MGMT Block Party 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Saturday, July 3, 2010
News Alert: Seattle Family the Cole-Daums Celebrate Laundry Milestone
For Immediate Release
The Cole-Daum household of Leschi today announced it has reached the bottom of Nate Cole-Daum's laundry hamper.
"This is not simply a victory for Nate's personal wardrobe options, but a testament to the power of Long Weekends, when harnessed creatively, to effect transformative change in the world," Cole-Daum said. "Together with our fellow Americans who will observe this Independence Day with activities ranging from chores to celebrations, we say 'thanks, America,' and we look forward to further continued success via this strategic, collaborative partnership."
Experts predict beloved argyle-patterned socks and other unique offerings not seen since the 00's to be reintroduced into Cole-Daum's ensembles.
###
The Cole-Daum household of Leschi today announced it has reached the bottom of Nate Cole-Daum's laundry hamper.
"This is not simply a victory for Nate's personal wardrobe options, but a testament to the power of Long Weekends, when harnessed creatively, to effect transformative change in the world," Cole-Daum said. "Together with our fellow Americans who will observe this Independence Day with activities ranging from chores to celebrations, we say 'thanks, America,' and we look forward to further continued success via this strategic, collaborative partnership."
Experts predict beloved argyle-patterned socks and other unique offerings not seen since the 00's to be reintroduced into Cole-Daum's ensembles.
###
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Treading water over the falls
An arresting blog post on the state of Puget Sound transportation policy from the always sharp David Hiller. Lifted in its entirety from the Cascade Bicycle Club blog. Enjoy. Then, write 'em a check.
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL has released the following statement in response to Cascade Bicycle Club’s appeal of Transportation 2040.
“We’re really proud of the Transportation 2040 plan. And we’re confident it will stand up to any challenges. Thousands of citizens – representing many points of view – participated in the process and contributed to the plan over a several year period. The plan offers a balanced, sensible and realistic approach to meeting our region’s transportation needs. One of the exciting things about the plan is the initiatives aimed at addressing climate change. Our plan is one of the most proactive and progressive in the nation in the area of climate change.
Local elected officials from the four counties overwhelmingly support the plan – the vote to approve the plan was 54 to two. We encourage interested citizens to find out more about the plan by visiting www.psrc.org.”
Where should we start with the dissection, eh? Maybe we’ll go from bottom to top.
Yes, the elected officials who wanted their pet projects funded voted for the plan 54-2. And? It’s pure self interest, and one of the most glaring problems with the Metropolitan Planning Organization structure, which lends itself to a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” environment.
More telling is the serious criticism from government staff, agencies, advocates, PSRC’s own advisory boards, and yes — the very cities that eventually voted for the plan. Local government staff serving on the Regional Staff Committee of PSRC were openly critical of the plan. Alternative Technical Group advisers — myself included — raised concern after concern.
The PSRC Special Needs Committee offered the following:
“As each of these plans have been presented to the Special Needs Transportation Committee we have expressed our concern that the planning process does not take into account the fact that nearly one third of the population has a greater need for transportation due to age, disability or income status…We believe that a plan that does not include one third of the population is not an adequate plan.”
Add to these the EPA, Seattle King County Health and many, many other rational actors who repeatedly offered solutions and guidance that was dismissed by PSRC’s Transportation Policy Board and Executive Committee.
Finally, more than 90% of the comments received by PSRC favored the better plan, Alternative 5, and even then those commenters wanted it to go further.
Sorry PSRC, not everyone likes the plan. Not even close.
As for climate and greenhouse gasses, note that PSRC doesn’t contest it’s failure to comply with state law. Rather, they merely pat themselves on the back for thinking about the issue. The numbers tell the real story. By their own admission, the plan — with almost 1,000 miles of wider roads and new highways to nowhere, many of which voters overwhelmingly rejected in the “Roads & Transit” ballot measure — makes virtually no progress on emissions reductions. Whereas state law requires a 35% reduction from 1990 levels by 2040, T2040 is projecting 4%.
Yes, PSRC, treading water does mean that you’re not drowning — but that’s not much comfort when you’re heading over a waterfall.
Finally, they claim to have put forth, “a balanced, sensible and realistic approach.” Sadly, their reality doesn’t seem to include very real impacts of their transportation policies. Crashes, deaths, disabling injuries, chronic and cardiovascular disease, air and water pollution… I could go on. All of these impacts have real costs that researchers like Littman, Delucchi and others have spent decades documenting. But PSRC’s “realistic” approach is to ignore these real costs, and continue to pass them along as if they weren’t there.
And “balanced”? It’s takes gall to use that word to talk about Transportation 2040. With more than 33% of the public unable to drive, 10% of all trips in the Puget Sound Region made by foot or bicycle, and a significant percentage of the region’s trips within easy walking and bicycling distance – how “balanced” is it to spend only 1.5% of this massive new package on nonmotorized improvements? PSRC’s “balanced” approach is pouring tens of billions of dollars into destructive, unnecessary projects like the Cross Base Highway and SR509.
Since they’re sure to point to the 535 miles of multi-use trails in the plan, it’s important to note that they’re mostly in sparsely populated, rural parts of the region. More telling is the fact that the plan adds almost zero dollars to local road maintenance. That’s correct, in our towns, where most walking and bicycling — and driving for that matter — are done, there won’t be a red cent to keep the roads we already own and use safe and in good repair. PSRC’s version of balance seems a bit lopsided from where we sit.
The “realistic” and “sensible” approach would have been to give the public what’s it’s been crying for, what it’s voted for when given the chance: more choices, less traffic and healthier, more vibrant communities. The votes on Seattle’s Bridging the Gap levy, King County’s Transit Now, and Sound Transit 2 — as well as the resounding defeat of Roads & Transit back this up.
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL has released the following statement in response to Cascade Bicycle Club’s appeal of Transportation 2040.
“We’re really proud of the Transportation 2040 plan. And we’re confident it will stand up to any challenges. Thousands of citizens – representing many points of view – participated in the process and contributed to the plan over a several year period. The plan offers a balanced, sensible and realistic approach to meeting our region’s transportation needs. One of the exciting things about the plan is the initiatives aimed at addressing climate change. Our plan is one of the most proactive and progressive in the nation in the area of climate change.
Local elected officials from the four counties overwhelmingly support the plan – the vote to approve the plan was 54 to two. We encourage interested citizens to find out more about the plan by visiting www.psrc.org.”
Where should we start with the dissection, eh? Maybe we’ll go from bottom to top.
Yes, the elected officials who wanted their pet projects funded voted for the plan 54-2. And? It’s pure self interest, and one of the most glaring problems with the Metropolitan Planning Organization structure, which lends itself to a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” environment.
More telling is the serious criticism from government staff, agencies, advocates, PSRC’s own advisory boards, and yes — the very cities that eventually voted for the plan. Local government staff serving on the Regional Staff Committee of PSRC were openly critical of the plan. Alternative Technical Group advisers — myself included — raised concern after concern.
The PSRC Special Needs Committee offered the following:
“As each of these plans have been presented to the Special Needs Transportation Committee we have expressed our concern that the planning process does not take into account the fact that nearly one third of the population has a greater need for transportation due to age, disability or income status…We believe that a plan that does not include one third of the population is not an adequate plan.”
Add to these the EPA, Seattle King County Health and many, many other rational actors who repeatedly offered solutions and guidance that was dismissed by PSRC’s Transportation Policy Board and Executive Committee.
Finally, more than 90% of the comments received by PSRC favored the better plan, Alternative 5, and even then those commenters wanted it to go further.
Sorry PSRC, not everyone likes the plan. Not even close.
As for climate and greenhouse gasses, note that PSRC doesn’t contest it’s failure to comply with state law. Rather, they merely pat themselves on the back for thinking about the issue. The numbers tell the real story. By their own admission, the plan — with almost 1,000 miles of wider roads and new highways to nowhere, many of which voters overwhelmingly rejected in the “Roads & Transit” ballot measure — makes virtually no progress on emissions reductions. Whereas state law requires a 35% reduction from 1990 levels by 2040, T2040 is projecting 4%.
Yes, PSRC, treading water does mean that you’re not drowning — but that’s not much comfort when you’re heading over a waterfall.
Finally, they claim to have put forth, “a balanced, sensible and realistic approach.” Sadly, their reality doesn’t seem to include very real impacts of their transportation policies. Crashes, deaths, disabling injuries, chronic and cardiovascular disease, air and water pollution… I could go on. All of these impacts have real costs that researchers like Littman, Delucchi and others have spent decades documenting. But PSRC’s “realistic” approach is to ignore these real costs, and continue to pass them along as if they weren’t there.
And “balanced”? It’s takes gall to use that word to talk about Transportation 2040. With more than 33% of the public unable to drive, 10% of all trips in the Puget Sound Region made by foot or bicycle, and a significant percentage of the region’s trips within easy walking and bicycling distance – how “balanced” is it to spend only 1.5% of this massive new package on nonmotorized improvements? PSRC’s “balanced” approach is pouring tens of billions of dollars into destructive, unnecessary projects like the Cross Base Highway and SR509.
Since they’re sure to point to the 535 miles of multi-use trails in the plan, it’s important to note that they’re mostly in sparsely populated, rural parts of the region. More telling is the fact that the plan adds almost zero dollars to local road maintenance. That’s correct, in our towns, where most walking and bicycling — and driving for that matter — are done, there won’t be a red cent to keep the roads we already own and use safe and in good repair. PSRC’s version of balance seems a bit lopsided from where we sit.
The “realistic” and “sensible” approach would have been to give the public what’s it’s been crying for, what it’s voted for when given the chance: more choices, less traffic and healthier, more vibrant communities. The votes on Seattle’s Bridging the Gap levy, King County’s Transit Now, and Sound Transit 2 — as well as the resounding defeat of Roads & Transit back this up.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
On the virtues of urbanism and my semi-urban Central District neighborhood
This month, the magazine Seattle Business has a focus on the young, talented creative professionals moving to the Northwest—even if they don’t have a job. The article asserts "
My neighborhood, Leschi, is not likely immune. Indeed, our architectural charm, parks, mature street trees and lakeshore—combined with our proximity to downtown—almost ensure our neighborhood is one of the first to be discovered by newcomers. It has always been so.
Thanks to our views, the neighborhood was largely spared the 70s decay besetting other Seattle neighborhoods, at least on the scale at which entire blocks elsewhere become wrecking ball magnets by the time of the 90s and 2000s boom years. While this has helped to keep the attractive homes that make the architectural heritage so rich, it has not been conducive to an influx of new housing stock. We are not left wanting, though, for our own examples of the modern, low-cost construction that swept through the city in the last decade. What will we see in the next development cycle, when that demand for the Leschi lifestyle is again facilitated by renewed real estate mobility?
Some of that is up to us. We can continue to advocate for broadly-applied low building heights, parking minimums and other restrictive measures neighborhood-wide, or we could focus; adopting an approach of active engagement, creatively working together to encourage investment into our neighborhood in the places that need it most, demanding design guidelines and advocating for the improvements that will help to create the environment newcomers are looking for, and one that we want them to enjoy—namely the car-free lifestyle. We should want this if we want them to live here in the middle of the city instead of ever-expanding suburbia, and if we recognize our car-based lifestyle is killing us.
Finding and targeting the ideal underdeveloped urban sites in our neighborhood for more intensive development would help us foster a lifestyle growing in global popularity: a life traveled on foot, by bike, or on the bus. This is the demographic of an increasing share of newcomers, and they expect to find what they need in their local neighborhood businesses—not at the nearest Costco, University Village or Promenade 23-type shopping center.
Satisfying the demand of the entire next cycle in just a few locations is possible, too, because (as urban developers are currently finding as they struggle to find financing) nothing cools a lender’s jets like a slowly-filling building in the applicant’s area.
Buildings are taking a few years to completely fill up now, and that is a good thing. It gives us time to adjust and monitor traffic and parking issues.
But ours is a neighborhood of mainly single-family residences. New development in the last cycle followed that formula, focusing on cheap land that is easy to develop, passing up the expensive acquisition and complex zoning issues of larger, more urban lots on our neighborhood’s major arterials.
The next time you are out enjoying one of our occasional walker’s-paradise spring days, look around; beyond the handsome, mature homes and delightful blooming gardens of our neighborhood to the hidden treasure that is underused, unlovable urban land. Is there a better way to grow, than to shoe-horn two faux-craftsman homes into the place of every existing house, one at a time? The answer may well be right in front of our eyes.
Keep up to date with the Leschi Community Council online at
CentralDistrictNews.com/members/LeschiCC
CentralDistrictNews.com/members/LeschiCC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)