How I’m voting: I’m not
I decided that I’m not voting in this ridiculous “advisory vote” fiasco. There’s no way I can send the message I want to send with the options before me. That message being:
You’ve dilly-dallied too long and you’re just going to keep doing it waiting for the Building Materials Fairy to put $3B in free concrete under your pillow, just fix the damn seawall, and if you do decide to just “repair and prepare” pass a law requiring that when that thing topples in the next earthquake Peter Sherwin has to go to every victims’ family and personally apologize for tilting at that windmill of “Oh, a bunch of piles and duct tape will hold it together, don’t you worry about no earthquake!”
I mean, how does “no and hell no” communicate that to these fools?
But I was thinking… this vote will cost, if memory serves me, $1.3M. Each city council member makes a little over $100,000. The mayor makes over $150,000. Why don’t we just garnish their wages for 2007 to pay for this failed experiment in democracy? I mean, it’s not like any of them are hurting for money. (OK, maybe Jean Godden.) Let’s cut their pay back to the minimum wage for the year and use the rest of their salaries to pay this off.
And yeah, I know, three of them voted to rescind the vote, but if they couldn’t convice the rest of these soft-minded city council fools this was an exercise in failure (which should have been very easy to do), why should they be rewarded?
Vote No Vote and Hell No Vote next Tuesday.
Related posts:
It’s not the mayor’s or city council’s decision on what to do with the viaduct. The governor told them to do an advisory vote.
Do you want the state to just ignore what the people want and go ahead with whatever stupid idea they come along with first (ie, a new rebuilt mega-viaduct)? That’s how we got a billion dollars worth of new stadiums in SODO, and we’d be building a new NASCAR track and a new basketball arena if the state followed your advice.
There’s state history behind this advisory vote, and the advisory vote is good progress.
I’ve only been here since 2000, so my only experience with public voting on civil engineering projects is with the monorail. I’m not sure if that’s the history you were referring to?
YES and YES. it’s time for a decision.
the transit-pony plan (BUSES 4 EVAR) folk have had all that time since the earthquake to come up with something tangible to offer voters. stop your whining.
Jason - It’s not the voters’ responsibility to come up with a plan, it’s our political leaders’ responsibility. Both of the plans we’ve been presented suck. Bad. They lack vision, imagination, and foresight. They create as many problems as they solve.
Perhaps there isn’t a good choice to be had in this debate. Maybe, due to previous planning failures combined with challenging geography, we can’t have our cake and eat it, too (surface/transit). However, given that it’s not even been explored, I think we owe it to ourselves to at least have a thorough look at *all* the options - not just the two fairly asinine choices we’ve been offered.
To summarize, the rhetorical technique you’re using is tired.
It’s very important that you vote, even if the choice is between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.