Seattlest: "Seattle 29" Stakeholders Fighting for Freedom Tunnel

Silverstar

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:43:01 -0800

Isn't this the "Seattle process"? The voters make their will known, and then the opposite happens. Vote no on a stadium, get a stadium rammed down our throats. Vote yes on a monorail, and have it delayed and delayed, until they manage to get folks to vote to kill it. Vote no and hell no on a tunnel or a new, raised viaduct, get a tunnel, the more expensive solution, rammed down our throat. I am tired of business and civic leaders patronizing us like we are children who don't know what's good for us. If we had built the damned monorail to West Seattle, we could just pull the damned viaduct down without all the traffic studies, etc. And our city would be better off. The days when we are going to need the present capacity of the viaduct are numbered anyway, as the price of gas will continue to rise, this current respite notwithstanding. Although I oppose it, maybe we should build all the damn streetcar lines, because we are going to need them. Although I still think a monorail would have been the better solution.

MvB

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:06:51 -0800

As a PS, I do want to give Susan Gilmore props for the "so-called stakeholders" phrasing. That's something.

bigyaz

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:55:33 -0800

Uh, Mike, that group of 29 (which indeed includes representatives of groups like the People's Waterfront Coalition) has been written about before in every publication in town. In fact, there are links to previous stories right there with the Times story. And there's this wonderful tool called the Google to help you out. How about actually reading up on an issue before you go lashing out with uninformed comments? It's really very unbecoming.