I heard a story on KUOW about the umbrellas on the way home from work Thursday. According to that report, the money for this program can be used only for the one purpose, and not redirected toward anything else (such as snow removal). BTW, the article I read through Crosscut's Clicker about snow in Seattle, http://www.humantransit.org/2010/11/seattles-special-snow.html, was very good.

That saw, "the money can only be used for..." is a convenient construct to allow elected officials to dodge accountability for wasting the public's money. If the rule says we "we can only spend the money on gold-plating turds"... guess what we want you to do? Change the rule.

In their infinite befuddlement, SDOT plans to hand out free umbrellas in an effort to lure shoppers downtown right after raising the Mayor and Council raised parking rates to the point where shoppers know they can save $$$ by driving to a mall and parking for free. LMAO.

Down here in California, where we *really* can't fund road repair, Caltrans (the state's department of transportation) donated $600,000 to the creation of a county park. Now, it turns out that as part of its "mission statement" on its web site is a commitment to the stewardship of open spaces. But I still can't figure out why funding a park in just one of the state's 58 counties should come out of the DOT's budget -- especially when it's always crying poverty.

How timely! I need a new umbrella. And a couple spares. Maybe I'll swing through Seattle and take some. And a few to give as Christmas presents. Everyone loves logo'ed clothing and accessories. Thanks, Seattle taxpayers!

Why not a campaign to place the 1,700 umbrellas from the Metro lost-and-found into free circulation on Seattle's streets.

A typical example of how the Seattle government ( i use the term broadly ) is out of touch with reality. And probably a case of spending all the money in the annual budget plus a little more to qualify for the same amount next year.

I'm surprised that a businessowner seems to care so little about what happens to his shoppers before or after they enter his shop. I guess all that matters to him is if they give him money or not.

Folks need to understand that it is indeed true that our local electeds have discretionary control over very little actual budget money. Many tax dollars really "can only be used for" specific expenses -- often due to votes we taxpayers have taken.

A few short examples: state gas taxes cannot be used for transit purposes and local transit revenues cannot be used for non-transportation purposes; the county has about 75% of its budget specifically targeted, and most of the remaining funds support public safety budget items.

We have had a number of pedestrian collisions in the last few years -- and a few deaths. Folks don't want to remove parking Downtown, they complain about "road diets," and they don't want to support reduced speed limits (much less drive at the existing speed limits), so is spending such a small amount of money on a pedestrian awareness campaign really such a waste of tax dollars?

And yet Phil Bevis contacted SDOT to request MORE umbrellas. Strange. Perhaps all he really wanted was a little extra publicity this holiday season?

"...is spending such a small amount of money on a pedestrian awareness campaign really such a waste of tax dollars?"

Yes.

And just as we need to fix the "...the money can only be spent on" cop-out, we also need to fix the, "...it's only a latte a day" excuse.

Complete waste of taxpayer dollars. Another example of our government wasting our hard earned money! Hello people, can we focus on things that really matter? How about more resources for people who can't afford to eat or put the funds to give our fire or police? Where is the common sense????

$5k doesn't buy a lot of snowplow. $50k doesn't buy much driver awareness, either, or even a single cop on the beat to ticket poor drivers cutting off pedestrians in crosswalks. It does buy some nasty headlines about waste in government from outlets that back a tunnel under downtown that will funnel half of the viaduct's traffic on city streets without paying for additional measures to deal with that overflow at a cost of 50,000 such silly programs. Apples to orchards, and we have more than one orchard's worth of poor spending decisions to spotlight.

Crosscut might have justified the cost of this one by making readers that much more on the lookout for those bumbershoots on the street while they drive so they can them out to their passengers as examples of government waste.

Any expense is a boondoggle from somebody's perspective. This reminds me of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's remarks last year that volcano monitoring is a waste of taxpayer money (hurricane monitoring is money well spent of course).

oh i see pedestrian safety is frivolous spending.

so much for 'safety comes first' because pedestrians apparently dont count in the world of the almighty motorist whose ability to get everywhere at 60 mph (+10 mph) is the only priority.

i'll call pedestrian safety frivolous the day we cant afford those 'wasteful' yellow sand impact buckets at off-ramps.

Good example of how the spin machine works. Let's get folks upset about spending $50,000 on umbrellas so they won't notice when we start blowing $3,000,000,000 digging a waterfront tunnel to nowhere.

Both equally contribute nothing to meeting the transportation needs of the region.

1) The campaign amounts to telling grown adults to look both ways before crossing the street. Should be learned in kindergarten.

2) Part of the promo effort: a flash mob dance sequence with city-funded umbrellas at Westlake to Singin' in the Rain. Very Kirkland.

3) Improve driver safety by getting more pedestrian training into driver's ed. and make sure drivers know the rights of way rules.

4) Here's a promotion idea for safety: crack down on jaywalkers, right-of-way violators, and cyclist scofflaws. People remember a fat ticket and it raises revenue.

Knute, this article is a bigger waste of resources than SDOTs pedestrian awareness program. Do you feel safe walking around business districts in Seattle when traffic volumes are high and its dark? I don't and I'm sure there are some people out there that will feel safer with bright umbrellas. Even if this program results in one less pedestrian/auto accident it will be worth it. This article is a desperate and petty attempt to criticize SDOT.

Mud Baby, reread this article and you will figure out that this program is not trying to lure anyone anywhere. It's a pedestrian safety awareness campaign, not an economic development effort.

Bevis is a Republican party activist, and this story was generated for KING 5 News through PR, for his standing within and for the Republican Party.

Pedestrians would be a lot safer wearing fluorescent vests than carrying view-obfuscating umbrellas which they will probably lose within two days, or which will get blown inside out with the winds we now have in Seattle.

Umbrellagate!

Forget umbrellas, we want jetpacks! Take the deep bore tunnel: it will cost 2 billion if we are lucky and carry about 30,000 people. That is about $66,000 per person. Jetpacks are going for around $75,000 right now, but with such a big order, the price would come down. We could buy everyone a jetpack!

Aren't they supposed to be called 'bumbershoots'?