City Comforts, the blog

Don't ask unless you already know

State panel to study four-lane Alaskan Way Tunnel.

In a small win for Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, the state today asked outside experts to study the mayor's proposal for a four-lane Alaskan Way Tunnel... Gov. Christine Gregoire and state legislative leaders gave the project's expert review panel a Feb. 13 deadline -- about a week before ballots are sent to city residents for an all-mail advisory vote.

It's far too soon for anyone to call it even a small win for the Mayor.
It could well be the knock-out punch.
The Governor is a lawyer and has much experience in trials.
The very first thing they teach you in law school about trial work is "Never ask a question of a witness unless you know the answer."

Poignant eulogy for a cat

Dusty, 1994-2007

No, more than a cat.

My sympathies.

The momentum builds to delay the vote

Viaduct ballot lost in political fog. So says the Seattle Times Editorial Board, not some unknown bloggers.

The March 13 vote has been purposely manhandled and should be rescheduled to reflect vetted facts. At it stands now, this bad public policy insults voters' intelligence while it wastes their time.

Truth in voting

Peter Sherwin has filed a court challenge to the wording of the two Alaskan Way Viaduct ballot measures on the March 13 ballot.

In his challenge Sherwin argues that the ballot title does not make clear that:
•The state has not agreed to a four-lane tunnel.
•No significant funding has been secured for the tunnel option. (The city says the funding is secure.)
•Seattle residents may have to pay certain taxes and tolls.
•All cost overruns would be the sole responsibility of the city of Seattle.

The whole process for deciding how to handle damage to the Viaduct — from the start six years ago to to this pointless election — has been phonied-up to reach a preordained result: the Tunnel. Kudos to Sherwin for trying to make the vote a fairer and more truthful one, (even if pointless as it is "advisory.") Well done, Peter.

•••

Btw, whether they like it or not, people who favor the Surface option and people who favor the Retrofit (and hey! people who favor the Bay Bridge, too) have at least one big thing in common: they've been cheated by WSDOT, whose process has not been a fair-handed one. None of these three options have been given a fair shake. Which political leaders have actively cooperated in this charade — this analysis of options based on "winks" — I have no idea. But the City Council must share a major part of the responsibility. By accepting an artificial limit on the discussion, they have been forced into a situation in which the only two options they can offer the voters are the Unaffordable (a Tunnel which even the State doubts) and the Ridiculous (Rebuild creating a viaduct far more intrusive than the one we have now.) They have been hoist by their own petard because they rigged (or allowed the process to be rigged) so that their Tunnel would look good. Unfortunately, we the voters are also hoist.

The Council, if it had any brains and integrity, would (with the Governor and the Speaker's acquiescence, of course) withdraw the vote in favor of a rapid study of the Steinbrueck compromise. If it doesn't do so, I think it will lose to a "No and No" sentiment so vast as to reflect a vote of "no confidence" in their stewardship.

Olympic Sculpture Park is as nice as they say

There are benefits to living in proximity to the very rich especially if they are public-spirited rich. One example? The Seattle Art Museum's Olympic Sculpture Park. I stopped by today for a brief stroll. And it was brief, as the Park was packed with visitors and I wasn't in the mood for crowds right then. But it was packed for good reason — the hoopla is justified by the Park. It's really a fine place and while I still don't think it is "transformative," as some enthusiasts claim, it will add to Seattle as a city because it is a very public space.

What did I like? I didn't really focus on the art — I'm not much for big abstract objects, really, as they seem slightly "forced" — but I'll list a few things which I found quite appealing about the Park as a place:
• There is no admission charge because it is a civic park and parks are free;
• It has a surprising amount of lawn and you are welcome to walk on it;
• Dogs are allowed;
• There is a pleasant cafe where I can imagine spending time, even working, assuming it has wi-fi;
• You can take chairs from the cafe and sit outside;
• It offers people who live or work nearby an element to work into their stroll as it very linear and you can walk through it without retracing your steps.

Not so smart? Installing sculpture which cries out to be caressed, which leads to Teaching the public how to treat art park.

I'll go back and tell you more as spring progresses — the park is going to be THE place for the 4th of July fireworks on Elliott Bay — but they've done a very fine job; and I am very pleased to say so as I was dreading visiting. I was afraid that it would not even be remotely up to the hype, but it is.

Photo E. Kanny

So what happens if...

...State officials, up to and including the Governor, continue to make statements which challenge the City's notion that tunnel lite offers the savings claimed by the City.

A top state transportation manager raised doubts Thursday about whether a narrower tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct really can save $1.2 billion, as touted by Seattle officials.

The city's advisory measure for the March 13 ballot says a four-lane tunnel — with safety shoulders used as exit lanes at rush hour — can be built for an estimated $3.4 billion. That idea emerged after the expected price of a six-lane tunnel rose to $4.6 billion last year.

But David Dye, urban-corridors administrator for the Department of Transportation (DOT), speculates that the city is being optimistic about its bottom line.

We have the bizarre situation in which an option officially favored by the City is undermined/attacked by the State. Will we see the Governor herself actively urge that the voters reject tunnel lite? Bringing the Governor and Mayor/Council-majority into open and direct political conflict? That should certainly get Seattle some great national publicity and help the Democratic Party's reputation as a problem-solving organization — but that is what looms.

More here: City grilled over viaduct by Legislators who

said the city was coming in late with overly optimistic, unverified numbers.

What is a voter to do? Is it possible that a really major defeat for tunnel lite -- in the 80% "NO" range for the City's official preference -- should prompt resignations and new elections? In the fashion of a "vote of no confidence" in a Parliamentary system? One can hope.

Consider again the implications for the Democratic Party and 2008. State elected officials should in fact speak the truth as they see it but I hope they can separate the Mayor and Council-majority from the "good Democrats" and make sure that statewide voters see Seattle officials as acting in a "rogue" capacity, ignoring the State's directives, such as to not asking the voters if we will pay for cost overruns.

Teach-in on the Seattle Viaduct

It's timely & useful to have a Teach-in on the Viaduct to educate the media & public and draw attention to the fact that the alternatives offered by the City are an artificial and disjointed limitation on the discussion and that there are several quite feasible ways to say "Yes" after two "Nos." (I assume that most people who read this blog are in agreement that the wisest vote will be a Double No.)

I'd urge The Stranger to organize such an event but hitherto its editors and writers have proudly exhibited such a love of "advocacy journalism" (I think that's what they call it) that I can't imagine that they would be able to offer any sort of even remotely fair-handed — let's be blunt: honest — teach-in. But hey! I'd love to be proven wrong. (I don't think that the dailies have the umph to do anything like a teach-in with flair and The Weekly is no longer a player. The broadcast TV stations are a joke. Now KUOW-FM might be able to put together something but they are so earnest and media-centric there is a danger that it would be boring. But hey! Again, prove me wrong, KUOW! Then again there is KIRO-FM. Dave Ross and David Goldstein are quite alert to Seattle politics and Dory Monsen represents a certain perspective -- some of which I share, btw. Maybe KIRO could strike out and position itself as "an adult alternative to the alternative" i.e. KUOW.)

The big danger of such an event is that it might be dominated by cant such as "connect Seattle to its waterfront" and used as a propoaganda tool. And if you invite elected officials (except Chopp, Sommers, Licata and a very few others) you won't get much besides happy talk.

•••

Btw, I hope that the Mayor and City Council will have the grace and concern for Seattle to say something like this:

"Folks," (it's always folks in Seattle), "of course we urge you to vote Yes on the Tunnel. But if for some reason you don't feel comfortable doing that, we strongly urge you to vote No on the Rebuild, which is a truly horrible and stupid alternative."

Nicely put

As a commenter to the post Majority Delusion (immediately below) put it:

People who urge tearing down the Seattle viaduct ASAP because of the Nisqually earthquake remind me of politicians who insisted on invading Iraq because of the 9-11 attacks.

Majority Delusion

While I agree that Proposed Viaduct (assuming we are talking about a brand-new one) is a Mega-Luxury Project we Don't Need I am astounded that so many really bright people are so willing to accept that, in the words of the blogger (of the link above),

We're going to have to tear the viaduct down anyway so why not do it now.

Why are we going to "have to tear the viaduct down?" Who says? People who have an agenda which doesn't include the Viaduct. The big elephant in the room, which many people studiously refuse to acknowledge, is that the current Viaduct can be Repaired.

The concerns about the "emergency" of the Viaduct are only excuses to tear it down. Consider, 6 years later and they still haven't even reduced speed limits on it. Think about it. There is NO emergency. (Or certainly none of the authorities are acting as if there is one.)

The Viaduct may certainly need repair -- what doesn't? -- but the idea that it must be destroyed is a "useful exaggeration" for people who have other agendas...the Peoples Waterfront Coalition, the Mayor and the majority of the City Council, The Stranger, WSDOT etc

As we were suggesting: "..a really good state issue.."

A blunt instrument, maybe effective

The Washington Republican Party hasn’t had a really good state issue for a while to go after the state’s ruling Democrats - an issue, that is, that a wide range of people (not just conservatives) can seize on to and join with. They may have one now, and state Chair Diane Tebelius - internally embattled though she may be - is laying solid groundwork on it. There is no hotter issue in Seattle right now than the Alaskan Way viaduct limited highway along downtown...As a matter of politics, just about everyone involved in the decision-making in this is a Democrat.

While I am a life-long Democratic-voter, I have no particular feeling one way or another for Governor Gregoire; I am highly dubious of most members of the ruling group at Seattle's City Hall. (The only statewide politicians coming out reasonably well so far are legislators such as Chopp, Sommers and Dickerman.)

I would hate to see Democrat's mismanagement of a big (but still very local) issue such as the Viaduct adversely impact the Democratic Party's chances at the national level in 2008. The stakes are very high for the nation; we need a new administration; and yet the Democrats in charge in Washington State are not showing that Democrats are up to the task of leadership. It's not likely that a Republican could take Washington. But the bizarre bungling around the Viaduct does not help matters and makes the whole Party look stupid. The Republicans have taken notice.

"...the dearest freshness deep down things;"

Farmers find stunning archeological site in Peru's Andes.

"We are dealing with a startlingly large, functionally specialized structure that we do not understand at all," said archaeologist Warren Church of Columbus State University in Georgia, who was not involved in the find. "It is enormous, and to find it where we find it is really strange."

The Republicans must be licking their chops

Gregoire: Hybrid Viaduct tunnel plan back on the table.

She must not like her job.

Still sounds right to me

May 28, 2006: The Retrofit is the only politically-realistic solution.

It depends what you mean by "No Action"

We all understand that we need to move forward. No action is not an option," said the joint statement by several leaders and Gregoire..

The widening gyre

Postman on Politics tells us that

Republicans from East King County are hoping to have their area benefit from the viaduct logjam. Reps. Reps. Fred Jarrett, Jay Rodne and Glenn Anderson issued a statement today saying they "joined the governor in rejecting the City of Seattle's proposed timeline." They say they money for the viaduct should go instead to the 520 bridge and to widen I-405. (italics added)

Of course they want the money.

Garbage in, garbage out. The reason we can't decide what to do is because we don't need to do much besides Repair it. That's the explanation for the six years it has taken to get us to a point where we don't know what to do. If there was a true emergency, we would have done made some simple amelioratives such as lower the speed limits or the tonnage allowed. But have we? No.

Also, all the options except some basic Repair are discretionary. When you start the debate by insisting that there is an emergency which demands a certain course of action (here that we can't  Repair the Viaduct) you create a mess  which you have a hard time managing. (The parallels between Iraq and the Viaduct are striking.) The final result will of course be — after the national laughter dies down — to do piecemeal Repairs.

For example?

Criticizing the critic Robert Hughes.

"Art requires the long look," he wrote in the introduction to his 1990 collection of essays, Nothing If Not Critical. "It is a physical object, with its own scale and density as a thing in the world." While this is true of most art up through the 19th century, the new century ushered in a new way of thinking about art as a set of concepts, a mode of interaction, a manner of seeing and apprehending the world that may—or may not—be tied to a discrete physical object. To reject this approach entirely is to cut oneself off from much of what's interesting and compelling in the art of the last 100 years.(italics added)

So if this new kind of "art" is not "tied to a discrete physical object" then how would it manifest itself? (I assume that we are not talking about performance such as singing or dance.) Sounds a little unlikely.

If you like your dental hygienist, don't ask her out

Law Professor Eugene Volokh writes.

Say you live in Washington State, and you find yourself getting to know and becoming attracted to your dental hygienist...You're interested in a romantic relationship, a sexual relationship, perhaps even marriage. You're both consenting adults, you think, right? You have a right to marry, and even a right to have sex...

The Washington authorities don't seem to think so.

After observing the Viaduct clowning, nothing surprises me any more about government in Washington State.

I like it

The Insane Clown Posse and the Tunnel of Love.

Seattle City Clowncil

Thinking about 2008

Herd of cats seen on waterfront. And they are all Democrats. Joel Connelly asks:

"What must voters elsewhere in the state be thinking?"

Look in the mirror, Ross

Our local "public" radio station KUOW (often) offers some very good talk. Yesterday one topic was Who's to blame for the (Seattle) viaduct impasse?

In early 2001, the Nisqually Earthquake shook the foundation of the viaduct, Seattle's elevated waterfront roadway. Engineers say it's imperative to replace the structure before it falls down in the next big earthquake. But the Nisqually quake was six years ago. City and state officials are still squabbling over what to do. Who's to blame for the  viaduct impasse? (italics added)

Most callers were ill-informed and illustrated why such talk radio needs some expert voices to help focus the discussion. In any case, Ross Reynold, the host of this show and someone I usually admire for his acumen, focused the discussion on the very silly issue of "Who's to blame for the  viaduct impasse?" but without looking in the mirror.

My answer to his question for the problem is a passive, supine media -- (the same press which in a few rare cases such as KUOW asked exceedingly good question about another even based on the big lie: the Iraq War) -- a media which offers as a non-debatable given that the Viaduct must be replaced and cannot be Repaired. Local media have fed the myth (furthered by WSDOT, the Mayor and the City Council) that a Repair is not possible. What's ironic is that the Viaduct passed right by two incredibly-successful examples of places -- Pike Public Market and Pioneer Square -- which 30 years ago Had nothing but run-down and decrepit structures -- but which were all brought back to life by repair. The current discussion of the Viaduct suffers immensely by the conspiracy of silence which surrounds the Repair option.

Media has done a terrible job of looking critically at the claims of the autrhorities.

So when it comes to placing blame, look in the mirror Ross.

Excellent idea

520: Toll first, build later.

It is clear that expanding Highway 520 will require tolls and that these tolls will cause the number of cars using 520 facilities to go down. But by how much?...Tolls can have a very large impact on traffic demand...Serious consideration should be given to both imposing tolls immediately and delaying a decision on 520's preferred alternative for five years.

Chutzpuh Breathtaking in its Chutzpuh

Statement by Mayor Nickels and Councilmember  Drago.

SEATTLE — We are deeply disappointed with the announcement today by the Governor and legislative leadership. After asking for a public vote, the leadership in Olympia is now saying they are not interested in the opinions of Seattle citizens. Instead, they are threatening to impose a new elevated freeway or, even worse, taking state funding away from the most dangerous section of highway in the state of Washington. No other city in the state has been treated in this manner.

It is clear that Olympia is not interested in a real solution to the Viaduct replacement. The proposal for the Surface/Tunnel Hybrid offers a more cost-effective, environmentally-sound transportation solution that will save over $1 billion compared to WSDOT's inflated six-lane alternative.

Olympia has arbitrarily rejected the Hybrid solution and ignored the advice of their own Expert Review Panel. Their assertion that the Hybrid Tunnel had not yet been validated rings hollow in light of the Governor's order that WSDOT stop working on this proposal last Friday.

The voters of Seattle have a clear expectation that they will be given honest choices; that their voices will be heard; and their choices respected.

This is a choice about the future of our city, not about politics in Olympia. We will move forward with our plans to put the question on the ballot and let the people of Seattle decide the future of our city.

We will follow the will of the people of Seattle, not the dictates of Olympia.

"Chutzpuh" is being exceedingly gentle. But do Nickels & Drago really think they have anything to gain by posturing to flout the Governor with such bravado as  "We will follow the will of the people of Seattle, not the dictates of Olympia." It reminds me of those pathetic claims of "Mission Accomplished." And the analogy to the Big Lie of Iraq and the Big Lie of the Viaduct should not be ignored. (The Big Lie being in both situations that there is an emergency and no alternatives.)

And these are the people who refused to consider any option except a Tunnel, who took the WSDOT Rebuild Plan seriously and who were against a public vote.

"Revisted" indeed

"Cottage Living Revisited"

Sellers convened a gathering of architects at his home in Vermont and developed a master plan that called for 15 architects and designers to build 18 freestanding cottages as well as expand the Seth Bird House to create common areas, dining rooms, and another guest suite. With all-inclusive rates starting at $1,450 a night, it will promise to add a whole new dimension to the concept of luxe. (italics added)

I think it will.

A likely story

Nickels' backing for 4-lane "tunnel lite" gets cool reception.

A four-lane tunnel would shave $1.2 billion from the $4.6 billion estimated cost of the previously proposed six-lane tunnel but it still could carry as much traffic, the city said.

Then why wasn't "tunnel lite" the preferred alternative from the outset?

Duh

Seattle trying to woo salmon back downtown.

Rather than return to nature, scientists and engineers hope to imitate it.

A year ago, at the sculpture park, they used a crane to lower 50,000 tons of rock into the water along the seawall, creating a habitat "bench" 15 to 20 feet wide. At low tide, this faux-tideland sometimes lies out of the water.

The rock work has the dual benefit of creating habitat and shoring up the seawall for tens of millions of dollars less than other construction methods. Work on the seawall and beach cost $5.7 million, much of it from the city, state and federal agencies. (italics added)

Terrific idea and intuitively that of course is the right solution -- a win-win. I just wonder why (no I don't) such a simple solution was not proposed for the bulk of the seawall ages ago rather than trumping up a billion dollar solution. Maybe the Sculpture Park will have a benefit beyond creating a pleasant place to visit and flaunting local wealth (which I am quite happy we have.)

I wonder if this dance has anything to do with promoting survival of the species

Inspired by Tango Encore I post my friend Peter Haley's ode to the tango:

Copyright Peter Haley 2006

The answer couldn't be serious

Ask an Uptight Seattleite: Do you have to bus your table?

Ask an Uptight Seattleite 

Dear Uptight Seattleite, I was leaving the Essential Bakery in Madison Valley a while back  with two young children in tow when a man followed me out the door to point out, accusingly, that  we were expected to bus our own tables inside. I had not done so but was taken aback by his pursuit. While I admit I transgressed, is it reasonable to police the busing  behaviors of others?

Busted Dear Busted,

Please help me understand. I  assume there was some kind of  emergency. Maybe one of your  children, or both, were bleeding from their necks? In such a situation, yes, of course, it might well be understandable that you wouldn't do a full clearing of your table (though you could have perhaps at least thrown away your trash). Or was there some other reason that you mentioned the presence of your children? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't expect that the cafe, or society as a whole, would accord you some sort of special treatment because you made the choice  to reproduce. Let's back up a moment and imagine this situation from the man's perspective. He's quietly going about his business—drinking his coffee, reading his paper, and watching you carefully from an adjoining table. Sure, he thinks, that woman may have children, but that doesn't necessarily mean she's insensitive about the larger footprint she therefore makes on the Earth. I'm sure she will, if anything, be even more diligent about her responsibilities. She certainly wouldn't expect minimum-wage workers to clean up after her. Or so he thinks. And then he sees you get up and leave your napkins, cups, and maybe a diaper or two all over the table. As if the words "please bus your own table" were not carefully printed in sun-faded marker and affixed with cellophane tape above the cream station. He could have simply shaken his head sadly and gone back to his soy latte. But no, he chose to take  advantage of the teaching moment that was presented to him. Just as he took the higher path, I encourage you, too, to  enlarge your view of the matter. It's not every day that we are afforded such  an opportunity to reflect productively upon our actions.

Trouble ahead

Congress can't stop buildup, Bush says.

"No question, decisions have made things unstable," he added.

First problem is the passive voice.

It's always "mistakes were made," a passive-voice phrase made infamous by Richard Nixon. It is never "I made mistakes." Bush still doesn't own the political catastrophe he has brought on our country. Not even "My decisions have made things unstable." Of course it is not only Bush. No one uses the active voice when the passive will help to shift responsibility. George Bush may fancy himself "the decider" but he isn't really man enough.

Next problem is this sobering thought: After noting Bush's striking decline in public approval, Glenn Greenwald notes that what he characterizes as "the collapse of the Bush presidency" poses risks".

The most dangerous George Bush is one who feels weak, powerless and under attack.  Those perceptions are intolerable for him and I doubt there are many limits, if there are any, on what he would be willing to do in order to restore a feeling of power and to rid himself of the sensations of his own weakness and defeat.

It is exactly sentiments such as the one above — "Congress can't stop buildup." — which indicate the danger. How do we deal with it? I have no idea as Bush will probably have the "cooperation" of terrorists i.e. expect more attacks. The tragedy of the Bush Presidency is that there is indeed a severe problem with terrorism and his approach is a failure. Some people interpret the fact that his policies have failed to mean that there was no problem to begin with. I don't see it that way. There is a real problem from Jihadists and GW Bush has failed in dealing with it. That's part of the tragedy.

Parking rates and urbanity are inversely related, but the causality runs one way so don't look to parking rates to do the heavy lifting

Here is the source for the graph; and more on my favorite subject — parking — at  AIA San Francisco - Line

Grand Opening: Seattle’s Olympic Sculpture Park

The Sculpture Park is a big deal (as well it should be) but expectations are just a tad high. Urbanist and former elected-official Gordon Price of Vancouver BC discusses it here and suggests that

Hopefully the success of the park will persuade people that rebuilding the Alaskan way Viaduct, just to the south, would be a very bad idea if it foreclosed other opportunities like this.

My reaction:

1. It’s unclear to me how the Viaduct forecloses (or would foreclose) improvements such as the Sculpture Park. In fact, I’d assert that it doesn’t. Consider the Sculpture Park itself. Moreover, and most importantly, NO efforts have ever been made to ‘civilize’ the current Viaduct. In the typical American tradition, no improvement is sufficient if it is not perfect.

2. The Tunnel is a dead duck if only because there is no money for it as well as for the larger reason that there should not be enough money for a capital improvement which pours so much money into such a small area. If we have an extra $3-4 bilolion to spend on improving Seattle, there are many other more productive ways to spend it.

3. Seattle is far far too split to make a decision; there is no 'working majority' for any of the current alternatives. I personally will not tax myself for the Tunnel; the vast majority of other middle-aged progressives who pay the taxes here will also demur and vote against a Tunnel. Period. The only practical and politically-palatable path is and will be a sideways piece-meal subrosa effort to _repair_ the current Viaduct and leave it to the next generation a few decades hence to reconsider that decision and see if there is a solution which doesn't distort the civic improvement budget and for which people will pay.

Nothing is without flaw

Some people are worried about the purity of the Gates Foundation investment criteria.

There are only degrees of purity. Once you start down this road you will find that no enterprise is pure and good, and all have, at least from someone's perspective, basic ethical flaws.

Name a company which you think is "good." I bet you that someone can offer a very legitimate argument (i.e. it has some real claim to rationality) as to why that company is in fact deeply flawed. Consider a national home-builder.  Some might claim that simply on the basis that it builds suburban housing tracts then that alone is enough to diss it. What about a fast-food restaurant which pays its workers very well and offers health care, day care etc etc? Yet it supports by its location on suburban strip arterials the very worst sort of sub-urban expansion.

Now are some companies worse than others? Probably so and the intention to get rid of the worst is fine. But if you start looking carefully, you'll find that it is the very nature of civilization — human relations and resource use — will provides legitimate if not conclusive argument as to the depravity of the enterprise. (Of course human relations and resource use are at the root of all good things which civilization does, too.) Even an enterprise as seemingly benign as, for example, Patagonia (outdoor gear) contributes to our society's infatuation with fashion and image.

Sure, get rid of cigarette makers. What about people who make candy? And which encourage obesity, which is also a killer? No, I think this effort to find "good companies" is not as simple as it appears.

UPDATE: A commenter accuses me of raising a strawman. I do nothing of the kind. I suggest that the task urged on the Gates Foundation is a futile one and that none of us should engage in futile behavior. Unless a corporation is doing something illegal on a massive scale, there is no reason except pique and/or personal preference not to invest. There are many vegans in the USA and in Seattle. Should Gates refuse to invest in a meat-packer? Because it slaughters animals? Or Wal-Mart because of its suburban site-planning practices? I simply don't see a moral imperative. If we don't like the behavior of a company, then makes its behavior illegal. Let's go a step farther. Suppose Gates can find NO equity investments which are "worthy." It then puts it money in US Treasury bonds and bills. Don't you think it is helping to lower interest rates? Yes it is and thus making the cost of doing business for nefarious corporations that much cheaper. (To boot it is aiding GW Bush in his absurd overseas fiascoes.)

The only way in which moral-based investing might be effective is to flip it around so that the Gates did nothing but buy positions -- using its massive endowment -- in companies so as to change their policies i.e. it picked out the "worst" companies (and you'll have big debates about that too) and bought huge positions so as to explicitly change management and its policies. I am not suggesting such a course but it would be more effective than the namby-pamby of "we are too pure to invest in you."

•••

Others are also skeptical about "SRI": Is socially responsible investing a sham?

Capitalism can be blessedly apolitical

No doubt you've heard of the high government official who is Discouraging Detainee Defense by white-shoe law firms with the admonition that "Corporate CEOs seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists."

Such a plea is not likely to be heeded. On simple shareholder-value grounds, I can't imagine that corporate managers would risk the business loss from using competent but second-tier firms (the "Winner Takes All" phenomenon is well-illustrated by legal fees) in order to affirm solidarity with GW Bush's catastrophic and ineffective (for America and everyone else) policies. Capitalists are out to make a buck and it is one of the saving gracing of capitalism that it is very short-sighted and as Lenin puts it a capitalist would sell the bullets to his own executioner. Lenin didn't see that as a virtue of course; I do.

No, I think that enhancing shareholder value requires hiring the very best legal talent available, no matter what such talent does — so long as legal — in its spare time.

So I imagine the next step for this high government official is to try to make such pro bono representation of "detainees" (what a terrible obfuscation) altogether illegal. When will we get the adults back in charge?

Totally wrong way to go about it

And sadly typical

...civic leaders emphasize the importance of urban density to save the splendor of the surrounding countryside,

City planning which wants to end up with interesting places doesn't start with density but finishes their with density as a byproduct of having created places where people want to be.

An interesting city should be an end in itself and not a means to yet another end such as preserving the countryside. Yes, to some degree creating interesting urban places might relieve some desire by urban-dwellers to leave the city for dwelling or recreation. But that's a pretty indirect way to save wilderness, much less mere country. Should consciousness of the dynamics of choice be part of our thinking? Sure. But should it to any degree be emphasised as a reason for saving wilderness? Only if you like indirection and useless debate. The primary way to save wilderness is to buy wilderness but fan chance in a country in which money is scarce to repair the flood-damage caused endured by Mount Rainier this past fall

But perhaps the thinking — do one thing in order to attain another — is just North American striving middle-class psychology: there are no ends but only means. Every worthwhile thing is done in order to attain some further station, which enables one to then climber higher thus enabling yet another step forward in the attempt to climb the greasy pole.

Ah! Sisyphus.

•••

Btw, the Seattle Times article to which I link above also suggests that this Sculpture Park may "redefine" Seattle. It's a probably a terrific place (I haven't seen it yet) and a welcome addition to Seattle. But "redefine Seattle?" Such a perspective suggests that Seatte's is a tabula rasa if one new element can transform it. No, we are not such a vapid city and there is much character here. And coincidentally (or not), the major private money behind the Park was generated by the company which truly has redefined Seattle — Microsoft.

Is this what she did?

The P-I gets it right that for the Alaskan Way Viaduct we have two lame options before us.

But I don't think that it is accurate to say that

Gov. Chris Gregoire demands that the council either put the viaduct replacement options (tunnel v. elevated highway) to an advisory vote by March or come up with a compromise on how to proceed.

In her (formal) statements she has neither asked for an advisory vote nor for a compromise. True?

That's me

I am not an academic, have no great interest in bashing David Horowitz (who indeed has something to offer) and so the fact that Michael Berube Stops Blogging is of little consequence to me. But Timothy Burke's comments hit home:

...most blogs have a fairly definite life cycle. Most never really outlast a brief initial burst of enthusiasm, but those that do last rarely hold on for more than about three or four years without either transmogrifying into some other kind of format (a group blog, a paid gig of some kind). Mostly blogs ebb and flow with the life rhythms of their creator... However, I think there’s also something about the form itself that poses a problem, and that the problem has gotten more acute as blogging has evolved as a practice. A self-aware blog writer eventually starts to recognize static or repetitive patterns in their posting that threaten to devolve into schtick.(italics added)

Yes, it's true here. Even I sometimes get bored by what I write. So my own approach has evolved into using this site as a true log — a daily place for me to keep references and to jot down notes for my own future use. Not that I don't want to persuade you as well.

Times Change

I grew up riding a ten-speed in Manhattan traffic. In high school I fell in with black-turtlenecks from the other buroughs. On weekends I would ride my bike from home in the far northern reaches of Manhattan -- Inwood -- to hang out with the other artsy/craftsy tenage "bohemians" in Washingtgon Square Park. It's about a ten-mile trip one way and I did it often, riding mostly on city streets amid traffic.

I wouldn't evcen thinking of doing it now. I don't like riding a bike even in Seattle traffic.

So I have beeen interested and impressed to watch this (YouTube) video on The Case for Separated Bike Lanes in NYC.

How things have changed from when no one took the bike as anything but a toy for teenagers.

Via Felix Salmon.

What New York needs is more cyclists. That will reduce traffic, and also increase consciousness that we cyclists exist, especially on the part of pedestrians who currently consider that they basically own the small margin of the streets between parked cars and driving cars, which is the only piece of street real estate where we cyclists are allowed. Think about it: when you're walking in New York and you hit a red light, do you wait on the sidewalk? Or do you walk out a little bit into the street first and then wait? Thought so.

At the moment, New York is simply too dangerous to cyclists for the number of cyclists to increase substantially. So separated bike lanes are a must. I use the Grand Street bike lane now every day, and it's certainly better than nothing. But it's not remotely good enough to increase the number of cyclists substantially. Much more radical change is needed, and needed now.

How does the surface option help?

No issue illustrates more vividly the triump of image over reality in public discourse than the calls to tear down the Viaduct in favor of the Surface Option. Danny Westneat gets it right on the big issue:Time's up for plan on viaduct. But his conclusion seedms lame and plaintive:

Tear down the viaduct, put in a surface boulevard and then try a "thousand little things" to make up for the lost highway, from rebuilt arterials to busways to freight routes. (emphasis added)

We should take a workable situation — the Viaduct — and remove it so that we can "try" a host of different things to replace its functionality. And for what? Supposedly to "connect the city to its waterfront." Such words paint a false picture. The city is already connected via a host of cross-streets; that we don't make them pleasant passageways indicates the lack of coherence between what we do and what we say. And to suggest that putting an additional 100,000 cars per days (ok -- call it just 50,000 for the sake of discussion) at street grade will improve the connection is quite mad. Has anyone tried to cross a street of such flow? You have to have traffic lights etc etc. I am not against traffic lights on boulevards at all. But I don't think that Seattle is ready for such a huge jump for reasons which benefit only a small downtown-oriented group.

But it all makes for great civic turmoil and is why the new motto for Seattle should be "We'd rather discuss than decide."

Only in Seattle (I hope)

Seattle's incipient authoritarian Not Really a Newspaper enables Seattle politicians trying to

...avoid a divisive public vote between a larger new viaduct and a six-lane cut-and-cover tunnel. (italics added)

By that reasoning we should also avoid Presidential elections as they too may be divisive. I guess to some people disagreement is not nice; we should all agree and if we don't agree we shouldn't let it be revealed in public.

Only people who don't like the possible results of an election would suggest that an election is negative because it is divisive. Dictators like Castro and Pinochet for example.

Gotta justify those fees?

A park is born

Michael Manfredi designed 26 slightly different door handles for the front entrance of the Olympic Sculpture Park pavilion before he settled on the perfect look, the right feel...In his mind, the handles had to do more than just open the doors: They needed to complement the basic structure of the building and its relationship to the park as a whole. "Michael obsessed about this," his partner Marion Weiss said on a recent visit to Seattle.

Anhd it is "...26 slightly different door handles..." (italics added)

"Obsessed?" Or just poor sense of priorities? Or a budget which had to be spent?

As if opening a door isn't noble enough; as if there aren't a hundred off-the-shelf door handles which would have been able to "complement the basic structure of the building and its relationship to the park as a whole." What possesses some designers to focus on "me?" The ultimate reason is that lay people enable them and don't simply snort and laugh when a designer does something as self-indulgent as spend public money (the sculpture park is supported by tax-exempt donations) on "...26 slightly different door handles..."

But no calculator?

"Apple Inc." unveils long-awaited phone.

The phones, which will operate exclusively on AT&T's Cingular wireless network, will start shipping in June. A 4-gigabyte model will cost $499, while an 8-gigabyte iPhone will be $599, Jobs said. IPhone is less than a half-inch thin — less than almost any phone on the market today. It comes with a 2-megapixel digital camera built into the back, as well as a slot for headphones and a SIM card.

It's kind of obvious, really.

A thousand ways to fix viaduct (January 2007)

So here's my modest proposal: Let's just try it. Close the viaduct. It's unsafe anyway, remember? Let's come up with a thousand-point plan like they did for the bus tunnel and shut down the viaduct for a month or two. Then see what happens.

Try an experiment. You are going to try it anyway if the Mayor's tunnel plan prevails. (May 2006)

Even the staid mainstream media is giving the "surface option" some serious play and the Seattle P-I asks the question: Could Seattle do without its elevated highway?

The obvious way to answer the question is to experiment and close the Viaduct for a year and see if we can get by without it.

It's going to happen anyway during construction if we go with the Tunnel or Rebuild options.

So do it now, under controlled circumstances, when we still have the Viaduct up in case the experiment is too painful etc etc. We have the luxury of being able to experiment - why commit to a five year closure when we can actually try it out?

How do you spell recall of the Mayor and City Council?

All-mail vote on viaduct options?

Gregoire's call for a public vote has overshadowed a draft agreement worked out earlier between the city and the state over how the city would cover the extra costs of a tunnel.

The governor has asked for a binding agreement to protect the state from added tunnel costs. Under the accord, the city would be responsible for the cost difference between an elevated structure and a tunnel, including cost overruns.

You spell it out as "the city would be responsible for the cost difference between an elevated structure and a tunnel, including cost overruns" if such commitment is made without the fully-informed approval of Seattle voters.

It's official

I just heard Governor Gregoire on KIRO-AM radio (about 7:45 AM) state explicitly that until someone brings forth better solutions, she sees only the Tunnel and Rebuild as viable alternatives. I don't know how much more explicit she needs to be except to say "I am all ears. Send me your suggestion on what we should do."

She very clearly opened up the discussion. I happen to agree with her but I think she is going about this in awfully odd way. Better late than never but she should have been asking this question -- "What can we do besides the Tunnel or the Rebuild on which we might agree?" -- several years ago.

Nevertheless, it is progress and maybe she will have the courage and political skill to climb down from her ultimatum.

The end-game

The Governor's foolish decision to open the debate on the Viaduct will reveal that there is no working political majority to adopt any one particular approach. Every plan (now accepted as legitimate by the media and officialdom) is deeply flawed. No large initiative can garner anything close to a majority; so none of the "Establishment Three" (Tunnel, Rebuild, Surface) will get enough support to be implemented.

The result will be a tacit acceptance of the Retrofit via piecemeal repair. No one will admit that we are doing the Retrofit but that will be the net result, but sadly not done with the style and quality which would have been possible had the process been honest and the Retrofit given a fair chance. (See, as one example of the possibilities, A model from Paris). So the net result of this dithering is another opportunity lost and an example of poor public management.

Ninety percent is not very high when it comes to 'life' much less 'death'

Who is this woman? Maud Newton thinks that

the standard of proof in a criminal trial is “beyond a reasonable doubt” — or 90% certainty of guilt"

and that is enough to lock someone up for the remainder of their life.

I stopped reading at such an absurd and cruel "...beyond a reasonable doubt” — or 90% certainty of guilt."

We are going to put someone in jail for life on a 90% chance of guilt? On that degree of certainty, I'd say let Skilling go and put in Maud for a 90% chance of being stupid.

You heard it here first

...apparently a cross-dressing man pretending to be a widow is another matter entirely..

Maybe pretty-much everything does boil down to sex. (Said in all dead seriousness.)

Natural Dating

At the Seattle (Roosevelt Square)  Whole Foods Market:

Friday, February 2nd
First Friday Singles Night
5:30–8:30 p.m.    $1
For wine tasting, must be 21 years or older with valid picture ID.

Join us for our first First Friday Singles Night.  Pick up a ribbon to tie around your basket while you shop (Red if you're looking for a woman, Blue if you're looking for a man) Stop by Salud! for Happy Hour wine and beer to help you feel more relaxed and to talk to other singles in a casual atmosphere.

Francis Morrone - Archive

They fall off the screen after ninety days so you must keep up. But the New York Sun has now opened up the marvelous articles archive of Francis Morrone where he uncovers hidden New York of just several generations ago — a house built in 1864 is old but we are but one life removed from people who might have known its builder — brick by brick.

The shame deepens

Few Iraqis Are Gaining U.S. Sanctuary.

The Governor re-opens the discussion

Excellent article -- better than what you'll find in the dailies much less The Stranger or (if it is still being published) The Weekly — at New life for old viaduct?.

Farid Chouery, a shoring and structural engineer, has a proposal to build a new Alaskan Way Viaduct without tearing down the existing one and without completely stopping traffic.

In fact it is obvious what will happen

Seattle City Councilmember Richard Conlin says.

The Governor does not have the legal authority to compel the City to conduct an advisory vote...It is not clear what will happen now.

Nothing will happen.

Excellent resource on campus planning

Comparing Campus Plans

via Massengale.