Daniel Jack Chasan
"With low population numbers, the poaching of one or two animals can have an impact, Cenci said. "[The Whites] have had an impact.""

This is not really a true statement. The fecundity of wolves is quite high. And while this episode of poaching may be a temporary setback, it will not significantly affect the propensity of wolves to reintroduce themselves to the state eventually.

Great public relations piece. But before we congratulate ourselves and ask for more taxpayer dollars we'd better be sure what we've created isn't a large part of the problem: genetically modified non-native "Pacific" oysters; Willapa Bay requiring large scale spraying of chemicals to get rid of non-native species we introduced and native "pests" like ghost shrimp; a belief that shellfish farming will solve water quality problems which ignores the water quality problems industrial scale farming creates, hatchery based or otherwise; and, a decreasing population of wild geoduck through harvesting (both legal and illegal) which is now challenged to naturally rebuild itself. This problem is so large everyone will have to adapt - even if that means loosing the genetically modified non-native Pacific oyster.

Makes me sad that a reputable journalist would use the occasion of someone's death as a platform to vent their own misery. I agree that journalism has definitely been sliding down the other side of the bell curve for the past 30 years, but to blame it on the remote control is ridiculous.

For those of you who want to blame Fox (and I am not a Fox fan) the KatieCouricization of journalism began well before Fox arrived on the scene in 1996.

Actually, the Governor does run the ferry system. The Governor now appoints the Secretary of Transportation, a change made a few years ago. The buck now stops at the Governor's desk.

ST funds are limited; choices have to be made. Added service frequency on exisitng routes (not new routes) would be the most cost-effective mitigation for the lost parking spaces. Most auto-access transit riders are oriented to downtown Seattle and First Hill, places with paid parking, most of whom will continue to ride transit. ST shoud measure cost-effectiveness in terms of riders attracted per dollar.

In addition, the large garage is counter to Seattle policy.

We voted on public policy that provided the council with clear guidelines for the council to follow, and recouse for the public should the council fail to comply with the law.
We did not vote on having a public vote on every proposal, or a public vote on specific criteria, we voted on something else (see above).

If the proponents of I-91 intended to randomly have votes even after a proposal met the clear guidelines then that should have been communicated to the initiative, voter's guide, any of the councilmembers could have mentioned it (if that was the legislative intent), but they didn't.
And we have a precedent, the Storm lease was passed without any type of consideration that the council would have to consult the public by vote.

Picking, choosing, and plane making it up the intent of an ordinance for public/private partnerships, and ordinances for property that has already been zone by council approval specifically for this use would be a significant change in policy and law.

We have broad policy the public understood when it was passed to have an intent. If you would like to change the policy then the voters would have to vote on a as broad a question as you are attempting to interpret into the law after the fact. You would have to vote on changing voter intent to be as you wish it was, that the council guidelines change to one of three things:
The council must send all sports related proposals to the voters.
The council must send some sports related proposals to the voters based on guidelines you describe to them.
the council may send to voters any sports related proposal to the voters.
None of those options was written into I-91 as guidelines.

Having to randomly vote isn't as appealing as it sounds, that why we have the voter approved guidelines we have.

Why should "population growth" affect revenue growth ESTIMATES. The population growth is included in the "estimate", yes? I can understand why projected inflation affects the equation but the other item puzzles me. Thank you, arthurking for noting the consistent electioneering by Crosscut. It panders to local prejudices.

The remote control device would be expected to silence the commercials, right? you seem to imply that the remote control was (is) used to delete the news? well maybe, but the gradual diminishment of the expensive TV news programs could also be attributed to other things, including a disillusionment with the grand news "analyst" (like you) but also the bigs; Murrow, Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, Rather, etc.
The stars told us what to think and, in many cases, they were right but I do have to wonder if we really were better informed then. I think you have to have more evidence than just the reduction in news budgets and an absence of "analysts".

Those numbers are Sound Transit's own projections for who the 15,000 daily expected riders in 2030 will access the Northgate station. right now only 30% of the daily riders who use the northgate transit station get their by car, 70% arrive via bike/foot/bus.

Elway polls have a good reputation. I'd note the wide margin of error. A larger sample size would be better. But it's all disclosed, and I don't think they played games with the questions.

Thanks for that link. The "affordable density" meme really irks me. I remember some developers getting tax breaks for agreeing to reserve a percentage of their crackerbox apartments for "low income" or "affordable" units. The definition of "affordable" was based on a projection of the "market rates" 5 or more years into the future. Their present rent was actually much higher than the current "market rate." They justified it by saying that in 5+ years that rent would be "affordable" in comparison. Yet there was no committment to not raise the rents in five years.

This is classic tail-wagging-the-dog. The current rents they got the tax breaks for, actually are an incentive to the rest of the market to raise rents to their level, and this is indeed occuring. And they got subsidized by the tax-payers to do it. This is smart-growth for the one percent.

arthurking makes a good point when he suggests that the positions of both candidates on transportation funding should be fairly analyzed. This article was my attempt to critique how they understand and would approach finding revenues for education, human services, and other general fund budget items. I'll do a separate piece on transportation funding which will also be a significant issue for the next governor.

Removing the parking requirement for the developers will destroy this city, and will take us back to medieval ages. One of the most rediculous justification i heard so far from the proponents is that, it will reduce construction cost, and thus the developers will be able to build more affordable housing. please !!!.

The thing that Kathleen needs to work on is the retail politics--she's a great lady who would make a great SoS, but Nickels knows how to own a room in a way that she hasn't quite mastered yet.

I don't have a favorite candidate in this race, but just wanted to confirm that Jason is correct about the 36th District Democrats bylaws and endorsement rules.

For at least a decade, our bylaws have required any executive board member with a financial interest in a campaign to disclose that interest prior to casting a vote, but have not required such individuals to recuse themselves from voting. Jason disclosed his financial interest as required.

The 36th District Democrats take pride in having an open and fair process so voters can trust our endorsement decisions. As in previous cycles, the 2012 Primary endorsement process was conducted in strict conformance with our bylaws and endorsement rules.

Jeff Manson
Chair, 36th District Democrats