Reasonable people can disagree about Viaduct replacement pros and cons; it’s partly a question of priorities in the face of uncertainty. It’s very difficult to settle on 50- or 100-year infrastructure, knowing that our predictions are likely to be wrong. By default, we argue disguised versions of today’s more immediate needs and preferences.
But look at how the New York Times, incredulous I like to think, chose to characterize their conversation with Governor Gregoire:
“Social engineering works in some places, like banning cigarettes in some places,” said Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat. “Telling people you no longer can ride in your car isn’t going to work because this city is going to grow.”
See that? They actually need to confirm that Governor Gregoire is a Democrat. And not surprisingly–the “social engineering” talking point is usually found on right-wing talk radio and blogs. Yet here is a Democrat using her New York Times soundbite to repeat it, along with this incomprehensible “no longer ride in your car” statement.
Martin Duke, of the Seattle Transit Blog, is left with his mouth hanging open:
I have to point out that the Surface/Transit/I-5 option that Mike McGinn and Mike O’Brien support costs a total of $3.3 billion, and $2.3 billion of that is dedicated to highways. That level of expenditure, where 70% of the spending is on highways and 14% is transit, is equivalent to “telling people [they] can no longer ride in [their] car.”
To not be a car-banning totalitarian, it’s apparently necessary to support the $4.0 billion deep-bore tunnel project, which spends $3.1 billion on highways and zero on transit. According to our governor, any attempt to increase transit share in the corridor is the path to socialism.
Roger Valdez, at Crosscut, picks up on the same comment, and notes that while social engineering as a term of disparagement is preferred by the right wing, engineering of society happens whether you plan for it or not: “the fact is that Washington is already engaged in a massive social engineering project called the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement project. It provides incentives to drive rather than take transit and it channels billions of scarce resources into a highway transportation solution that, based on the governor’s own policies, should be the last option.”
So, yes, social engineering is what the other guy is doing. That’s neither here nor there. Gregoire’s lapse into a Glen-Beckism on this issue could be forgiven as a one-time pander, but listen to her first response to the passage of a bill that simply strengthens the regulation of Washington’s existing medical marijuana, passed by initiative: “It’s changed dramatically from where it was in the senate,” Gregoire told media. “I have concerns.”
Democrats said things like: “I think this is a better system than we have now” (Rep. Christopher Hurst, D-Enumclaw). “We owe it to this state to be compassionate in these times” (Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, D-Seattle). Gregoire had “concerns.”
The signal event of the Gregoire administration has of course been the recession. Gregoire has been willing to do the work of the tax-cut crowd for them, slicing into government programs again and again. In tears as she presented a budget she said wasn’t “moral,” she nonetheless has kept swinging away with a budget hatchet.
Except for some theoretically bipartisan attempts at “reforming” government–despised by right-thinking right-wingers because Gregoire can suggest nothing good–she has capitulated (along with our legislative Democratic majority) to the blind demand for belt-tightening even though she’s apparently not running for a third term.
No doubt there is some “fat” to cut here and there–and by fat I generally mean things that you’d prefer to have, but can skip or scrimp on for budgetary reasons–but the fact remains that Washington state has and continues to have a revenue deficit, not an out-of-control spending problem. (We had a surplus prior to the recession.) This coincides with hard times for many people in state, but what they need are jobs, not the spare dimes of tax “rebates.” Sadly, instead of jobs, the most consistent product of governmental cutbacks is another person in the unemployment line.
In the meantime, we have a governor fighting against social engineering.
When a national publication cites a local politician it’s standard practice to cite their political affiliation. Duh.
You also don’t seem to understand what social engineering is. If you respond to what your constituents clearly desire and need, as evidenced by both their votes and their everyday actions (like commuting by car), you’re doing your job. If you attempt to convince or compel them to do something they don’t want (taking the bus/walking/biking) for an ideological reason that’s social engineering. Duh.
It would also behoove you to bear in mind whose constituents are whose and who needs who to get re-elected. The Gov represents not just Seattleites but people who commute into Seattle but live else where along with all the various Statewide interests who use that critical State Highway. She’s also not running for reelection. McGinn on the other hand only represents those who live in Seattle and can vote for its Mayor. He, no doubt, is running for reelection and needs the foot soldiers and fundraising prowess of the special interest groups who got him elected the first time. Namely the Sierra Club, Cascade Bicycle Club and the various incarnations of the anti-car “new urbanism” crowd like the misnamed Streets for All.
I think it’s a moot point though because McGinn has been exposed for what he is: an irrational ideologue who wants to use his office to advance his agenda instead of representing the interests of the majority of the city’s citizens. He’s already proven he’s willing to misrepresent his motivations and flat out lie to accomplish that goal. As long as a viable candidate runs against him next time around he’ll be a one term mayor. The only question at this point is how much damage he can do in the mean time.
1) Or, I could be joking about the clarification that she’s a Democrat.
2) The post very clearly states that even in the I-5/surface/transit option “70% of the spending is on highways and 14% is transit.” I don’t know how you get from there to compulsory biking without a stop overnight in Crazytown.
3) Duh.
If you were to look up the word “compulsory” you’d find that it is not a synonym for either convince or compel.
The 14% of transit funding is about 100% more than on the tunnel project. McGinn has made quite clear that he desires less traffic capacity in the city and is in opposition to new road projects. He’s on the record saying that he wants to make it harder for people to drive and park in the city so they’ll use other means of travel. If you can’t draw a straight line from there to his tunnel position then I don’t know what to say to you.
That’s funny because I did look up compulsory and did find it a synonym for compel. It also means mandated or required.
You’re right that the I-5/surface/transit plan funds 100 percent more transit than the tunnel, because while the tunnel calls for $190 million in transit funding, that money doesn’t exist. It’s never been allocated. I don’t know what that has to do with the Governor’s adoption of right-wing talking points, however.
I’d love to see that thesaurus you’re using because they don’t mean the same thing, at all.
http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_561569390/compulsory.html
http://thesaurus.com/browse/compulsory
http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/compulsory/
Regardless, whether you were trying to put words in my mouth or simply don’t understand the words you’re using my underlying point was the governor’s comment was non-partisan. She correctly identified social engineering as social engineering and then, while pointing out she didn’t flatly oppose it, correctly identified this particular engineering project as one doomed to failure. Just because she points out truths you don’t like doesn’t make her some sort of partisan traitor.
Oh, Encarta! All I’ve got is this Oxford English Dictionary thing. You should totally get in touch with them about compulsory not meaning the same thing as compel at all.
compulsory, adj. and n.
Pronunciation: /kəmˈpʌlsərɪ/
Forms: Also 15–17 -ary.
Etymology: < Latin type *compulsōri-us, < compulsor a compeller, agent-n. < compellĕre… (Show More)
A. adj.
1.a. Depending on or produced by compulsion; compelled, forced, enforced, obligatory.
Oh, tricky root words. You’ll (hopefully) find that the etymology of a word is not…* synonymous*…with a definition. Try harder. Link me (lol, subs) or suffer your obvious lack of nuance. Because all you’re doing at this point is vomiting silver lined copy pasta.
Or…even… just try to reply to my main point. You’re pretty much transparently bogus by this point either way.