Two things stand out about the latest The Seattle Times coverage of the political maneuvering on how to replace Seattle’s viaduct freeway:
Most surprising, you can almost sense the voice of the reporters in the story. Maybe it’s the influence of David Postman’s blog at the paper, but the tone allowed the reporters to explain some of the motivations at work without citing a source for each. I’d argue allowing the reporters’ expertise to come through the story is exactly what could keep people reading the state’s largest paper.
The other striking detail is the presumption of City Council President Nick Licata (who insists on a new elevated freeway) that he represents “grumpy Seattle,” which he claims forms a silent majority. If grumpy is defined as opposition to investment in long-term causes, that’s not true (see recent voter approval for higher property taxes). It seems that most of the city’s newcomers and people under the age of 40 are here because of the future. People want a more liveable city — made possible through improvements like an accessible waterfront — not to turn the clock back to the freeway-happy 1960s.
Comments
3 responses to “Two striking points from latest viaduct coverage”
What was striking to me about the article was that the debate seems to be entirely about politics and no actual consideration of the consequences.
1. Brian’s point is a good one but the article was still good — the best so far, which is no compliment to local media.
2. I think when he used the term “grumpy” Licata meant people like me who see an incredible waste of money coming down the road. I am not happy with the Rebuild but the Tunnel is even worse and so I am voting against both.
3. The media in Seattle has done a terrible job in its uncritical acceptance of the myth that the viaduct must be replaced and cannot be Repaired. Our current problems stem from that threshold acceptance.
The fundamental problem in Seattle is a failure of imagination. People are afraid to try anything new, whether it’s congestion pricing, bus rapid transit, higher density development — or an open waterfront. The local media just feed this problem instead of exploding it.