1. From Ramsey's column: "The Seattle Popular Monorail Authority, with its five votes of the people, was the botch of the decade. But the outcome was good."

Pathetic. The "outcome" of those five votes was terrible. TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE MILLION dollars were taken from Seattle taxpayers and COMPLETELY WASTED. And Ramsey calls it a good outcome . . ..

There were no consequences for those responsible. The lawyers who drafted the ballot measure documents (and the legislation, for that matter) got paid huge. They are now drafting the ST2 and RTID ballot measure documents. Tom Carr was on the ETC board - he's the City Attorney. Nickels was SMP's head cheerleader, and he only demanded the final vote after everyone else in the state began screaming for SMP to fall on its sword. He's fouling up the viaduct issue now.

The worst part about SMP is that the MSM and the local political heads learned nothing from it, and they are hellbent on duplicating the entire process with RTID and ST2.

Posted by: Old No. 7 on March 7, 2007 11:04 AM

2. The outcome of the Seattle Monorail Project wasn't entirely bad. The entire $225 million that was wasted came from residents of the City of Seattle. The City of Seattle is completely controlled by liberal Democrats and votes 80% or better Democrat for every single office. So this was an expensive lesson to the liberal Democrats of Seattle. I am sure decent folks like Stefan Sharkansky and Matt Rosenberg didn't like paying the car tab tax either for the Monorail, but they are vastly outnumbered by all the wealthy liberals in Seattle who got socked big on their Mercedes, Volvos, Porsches, and BMW's. It isn't realistic to get the liberal Democrats in Seattle to become Republicans. And the local Republican party in King County is too timid to challenge the Democrats in their stronghold areas. But at least, maybe the liberal Democrats in Seattle will start working for more responsible and efficient local government.

Posted by: Richard Pope on March 7, 2007 11:30 AM

3. And why isn't a "Double No" vote a vote to get the retrofit?

The surface decapacity folks will continue to bicker and the decreased capacity option won't be approved by the State (I hope), so that leave a retrofit as a compromise.

Don't turn on your own convictions, Stefan.

Posted by: swatter on March 7, 2007 11:40 AM

4. On this particular issue I agree with Stefan 100 percent for exactly the reasons he states.

Posted by: ivan on March 7, 2007 11:49 AM

5. With fiscal responsibility uppermost in my mind, and as a supporter of the retrofit approach, I voted "no" and "no." There is no other way I see for retrofit supporters to vote.

Posted by: Steve Beren on March 7, 2007 12:06 PM

6. Is anybody certain that they would like to have King County Elections divining voter intent on a blank ballot? What position do you think Ron Sims would take? Do we really want him to be the decider?

Posted by: chucks on March 7, 2007 12:08 PM

7. Richard Pope: The monorail was a notoriously grassroots effort, spearheaded by a bus driver and opposed by most of those in power. So I don't think it necessarily taught the liberal powers very much. And no good conservative should revel in seeing anyone waste their money. But I share your hope that at least something was learned from that debacle.

On a slightly related note, aren't we lucky that the monorail came and went when it did, and not now? If it were on the table at the same time as the viaduct, the combination of a surface boulevard and monorail would be pretty attractive to many voters. I bet some of the monorail folks are even now wondering whether the idea is worth raising. Personally I don't think I'd support it, but it might merit consideration.

Posted by: Bruce on March 7, 2007 12:09 PM

8. Okay, ivan, then you explain how a "Double No" vote will result in a retrofit upon which you claim is your preferred option. That is what Stefan wants.

Posted by: swatter on March 7, 2007 12:22 PM

9. I sent in my joke of an election ballot blank, and I stand firmly behind that decision. I wanted to take a large red pen to the ballot too, but I held back. See, this is an advisory ONLY election, which is costing the tax payers how much? What a freaking joke!

Posted by: Tinkerbell Hilton on March 7, 2007 12:32 PM

10. An advisory vote of "yes" on a new viaduct, in the unlikely event it should pass, would be interpreted as a vote opposed to a retrofit and will also be seen as a vote in favor of replacing the current viaduct with a new viaduct. Not necessary, not fiscally responsible.

Posted by: Steve Beren on March 7, 2007 01:26 PM

11. I support whatever option puts viaduct money towards 520, so that's NO-NO I guess.

Posted by: Palouse on March 7, 2007 01:32 PM

12. Bruce, an idiot, saw fit to write this: "The monorail was a notoriously grassroots effort, spearheaded by a bus driver and opposed by most of those in power."

No, Bruce, SMP was supported by all the local DEM politicians and the DEM base. It was a monstrous creation of Nickels, Foster Pepper and Preston Gates Abramoff.

Far from being "opposed by most of those in power," Seattle Monorail Project was pushed by all the big political and business players in this town. The PI editorialists endorsed the 2002 ballot measure. The "Statement For" the Seattle Monorail Project measure in the Voters Guide was signed by Dan Evans, Jim McDermott, and Greg Nickels. The groups and individuals listed in the Voters' Guide as providing "Broad Support" for Seattle Monorail Project were: "League of Women Voters, King County Democratic Party, Washington Conservation Voters, King County Labor Council, Sierra Club, Speaker Frank Chopp, environmentalist Dennis Hayes, Dick Falkenbury, Peter Sherwin, Judy Rundstad and many more."

Why look Bruce - its all your friends!!!!

Those same local politicians and advocacy groups now are strongly supporting the equally unaccountable RTID/ST2 tax and spend measure.

Bruce, you don't know squat. But we want to hear more of your nonsense. So tell us, what kinds of taxpayer protections will be in the ST2 and RTID ballot measure in November? What, you have no clue? Oh, ok then. But it was great of you to chime in so far off base regarding monorail. Sit and spin!

Posted by: Frank Black on March 7, 2007 01:33 PM

13. Swatter @ 8:

I don't have a clue what any vote one way or another will result in, and neither do you or anyone else, so there's nothing to "explain." I favor a rebuild first and a retrofit second. I agree with Stefan that for now the traffic needs to roll.

Beren @ 10:

I see that your transportation expertise is about as credible as your foreign policy expertise.

Posted by: ivan on March 7, 2007 01:34 PM

14. My concern is that a double NO will not be interpreted as a vote for the retrofit, but a vote for surface-gridlock. I think a YES for the Viaduct would be more likely to lead to a retrofit compromise than a NO for the Viaduct.

But this debate over how a YES or NO will be interpreted is yet another example why the whole thing is a largely meaningless exercise.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 7, 2007 01:46 PM

15. Heck, give me a million bucks, I'll give the Seattle voters a whole bunch of meaningless.

Posted by: Jeffro on March 7, 2007 02:02 PM

16. Heck, give me a million bucks, I'll give the Seattle voters a whole bunch of meaningless.

Posted by: Jeffro on March 7, 2007 02:03 PM

17. Stefan, are you thinking that if the vote is YES on the viaduct then the City will flex their muscles and refuse to issue permits and thus lead to a "compromise"?

Personally, I disagree but understand the logic. My problem is that if there is a YES on any of the options, there will be too much pressure on the State (for the tunnel option) or the City (for the viaduct option) to prevent that option from happening.

There is whole new ball game if there is a YES vote out there.

Posted by: swatter on March 7, 2007 03:35 PM

18. There are only three numbers which will be produced by this vote.

Total voters, total yes, total no.

A person's "No-No" vote can only be divined by pure speculation since there are eight options for this election.

1) Don't send a ballot
2) Send a ballot both measures un-voted.
3) Send a ballot leave measure one blank.
4) Send a ballot leave measure two blank.
5) Send a ballot vote Yes on One,Yes on Two.
6) Send a ballot vote No on One, No on Two.
7) Send a ballot vote Yes on One, No on Two
8) Send a ballot Vote No on One, Yes on Two

I predict option ONE will win.

Posted by: Bart Cannon on March 7, 2007 04:23 PM

19. I correct myself.

There are at least TEN options. I'm sure someone else can find more.

1) Don't send a ballot
2) Send a ballot both measures un-voted.
3) Send a ballot leave measure one blank two yes.
4) Send a ballot leave measure one blank two no.
5) Send a ballot leave measure two blank one yes.
6) Send a ballot leave measure two blank one no.
7) Send a ballot vote Yes on One,Yes on Two.
8) Send a ballot vote No on One, No on Two.
9) Send a ballot vote Yes on One, No on Two
10) Send a ballot Vote No on One, Yes on Two

Posted by: Bart Cannon on March 7, 2007 04:33 PM

20. Bart, my comment is called politics and it is a contact sport. If the viaduct is voted YES, there would be so much pressure put on Seattle that the politicos would have to issue the permits. And, I mean a lot of pressure. The City won't be able to sit back, take the football and go home- they would have to issue the permits.

Posted by: swatter on March 7, 2007 04:47 PM

21. Vote Yes on the Tunnel and Yes for the new Viaduct.
Two is better than one!

Posted by: Reporterward on March 7, 2007 04:58 PM

22. There is one overwhelming reason that this ballot is meaningful rather than just advisory. If a No-NO vote overwhelmingly defeats both measures, all politicians should take that as the voice of the people dictating who they might vote for and against in the future.

Any politician that demonstrated support for either of these options in the face of the voice of the people saying No-No would face serious difficulty in his next election campaign.

The politicians who will make or influence this decision must understand this and understand it clearly.

When you get right down to it, this is the way our country fights back in the face of governmental incompetence - at the ballot box.

Posted by: Jack van Kinsbergen on March 7, 2007 05:56 PM

23. "...SMP was supported by all the local DEM politicians and the DEM base. It was a monstrous creation of Nickels, Foster Pepper and Preston Gates Abramoff."

That is not accurate.

Posted by: City Comforts on March 7, 2007 06:04 PM

24. "...SMP was supported by all the local DEM politicians and the DEM base. It was a monstrous creation of Nickels, Foster Pepper and Preston Gates Abramoff."

That is not accurate.

Posted by: City Comforts on March 7, 2007 06:04 PM

25. Bruce Ramsey nailed it: we voted NO on taxpayer funding for the baseball stadium, yet the same political class whose overstuffed suits fill our government chairs today rammed it through despite that vote. Who's dumb enough to bet that they won't act that way again? Basically, the million bucks we're pungling for the 'election' is just mulch for a weed patch of meaningless verbiage.

Vote them all out next election.

Posted by: Hank Bradley on March 7, 2007 06:09 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?