And, with Biden in office, me in City Hall and new big-city congestion tolling, there are ways to pay for it. Vote for me for Seattle City Council position 9 and watch me rock out demanding major public transport changes and investments for the better. Mr Ts has the strangest campaign website. In trying to give reasons to vote for him, he ends up giving reasons to vote against him. All of these cases were dismissed, many without even being heard. Let me count the ways. Excessive name-dropping is a sign of an insecure bore.
Have you seen Alex Tsimerman speak at the city council? America First! Live Free or Die! A One party system is always Fascism.
They are all war criminals! Vote for Trump and Alex Tsimerman to bring Washington and America back to common sense of, by and for the people! There are very-qualified candidates who will nevertheless have no chance of getting anywhere near election. Cities that can figure out how to build subways under large bodies of water can certainly figure out how to let their denizens rank candidates for public office.
Candidates, including the systemically-protected incumbents, should be able to see that democratizing the voting process helps get away from the politics of personal destruction that chases the best and brightest away from running for office. He speaks the same way there. ST is fascist; Seattle is fascist. He never explains coherently why or what he wants.
Before he was a unique anomaly, but when Trump became president he joined the Trump bandwagon. It seems to be that one pseudo-populist rabble-rouser deserves another, so they ally no matter what their ideological differences.
But most people thought the same about Trump until it happened. I think this election is going to be about homelessness, housing affordability and the police to most voters. All of the candidates better have practical strategies on these three bigger topics rather than rehash the same populist tripe that they have in recent years.
This election will be in a new context. The suburbs were even worse with hourly frequency. There were no express buses to Pierce or Snohomish Counties, only the local coverage routes.
The 4xx from Snohomish County did exist; they were created during this time. Metro routinely proposed district-sized reorganizations, and then vetoed them after one squeaky wheel complained about losing the bus stop in front of their house and a one-seat ride to downtown.
In the s this started to change. ST1 and ST2 were approved. Metro stepped up with RapidRide reorganizations that were better than previous attempts. The financial impact was delayed, and was propped up with a temporary tax surcharge the state authorized. It had been mulling since whether the next generation of Seattle transit should have streetcars, buses, or light rail in the biggest corridors. The plan had four top-priority corridors Westlake, Eastlake, Madison, the CCC and a half-dozen secondary corridors.
It recommended streetcars for Westlake and Eastlake the 40 and 70 corridors, the latter possibly extending to Northgate. Another potential streetcar corridor was Jackson-Rainier to Mt Baker station. The secondary corridors would get enhanced bus routes. These were later merged with the RapidRide brand. The TBD was originally to counteract proposed recession cuts, but when the vote came November that was no longer needed, so the money went to unprecedented frequency.
The 5, 8, 10, and 49, 65, and 67 were half-hourly evenings before it. The 2, 40, 41, and were hourly evenings. The 11 was half-hourly Saturdays. And those are just the routes I know the most about. It failed in its execution and financing plan. Murray downgraded the Westlake and Eastlake streetcars to RapidRide, which was a more cost-effective and appropriate idea anyway. The current plans for the 40, 44, 48, and 7 corridors are the result of that — some improvement, but not first-rate transit.
This mid s period also saw the city council converted from all at-large positions to district-based positions. This was a plot by single-family activists to get more influence and money. They got the city to hire a geographer who gerrymandered the districts to dilute the multifamily cores into several districts, each with a majority single-family periphery.
But the plot backfired, and most districts elected surprisingly pro-transit, pro-urban councilmembers — the other single-family voters overcame the NIMBYs. The first district-based term was the most pro-urban council Seattle had ever had since at least the s, and the second was similar and the most liberal, especially with Sawant on the council. The McGinn and Murray administrations dutifully started an upzoning process for the recent and future light rail station areas.
At first it continued to be piecemeal, one neighborhood at a time, following no precedents. Seattle had earlier decided in the s to create urban village islands and channel growth to them, so it continued that.
The upzones went one neighborhood at a time, following no precedent principles, other than the vague commitment to the established villages.
In the mid s the city started to be more pro-upzoning. A report called HALA recommended urbanist density and walkability in urban villages and station areas, and abolishing single-family zoning replacing it with missing-middle housing. The single-family part drew the expected criticism, and Murray?
Amy is easy to work with and would be a welcomed member to any trial team. Amy Hanegan has assisted me and my firm in a number of complex litigation cases and each time the experience was not only helpful and informative but beneficial and pertinent to the success of obtaining favorable verdicts on behalf of our clients. I look forward to working with her again on future complex cases.
From assisting with client deposition preps to developing trial themes, I rely on Amy to bring her expertise and outside perspective to my cases. She is a valuable member of my litigation team at all stages of a case. Amy Hanegan is a gifted trial consultant with whom I have worked for over 20 years. She brings out the best in every witness — more effective communication, more accurate testimony and, most importantly, more of a sense of comfort and preparedness for the witness facing the stressful situation of having to testify at deposition or trial.
In order to educate effectively, first we must communicate effectively. Yet the process of providing testimony in litigation is counterintuitive to most witnesses. Amy has provided a valuable service over the years, helping clients and witnesses understand the unique aspects of the litigation process in order to more effectively communicate regarding facts and opinions critical to the ultimate search for the truth.
Amy is my sounding board on all my tough cases and helps provide clarity and vision. Amy is just wonderful to work with! She has assisted many of my clients to become better witnesses by listening to their concerns and then devising specific strategies to address those concerns.
0コメント