PDA

View Full Version : Glad to know Portland isn't the only one with nuts. 'Lesser Seattle' group back


MarkDaMan
Dec 6, 2006, 5:07 PM
'Lesser Seattle' sentiment stirs among city folk
Backlash - Opposition to development projects suggests that residents think the world-class city is special enough
Sunday, December 03, 2006
SAM HOWE VERHOVEK
The Oregonian

SEATTLE -- For believers in a Lesser Seattle, November was a fantastic month.

First, Seattle voters said a resounding "no" to spending public money on a new professional basketball arena, all but begging the NBA SuperSonics to leave town. Strong opposition also has emerged to the mayor's plans for a "Big Dig"-style tunnel project along the waterfront.

And, in a capstone, the National Weather Service announced that November was the rainiest month in Seattle in nearly 75 years.

Wonderful, from the Lesser Seattle point of view. Let the word go out. Who would want to live here?

"Lesser Seattle" was a term coined in the 1980s by late newspaper columnist Emmett Watson, as a puckish play on Greater Seattle Inc., the name of an early group of tourism and growth promoters. It never became a formal organization, but "Lesser Seattle" is nonetheless a powerful and enduring state of mind.

These Seattle residents pine for the good old days, when nobody thought of Seattle as a world-class city -- and, not coincidentally, when an average worker could afford a house here. And Seattle, they say, can take or leave the mantle of being an NBA city.

"Seattle doesn't need to have a pro basketball team in order to feel special," says Chris Van Dyk, a co-founder of Citizens for More Important Things, a nonprofit group that won the anti-subsidy vote Nov. 7. "Seattle is special regardless."

Plenty of people welcome growth and development. But plenty say Seattle has given up too much of its blue-collar soul.

Al Runte, a former University of Washington history professor and unsuccessful mayoral candidate, says he detects an "enough is enough" sentiment among voters in their passage, by nearly 75 percent, of the initiative barring public funds for a new basketball arena.

"A city of this quality does not need to give incentives to developers," he says. "They should be paying taxpayers for the privilege of being in this city."

Once, the Seattle area seemed quietly tucked away in a corner of the map; now, of course, it's the headquarters of Microsoft, Starbucks and Amazon.com, and it remains a magnet for global talent.

In an unfolding battle, Mayor Greg Nickels has proposed replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct, a highway that some say cuts like a scar along the Seattle waterfront, with a tunnel.

The problem: That option could cost $2 billion to $3 billion more than the roughly $2.5 billion needed to rebuild the road. The battle might come before voters in a referendum.

State House Speaker Frank Chopp, a Democrat from Seattle, sent a letter Nov. 16 to Gov. Chris Gregoire urging her to help scrap the tunnel plan. "An above-ground solution is the only viable option," said the letter, signed by 29 of Chopp's colleagues. "Simply put, the tunnel is a luxury the taxpayers of Washington cannot afford."

Similar sentiment seemed to be at work in the vote on an arena for the Sonics, which Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz sold this year for $350 million to an Oklahoma City-based partnership. The group has said it wants to remain in the Seattle area, but many fans think the franchise is ultimately leave.

Van Dyk, the co-chairman of Citizens for More Important Things, which is funded in part by a union of state health-care workers, says neither the city nor the state should be giving "handouts" to professional sports franchises.

Instead, he says, they should be spending more on "affordable health care," schools and salaries for teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees.

http://www.oregonlive.com/metro/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1164936312308800.xml&coll=7

Dr. Smoke
Dec 6, 2006, 9:52 PM
Hell, I'm new here, and I wish it were 15 years ago...

James Bond Agent 007
Dec 6, 2006, 9:54 PM
Lesser Seattle lives! :banana:

Go away we don't want you here! :mad:

OhioGuy
Dec 6, 2006, 10:32 PM
I don't care if Seattle wants to be "Lesser Seattle" with regards to professional sports.... just don't be lesser Seattle when it comes to transit options. Don't rebuild that damn elevated viaduct! It's absolute pure stupidity. The monorail screw up was bad enough... now we're looking at potentially another screw up in rebuilding the Alaskan Way Viaduct??? *sigh*

mhays
Dec 6, 2006, 11:52 PM
Seattle gets better every year. I'd hate to go back to the old days.

PDXPaul
Dec 7, 2006, 12:19 AM
True that mhays.

WonderlandPark
Dec 7, 2006, 1:09 AM
Keep Portland Weird

Dr. Smoke
Dec 7, 2006, 1:12 AM
Yeah, Keep Portland Weird. :previous:

May God bless ya, Brother.

Black Box
Dec 8, 2006, 6:07 PM
Did anyone hear Frank Chopp's support for the transit-surface option? The ongoing weirdness of the viaduct drama continues.....

Dr. Smoke
Dec 8, 2006, 6:50 PM
I agree with no-build.

Take that money and put it all into light-rail, now. Use the viaduct until it falls down.

Every other option requires the viaduct to be out of service for 4 years! So, what's the difference?

zilfondel
Dec 9, 2006, 12:26 AM
Because in 4 years the Chinese will open a new Boeing plant with over 4.3 MILLION workers, and they will need to drive the new Chinese-made-in-American Boeing jets down the viaduct to get to the airport to fly them to China.

Oh wait, I'm totally full of bullshit. You want a reason? There is none. San Fran let the Embarcadero freeway fail, never rebuilt it, and the traffic disappeared. Ever hear of induced demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand)?

Also, according to Braess' paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess_paradox), decreasing street capacity will actually, paradoxically, lead to decreased congestion. It's the opposite of building more freeway lanes and having them fill up: removing them takes the traffic away. While it might not happen in a place like Atlanta, Seattle has enough alternatives to driving around (ie, walk to the store near you instead of driving across town for milk that is $1 cheaper) to make it work.

Dr. Smoke
Dec 9, 2006, 3:33 AM
... meanwhile light-rail serves as a suitable substitute.

InlandEmpire
Dec 9, 2006, 6:27 AM
I totally agree with the 'no rebuild' option. Traffic will decrease because people will get fed up with the traffic and seek alternatives. The main reason I rode the MAX when I lived in Portland was to avoid traffic and parking fees, not to be trendy or environmentally friendly. Also, the Lesser Seattle advocates can whine all they want, but Seattle will only become more influential due to the Asian market, so if they want somewhere sleepy and affordable, let them move to Moses Lake.

Black Box
Dec 9, 2006, 7:42 AM
Yes, Seattle is only going to become more populated, more expensive, etcetera. We should keep some of Lesser Seattle in mind in an attempt to maintain a balancing act that keeps all folks in mind. It simply is not a matter of Seattle becoming less blue collar, but our country's economy does not provide as many opportunities for job growth in manufacturing and other blue collar jobs. The mannerisms of the 21st Century, global economy have changed many things everywhere. The Greater Seattle area is fairing well at present and I hope it will remain so in the future. I appreciate this city for many reasons and hope that it remains as dynamic and diverse in the future. Anyone checking out the comedy scene in the city? I love Dina Martina and many of the new comedy acts that are coming out of the crawl spaces. Oh, and my earlier post about Frank Chopp was my way of expressing the fact that yes, Seattle has many difficult transportation issues to solve. That subject alone could be a comedy routine itself.