Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

Hooray for local papers like The Seattle Press that bring forth issues that some consider to be related only to a single neighborhood, but in reality affect us all and link us all together. I refer to your excellent article about the Admiral parking proposal (Seattle Press, June 28 - July 11, 2000 issue). As a West Seattle resident who has been working on the proposal I must say that our most difficult task has been overcoming the misinformation circulated by those who oppose it and articles like yours go a long way to overcome that misinformation. One big area of misunderstanding is that we are not working to add additional parking, but rather to replace the only public parking we had because it is being lost to 150 new condos and assisted living units.

I especially enjoyed your reference to the irony of the "greenies" claim that a layer of underground parking would somehow negatively impact open space and trails, and instead recommend that we take playground space from the children at Lafayette School!!?? (That proposal has been brought to the school several times over the years and the PTSA strongly opposes it.) True environmentalists would not want to commit open space (the play ground area) for parking, nor would they want people to have to drive miles out of the area because they cannot park locally.

Because of last ditch efforts to revamp the proposal and keep the proposal alive I will pass on my comments regarding the naysayers on the Council. I would however like to clarify that not all of the councilmembers have bought into the negative, incorrect facts. Councilmembers Conlin, Licata, Nicastro and Pageler have been wonderfully supportive and helpful throughout this process, as have Dwight Dively and Denna Cline from the executive side.

Roger Valdez, our neighborhood coordinator, has also worked tirelessly to help us get this to a vote. These councilmembers have been under severe pressure, but took the time to analyze and understand the alternatives and the choices and they have shown leadership in not bowing to short-sighted solutions.

Most of all--thanks from me for just this one article is not what counts.

What counts is that perhaps with papers like yours, the Weekly and others bringing us all together, we can get some sidewalks for Lake City, parking for Admiral, and whatever it is that the various neighborhoods need and have been waiting for so long.

Some of these projects are very expensive, but many could be done for what to the city is a very small amount of money. We just need to stick together, and your paper helps us do that.

Midge Batt

Seattle Center Hotel is Bad for Neighborhood

To the Editor:

You cannot imagine my surprise when I read in "the Fishwrapper" (The Seattle Press, July 12 - 25, 2000) that the City of Seattle in its eagerness to facilitate development at Northgate, waived its SEPA obligation in its haste to accommodate the Northgate Mall owners and how the tenacity of the Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund pointed out the city's non-compliance with the law.

The reason for my surprise is because the city tried to do the same thing--eliminate doing a SEPA review and threshold determination--for a proposed 159-room hotel the Seattle Center insists on putting in the pocket of the small residential neighborhood where I live and work.

From its beginning in 1998, this proposed hotel has been declared "an inappropriate use of public land," by the chair of the Seattle Design Commission and has been opposed by the neighborhood for having a significant adverse impact not only on the quality of life of the entire group of residents but with the increase of traffic and vehicular air pollution, on the environment as well.

The Seattle Center has continued to pursue this project despite the fact that there are 13 hotels already established in the area around the Center and 3 more "on the boards," including one being planned across the street from the EMP, and it has, I might add, done so in a misleading and deceptive way. For example, neighbors and property owners within 300 feet of the proposed hotel were not notified of the project because Seattle Center used its office address rather than the site address. When DCLU requested a more specific address, the Seattle Center told DCLU, "All of Seattle Center has 305 Harrison" (the Center offices address). This difference of address effectively circumvented notification to the owners and residents in the neighborhood.

The city is in non-compliance with its own laws due to the fact that the lease for the land was signed BEFORE any SEPA review and threshold determination of the total proposal impacts were made!

Furthermore, the neighborhood is entitled to have full disclosure of the total proposal impacts. This proposed hotel has been revised so many times it has a chameleon-like appearance. It started out in 1990 as a small 100-room hotel at the Mercer Arena, was relocated to the current site as a 160-room Hilton Gardens single-use hotel, jumped to a 196-room hotel with penthouse suites and has currently changed to a 159-room hotel with conference rooms and a restaurant and lounge. How is the neighborhood to be kept abreast of the total proposed impacts when the proposal keeps changing?

Last but not least on this subject of this public/private endeavor: the city has leased this property for a paltry $204,000 a year. The estimated gross for a 159-room hotel at 80 percent occupancy, at $140/night average room cost, for one year is over $6,000,000. That's right, over $6 MILLION dollars a year. Even with the expected revenues to the Seattle Center from the Business and Occupation tax, it seems like a huge profit margin for the developer. In the words of another Seattle Design Commissioner, "I am not convinced the Seattle Center is getting a great deal for the public land." I agree with him. What do you think?

That this questionable activity has seriously compromised the City's credibility and has created a lack of confidence in government is evident by the responses one hears on the streets regarding our "right" choices. What is the real loss in this scenario is the civic and personal virtue that is being replaced by a virtue by fiat. As John Stuart Mill observed in his book On Liberty, published in 1859, "A State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile in its hands even for beneficial purposes--will find that with small men, no great thing can really be accomplished."

With this thought in mind, two other neighborhood residents and I have filed appeals to overturn the Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) regarding this hotel proposal. We are confident our logic will impress the powers that be of the "probable significant adverse impact on the environment" and the residents of this neighborhood.

For the city to "overlook" and/or waive SEPA review in both of these projects is unacceptable and makes me wonder how many other projects may have been allowed to be built without benefit of SEPA review. Also, I am disheartened that our city has been non-compliant with these environmental laws in light of the fact that every day new information is released regarding the necessity for supporting environmental policies.

J.M. Black-Ferguson

Freeways and Bikeways

To the Editor:

The discovery and the application of the limited access freeway system has been a great boon to highway travel. It has resulted in much safer and faster travel. What would happen if we applied the same concept to bicycle transportation? We could, for example, separate our bike lanes from other traffic, children, wandering stray animals, etc., by erecting side fencing. Additionally, we could cover the top to keep out rain and snow. Such improvements could be made very inexpensively, comparatively speaking. Such small and lightweight structures are very flexible. They could, for example, be built at ground level or, as needed, above ground. They could be routed down alleyways and attached to existing bridges. Since it would be limited access, just like a freeway, we could call them BIKEWAYS.

If biking can be made safe and reliable, then many additional people would opt for this mode of travel. And many people would support this endeavor, simply because it would result in less automobile congestion on our roads. Today approximately 4 percent of all commuters to downtown Seattle travel by bicycle, but they do so at a considerable safety risk. And they must be careful to avoid heavily traveled roads.

Hills are a problem for biking in Seattle, but there are several obvious BIKEWAY routes, for instance, through the I-5 corridor and along our shorelines, such as the Burke-Gilman trail. Commuting to work over such level routes would qualify only as a minor physical workout. But for those who may be averse to such activity, or for those who must climb a steep hill or two, an electric driven bike could be used.

Consider your daily commute. For example, after leaving your home and traveling approximately five or ten minutes over surface streets you arrive at the BIKEWAY. After entering the BIKEWAY you travel approximately 20 mph nonstop to your final destination. Calculate your door to door time and compare this time with other modes of travel. Consider uncertainties, such as snowy conditions or jackknifed trucks on the freeway. Consider also your savings in fuel, and other costs related to the need for a second car. And consider the safety and reliability of a BIKEWAY commute.

Norm Boldt

via e-mail

Birds Show Us the Right Way

To the Editor:

We must carefully study the habits of the city-dwelling crow, sparrow, seagull and pigeon if we wish to understand answers to gridlock and freeway congestion. The bird-on-the-wing, it seems, has more intelligence than the average pointy-headed, ham-handed Sound Transit system planner. These overfed bureaucrats have tunnel-vision and bulldozer mentalities when it comes to their ideas of how our citizens must be disenfranchised by massive construction disruption and huge holes in the ground, at the cost of many many dinero per passenger-mile.

The bird of the city never struggles to find an obscure pathway on the surface, or under the ground, when confronted with an obstruction such as a building, a car or a freeway. The bird simply flies over the thing. The voters of Seattle understood this concept immediately when asked to vote on the expansion of the Monorail system. It was simple logic to them. Flying over things is such a simple idea that it never occurred to the brilliant Sound Transit planners. If it did occur to them, they rejected the idea, simply because it wasn't their idea to claim.

Consider the birds, citizens of Seattle, and never, never call our Sound Transit planners "bird-brains." That would be insulting to the birds!

Gene Buck

"Wrong Kind of People"

To the Editor:

I was quite surprised to find it reported that two members of the Fremont Chamber of Commerce objected that the Fremont Market "brings the wrong kind of people" to Fremont. Since I frequently attend the Fremont Market, I must be one of those "wrong king of people" objected to.

From my observation of my fellow market-goers, I can only conclude that the objecting Chamber members feel uncomfortable when around people who (1) are pleasant, (2) are enjoying themselves and (3) bathe frequently.

Jonathan A. Hayes

Even Non-locals Want City-wide Monorail

To the Editor:

My wife and I were visiting your city and during the course of our travels we rode the monorail systems now in place. It was a good ride. We asked if the rail went out to the Eastlake area of Lake Union. You know the answer.

At the bakery we stopped at I picked up your paper. I hope the citizens of Seattle listen to this movement to expand the monorail system. From a tourist point of view, I would much rather have a scenic view than underground travel. Just look at the problems the city of Boston has run into with all of the cost overruns in "the Big Dig."

I will have to agree with Michael Godfried; placing the systems along I-5 is a very good way to expand your current monorail.

Loved your city and the folks that we met; everyone was friendly and helpful.

Roy Henderson

Light Rail Vs. Monorail: Costs the Same

To the Editor:

The Light Rail vs. Monorail argument really is ridiculous! Both are very similar technologies. The major cost of any train "concept" is NOT the track or the vehicles...but everything else! Relocation of utilities, along with mitigation of impacts on businesses, is all the same. There is a very, very good reason for going surface—because it can be put in faster and at lower cost than elevating or tunneling. These are high cost. Like it or not, practically ALL non-car ideas require land area, sidewalks, bicycle paths, bus lanes, light rail and even monorail. The cost of a tunnel, bridge, and stations still are the same whether they be monorail, bus lane or light rail. To repeat, the cost of an elevated monorail, light rail or busway (all of which are high capacity passenger traffic) is the EXACT SAME! I have noticed a real propaganda campaign directed at the American people about how evil light rail is, and it is coming squarely from oil/automotive interests who, if we remember our history, tore up the original light rail system we had here in Puget Sound.

The monorail can also be placed in the Capitol Hill subway tunnel, and even built elevated down Martin Luther King Way, better yet, the monorail can be ground level; such inventions exist. Believe me, I am a strong supporter of monorail technology, but when we do the feasibility study you will find out what I already know: there is not much difference in cost. Everyone is designing too much to a "a vision," not to "economic reality." Which leads me to suspect this latest light rail vs. monorail propaganda operation to be what it is: designed to discredit transit technology to sell more gas! As traffic congestion gets worse, that means engines do not burn fuel as efficiently—result, increase demand for gasoline, thus higher price. That is the reason why we have a bus transit system, so as to reduce the cost of gasoline, and so that us lowly members of the "used car class" don’t have to wear and tear our engines so much. Does this make sense, or do we need to have more Middle East wars over cheap oil?

Let me make a modest proposal. Take the NE, NW, SW monorail routes and make them into "temporary" busways, complete with barricades, control signals, stations. The same would be done for the MLK way light rail and planned SE monorail routes. Then, as funds become available, these routes become grade separated. The busways could be electrified, and then as they are converted to monorail or light rail the electric lines could be used by the monorail or light rail. Ok, it is not that simple, but the point is, busways can be put in a lot faster than any major tunnel or elevated construction project; it is something that can be done soon. Trouble is, it means a reduction of parking on these streets, combined with getting car drivers to stop running red lights.

The problem is not so much surface transit systems—it has to do with Too Many Cars! Transit systems are really safer than a bunch of idiots behind the wheel. The key to lower auto insurance (and safer cities) is reducing traffic.

Contrary to the "big lie" operation, light rail can climb hills. The technology does exist, such as Linear Induction Motors (where the track is the motor). But is it desirable for passengers?

Many of the same control technologies and lightweight materials technologies apply to buses, rail and monorails. For example, a monorail can be placed in the proposed Capitol Hill subway tunnel, but is it the best way to go? Mexico City, for example, did that, and the heat from the "rolling resistance" of rubber tires overheated the air. Steel wheels, for example, can handle tonnage of weight a lot better when the trains are crowded. Notice how the existing Seattle Center Monorail is a bumpy ride when the train is crowded!

When you do the feasibility study for the monorail (which I support), you will find out what I already know! The cost is very similar to light rail, and the problems associated are the same. The only way you will get cost down and get it built sooner is to bring portions of it to ground level, and you will still need to tunnel and build bridges, just like light rail! And you will still need land area, just like light rail!

The real problem is squarely car drivers who drive too much, who see a vision, just like the pied piper!

Enjoy the gasoline price increase, it is going higher!

Martin Nix

Chair of Fed Up With S.O.V.!

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!