Not an overwhelming endorsement but a qualified "Maybe..." Pressure will mount to tear down the viaduct and use the gap time as an experiment. But enough constituencies will fear that the viaduct may be indispensable. So we will repair the existing viaduct. The authorities cannot afford to have us try the experiment — because it might work.

Of course there is still the possibility that the Viaduct corridor might have importance to homeland security which issue will trump everything else.

The 'no action' alternative, by default

Big Easy Quagmire.

...it would be folly to rebuild on the lowest ground in New Orleans. Blacks lived in those marginal locations because old residential patterns were established during the era of segregation. What sort of affirmation would it be to put that population in harm's way again? And protection is simply infeasible. The Mississippi Delta is shrinking for want of fresh sediment from a much-dammed river system. In the future, sea levels may rise as well.

The task of making safe the low-lying parts of New Orleans so as to permit safe redevelopment is simply beyond our political capability.

Nonsense. In fact downtown development will encourage expansion elsewhere.

Seattle's skyline headed upward.

From downtown residents who want more neighbors to developers trying to build to environmental groups fighting sprawl, there's been widespread support for funneling residents and jobs to the city's core in taller buildings.

That can help spare farmlands and single-family neighborhoods from development. (italics added)

The nonsense is in the editorial comment in a news article (but stated as fact) that building higher in downtown will "spare farmlands and single-family neighborhoods."  (Is the reporter so unfamiliar with the subject as to accept political spin as fact?)

In fact quite the opposite will happen. Larger buildings with more people & activity in them will (if the street-level is designed correctly -- that's the key) make downtown Seattle more interesting, comfortable etc and will enhance the entire region's overall attractiveness. A truly urban and urbane CBD will increase Seattle's global prominence. It will draw yet more business and people to our region, thus increasing demand for new space of all types in every part of the region.

(And I am not even going to get in this post to the fact that the CBD housing market and the suburban one are very different and serve a different part of the human life-cycle. With rare exceptions, there is no substitution of downtown condo for detached dwelling i.e. the idea of  "family-friendly" housing downtown in a chimera.)

(Mind, I am not aware enough of the specifics of the zoning changes to be for or against them. In general I share the City's goals; I am all for more development downtown, though I think the impact fee aspect is typical cheapskate Seattle ""Who me? Someone else should pay." Subsiding affordable housing is a good idea? Yes.Then why should buyers of high-density housing — arguably doing the right thing from an environmental perspective — have the burden placed on them? Typical sanctimonious Seattle BS: find the nearest target of opportunity and exploit it. If subsidizing housing for defenseless populations — not "affordable" — is a good idea then all of us should take part in funding the subsidy.)

But it is the connection between downtown development and growth elsewhere which is the fallacy. It's dream world to believe that in any but the most marginal & remote way new construction downtown will lessen demand for new construction in other areas of the region, especially when it comes to housing nuclear families. It's good to have a vibrant downtown for many reasons but the major one is simply to have a vibrant downtown.

There is too much pool-playing, looking for caroms and ricochets, and "gaming" going-on. Just do the things you want because in themselves they are beneficial — here a walkable, cheerful, comfortable CBD — and not because of some second, third, and fourth level impacts which you hope to instigate by clever finagling. In this case, as I say, making the core neighborhood of the region — Seattle's CBD — more interesting makes the region more interesting and thus actually promotes development everywhere. Ironic. Some would say a "damned if you do or don't" situation. There is truth to that if you don't like growth. It's Annoying. Frustrating. But it's the way real estate works. Good planning provides (or should) a "context of certainty" within which people can make large investment decisions. "Really good planning" actually makes an area more desirable and hence promotes growth. Ironic indeed. (Btw, I am not suggesting that Seattle has had, though with some notable exceptions, such really good planning.)

But some folks buy into the fantasy.

WSDOT slowly stepping down from its predictions of viaduct disaster

Viaduct deemed safe to drive on by state officials.

The Alaskan Way Viaduct may be slowly sinking, but for now it's still safe to drive on, state transportation officials said Wednesday.

And get this:

DOT engineers aren't certain why the viaduct is settling but say it may be because of failing support columns. The columns are 90 feet long and were meant to go through soft soil to hard glacial till. Some of the columns may not be long enough to go all the way through the soft earth. If the viaduct needs to be repaired...it could be as simple as putting up additional steel columns for shoring or as significant as putting extra columns around the existing footing to reinforce the foundation. If repairs are made, there would not be major closures... (italics added)

How do you spell "backpedal?"

Definitely

A $65 Table, and a Tale to Tell Around It.

Price/Cost is Value when it comes to housing

An interesting fact from Felix Salmon:

The 50 least expensive cities in America are all in the south. The 50 most expensives cities are overwhelmingly in the north, plus California and a couple of places like Miami...

Generally speaking, it seems to me that missing from the discussion of housing cost is the notion of value.

Unless one subscribes to the notion that we have no free-will at all and are all tools of a capitalist conspiracy, people are willing to pay to live in high-cost areas because they are also high-value areas. At least that's the mega-implication I tease out of the staistics. It's hardly flattering in that sense for Houston to trumpet that its costs are lower for what it means it that people don't value living there as much as do people in SF or LA or NYC or even Seattle.

Maybe I'm not expressing it well but there is something funny about these discussions of high-cost vs. low-cost areas. They seem to miss the fact that writ large markets work and what the market says about housing values is to a large extent accurate. If a markest says that a house is worth $500 k, then that is what is worth. I'm putting aside the impact of land use regulations which is part but hardly all of the story behind expensive areas because the historic reason for tight land use regs is in part because of high growth; existing residents are rightly concerned about neighborhood change and so they demand tight land use regs making their artea all that more desirable. And, anyway, even with land use regs which "artificially" tighten supply -- the price is the value. Period. That's what people are willing to pay.

Huh?

Radar claims (and it seemed to be, the last time I visited) "updated around-the-clock, seven days a week."

So how come the latest link, on March 15, 2006 at 10:54 PM PST, is dated Mar 7, 2006, 6:34 pm?

I hope it's just my system as their site is a fun one.

It's traditional

Some libertarians are incensed that a "Wealthy village plans to seize local golf course, open it up to all residents."

I think that the village will win any condemnation suit hands down and be able to acquire the golf course. There are many courses owned by local government. They are often part of a "Parks and Recreation Department." Owning and operating a course is an ordinary, typical governmental function. Some of them  are very very good: Torrey Pines in San Diego and Beth Page Black on Long Island.

Clearly, buying land for a new public course is so far inside the line that it's not legally debatable. So condemning an existing course should be no different.

I am not saying it's good or bad public policy (though actually it doesn't really bother me particularly.) But I can see the black humor.

Just bear in mind that one of the lines (grudging I am sure) from libertarians when Kelo came down last spring was that eminent domain might be OK for traditional public purposes like roads, schools, and parks but not for redevelopment schemes (and I completely agree.) So there you are. A golf course is a special kind of park.

You gotta be kidding

Pulitzer finalist (criticism)

The other two finalists are NYT architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff (we like him too)...

Sometimes that right-wing cant about the self-reverential MSM and its associated institutions is really quite accurate. Ouroussoff has so far written nothing whatsoever to warrant a Pulitzer and shows no signs of ever being worthy.

Why Seattle has taken no action on the Viaduct after 5 years

I really don't know.

But actions speak louder than words and the failure to Shut down the viaduct, as a group of University of Washington professors suggest, in itself raises questions about the seriousness of the problem. Or it could simply indicate a state of denial. Or incompetence. I don't know.

"It's all one."

One of the favorite refrains of hippie- sixties visioning was "It's all one." No better example in the confluence of mid-east/energy policy and urban planning:.

These are traitors. They deserve to be named and exposed. They include a great many people in official Washington. So what? They deserve to be named and exposed -- with Democrats in Congress not trying to protect Democrats, and Republicans not trying to protect Republicans. Since OPEC oil wealth will continue to gush, we need to know the ways in which it is used to penetrate and influence our government, our media, our universities. It is not merely what has happened in the past. That army of apologists for and promoters of Saudi Arabia prevented, for more than 30 years, the putting into place of an energy policy that, instead of relying idiotically on our "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia for its supposed "moderation" in oil pricing, would have sensibly been based on a steady rise in gasoline taxes, and on other uses of oil, and on allocation of all such taxes to subsidies for mass transit, the building of newer, and safer, nuclear power plants, and the widespread introduction of solar and wind energy.

Is the Viaduct a corridor of importance to homeland security?

I made a passing reference in this post suggesting that there might be a strong Federal interest in Seattle's viaduct because "... SR 99 corridor has tactical defense implications." Of course I don't know for sure and that was just wild conjecture.

The Mayor of course is using parallel reasoning — Elliot Bay is a waterfront of national significance — in trying to find Federal money to rebuild the seawall. Could a similar reasoning be applied to the People's Waterfront Coalition's tear-it-down plan? i.e. that the Feds will kill the plan and insist on more than one limited-access corridor through Seattle's CBD as a matter of homeland security? I have no answer but just a question. But if SR 99 has any significance in terms of civil defense, I believe that that would just about kill the tear-it-down option.

For those who don't know, Seattle is a city of hills and water. The topography is very "broken" and there is little continuity in our street grid. We have Interstate 5 and State Route 99 running north/south through the heart of our city. Would it be unwise to remove 99? I haven't heard this issue of security addressed -- and btw security is not just terrorism but also the ability to evacuate (or provide help) to the west side of the city in case of natural disaster. 

He compares

Wretchard wonders:

It's interesting to compare the path that CPT member Tom Fox [murdered in Iraq - ed.] chose with  Wafa Sultan's. Wafa Sultan is an Arab-American who argued vociferously against Islamic clerics on Al Jazeera, creating an international stir.

It's a thoughtful post.

But still no focus on a Viaduct retrofit

Ross Reynolds offered an interesting but still-flawed talk show on the Big Ugly versus the Big Dig. It's fascinating that few in local politics and media are willing to discuss, per the Seattle Times headline writer put it, a Simple and Cheap Viaduct Fix — as misleading as that phrasing may be. (Anyone who knows construction even a little is aware that there is no such thing as "simple and cheap." Fixing the Viaduct is still going to be expensive. But a difference of at least a few billion dollars is certainly worth considering.)

So when will Ross have engineers Neil Twelker and Victor Gray (or someone from their group) on his show to be grilled on their proposal to repair the viaduct in place? This is a big issue and we should hear all the options in detail. My own take is that an awful lot of power people (that includes KUOW interviewers) are wearing rose-colored blinders, to mix-up some metaphors, and confusing what might be nice with what is plausible.

•••

End of the day, what will we do? The Twelker/Gray retrofit-in-place.

The Achilles heel of any of the plans is "the problem of the interim."

Once you go with either a new viaduct or a tunnel you lose (because of construction logistics) the existing corridor for 3-4 years at least. Then people start considering the People's Waterfront Coalition's very appealing tear-it-down & leave-it-down approach and ask the question: "If we can live without the Viaduct for 4 years, why can't we do without it forever?"

Such thinking will freak out downtown business, Ballard & Magnolia neighborhoods (business & residential) and of course the Mayor's Office and WSDOT....maybe even the Feds for whom the SR 99 corridor has tactical defense implications.

What's left? The retrofit.

QED.

Economic geography changes slowly

Valuation map of Manhattan:

And someone is surprised?

A Rebellion in the G.O.P. on Security, a Signature Issue

In a rebuke to the White House, House Republicans are moving aggressively to put the brakes on the takeover by a Dubai company of some port terminal operations in several large American cities, an effort that moved forward on Wednesday with broad bipartisan support.

Lawyers Assail Yemeni Editor on Cartoons

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates,  March 8 — A group of 23 Yemeni  lawyers  denounced  the editor of a Yemeni newspaper in court on Wednesday, during his trial on charges of  insulting Islam for reprinting Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Google Earth Blog

Very useful site now that there is a Mac version.

Comparison is a rhetorical technique used to diminish

Is it possible for a mind to believe that two things can both be true? Simultaneously? Perhaps not for fairly well-known travel writer Rick Steves who says:

The greatest risk to our society today is not Islamo-fascist terrorism, but the people who use that term to scare us.

Why not admit both as threats? Why not say something like:

Our society faces a threat from Islamo-fascist terrorism and our society faces a threat from our own people who mis-use that term to scare us for their own political purpose.

Why use the rhetorical technique of comparison to diminish? Isn't it possible that there is a severe threat from Islamofascism and we have a President who will use that threat for his own political advantage?  Why diminish the threat from Islamofascism because we have an inept President? You'd think the external threat might even be greater with poor leadership.

Let's be frank. The rhetoric gets worse:

Let's be honest: Is there anyone out there who would actually want to — or, more importantly, be able to — invade the United States? Consider today's biggest perceived threat, al-Qaida. Do Osama bin Laden and his gang want to ride into Washington, D.C., take over our government, and turn us into an Islamo-fascist nation? Or — as his recent offer of a "truce" suggests — do they instead want dignity for the Palestinians, Christian armies out of sacred Muslim territory, and freedom for the Arab world to control its own natural resources?

Is Steves as simple as he seems? His line about "...freedom for the Arab world to control its own natural resources" is especially risible. I have watched his travel shows on TV and he seemed only a nerdy enthusiast offering sometimes useful information, patronizing to everyone — tourist and local alike — in his excitement at seeing "the real Europe," but harmless. I may have misjudged.

Ironically, I happen to agree with the idea that battling Islamofascism is not a matter of more tanks. It is more a struggle of ideas than anything else and our President is not doing a good job at it, witness his muddle on the cartoons. But Steves diminishes the challenge from Islamofascism entirely when all he really needs to say is that we are taking the wrong approach. Instead he makes it appear as if problems — if any — are the fault of the United States. Of course maybe that is what he really means to say.

•••

And maybe I am answering, if a bit indirectly, my post below on Phyllis Chesler. My immediate impression on reading the Rick Steves column was that it was a WSJ Opinion page satire of dhimmitude among some liberals. But alas, Steves means it seriously.

•••

Uh...

Al Qaeda's Zawahri calls for strikes against West

Al Qaeda's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri called on Muslims to attack the West in an audio tape posted on the Internet on Saturday, urging similar strikes as those against New York, London and Madrid in recent years.

Any opinion?

Phyllis Chesler writes:.

...most Western academic and mainstream feminists have not focused on what I call gender apartheid in the Islamic world, or on its steady penetration of Europe...Women in the Islamic world are treated as subhumans. Although some feminists have sounded the alarm about this, a much larger number have remained silent...Because feminist academics and journalists are now so heavily influenced by left ways of thinking, many now believe that speaking out against head scarves, face veils, the chador, arranged marriages, polygamy, forced pregnancies, or female genital mutilation is either "imperialist" or "crusade-ist."

And so on. Chesler makes some damning claims. But Chesler offers no documentation and/or "texts" to support her claim. I've heard such attacks before. Overlooking Chesler's methodologically suspect argument, I am curious about several things:
1. Is it an even remotely fair criticism?
2. What exactly would critics such as Chesler have Western women do?
3. Why isn't she writing such a criticism of conservative women of the West? Shouldn't they be under a similar obligation to take up the cudgels for their sisters?

Does the theory work? And why?

Felix Salmon wonders about the "Broken Windows" theory.

My own take on why Broken Windows does in fact work refers back to Jane Jacobs' "eyes on the street" policing. (And the symmetry between windows being repaired and eyes looking through windows is not just a coincidence.)

Fixing broken windows is a sign that people are watching and care and will call the cops. It demonstrates that attention is being paid and that people will respond to bad acts. "Fixing things" acts as a territorial marker. It says that this ground is claimed and a vandal will be challenged and confronted. "Fixing broken windows" is non-verbal but so is vandalism.

Look at it from yet another perspective: is it an appropriate practice for commercial property management? Is it effective? Does it make sense? Yes, if for no other reason than quickly making repairs sends a message to the police that owners in an area care for their property, take what care they can and will appreciate police help. More importantly, what's the alternative? Leave the windows broken? Resistance to vandalism through repair is essential unless one is willing to cede an area.

See if you can keep this one straight

Ferrari Case Takes New Twist With Possible Tie to Bus Agency.

Shallow reporting from public radio

How could one have a news report titled Saudi Enrollment Soars on U.S. Campuses and ignore issues of security? Not even mention it. Bizarre. No, the story is about creating "good-will" between the USA and Saudi Arabia by having Saudi students here in the USA. I'll take such "good-will" efforts seriously when the Saudis allow Christian, Buddhist or (even!) Jewish worship on their territory.

And now I remember why I stopped donating to public radio: it's such conventional feel-good pablum.

Why do people ignore the retrofit option?

Through the wonders of podcasts I had the chance to hear superb local talk-show host Ross Reynolds lead a discussion about the Alaskan Way Viaduct. It was good as far as it went, which was not far as the show completely ignored the retrofit option. Why?

Why are so many people --Reynolds included -- so unwilling to even consider the retrofit option advocated here by two very experienced engineers.

There seems to be a conspiracy of silence about this option from both the pro-tunnel and the tear-it-down enthusiasts. Now the obvious conclusion for me is that both groups want to avoid such discussion because they can see its practical/fiscal/political appeal. If the puiblic starts looking at the cost/benefit of the retrofit option it will win hands-down. No?

But why does Ross Reynolds — usually a rigorously fair-handed host — seem to take part in this conspiracy of silence?

Home Economics

Quite an interesting article about economist Edward Glaeser and well-worth reading if you use real estate.

Via Asymmetrical Information.

Maybe she's a self-doubting liberal?

Some woman asks:.

If I'm pro-choice--and I am--then how come I'm always gleefully reporting setbacks for my side?

Or maybe she has the maturity to separate what she wants from the means to obtain it. Or maybe she is simply young and immature. I have no idea but the "glee" is a clue she might want to consider.

Go!

Time runs out on Sonics' push for new arena.

Sonics principle owner Howard Schultz has said several times this year that without commitment from the state and Seattle, the team would have to consider alternative venues in and outside Washington.

All wilts in time

Link: Flower District, RIP.

Manhattan's flower district, on 28th Street, is not long for this world. What the merchants needed %u2013 a whole city block with easy truck access and non-astronomical rents %u2013 simply can't be found in these days of frothy residential real estate. It won't be long until there are essentially no street-level merchants (as opposed to retail stores) in Manhattan any more...

Michelle Malkin really ought to have the grace...

...to apologize and to be a bit embarrassed for being taken in by and spreading the story about the "twelve Moslem men." I've never thought much of Malkin's judgment and her version of a mea culpa furthers my impression. I post on this incident because we are in a very dangerous era indeed and with real enemies. So there is even greater need for cool heads and rigorous thinking, not bombastic bullshit spreading misinformation about non-existent confrontations. There is plenty-enough to worry about without falling for fantasy.

I'm sorry that we don't have a Danish Consulate in Seattle

"Rally to Support Denmark and Free Speech" outside the Danish Consulate in San Francisco.

A brave woman indeed.

Watch the video here.

Via The Free West.

City, state join to imitate King Canute

City, state join to build affordable housing.

Mayor Greg Nickels joined other city, state and community leaders Thursday in a groundbreaking ceremony for...a new affordable housing development. .... Built to help address the city's shortage of affordable homes...The building will be three stories, with units ranging in size and price from studios (beginning at $165,000) to three-bedrooms units (beginning at $300,000).

The gall

Sonics' Key plan: We keep profits.

The Seattle Sonics want to manage all the events -- and all the profits -- at KeyArena if taxpayers finance a $220 million remodel. In return, they'd pay for construction cost overruns and rent in their upgraded home.

Changing the subject

God will judge me on Iraq.

So will many others. And like Colin Powell, I am afraid that much as I like both of them, Blair is not going to look very good.

Why the quotes?

Britons recount four years of 'torture' in Egyptian jail

On my list

I must read Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept : How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within: Books.

Reviewed here: Author sees growing Muslim enclaves hoping to rule Europe.

According to Bawer, liberals in Europe, even more than their American counterparts, want to believe that most Muslim immigrants share Western middle-class goals: a safe place to live, opportunities for their children, and the like. That accounts, Bawer argues, for the odd mix in their attitudes to Muslims: joy in the "multiculturalism" that makes their previously homogeneous societies more "colorful," and a nativist desire to keep Muslims in their place as exotica. Bawer asserts that the reality - confirmed for him by the resistance of European Muslims to assimilation, and the marked presence in their communities of honor killings, homophobia, polygamy, marital rape, forced marriage, and intolerance of democracy and pluralism - is that European Muslim leaders, with demographics on their side, still harbor the millennial hope of taking power in Europe, and see the European attitude as both weak and hostile. It is "political correctness," Bawer writes, that has "gotten Europe into its current mess."

The review ends, however, with the oddest question and one typical it seems to me of simpering liberals:

To whom does any country's physical territory belong? Those who have been there longest? A simple majority? The best-educated?

"What a lovely combination - tax increment financing and eminent domain for a private developer."

So wrote a reader to alert me to this Hollywood Infamy.

Los Angeles officials cleared the way for a luxury hotel developer to seize buildings housing about 30 small businesses through eminent domain so a $400-million project with a W Hotel, condominium and apartment units, and glitzy shops and restaurants can be built on the southeast corner.

Is the Governor really Howard's advocate?

Much to the team's annoyance, Voters may have final say on any plan to help Sonics. And our Governor's attitude seems to enable such sucking on the public teat:

"I'm trying to tell Howard it's a huge political issue," Gregoire said. "It's about, 'Can we get it through this place?' "

It sounds to me that Christine (Hey! we're all buddies here) is just a little bit too much on Howard's bench  to make me very comfortable. In fact the whole thing smells.

"Radical losers"

Extremism: the loser's revenge.

Does masturbation lead to suicide bombing?

Ian Buruma is always perceptive. The root of their problem clearly has something to do with sex or else why such odd, to put it mildly, attitudes about and actions toward women? Here's a mild example: Iranian police attack female soccer fans. There are many more so horrific I shudder. Attitudes toward women seem to be at the very core of their issues

See also An Irish woman's report of a soccer game in Iran..

"The Manifesto"

"I detect a trend."

So do I.

Here is The Manifesto, ready to print.

If you haven't read it, please do take the time to do so. It is the document of the week, if not a great deal more.

How could one be upset?

An Australian politician — the Finance Minister — said what seems totally reasonable, harmless and he's even phrased it in a very respectful way:

He said.

"Before entering a mosque visitors are asked to take off their shoes," he told the Sydney Institute last night. "This is a sign of respect. If you have a strong objection to walking in your socks, don't enter the mosque.

"Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values, don't come to Australia."

Via Tim Blair.