minx Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 work sucks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 The Seattle Monorail project collected $200 million dollars in taxes and spent it all. They ran up a further $110 million dollars in debt which I believe we are still paying for. Â We have NOTHING to show for it. Â This is shameful. Â Agreed. And not only is the money gone, but people were basically forced to sell their land if it was in the way of the planned route. A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything away from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Seattle dudes, you have my sympathy: you have bad urban planning. Like LA, just pretty much let it happen. It's is much more difficult to put the genie back in the bottle if you haven't prepared your question in advance. Â Not only that, but then you have to keep paying these costs forever via crowded traffic and very expensive land purchases later to correct oversights that should have been obvious at the start had anyone bothered to think of it. Â In southern WA, your Vancouver brothers were given a vote to join Portland when Portland installed the light rail. They were going to get a financial break on the light rail to PDX by suckering the feds into a lot of the bill. They voted no. Traffic coming from Vancouver to Portland was bad then. Now, years later, for a short spot on 1-5, it is in the top ten worst corridors in the country, ie real real bad. Â Now they want a bridge. 4 billion is the estimate. They want you, and me, to help pay for that. Unlike you, I occasionally use that bridge, mostly to go climbing. Â Could have had a light rail extension for less, and they could have tossed bikes on and gotten into work about anywhere fast. There would have been no need for a bridge as it's rush hour when the current bridge is absurdly jammed up. Â I'd support a toll. I'd dislike paying it, but it's a lot fairer than making YOU pay for a bridge you never ever use, and which should have been not needed had your bros voted to approve light rail years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 boobies! Â Â Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 But Bill: these folks want * no urban planning because that is "inefficient government intervention that kills the economy" and * no traffic jams because "that sucks" and * the State to pay for a new bridge on five miles of roadway that will take 5% of a year's annual operating budget of the entire State because they think they are so overtaxed already and why the hell should they pay any toll? and * the free market (that is, everybody else) to absorb the cost of any externalities such as increased automobile traffic, pollution, greenhouse gas  If faced with the obvious suggestion that the numbers don't add up: the State which they argue is irresponsible can't afford to spend that much on such a tiny bit of roadway, KK says he would accept a toll set at a rate that was based on a different project that was completed in a different economic and environmental climate when - 40 years ago?  What are you smoking, Bill? DO you actually WANT those evil government bastards telling you how to make your community a better place to live? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 But Bill: these folks want * no urban planning because that is "inefficient government intervention that kills the economy" and * no traffic jams because "that sucks" and * the State to pay for a new bridge on five miles of roadway that will take 5% of a year's annual operating budget of the entire State because they think they are so overtaxed already and why the hell should they pay any toll? and * the free market (that is, everybody else) to absorb the cost of any externalities such as increased automobile traffic, pollution, greenhouse gas  If faced with the obvious suggestio nthat the numbers don't add up: the State which they argue is irresponsible can't afford to spend that much on such a tiny bit of roadway KK says he would accept a toll set at a rate that was based on a different project that was completed when - 40 years ago?  What are you smoking, Bill? DO you actually WANT those evil government bastards telling you how to make your community a better place to live?  How dare you oppose their feelings with facts MattP!  Puget Sound 2008 = Southern California 1958. A fine middle class standard of life being squandered by the residents own stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 anyway...here is your typical seattle "liberal". nothing to do with communism:Â a5TJApnJ8X8 "Jacked up on Marijauna". This person ahs never done drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 It seems that we have 2 options: Â 1) Nothing. Â 2) Pay for improvements that just wont happen. Â At least you get what you pay for with option #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 It seems that we have 2 options:Â 1) Nothing. Â 2) Pay for improvements that just wont happen. Â At least you get what you pay for with option #1. Â you don't live here - piss off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I still pay taxes there, so STFU and go tongue punch Kevbone's dark star. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 It seems that we have 2 options:Â . . . Â 2) Pay for improvements that just wont happen. Â At least you get what you pay for with option #1. Â Â Â Umm, Scott: we're talking about a toll. Yes, there has been some talk of imposing tolls on existing roads, and they could impose a toll on 520 before beginning construction, but that is not the basis of KK's original objection. Pretty much everybody agrees that we DO have to build a new 520 bridge and the major questions are how much capacity and whether to build the new interchange on top of the Arboretum or the climbing rock and how to pay for it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Yes, there has been some talk of imposing tolls on existing roads, and they could impose a toll on 520 before beginning construction  Chances of this not happening are what exactly? I may only be 26, but I remember quite a few of these missapropriation type affairs with infrastructure in the last 20 years or so. Sorry if I am skeptical after millions and millions of dollars just disappeared in the not so distant past.  Bite me once, shame on you. Bite me twice, shame on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Try to follow along here, Scott. We're talking about a new bridge here - and how to pay for it. Remember? The question that those complaining about the toll seem unwilling to address? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
builder206 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 A fine middle class standard of life being squandered  woo hoo, class warfare! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 A fine middle class standard of life being squandered  woo hoo, class warfare!  It's not class warfare if the middle class fucks themselves over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Try to follow along here, Scott. We're talking about a new bridge here - and how to pay for it. Remember? The question that those complaining about the toll seem unwilling to address? Â Well try to interpolate a little old man. If the funding for other, similar projects got eviscerated by over zealous spending in Olympia, what leads us to believe that it wont happen again. We already paid a hefty sum and have nothing to show for it. Â Hence my previous statement: "Bite me once shame on you. Bite me twice, shame on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Well try to interpolate a little old man. If the funding for other, similar projects got eviscerated by over zealous spending in Olympia, what leads us to believe that it wont happen again. We already paid a hefty sum and have nothing to show for it. Hence my previous statement: "Bite me once shame on you. Bite me twice, shame on me.  sweet jesus lobotomy boy - STFU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 Since you asked, I think that it's just a case of you can pay now, or pay later Matt. Doing nothing like Scott suggests, really does bite: however, it usually just bites ya in the ass down the road. Â Apropos nothing, here's another useless Utube video, better than Porters drug one. Â LXeb-x63wGI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.