Public sponsored solutions are opposed by private electric utility and transportation companies who would rather consumers worldwide continue to waste energy/fuel.

Consider Plug-in hybrid technology, a mantra Obama chanted frequently early on, but not at all lately.

Every household with a plug-in hybrid gains the means to closely monitor household electricity and conserve; gains the choice to use electricity for driving or cut utility bills; gains a lifesaving portable power supply during emergency and grid failure; reduces cost of rooftop photovoltiac solar panel systems as their battery pack is 1/3 to 1/4 the size of all-electric subcompacts, thus more households can afford a hybrid/solar system, drive less, walk/bicycle and use transit more.

Conclusion: Plug-in hybrids last years longer, require less maintenance, have higher resale value, get in fewer accidents, and reduce household energy consumption. Private utilities, car manufacturers, dealers, financiers, insurers, TV-radio advertizers parking garage moguls and various stakeholders would rather the public not use their conservative or liberal noggins on this issue and discover a solution. Globalization is another plot conceived by the Highway Robbery Boys to kill off the excess population.

It's not clever, it's the truth. The only people worried about seniors in poverty are folks like yourself. Seniors have more pressing things on their minds. They know there is no security in social security, because the government pittance they receive doesn't come close to offering security in todays world. All it does is keeps millions of seniors at or near poverty levels and ensures there's an endless supply of replacements, which in turn make folks like you happy with the situation.

I think you are saying that radio stars like Ira Flatow need to be recognized for what they are, very intelligent, articulate people who are good to listen to, and that perhaps they can play by rules that are hard to apply to KUOW. How long does Rush Limbaugh talk? I don't listen to him but I think his program is at least thirty minutes. Your mention of the New Yorker writers, at least the best of them, is perceptive; several of their essayists can make the mundane into the most intriguing subjects imaginable. Not many people can do that on the radio or on the page. Nice article Eric.

The government should provide 2 things free: Birth control and Education. If people avail themselves of these freebies then they can improve their lives. If they fail to take advantage of either of them then too bad, so sad. At some point you have to take some responsibility for yourself.

Dear Business Owner - welcome to Seattle. We are a passive-aggressive bunch so beware. We have felons here we believe are entitled to MORE rights than law-abiding citizens - and guess what - YOU get to be the avenue on which these felons ride. Not only are we (The Seattle City Council) going to expose you to potential law suits if you DON'T hire a convicted felon who applies for a position with your company - we are also going to expose to you potential law suits if you DO hire them and they recommit a crime against one of your employees or customers.

City Council - needs to stop trying to "fix" everyone they think needs saving (felons, etc.) and pay attention to the important matters at-hand (economy, jobs, ATTRACTING business to Seattle, education . . .)

I think opposing a full NEPA review is a strategic error by coal export proponents. The COE decision to conduct a truncated review is certain to be litigated in federal court. Even if the COE and King Coal eventually win, that litigation will delay the project years.

I always thought industry preferred certainty. If they told the feds to conduct the full review, it would take a bit longer, but the ability of opponents to delay in court thereafter would be severely reduced.

One might say the full EIS would show how awful the impacts are, but it's easy to obscure them in a 1000 pages document without actually lying. In any case, NEPA is purely procedural; the EIS could say 'we're all gonna die next year', but if we get 100 more jobs this year, the courts (especially our winners on the Big Nine) won't second guess the determination.

OK, all you environmental lawyers; am I missing something?

good points Marial2

If each candidate is given a set amount for a primary campaign it will at least be fair and impartial to outside influences.

It will take a couple elections to weed out those with less than good intentions

Public financing of political campaigns is something we should get behind in Seattle. It is beneficial to the city's residents who would most directly benefit from the measure because it gives each of us more of a voice in the political processes that affect us most directly.

Under the public financing plan, candidates will have to listen to and work for a broader group of people in Seattle in order to get a large number of small-dollar campaign donations. This will create a system where candidates are listening to and working for more of the people of Seattle, rather than just the few who can max out. Public financing in Seattle will help rid our city of the dependency corruption that is created when our elected officials become dependent on and beholden to large dollar donors, rather than a broader group of Seattle residents. This is a measure we should all get behind if we really want a more effective city government.

Doug MacDonald sends this comment:
Lame and tired arguments.

Does anyone really believe those rosy “studies” that the SR 509 investment alone creates 17,000 jobs?

Does anyone really think that $3 billion or so of road investments in two long-mooted road projects is the critical salvation for these adjoining Puget Sound ports in the global competitive reshaping of ocean freight? Does anyone think these two ports themselves have done all they could do with each other and in their mutual competitive positioning with road, rail, ocean freight and air cargo shippers to make the best future for international (and Alaska) shipping for Puget Sound and the very limited (though certainly real) role these ports play as to Washington’s exports? (What fraction of Washington’s agricultural exports moves though these ports, or ever will in any future?)

Apart from the “stakeholder” assurances, has anyone really tested whether these staggeringly expensive projects are right-sized for their supposed benefits? It’s been eight years since a formal benefit-to-cost study of SR 509 was prepared by a big consulting firm. Later by one recession and a complete revision of planners’ assumptions on previously highly-inflated “value of travel time savings” in these types of studies, where is the updated economic case for the project? For the Port of Tacoma and SR 157, the last economics study was in 2007 and suggested a projected increase in the port’s container capacity from 2 million TEUs in 2005 to almost 10 million TEUs in 2025. Last year the Port of Tacoma did 1.7 million TEUs and its own goal is to hit 3 million by 2022. Somebody needs to check the numbers
Does anyone think that the embarrassingly regressive gas tax is best committed to big special interest projects when ordinary transportation needs for ordinary people who pay at the pump all over the state are left in the dust of mega-project ballyhoo? Is this the best we can do as the marquee endeavors for infrastructure revenue and investment? When do hard scrutiny, fiscal discipline, rigorous analysis of priorities and fidelity to the broadest public interest get heard when “stakeholders” forge their politically powerful consensus in the corridors of Olympia?

If the writers’ takeaway is “too much is at stake not to do it now,” the rejoinder might be “too much is at stake to get it wrong.”

Don't hold your breath is all I say. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it'll cost too much to buy the system.

Would that we could only pay for the services want and need. Most people's tax bills would go down.

OK, I went and read the speech:

"You will move in the direction of self-less-ness, which is a good thing, because if there is no self, who is it that has to die some day? There will be no one there to die. There will be no self. Die now, so you won’t have to do it later."

This is pure Buddhism, restated in modern terms: the individual self is simply an idea; it has no ultimate existence. One fails to find happiness because one has identified with an illusion.

As for appropriateness, the talk was perfect for a group of bright 18 year-olds standing on the threshold of trying to figure out what life means, less so for nervous and fearful parents hopelessly mired in their dysfunctional ways.

Gaia -- Thanks for the endorsement. Call me. I'd like to buy you coffee or lunch. You totally get what the WNC is all about, unlike many journalists! -- John (206.262.9793

Great argument about the future of cities as it's envisioned by the "young urbanists", they only want their "kind" living with them and the rest of the pond scum needs to be monitored because they're like old and poor, lack upward mobility, and probably watch the Discovery channel when sober.

Jhande, The reason there are cameras and card key for each resident, is that way you know which residents opened the gate to let the gang suspect in, or which resident opened the gate and disabled the lock, stuck something in the gate so it wouldn't shut, or gave away their card key to a non-resident, so the bad guys could get in. That was what was happening. Without an electronic key and cameras there was know whay to know who the offenders were.

Often times they were people that were threatened or intimidated into coughing up one of their household card keys for the property gates (the apartments have regular keys). Sometimes they were willing participants. Either way, the result was the same.

... and actually they did and do have a choice. Note the occupancy rate of the apartments fell to about 80% during the worst of this. Residents were voting with their feet. It is now 95% to 100%. It was the residents who lead the charge for these measures.

That said, I share your unease. A lot of buildings are going to similar systems that log which resident left the building door open. All residents pay for a loss of privacy, for the actions of a few willful or naive bad apples.

The units you refer to are "amenity filled". People are willing to give up square feet for features. Check out The Station at Othello sometime as an example.

Those "apodments" that don't have the features are folks that were often sharing large houses and renting rooms. They drive a "grey" or "blackmarket" housing. Basement rooms with inadequate windows for eagress in a fire, ventilation, no parking, etc. If the surrounding neighbors or a disgruntled tenant tips off the City, the Landlord produces a rental agreement that says they are renting a room. It says nothing about living in that room, it being housing, etc. when all the code requirements for housing apply. It's not commercial space, since no business operates there. To prove either the City would have to have an army of investigators staking the place out and filming who came and went, when, how long they stayed, etc. That is the alrernative to lawful apodments that can reach down to the price point required to house the person who serves you your and I are latte at a price we are willing to pay to drink one.

The answer to mid-range housing, is two-fold.

Upzoning to incentivise as much "high-end" rental housing like The Station at Othello (Rainier and Othello) or Columbia Plaza (Columbia City) or some of the recent apts. in Ballard. Why, because in 15-years, when they aren't the "latest and greatest", they become the Class "B" mid-range housing.

The 2nd answer is for the low-income housing, financed with the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to be unleashed of their rent caps in the 15th year. The feds only have a 15-year limit on rent restrictions, but they give the states the right to award the credits and put in longer-term restrictions. The states, as is Washington, run the restriction on rent out to an additional 50 years. End result is they don't make enough revenue long-term, for the their non-profit owners to run them long-term. So the non-profits have a tremendous incentive to defer major maintenance until they are wrecks and walk away. What do they lose? They aren't making any money. What assets can the public funder go after? The non-profits have no net worth outside of the buildings. Some non-profits do the right thing, because they can privately fundraise, or have added market rate, or near market rate stuff ot their portfolio to subsidize their offerings like the apartment complex you and I have been discussing. But if you allow these buildings to lose their rent restriction, and grandfather in existing residence, so they don't get "rent shock" in year 15, the units will become the mid-range units you refer to. Leave the non-profit owners without skin in the game, and the public gets to foreclose on a dilapidated wreck in year 15 or 30, and the units are lost to the low-income and the middle-income alike.