This Wednesday was a warm, beautiful, low tide day and my wife and I decided to go to the beach at Carkeek Park in North Seattle. We had not been there in several years so we were dismayed to see a sign saying the park is closed to automobiles for "Walking Wednesday" 10AM to 3PM, May through September, bike and foot traffic only.
There were no signs informing the hapless motorist where to park but fortunately, someone was pulling out of the Environmental Learning Center's packed lot near the park entrance. As we made the long downhill walk to the beach, we passed about fifty empty parking slots along the way. Arriving at the parking area adjacent to the footbridge over the train tracks to the beach, what a surprise, the lots were almost full. Apparently some people arrived before 10AM (a large kids day camp was in full swing) or just said, "This is stupid." and drove down to the beach parking lots anyway. On the way back up the hill to our car, we stopped at the information kiosks, no mention of "Walking Wednesday". We talked to half a dozen people walking down and they all were surprised by the Wednesday restrictions. One had parked ten blocks away and another used the local neighborhood to park his offensive car. Even if you are Green, the bus stop is 0.5 miles from the park entrance according to Metro's online trip planner. As we reached the top, two senior citizens in a (gasp) Cadillac Escalade SUV, looking very confused, were stopped by the "No Cars" signs. Please forgive me but I told them to drive on down, there were plenty of parking spaces. We later found out seniors and people with short legs (kids) were being allowed to go to the beach in cars but no sign said so. Supposedly, nearby residents were notified and news releases were sent to neighborhood papers and the Seattle Times. So assuming you live near the park or read a park notice in a local paper or never leave home without first checking the net, such craziness should not be a surprise.
Back home and increasingly annoyed, my wife checked the Parks Department web site, no mention of the Wednesday bad car day; so much for the web. She called the Parks Department. Call the Parks Commission; they made the decision she was told. Called the Parks Commission office and was informed that they held a hearing on the issue at the request of the Parks Department but the Commisssion only advises the Parks Superintendent. As yet there are no fingerprints on this policy. She did learn that the closure notice is on a web site, http://www.seattle.gov/parks/walk.htm , not exactly the place one would look for park hours and restrictions.
Who comes up with this stuff? It has all the hallmarks of Mayor Nickels' Nanny Seattle. Oh, by the way, at the beach parking lot - counted two bicycles.
Posted by warrenpeterson at July 22, 2009 07:02 PM | Email ThisSome are growing up- very slowly.
Posted by: swatter on July 23, 2009 07:37 AMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/outdoors/2009477556_nwwdatebook16.html
This is just another example of Seattle mismanagement under Greg Nickels
Can anyone say bonfire?
Fair warning Warren, go armed and prepared in Seattle or don't go at all. Liberals have no shame, no respect for others, and no self-restraint about imposing whatever disgusting impulse they feeeeel upon others, criminal or not. With Nickels and Girlikowsky in charge, anything (that has no decency or common sense associated with it) goes, and you are out-ranked in the land of the zombies.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 23, 2009 07:59 AMA park is restricted from cars for 5 hours one day a week and it is the end of the world?
Couldn't find some place else to park and walk in?
Couldn't find another park (Seattle has like what - 75 parks!)?
Couldn't come back after 3? Or any other day?
And Amused... somehow you need to bring in Pelosi in to a local park issue and concatenate Charles Manson in. Classy!!
sometimes..... :-D
Just mentioned him as an apt example of your favorite style of "feeeeeling" about the world.
Practicing for a spelling bee at the Y?
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 23, 2009 08:34 AMWarren, according to BoyBS you had options. Why not let any yahoo liberal asshole in town arbitrarily bar you from parks on the sole basis of their feeelings? Like BoyBS, they have their feeelings to consider, and after all, it was not "the end of the world."
Posted by: Amused by Indignant Self-rightous Liberals on July 23, 2009 08:44 AMHe wasn't barred from a park - his car was.
In the worst case estimation the car is barred for 6% of the available hours of the park in a week.
If anyone is concerned about the way the parks are managed by the Park Commission - GO TO THE MEETINGS!
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/parkboard/default.asp
Or sit in front of your pc and shout out epithets - cuz that's the way to get things done. LOL!
Re feeeelings, isn't that the topic of this post and your comments?
You feeeel bad because you can't drive your car in a park for 5 hours per week.
You feeeel bad because people who use the park were motivated enough to show up to a meeting and get a policy they wanted enacted.
whine on! :-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 23, 2009 09:11 AMa. who is Mayor Nichels?
b. the park is semi-closed to traffic for 5 hours during normal business hours, on one day a week, not even on the weekend.
c. seattle is NOT anti car. if it were, we would have dedicated pedestrian zones (fussgaengerzone), streets would be closed except to residents and limited hours for delivery vehicles, we would have a progressive& comprehensive public transportation system, we would have dedicated bike lanes (the burke gilman is NOT a bike lane) and there would be high fees to drive or own cars in the city. only wingnuts who feel slighted for an hour long hike through a park would feel this way.
heaven forbid you have to walk from the upper parking area of carkeek. it's like 500'. furthermore, i'm shocked (SHOCKED!) wingnuts would want to utilize those socialist funded parks.
Posted by: mike on July 23, 2009 09:35 AMno one on the left wants to see cars and roads go away. stop lying, jeff.
furthermore, the intent of public transportation isn't to facilitate carrying goods, it's to transport the public. once the public is at their job, they can manufacture said goods - although if it's service-sector jobs, then you are very wrong - the light rail does facilitate services.
wow. what a pathetic argument.
Posted by: mike on July 23, 2009 09:49 AMRight!!! Only LIBERALS walk! God fearing patriotic capitalist AMERICANS drive their cars in the park! unless it is a GOVERNMENT MOTORS car.
And gosh darn it, if we can't drive our cars in the parks 24x7, then we should bomb the light rail and all the buses! Cuz how will we get our pizzas delivered in the parks if you are not allowed to drive in 2 of the parks for 5 hours on Wednesdays??
No doubt this is an attack against the Republican owners of the pizza joints!
toooooo funny.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 23, 2009 09:55 AMCouldn't find another park (Seattle has like what - 75 parks!)?
No. What other parks are close to my work with a scenic water view? Besides, my tax dollars pay to keep the damn thing open and I don't have time for silly bureacrats with an agenda making me jump through their little ideological hoops in order for them to "feel better".
Couldn't come back after 3? Or any other day?
Sure. Wait till after 3 to take a lunch or wait until the next day when it may be overcast or for that matter, rain. And like I said above, it's my tax dollars keeping it open so it should adhere to a reasonable persons time schedule.
If using the parks with scenic water views is important to you - get involved.
If you don't have the time or inclination to get involved in the public process for administering public parks - build your own park with a scenic water view and run it how ever you like.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 23, 2009 10:00 AMMayor Nickels' Nanny Seattle, by BoyScoutBoy
A thoroughly arrogant self-absorbed liberal knot-head, BoyScoutBoy comes here to prove the essential point of Warren's post and my explanation.
Seattle used to be a nice, clean, reasonably peaceful, and no-nonsense conservative town. Routinely today in the Seattle area ad hoc committees-of-one car hating liberal morons like BoyScoutBoy exercise the power of craziness over others just to prove they can. Conservatives like Warren respect laws and are genuinely concerned enough to be cautious. Other liberal knot-heads like BoyScoutBoy with Al Gore Global Warming and Fu*k Bush stickers on their cars, simply drive over the signs.
With Nickels and Girlikowsky in charge, anything (that has no decency or common sense associated with it) goes, and normal people are out-ranked in the land of the BoyScoutBoys. I say pack heat and ignore the BoyScoutBoys but never be surprised when they do something characteristically arrogant and stupid like the Carkeek incident.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 23, 2009 10:01 AMI don't want to make false accusations, but I'd be willing to bet a year's income you have never been to a Seattle Parks Commission meeting. And you aren't going to show up on August 13th either.
so, just keep commenting and hurling epithets you bitter old curmudgeon. :-p
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 23, 2009 10:06 AMIf you don't have the time or inclination to get involved in the public process for administering public parks - build your own park with a scenic water view and run it how ever you like.
What kind of retarded logic is that? The park is already there, I've helped to pay to keep it open and If it's a nice day and I want to take a lunch break there, I shouldn't be hampered by some silly "rule" imposed by some nobody at the parks department. As I said above, I can understand if they're doing some kind of maintenance or something of that sort, but to hell with their "We don't want your cars here for 5 hours of the mid day" mindset. I will ignore it in the future as it serves no purpose, simply an ideological bent.
"I shouldn't be hampered by some silly "rule" imposed by some nobody at the parks department."
Why exactly are you such an important somebody?
"to hell with their "We don't want your cars here for 5 hours of the mid day" mindset. I will ignore it in the future"
sure you will.
Tell us, are you going to drive your car in Carkeek Park next Wednesday between 10 and 3?
These people simply get their jollies telling other people what to do. There is no traffic issue in Carkeek Park. It doesn't matter to them. It is simply another excuse for these rule freaks to lord it over other people. It's what the left loves to do. Mao, Stalin and Castro would be so proud of Seattle.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 23, 2009 10:32 AMTell us, are you going to drive your car in Carkeek Park next Wednesday between 10 and 3?
I'm not sure of my schedule next week, and even if I did know, it's none of your damn business. If it's nice out and the mood grabs me however, it's quite possible. Why do you ask, Mike?
The fact that you and I pay taxes does not entitle us to use public property whenever and however we want. We are not toddlers. Well, I'd hope not.
There is a known process, by which this and every rule goes through. If you want a rule or want to change a rule - GET INVOLVED IN THE PUBLIC PROCESS.
This isn't a GD communist conspiracy or an evil attempt to bring fascism to the USA. It is a rule that applies to a public park.
Clearly a lot of anti-car rhetoric. And this is Portland, Seattle, San Francisco to a "T." Are most normal Democrat voters car friendly? Sure. And they don't ride light rail either. But there's a growing, activist, nutty, lefty population that is purely anti-car. And these are the types of people who are becoming the standard in Seattle bureaucracy and who come up with "Walking Wednesdays." Deny it all you want, but these are the people that are increasingly defining your political party. And as the normal Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and Conservatives wake up, you will wish you had been more reasonable in who you chose for representation.
And again, nothing against buses or mass transit in general. But cost benefit analysis does matter. For the billions spent on light rail, we could have improved buses, beefed up critical freeway junctures, and come up with a myriad of tax incentive programs designed to mitigate the volume of traffic in the first place. Instead, we got a tiny 13 mile trunk line, years late and over-budget, and going through some really bad neighborhoods, with almost zero park and ride access. And I-5 represents precious little of the total Puget Sound commute volume, and less so every day as urban boundaries extend, business parks spring up, and technology changes where and how people work in a knowledge based economy.
Seattle is where Hope comes before Rationality.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 23, 2009 10:57 AMWe are not toddlers.
Right, so it's time the park department stops treating us as such.
This isn't a GD communist conspiracy or an evil attempt to bring fascism to the USA.
Right, so I suggest the parks department quit acting like they are doing so.
It is a rule that applies to a public park.
The key word is "a public park". Either it should apply to all public parks or no public parks. It serves no purpose and as far as I'm concerned, it's simply a "request" and not a "rule" I need to abide by.
FYI - When you violate the restriction you'll likely be cited for a violation of Seattle Municipal Code Title 18 - PARKS AND RECREATION
Chapter 18.12 - Parks Code
Subchapter VI Watercraft and Vehicles
"It is unlawful to drive or ride in or on any motor vehicle ....when the park, roadway, or parking lot is, by order of the Superintendent, closed to entry or use by motor
vehicles..."
So good luck with that.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 23, 2009 11:24 AMHow bout it Bill, you ever been to a Seattle Parks Commission meeting?
Going on August 11 to voice your concerns with Nazi liberal policies? No, I didn't think so. :-)
As Warren said above, the parking lot above is full of vehicles, so no the park isn't closed to vehicles. Who's to say I wasn't there before 10 am? Nobody. Besides, doesn't the parks people have more important things to do besides play rent a cop for 5 hours? Like say, maintain the parks that I help fund.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 23, 2009 11:44 AMNo Bill, there are other ways to voice concerns comments and proposals to the Parks Commission, but BEING THERE is the most effective.
Perhaps if the issue is important for you and any other reading this post and its discussion it would be wise to find out what they are.
Else, we can throw around the words 'nazi', 'liberal', 'criminal act' ..... cuz that was so effective in preventing the Democrats from controlling politics in Seattle and the state. Probably Mayor Nickels is shaking under his LIBERAL DESK OF ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY right now.
:-)
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/environment/carkeek.htm
So, am I to adhere to the Seattle parks official website or a cardboard 8-1/2"x 11" sign atop a traffice cone, Mike? If they try to cite me, I may just have to print out their website page and hand it to them as payment in full.
jesus, if a community asks the parks dept. to alter how a park functions, the park has the power to respond. it's how the system works. you have to be engaged. not engaging parks (and no, paying taxes isn't "engaging") and whining about how they won't cater to your every whim on the interwebs isn't going to change the system.
btw, a lot of people in the parks department management aren't liberals, quite far from it actually.
warren's next whiny post:
i want to drive 75 through downtown but the city of seattle won't let me even though i paid my taxes
Too funny. Be sure and provide that info to the cop writing the citation.
And definitely let the judge know all about it.
:-D
Actually, I rarely see a patrol car in the area during my lunch excursions, and like I said, there are any number of vehicles above in the parking areas. As far as they know, I've been there since 9:30am and I doubt they're really serious about the enforcement of such a silly rule. I'm fairly certain the SPD officer has better things to do than act as a glorified "parking attendant" for the Seattle parks department. Most would probably openly admit as such.
Yes Daniel.
I have participated.
I do participate.
I have participated at Seattle Parks Commission meetings.
I have accomplished my objectives and the collective agreed upon objectives of my neighborhood at public meetings.
If you are unwilling or unable to constructively participate in our public processes you get what you get.
But hey - I'm sure you've got some other wonderful way to govern that is better than participatory democracy which is less of a 'farce'.
Will you share your ideas with us?
Good for you Rick. You have found a way to violate the law without getting caught. A fine example for all to follow. good. very good.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 23, 2009 12:33 PMFirst of all....Your full of CRAP! But then, your a Liberal so, no great Surprise. I have been to those meetings and I know better. At one time, I had run for Kent City Council. So, I know about the meetings and others as well. Yeah...Like we all believe you when you went to your meeting and everything you wanted done was done. I have seen meetings where the first citizen was called upon and recieved a mike so his comments could be clearly heard. The citizen was able to voice some very pointed remarks and questions to the governing body which resulted in very loud applause. The moderator was somewhat shaken and quickly call upon another person with raised hand. Guess what? The mike was no longer made available to any of the others who wish to make their comments. The moderator just, told the man to speak with a loud voice and at the same time told him to hurry because, the meeting was running out of time. The meeting was running out of Time? It was only about 5 minutes into the session. Yeah, when legitimate complaints are brought forth effectively and a momentum of consenses if building, all of a sudden, the meeting is running out of time...And true to form the meeting was brought to an early close. Yeah...MikeBS you are indeed full of CRAP!
Thanks Mike. I agree, a little common sense goes a long way. Someone should donate some to the parks department. On a side note to your post above @ 10 "Couldn't come back after 3? Or any other day?"...you'll notice the weather today is overcast as opposed to yesterday (bad vehicle wednesday at carkeek) which was nice and sunny out around lunch time- making my point. As for violating a law without getting caught, don't fall of that high horse there, Mike. 99.9% of people break the speed limit, commit moving violations and/or some other "rules of the road" every single day of their lives. You must be pretty naive to think otherwise.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 23, 2009 01:07 PMI understand how having a bad experience or two might have led you to quit the process. It happens often when things get difficult people quit. Not everybody is cut out to do hard work. I'm sure the decision comes after much consideration and thinking of these Troops and their important missions - those are truly the worthy causes in this world and should be the public priority with time and resources and NOT this local / superficial wasteful political bloodsport
"At one time, I had run for Kent City Council."
How did you do? I take it you lost?
Yes, I did lose in my bid for City Council. Governments don't like people who will truly represent the people and represent the people over the selfish desires of Government. Is that so hard to understand? It is, if you're a Liberal!
Final Note: You have been posting on SP for sometime and believe me, I and a number of others, for sometime have realized...You're full of CRAP!
"Yes, I did lose in my bid for City Council. Governments don't like people who will truly represent the people and represent the people over the selfish desires of Government. Is that so hard to understand? It is, if you're a Liberal!"
FYI - governments don't elect city council members, voters do. Maybe you are angry at the government because your attempt to be a leader in the governement didn't go so well???
Also, if you are still living in Kent, don't bother attending Seattle Parks Commission meetings. If you think that's because they won't listen to you, you are right - but I am afraid you probably don't understand why. :-(
Does it ever occur to you that statements like accusing the Parks Dept of a 'Criminal Act' for having a motor vehicle rule,
or claiming you were "torpedoed with a trick question" would lead one to believe your approach to working with others is a bit askew?
Do you understand that participatory democracy is all about being a team player?
Why not drive (where allowed) or take a walk in a public park and relax. It ain't all that bad dude.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 23, 2009 02:25 PMNext Wednesday (weather permitting of course), I think I'll have teriyaki and a coke while taking in the view. No time for a foot hike in my limited and valuable time when I can just drive it in about 2 minutes.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 23, 2009 02:35 PMExtremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!
Don't let them liberals slow you down!
If you encounter a law you don't like, because it slightly inconveniences you - don't work to get it changed, BREAK IT!
And if you can, eat a tasty meal while doing so. EXERCISE IS FOR LIBERALS!
snark
good for you Daniel. very good.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 23, 2009 02:51 PMYou being a Liberal, don't understand there are certain limits to being a team player. If their intent is less than honest and fair, you try and make the necessary corrections and above all...You don't play their Dirty Game. However, you being a Liberal without good principles...You would.
You obviously don't 'get it' because the rule that prohibits motor vehicles from 10am to 3pm on Wednesdays at Carkeek Park doesn't prohibit access to the park. It prohibits motor vehicles - for 5 hours a week.
The 'big deal' is understanding civic responsibility in a representative democracy.
Yeah, I know. Education is a liberal heretical philosophy.
...nor infringe on my freedoms. When common sense escapes us - or in this case, the parks dept- , usually just remembering what our forefather's would do in this situation is all the information you'll need (and permission I might add) to process and make an informed decision. Adherence to tyranny is for suckers.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 23, 2009 03:01 PMyou do a great swift-esque critique of the conservative movement. i haven't laughed this hard in a few weeks...
Criminal Act against the Tax Payers
effing hilarious. seriously, i think i know why you were not elected.
Posted by: mike on July 23, 2009 03:24 PMYou'll recognize me easily enough - I'll be the one in the F-350 idling for 90 minutes while taking two parking spots.
Liberal rules were made to be broken...
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 23, 2009 03:40 PMI'm so terribly sorry that you were inconvenienced in an obviously life altering fashion. Gods, the challenges you face. It's a wonder how you manage at all.
It's a public park. It's a shared resource. There are many users. Get over yourself.
As for "anti-car" Seattle, we have the Greenwood Auto Show every year. I think it's way cool that they close the streets and let people wander around.
But reading your words, I think you have a point. Nanny Seattle, closing our streets, just so some backwards car enthusiasts can have their little festival. The outrage! No one consulted me! Stupid liberals. Someone's going to lose their job over this.
Posted by: Jason Osgood on July 23, 2009 04:14 PMthat's why this is so hilariously pathetic.
Government to a Liberal can do no wrong
stop lying. i think goverment can and did do wrong, as referenced in the policies and lack of leadership and effective governing in the previous administration.
Clever and not so clever men in power will always get away with conning and leading Liberals around by their noses. No surprise there.
obviously conservatives are not so clever, they let so-called conservative leaders lead them to the brink and back.
good analogies, though. clown
Posted by: mike on July 23, 2009 05:26 PMIt prohibits motor vehicles - for 5 hours a week.~ Mike BS
No, there are plenty of vehicles still in the park during this "restricted" time so that is incorrect. It is also grounds for throwing out a ticket issued for entry if other motorized vehicles are already present in said park. This is plain nonsense, but highlights the differences between conservative/libertarian and liberal thinking. Some people just don't understand the concept of freedom.
There is nothing Conservative about claiming the right to be able to drive in a park any time you want.
@58 Rick D. on July 23, 2009 03:01 PM,
It wasn't the fathers of the American Revolution who claimed the right to break the law of elected officials in the name of some higher purpose. It was Lenin & Stalin.
@62 Alphabet Soup on July 23, 2009 03:40 PM,
You succinctly espouse the philosophy of the Taliban. Good for you!
Dear Daniel any reasonable person reading your comments here . . . misanthrope. Get help dude.
You're no lawyer and this isn't a civil liberties case. If you are unhappy with the restrictions, work to change them.
The park is open 112 hours a week, providing access for all the open hours. Motor vehicles are prohibited for 5 hours - 4.5% of the time. Are you really claiming that getting all you want 95.5% of the time is something to freak out about? Good Grief!!
If that was supposed to make sense, you failed (Seattle school district education rears its ugly head again). Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Posted by: Rick D. on July 23, 2009 06:23 PMAre you really claiming that restricting me from having lunch on my lunch hour, on a sunny day at a waterfront outlook in a park I pay taxes to keep open is something to freak out about? Good grief indeed!
Posted by: Rick D. on July 23, 2009 06:30 PMOh. OK. :-D
My bad. I missed the charge against King George's Public Parks Commission in the Declaration of Independence. LMFAO!
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 23, 2009 06:32 PMOk, please explain how a motor vehicle restriction in a park restricts you from having lunch?
Or even having lunch in Carkeek Park on Wednesday's between 10am and 3pm?
Should we raise taxes to build more parking in the event the lot is full and you can't park?
I sincerely doubt you were part of the volunteer crew that worked over the years to improve that park and the creek, but you're ENTITLED to use it whenever and however YOU like. Come on Rick.... everyone on this board knows the word for THAT type of (non) thinking.
I sincerely doubt you were part of the volunteer crew that worked over the years to improve that park and the creek, but you're ENTITLED to use it whenever and however YOU like.
Uh, yeah. That's called my hard earned tax money that funded that improvement, so I was not only involved with it, but a vital part of it. I'm sure you weren't present in that clean up either so your point is moot. Try to think a little harder, Mike. I'm sure you'll find an excuse that is better than that given by the park dept. (since there was none given) Why stop at motorized vehicles?
Let's just say anyone wearing a yellow shirt will not be allowed to enter the park on Tuesdays between 11am-1pm....absurd right? no more absurd than the vehicle entry restriction on Wednesday between 10am-3pm.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 23, 2009 06:57 PMhttp://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576
Posted by: John Bailo on July 23, 2009 07:18 PMa. you may be employed, i would hardly say you are being reasonable.
b. your access to the park wasn't restricted. it may have been limited, but that doesn't in any way "encroach" on your liberties.
it didn't restrict your freedom, and if you think it did, you've got the most absurd notion of freedom. your employer lets you keep your job? i would kill myself if i had to sit next such a moron.
why would i support your asinine ban? civil liberties were never encroached upon. how can you not understand that?
i'm sure you do work with intelligent, highly educated people, rick. i am pretty sure you're the least educated of the bunch with all this "yellow shirt ban" nonsense.
here is the argument:
the city and the local community wanted to make carkeek (and seward and a bunch of other places) car-free (not really, but as close as our oil-addicted nation will allow) for a few hours a week. parks felt it was a noble cause and complied. representative democracy at it's finest.
tyranny or "civil liberty crushing/denying" would have blockaded all cars and only let walkers, bikers and buses in the park. just because you pay taxes doesn't mean you get everything just the way you want it (although you seem to think it does...)
oh, i get it... rick is the burger king!
Posted by: mike on July 23, 2009 11:37 PMI haven't seen it mentioned in this discussion.
Posted by: nolaguy on July 24, 2009 03:35 AMcivil liberties were never encroached upon. how can you not understand that?
And by your standards, neither would the restricted entry of people wearing yellow shirts between 11a-1p on Tuesdays May through September. You're not putting up much of a defense there mike.
i am pretty sure you're the least educated of the bunch with all this "yellow shirt ban" nonsense.
Not if you include the superintendent of Seattle parks and recreation department with his "motor vehicle ban".
the city and the local community wanted to make carkeek car-free for a few hours a week. parks felt it was a noble cause and complied.
There isn't a ban on motor vehicles in the park, mike. At the area where I like to eat my lunch, the lot is nearly at capacity during that stretch of time. Also, this "ban" isn't applied to everyone equally. The elderly, children and the disabled are afforded a reprieve from said ban even though that isn't communicated to them by the parks department. The ban isn't listed on the official parks and rec. website for carkeek park which I posted the link to earlier. I certainly pay 100% of my taxes for keeping the park operating and I expect to be able to utilize 100% of their services unless those same services are applied (or restricted) equally and across the board.
tyranny or "civil liberty crushing/denying" would have blockaded all cars and only let walkers, bikers and buses in the park.
Any restricting of an activity, in this case driving a motorized vehicle, that is permitted (and yes, encouraged) in the park for 95.5% of the time is a loss of freedom. I don't F*&ing have time to walk into the damn thing and still stay within my alloted lunch hour. You seem to have a problem with logic, mike.
nolaguy: no, they have never given a reason for the restricted (not really) entry by motor vehicles during that time period on Wednesday.
If anyone can find where this is communicated to the public on their own official carkeek park website , I'd be interested to know. I suspect the reason they don't advertise the "ban" is that it would not hold up under legal scrutiny. Which is why I will ignore it, carry a printed copy of the website page with me in case a parking lot attendant wants to bitch about my prescence and have my lunch undisturbed by silly liberals and their asinine ideology-driven policies.
Not if you include the superintendent of Seattle parks and recreation department with his "motor vehicle ban".
your next sentence:
There isn't a ban on motor vehicles in the park, mike.
you right, it's not a ban. the parks is merely asking people to participate in a program the local community and city wanted to initiate. no one is sticking a gun to your head. you rights were never infringed upon. i understand logic, i jut don't understand how you could be so obtuse.
I certainly pay 100% of my taxes for keeping the park operating
so when a park is closed down or restricted for weddings, sporting events, marathons, indian rituals your rights are being infringed upon? holy sh*t - you are the burger king! and highly illogical.
and when a park has restricted access for construction, do you whine and b*tch like a toddler then, too?
you might be a poster boy for the right, ron.
by your logic, my breathing restricts your freedom.
so if you don't have time, maybe you should lobby your boss to allow longer time, or go somewhere else for lunch. maybe if your co-workers could stand you, you'd be able to eat with them, instead of whining on SP!
Posted by: mike on July 24, 2009 08:25 AMyou['re] right, it's not a ban.
Then you should really quit saying usig the word to describe it then.It is restricting some and not others from utilizing their motor vehicles to enter the park. Why not restrict the yellow shirt people? it's only 2 hours on tuesday and besides, it isn't restricting them from accessing the park, they merely have to change their shirt to 1 of a multitude of colors besides yellow or simply stash the shirt in a bush outside the park and enter. Once again mike, logic isn't your strong suit is it?
the parks is merely asking people to participate in a program the local community and city wanted to initiate.
False. It is not asking people to particiapate, it is telling them to.I don't suppose you've even bothered to check out the sign, mike.
you[r] rights were never infringed upon.
Nor would that of the yellow shirt wearer, so why not support that as well? Be consistent in a position for once in your life, mike.
so when a park is closed down or restricted for weddings, sporting events, marathons, indian rituals your rights are being infringed upon?
No. It is closed equally to all but a private engagement and not for some alternative agenda. Tell me mike, what benefit is there to closing down the park to SOME motorized vehicles for 5 hours on Wednesday? Amaze us with your snappy intelligence....if that's even possible.
and when a park has restricted access for construction, do you whine and b*tch like a toddler then, too?
The only toddler here is you, mike. As your juvenile posts would indicate to the casual observer.
so if you don't have time, maybe you should lobby your boss to allow longer time, or go somewhere else for lunch.
No thanks. I pay to have the park open for the times I wish to have lunch. The official website says the park is open from 6am- 10pm daily with no other restrictions posted. Thus, i'm within my rights to use the park any damn time I please as long as the rest of the public is.
maybe if your co-workers could stand you, you'd be able to eat with them, instead of whining on SP!
...and if your english teacher had done his/her job, you wouldn't look like the uneducated ass you appear to be on this blog.
No you don't. You pay tax in the form of a parks levy. And you pay the same rate as every other property owner.
Care to tell us how much you pay?
and no it doesn't. It merely identifies the open hours. Nothing about "with no other restrictions".
It is called Park Code. It is not new. And there are dozens of restrictions.
The one which applies is
"Except as authorized by the Superintendent, it is unlawful to drive or operate a non-City vehicle in any park or in any area therein which is designated as being closed to general vehicular traffic access, and which is so posted."
This code has been on the books for nearly 30 years.
So, the sign on the cone tells you what not to do. :-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 24, 2009 11:08 AM"This was an asinine, hastly arrived at decision and wouldn't stand up in a court of law."
I accused you before of not being a lawyer. Are you a lawyer? No, we didn't think so. :-p
The policy and which parks it would apply to was discussed at length. Folks who are more involved with the parks than worrying only about where they take their lunch break discussed it vigorously.
Amazingly, car and SUV driving folks were not so up-in-arms about a 5 hour per week restriction in Carkeek as you are.
""...designated as being closed to general vehicular traffic access, and which is so posted"
If this were true, the elderly, the disabled and children would also not be allowed to enter. Since these exceptions are allowed (though again, not posted), by extension I am also allowed to access using MY motor vehicle. It's all or none under the law, which is why a citation wouldn't stand up in court. ..and Mike still can't answer a question.
Still having problems with common sense and logic I see, mike.
There is no 'official website for the park' there is a site for Seattle Parks, and it is posted there.
More importantly, the law only requires that it is posted - and the sign on the cone meets that requirement.
And your way too silly point of 'because somebody else breaks the rule the rule doesn't apply to me' is .... silly. Perhaps we'd have less of a Nanny State if there weren't so many who act as toddlers.
In the end Rick all you have offered is your willingness to be a scofflaw.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 24, 2009 11:55 AMAnd your way too silly point of 'because somebody else breaks the rule the rule doesn't apply to me' is .... silly.
False. For one, I never said such a thing. I said if they allow ANY motor vehicles, they're under the obligation to allow ALL motor vehicles. The fact that they'd even bother to restrict someones access to the park based solely on that persons particular mode of transportation is infantile and asinine, but does in fact comport with today's standard liberal logic.
In the end Rick all you have offered is your willingness to be a scofflaw.
No. I've chosen to exercise my freedom. The only entity out of line on this issue is the parks department and their inane, knee-jerk bobblehead supporters.
See you next Wednesday, mike.
Welcome to the Information Age! Where the voices in your head may freely converse with the digital avatars of similar paranoids who reside thousands of miles from your bunker! Where you may openly declare your sworn duty to defend the Founders' intent from the peaceful and legal transition of power that threatens to destroy their vision of government by, for and of the people ... to boldly resist a naked democratic power grab by popularly elected charlatans who use the cherished ideals of our forefathers against us ... and at long last, to summon the courage to knock over the Monopoly board of life and stomp off in a tantrum when your political opponents piss all over the rules of the game by following them, and somehow manage to get a hotel on Park Place.
Of course, to make a wingnut omelet, you've got to break a few Constitutional eggs.
Posted by: D. Aristophanes on July 24, 2009 01:31 PM
TOO FUNNY!!!! :-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 24, 2009 04:01 PMFinally! mike is beginning to see the absurdity behind the restriction. What is the possible harm of me driving to and parking my car at the local park?
Answer: There is none.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 24, 2009 04:31 PMAs I stated earlier and often, GET INVOLVED.
As I stated earlier, the people who have been involved discussed the proposal vigorously. A proposal was made via the proper legal channels and implemented by the Parks Commission.
If you are asking what is the harm of disobeying rules and laws simply because they inconvenience you, well I think you know that answer.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 24, 2009 04:43 PMI'm sure you're a fan of MLK Jr. right, mike? Sometimes in life, civil disobedience is not only warranted, but essential to keeping the flame of freedom burning brightly in the face of those seeking to extinguish it. You're on the wrong side of freedom on this mike...and I think you realize that.
As far as getting involved, no thanks. I have enough on my plate as it is. My only obligation is to continue paying taxes to keep carkeek (and other) park areas open to the public and being able to use those service I pay for during regular park hours of operation. In my eyes, that's not an unreasonable request, and most sensible people would agree.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 24, 2009 05:24 PM"I'm sure you're a fan of MLK Jr. right, mike? Sometimes in life, civil disobedience is not only warranted, but essential to keeping the flame of freedom burning brightly"
Good grief Rick!
You are comparing a one day per week no driving down restriction at a public park on your lunch hour to segregation and the civil rights movement?!?
You obviously have no idea how foolish you look comparing yourself to Martin Luther King JR.
PS - The frequency of your comments at SP shows your claims of having too much on your plate to get involved in a constructive and legal way to accomplish your objectives to be a complete load of crap.
I was showing you how utterly ridiculous the following quote you made in the previous post was:
"If you are asking what is the harm of disobeying rules and laws simply because they inconvenience you, well I think you know that answer."~ mike
In that convuluted mess above, you implied that someone like MLK Jr. should have just kept his mouth shut and obeyed the law. I wasn't comparing myself to him, I was showing your rigid adherence to flawed ordinances passed by flawed men was not an absolute.
You obviously have no idea how foolish you look comparing yourself to Martin Luther King JR.
And you have no idea how stupid you look for propping up a straw man argument. Liberals love to resort to this tact when they've lost the argument on merits.
...that I don't post here but a few times a week at best, usually on friday. Unlike you, who chooses to troll here day in and day out even though Obama called on "all Americans" to get out and volunteer. I didn't vote for the man, you did. So take up his challenge and start making better use of your more than ample free time, mike.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 24, 2009 07:07 PMHe says "Fair warning Warren, go armed and prepared in Seattle or don't go at all. Liberals have no shame, no respect for others, and no self-restraint about imposing whatever disgusting impulse they feeeeel upon others, criminal or not."
What a ridiculous statement!
Posted by: Not really amused by the guy who is amused by Liberals. on July 25, 2009 08:05 AMSigned: Amused by the guy who is not really amused by the guy who is amused by liberals
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 25, 2009 04:40 PM