In Seattle, let the people 'chill'

Politicians have resorted to some some pretty childish arguments in defense of policies in recent days.


Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels.

I was delighted to see Seattle Weekly's Mark Fefer go after Mayor Greg Nickels' Sound Transit op/ed, which appeared in The Seattle Times. It basically was designed to set up straw men and knock them down, casting opponents of the new $23 billion Sound Transit ballot measure as clueless twits (despite the fact that they include the King County executive and the former head of the state Department of Transportation).

Nickels' column, "10 lame reasons to delay mass transit," put silliness in the mouths of imaginary skeptics but never went into the substance of the debate. Nickels imagines doubters to be Hovercraft-and-Kemper-Freeman-loving-Luddites-who-like-to-stand-on-the-bus-in-high-heels. You'd expect just a tad more substance from the chair of the Sound Transit board.

Then there's Richard Conlin's defense of the new grocery bag tax. After the City Council passed the fee, the City Council president told the Times: "This is a voluntary fee ... No one has to pay it. You only have to pay it if you choose not to use reusable bags." Council member Tim Burgess also touted the "voluntary" bag fee as a "market-driven" solution to environmental woes.

OK, by their definition virtually all taxes and fees are voluntary. I mean, you don't have to own a car, and no one is forcing you to earn enough to pay income tax, or buy gasoline. The sales tax on food is voluntary because you could grow your own food. Someone who brings their own bag can avoid the fee, just like someone who chooses not to visit a national park can avoid paying an entrance fee. That doesn't make the fee voluntary. Voluntary implies the legal equivalent of "suggested donation."

Then there's Nickels again — has Robert Mak started yet? If not, he is needed. If so, I hope this isn't an example of how he's earning his $160,000 salary as the city slides into massive budget cuts. He promised to improve communication with citizens! When the mayor made his surprise announcement that he was instituting a series of car-free days around town, here's how he responded to businesses that might have to shut down and citizens who might be seriously inconvenienced: "It's just for one day, just chill. Get out of the car and walk." This from a mayor who can't be bothered to bus or bike — let alone walk — to work himself.

Like the way the city is being run these days? Object to fiats, fees, boondoggles, and budget holes? Jeez, just chill, people. I mean, living in Seattle is voluntary, after all.


About the Author

Knute Berger is Mossback, Crosscut's chief Northwest native. He also writes the monthly Grey Matters column for Seattle magazine and is a weekly Friday guest on Weekday on KUOW-FM (94.9). His newest book is Pugetopolis: A Mossback Takes On Growth Addicts, Weather Wimps, and the Myth of Seattle Nice, published by Sasquatch Books. In 2011, he was named Writer-in-Residence at the Space Needle and is author of Space Needle, The Spirit of Seattle (2012), the official 50th anniversary history of the tower. You can e-mail him at mossback@crosscut.com.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Sat, Aug 2, 8:48 a.m. Inappropriate

On the move!: For those of us who cannot afford the ever-increasing costs of city living, low and middle income families continue to move out of the city limits to surrounding cities and suburbs, causing the unintended sprawl. Seattle is becoming a very rich suburb of the North, East and Southern communities who are absorbing 70% of the job and housing growth in our region. Only the wealthy can afford the ever increasing number of tax increases, bond issues, fees, etc. As long as Seattle caters to this group and increased tourism, City Hall can no longer claim that Seattle is "a city for all".
It is a city for the "privileged and out-of-towners."
Get real Seattle, or get gone!

Art

Posted Sat, Aug 2, 8:55 a.m. Inappropriate

Right to the mark: Skip: Right to the mark on all points. Nickels and Ron Sims wrote matching op-eds in the Seattle Times regarding the looming Sound Transit ballot measure this fall. Sims' dealt with the issues and made substantive arguments against the ballot measure. Nickels gave us nonsense and arguments against straw men---no substantive discussion of the issues whatever. Clearly he did not write the piece himself. Who did? Mak? Sound Transit?

What is so disappointing about so many Nickels, Sound Transit and City Council initiatives is that they appear to be taken without any prior serious consideration of policy options and costs. If there is a problem, what are the options available for its solution? What are the costs, tradeoffs and likely effects attached to each option? Which option, then, provides greatest public benefit for least cost? These questions are seldom if ever asked. We should be able to do better.

It is what I call Mickey Rooney/Judy Garland policymaking.

Judy: Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's put on a show!

Mickey: Yeh, let's put up a stage in the old barn! We and our friends can sing and dance. I am sure folks will come to see it.

Cast: Arm in arm, all move forward at center stage, singing and dancing.

Posted Sat, Aug 2, 10:40 a.m. Inappropriate

This is a voluntary fee: Thanks Knute. How did Nickels get himself on that loser of an idea; he seems smart sometimes.

The big freebie is, of course, free parking. Is there any environmental holy grail that free parking does not undermine? gasoline, global warming, storm water runoff, all evil, all to be resolutely discouraged. So the way should be clear to Seattle's elected apostles.

No, Conlin and Nickels would rather just annoy us, they don't want to see complete outrage accompanied by epithets and thrown objects.
kieth

Posted Sat, Aug 2, 11:57 a.m. Inappropriate

Sorry to interrupt your rant, but...: "The sales tax on food is voluntary because you could grow your own food."
Sales taxes on grocery items were eliminated in 1976 through a statewide initiative.
J.R.

Posted Sat, Aug 2, 12:27 p.m. Inappropriate

RE: Sorry to interrupt your rant, but...: You're right, my mouth frotheth over. But my point stands.

Posted Sat, Aug 2, 11:37 p.m. Inappropriate

RE: ight to the mark: Ted: Hey, you there in the barn, stop that hootenanny at once! Can't you see that singing and dancing is less efficient and more costly than walking?

[Repeats over and over as credits roll]
Sean

Posted Sun, Aug 3, 12:43 a.m. Inappropriate

Takes One to Know One...: Your sounding a tad childish these days, also. Personally, I was more concerned about any number of bigger issues...like say, the staggering cost of the Iraq war; a war to preserve not the freedoms established by the Constitution, but the freedoms envisioned by the Van Dyks of the world. But you find it necesary to drone on about a plastic bag tax. Grow-up, dude. Whether its recycled or trashed, it costs money to manage the growing waste stream of a growing population. People insisting on the "right" to a "free" plastice bag (as if there was such a thing) are irresponsible, lazy, or simply irresponsibly lazy. As to your main point, who cares how our feckless leaders try to explain their policies to a docile public. It's hardly different from lazy journalists afraid to examine the consequences of reckless growth.

The irony is that in pointing out the nature in which these policies ARE voluntary, you actually point out a legitimate response to the staggering burden of what amounts to a runaway tribute system. Naturally, one could spend their energies trying to change the system; a fantasy given the entire notion is born of a machine fetish in which everything can be fixed with the proper knowledge and a little tinkering. One could also chase their tale in an attempt to increase income faster than costs; another fantasy given that the prosperity of the last couple decades was enabled by credit, not productive activity. The alternative is to reduce one's costs by finding alternatives outside the current systems; a feat for a culture with the impulse control of a pubescent boy...unless you and Nickels plan on simply settling matters on the playground.

Posted Sun, Aug 3, 1:32 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: ight to the mark: If Ted Van Dyk had been paying attention, he would notice the primary reason for Sims' opposition to the Sound Transit plan: Sims wants...I mean needs...that sales tax to plug the hole in his extremely expensive bus system budget. High diesel costs, high labor costs, and inflation are burning a giant hole in Sims' pocket. With no relief in sight.

Way too much complexity for an ideologue like Van Dyk to comprehend.

And how's about Old Seattle's mascot, Skip Berger? Who is so Old Seattle, he tosses his complaints from a cul de sac in Kirkland?

Berger tips his hat to former Weakly colleague Mark Fefer, who still can't get over the inconvenience light rail caused to his daily driving. As usual, Fefer only offers whining and complaining. Nothing more. Which adheres to the perpetually backwards pointing credo of Old Seattle.

Posted Sun, Aug 3, 8:39 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: ight to the mark: You're way out of date. I live in Seattle, never lived on a cul de sac. In fact, that image of Kirkland is also sadly out of date. When I did live there, it was in a neighborhood that was more dense, more diverse and more walkable than many Seattle neighbs are now.

Posted Sun, Aug 3, 9:44 p.m. Inappropriate

zone 'em out: Knute
Your piece reminds me o A great cartoon I used in my urban geography and planning class some years ago. Two fat rich guys with cigars are discussing poverty, and one says, "the poor?, no problem, we'll just zone 'em out!
DMorrill

Posted Sun, Aug 3, 10:52 p.m. Inappropriate

RE: zone 'em out: Hmm...I guess you consider that proof the poor were fairly represented in you class.

Posted Mon, Aug 4, 10:03 a.m. Inappropriate

Thanks Knute: Thanks for speaking up for us. There are very few Seattle people who have not been pushed out, and apparently we have no voice. Nickles panders only to the moneyed interests and developers, hoping to score points by his egotistical obsession of turning Seattle into a "world class city"--regardless of what we want and the effect it has on our local culture, economy and infrastructure. He razes our neighborhoods at whim and hands down arbitrary decrees When we do speak up, he brushes us off in the most condenscending way--clearly we do not matter. It's good to know you continue to speak on our belhalf. Thank you. Keep up the good work!

MaryW

Posted Mon, Aug 4, 11:05 a.m. Inappropriate

Quimby Must Go: Thanks Knute--

Its nice to see someone in the Fourth Estate who's standing up to him.

But the question still remians-- at what point do the voters say "enough already" and are we there yet? We can chill after he's gone.

Posted Mon, Aug 4, 11:29 a.m. Inappropriate

Mayors Disgrace: I see the dictorial actions and out of left field agendas as the attempts of a man to save face for the personal actions of his own son - a son who has disgraced the family name and the agenda of this mayor .

The mayor now grasps at the straws of the narrow minded, and the working people of seattle suffer !

Posted Tue, Aug 5, 11:11 a.m. Inappropriate

We've reached the "tipping point": Get ready to hear the belly-aching from all sectors, state county, city - about massive deficits and how we need to raise taxes and fees to meet the "shortfalls." The fact is, our leaders have been spending our tax dollars like drunken sailors on payday, and we have let them by re-electing the same profligate spenders, and voting yes in referendums, year after year, as if there was an endless supply of money to spend. Now, reality is finally catching up.

Any politician running for office must be required by the voters to promise to vote "no" for any tax increase (and not a G.H.W. Bush-style pledge). And, we voters must promise ourselves, and our fellow citizens, to vote "no" whenever there is any tax or fee increase on the ballot for anything. Our leaders need to recognize what us working stiffs have recognized for years: if you don't have money to buy something you want, you cut spending on other things.

Posted Wed, Aug 6, 4:24 p.m. Inappropriate

Actually, the argument falls flat: Just because you say your argument still stands doesn't make it so. Among other things, taxes shape the economic environment in order to accomplish goals that we, as a society deem valuable. The "free" plastic bags have a real financial cost to the grocer, and a substantial financial and environmental cost to all of us (damage to valuable ecosystems, waste of non-renewable resources, landfill disposal costs, visual pollution, and so on). If shoppers and businesses can push those costs to the rest of the taxpayers and to future generations, well, of course they will. However, this tax makes explicit the cost and people will make their choices.

Just because Nickels uses lousy arguments, hyperbole and straw men, doesn't mean you can refute him with the same rhetorical cheap shots.
jk

Posted Fri, Aug 8, 3:51 p.m. Inappropriate

Overpriced: Seattle is overpriced. I saw a show on cable where a couple bought virtual 3 bedroom mansion for $220,000 in Wilmington, DE. It's only a matter of time before there's a stampede for the exits.

jabailo

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »