Seattlest: 'S No Joke: This Is a Disaster

James Callan

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:46:40 -0800

Yeah, having a plan is not the same thing as clearing away all the snow toot sweet. I don't think this is a disaster, but it's an unpleasant situation made worse by lack of focus on a big-picture level. I certainly understand if businesses don't want to pay extra to fund snowplows we'll only use once every five years or so. But then those same businesses need to absorb the financial hit and SHUT DOWN so people aren't trying to get to work and Metro isn't trying to run a non-emergency schedule on days when the snowplows would be active. My office was open every day of this snow emergency. I'm sure it wasn't the only one in the vicinity. The city, county, and state ask people not to drive, but there are no teeth in a polite request. If you want to accept that the city shuts down in a snowstorm and the aftermath, then shut the city down. Make a plan for what gets to stay open, and what needs to stay open, and stick to it.

GeoffChinaugh

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:44:48 -0800

Brad, you do have point about ensuring structural integrity wrt building codes and such. (Not sure whether they have jurisdiction over *all* building codes though, but I could be mistaken.) But I think what your post implied, at least in my reading, was a nanny-state-istic response calling for an unsustainable and unrealistic hyper-vigilance. These things are easy to read and write in the aftermath of some non-ordinary event. It was a canvas roof; of course it's gonna go down under heavy snow. The operators *should have* known this as well since they are the first line of response. It's incumbent upon them to get the damn stuff off the roof. But, I would agree that both municipal authorities and owners alike need to start getting used to thinking about snow contingencies.

brad

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:11:25 -0800

It's okay to spend millions on a lahar warning system, but not have any formal plan in place for snow which we all agree happens here at least once a year? Nobody here is proposing new/more equipment. I'd simply like to see some sort of communication effort and master plan that tells us a) which streets are open, b) which businesses are open, c) which transit services are operating, d) who to call if you are stranded, e) and most importantly, how to help out those in need. I'm sorry. The 'it only happens every decade' excuse is just that. An excuse for a gaping lack of planning. Do the past 5 days make you feel any better about the likely response during the next storm/earthquake/etc?

MvB

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:03:51 -0800

How big is the grapefruit? Are the eggs extra large, or just medium?

Seth

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:47:12 -0800

The reason there is no plan to deal with a snow event like this is that the city does not have the resources to deal with such an event. It would be like planning brunch for 16 when you only have two eggs and half a grapefruit. There's no point for Seattle, which only has an event like this every 15 years, to buy and maintain the trucks, build and maintain the facilities, and pay for and store the supplies it would take to plow the entire city. 14 out of every 15 years, those resources would be a sunk cost. Yeah, it sucks that businesses are taking a hit, but I think they'd rather take a one year hit than have the B&O tax go up a percentage point to pay for a fleet of snowplows that would go entire mayoral administrations without being used. When I think of a "disaster" I think of people freezing and starving and dying because of a lack of medical attention. What's happening here is not tragic, it's -- at worst -- inconvenient.

brad

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:26:48 -0800

Geoff- Sorry but you are wrong. The structural integrity of ALL buildings falls under the responsibility of the fire department in ALL situations, whether it is fire, earthquake, snow, or even (gasp) a lahar. In other (more snowy) jurisdictions, the fire depts are all over this, with guidelines about keeping roofs clear, warning about potential buildup of ice/snow, and all the rest. It is also the responsibility of the fire dept to condemn unsafe buildings because of the above events BEFORE the structure actually collapses.

GeoffChinaugh

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:11:06 -0800

not to dust up an otherwise decent rant, but the ice rink in Bellevue was privately run and sponsored by local businesses... not the primary responsibility of the Fire Dept.

James Callan

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:06:58 -0800

It gets better because eventually snow melts. It should get better because there's a plan in place that clears the streets quickly enough that the city isn't crippled for 5 days by snowfall that midwest cities routinely shrug of. I'm not expecting us to be as snow-capable as Minneapolis, but could we not pretend we're as snow-free as Phoenix?

the other dustin

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:01:00 -0800

the first few days of snow are always rough in this area because (as you've said) no one knows what to do. but it does get better. over the past several days, mass transit (dismal the day of the first snowfall) has improved and more people are getting out and going to work. i don't think that our unpreparedness for this small snowstorm qualifies us for federal aid, like you said, but i do think it might be helpful to have a set of guidelines, so important government services can adjust more quickly when it snows.

smoon

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:51:44 -0800

word.

Jeremy M. Barker

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:23:02 -0800

Yeah, seriously--I haven't heard a thing from Seattle City Hall about all this. It's ridiculous.