Jim

Thanks and no, it would not solve the overall larger budget issues related to reduced tax revenue. I think the point is that these fat contracts are making a bad situation worse and rather than even put a temporary hold on what I would consider very good raises in a down economy, the unions would rather layoff staff and thereby reduce services. In the long-run I think they are shooting themselves in the foot, or other vital places.

Do you get 2% plus a raise each year you are there? And that's outside the 5% contract example. Just seems in tough times things should be scaled accordingly.

You have no choice but to make him do it. Whining about others making their employers do it is surely not the way to get there. Damn, do you have a vagina? Who's whining about anybody else? I just wish MY employer kept up with inflation. Actually it's much better than keeping up with inflation. If you worked for the county you would get the 2% COLA, then you get step increases each year for years in service, THEN you could get a raise if you are being bumped up a grade level - esentially a promotion. So raises are automatic - COLA and year in service - for everyone. Then there are the CONTRACT raises - 5% a year for the sheriff department for instance. Just saying.

I'm curious the metrics you want to use to evaluate performance for a policeman or bus driver. I'm curious of the metrics, or likely lack there of, for the same.

Given the complexity of the issues and the recent track record of our bonehead legislators, I'm not optimistic.

Yea - in these times I do think it's excessive. Why do you get a pay raise, on top of a COLA, for just hanging around.

Thanks, but I've always been on the fiscal conservative end of things - I just like to see our money used efficiently so that services, including progressive adgendas, can be met without gouging taxpayers.

Not falling for anything thanks. ALL King County employees got a 2% raise this year, on top of annual step increases, which is basically a pay increase for hanging around another year. No, I don't think that is a good use of taxpayer money. I'm more of a pay for performance person.

Spoken like an elitist if you don't recognize a) the tough economic times many are facing, and 2) how that effects their perception of how their tax dollars are spent.

So - you're contending that the raises that Metro and the King Co. sheriff's office has in place in no way is contributing to their projected cut in services? That's a stretch. In the present economy folks are looking losing their jobs, receiving cuts in pay and benefits, and shortened hours. Why would they think it is fair that (some) public employees are guaranteed these lucrative pay increases - with taxpayer money, while the public is asked to get less services out of the same agecies. I'll admit that when things are flush that a less critical eye is turned to these items, but when times are tough these deals are a bit askew.

I'm socially progressive but fiscally conservative. I'm seeing more waste in public funds and have to admit I'm less inclined to vote for taxes given the rat hole I see it going down lately. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.

I'm not confused at all. It seems simple - we're being asked to carry cuts in services - less King Co. sheriffs, less Metro bus service, and other King County services because there are ridiclious contracts in place. Why would folks vote for higher taxes when the sheriff staff are gettign 5% increases per year, on top of step increases because of years in service. In this economy? Similarly - King County has 17,894 employess all who received a 2% raise this year - in addition to annual step increases. WTF? 10%of the staff make in excess of $100k per year. OK, some of that includes overtime. Buy why are we paying overtime and then at the same time saying layoffs are needed or service cutbacks are necessry. I think you're not admitting that there is, at least, some management issues here. The sheriff's contract was negoiated AFTER the financial meltdown. It's the public's money and needs to be spent more wisely. If you can't admit that you are not at the plate, you're on the sidewalk outside the ballpark.

Bullshit! The overwhelming majority of state employees aren't cops or bus drivers. The terms of the deal they got are outrageous of course but taking it out on "public employees" or claiming that "our" taxes are going to go up for that reason is a lie (actually a few of them) I think the point is that folks are tired of seeing this kind of stuff. Similarly King County refused to negoiate with their employee's union to have them pay more of their share for medical benefits - which would have brought closer to what is paid by the private sector and would have saved taxpayers something like 10 million over 5 years. We are voting on taxes this November - the income tax and the potential repeal of the soda/junk food tax. Jayb has a valid point. Given that folks are hard pressed why would they vote for taxes when they see this stuff going on? It's taxpayer money.

meanwhile.. Danny Westneat Seattle Times staff columnist Last week there was a cop in the paper saying he was looking around for jobs elsewhere because the budget problems here are so bad. "We're crime fighters, we're police officers," a King County sheriff's detective told Seattle Times reporter Keith Ervin. "With all these cuts we would have to say we're not able to do our jobs. We can't protect the people we're paid to serve." That is a nice sentiment. You do the job mostly because you love it. The money is a side benefit. If only, when it comes to King County, there was evidence this was true. It turns out these same police officers are in the middle of getting a 27 percent pay boost, spanning five years. Their bosses at the county asked the police union to consider forgoing some of that massive raise in the final two years of the five-year contract, as part of an emergency, countywide pay freeze. So far, no go. "The indications are, they clearly are not interested in doing that," says Fred Jarrett, deputy county executive. "At all." Yet the county just announced plans to lay off 30 cops. There's pain like that across every department. This week the county said it would cut its core social-services funding all the way to zero. None of this is the workers' fault. But they are the largest expense, by far. So they were asked to take a one-year freeze in pay. It isn't even a complete pay freeze, because they could still get step raises by seniority. But so far, only 600 of the county's 10,000 unionized employees — 6 percent — have agreed to this modest step. The cops' contract is so rich, with guaranteed 5 percent raises every year, that if they went along with a one-year freeze the savings would erase the need to lay off any cops at all. "I would give up my 5 percent raise to save the job of another deputy," said Sgt. John Urquhart, the sheriff's spokesman, whose pay is covered under the contract. "But then again I live in King County because I can afford to, my kids are grown and out of college, and my wife works. Most deputies don't have those luxuries." Except that last year, 330 of the roughly 750 members of the King County police force made more than $100,000, including overtime. Twenty-five made more than $140,000. Some of those are chiefs and high-rankers. But most are police out on the county beat. The highest paid was Deputy Mike Miner. He made $228,000 — $128,000 in overtime pay alone. I get they have demanding jobs, way tougher than most of us. But 27 percent raises are the stuff of bubbles that popped long ago. Would it kill to freeze these whopping pay levels for a year — especially if it meant protecting the public at full force, as is said to be so important? I called the union to ask, but haven't heard back (yet!). Jarrett said he thinks many of the unions still don't get it. "I would say, with some exceptions, that most seem more interested in maintaining their compensation packages than in saving jobs," he said. This was confessed, bluntly, by the head of the union for Metro bus drivers, Paul Bachtel. He recently told Times reporter Mike Lindblom: "They [drivers] don't expect to give up wages, benefits, working conditions, when the transit agency could cut some of its services, and not take away pay." Got that? Cut services first. Services to you. I'm in a union, so I understand this is part bluster. You talk tough now to make a better deal later. It's also ultimately management's fault. It was the Metropolitan King County Council, in December 2008 — well after the financial system collapsed — that awarded the 27 percent police raises. But forget about them. There's a third party at this bargaining table: Us. And in six weeks we're being asked to raise our taxes. Supposedly to save the cops and courts and the rest of King County from what they're calling economic Armageddon. Twenty-seven percent raises? They can save themselves first. Then we'll talk. Danny Westneat's column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com.

On the flip side if you're arguing for such a change you could present a privately run Port that is pulling in a profit without proping up from public resources and is meeting it's environmental regulatory responsibilities - and is in the U.S. and is at least as big as, say, the Port of Vancouver.

That doesn't look like a tele boot to me.

From the WCC website. Seems reasonable to me.

OK - wow, that is a knot of issues. Thanks again. And the rub......if the powers that be really wanted to make sure the birds are protected at all costs....they would close the trail. Plain and simple. But like you said....it might disrupt their landmark tourist sites. So it is also plain and simple that the birds and their welfare are not high on the list of firsts for the WSP. Just to extend my curiousity on the issue, and show my ignoranace of the history; have the birds been consistently successful fledging young from this site?

OK - wow, that is a knot of issues. Thanks again.

Thank you for the clarification and the photo. If the issues is joint pain for climbers and hikers alike there may be a point - but again I don't know the details. If it's let us climb closer because the hikers aren't restricted, one bad decision doesn't deserve another.

Didn't I say, like three times above, that this isn't the only considerations. Maybe folks have already, but you could just ask the biologist in charge for his reasoning. And then go hike or climb somewhere else already. Sheesh.

Ditto on Second Ascent. Feathered Friends also has a bunch of plastic rentals for sale.

This factor in isolation is what tortures Kevin, however. And at Beacon in the end it makes all the difference. For much of the entire distance to the top tourists are either on the West face or are in the trees as they approach the South face (where the scrape is). They only emerge from them at two spots where they get anywhere near the plane of the cliff. They are never within line-of-sight of the nest or common perches. I can't answer specifics as I'm not familar with the site or the issues. But if someone asked me to set a safe buffer distance I'd review the literature, consider the sight AND hearing distance issues and take a conservative approach. I'd rather piss off a handful of climbers than risk disturbing the birds. But like I said, I haven't viewed the site and don't know the issues - so I'm speaking in generalities.

Finally wore out the old T2s and looking for something new. God those new boots look beefy. I'm looking for something versatile; day tours at Rainer, long days in the spring in the Cascades with some hiking, and a 6 day Sierra traverse this spring. Suggestions? Thanks. Currently have BD Crossbows as my all-around but also looking for some phat boards for pow.

This is the one Kevin can't quite grasp, that hikers at Beacon never break the plane of the cliff and only get vaguely close to doing so at two points. You should consider elaborating on that remark. Regarding line-of-sight issues; note I said it was one of may issues to consider. I could send you a slew of citations on this type of work and what you would come away with is the variability of the susceptability to disturbance of raptors to various factors. If your agency's mandate is to protect the natural resources you may choose a conservative approach given all the variables. And that goes along with my second point. IMO the cliffs, and the critters and plants that use them, should be treated with a bit more diligence and not just viewed as a jungle gym by weekend warriors. Ya know, an outdoor esthetic kinda thing.