text:
A Look at Cubs '08
"TOTAL - about $82M
"TOTAL - about $82M (including $300K buy-out of Cesar Izturis - see below)."
I think we can realistically stay in the Carlos Zambrano sweepstakes.
Pie Down, Soto Up. Weird
Pie Down, Soto Up. Weird move. Seems like they're either planning to play one of the three catchers at 1B while Lee is suspended or there's a trade pending.
What are the chances we'll
What are the chances we'll actually keep Prior? Or is he on his way to a rehab project with some other team who is willing to take a chance on him regaining his old form?
Um, don't discount 2007 just
Um, don't discount 2007 just yet. I don't really like the beginning of the article.
Other than that, great effort and great look at the 2008 Cubs. Thanks, Phil.
I wish I had as much faith
I wish I had as much faith as you, Carlos....I'm not convinced this team can compete for a pennant. Boy, do I hope I'm wrong.
Well, I guess Felix will
Well, I guess Felix will play this way...
CARLOS!!!! I put that trade
I put that trade offer back in, can we get it done ASAP?
Whaa? What trade? Haven't
Whaa? What trade? Haven't been in Yahoo during the whole break.
I'll review it.
same trade from last week,
same trade from last week, just say yes and let's move on...
Vorare: Weird move. Seems
Vorare: Weird move. Seems like they're either planning to play one of the three catchers at 1B while Lee is suspended or there's a trade pending.
My parents have season tickets to the I-Cubs and said that Soto has been playing first on and off while Micah's been hurt. Maybe it's an audition for his bat, and one of the other two will get the boot if he performs?
Thomas becomes the de facto
Thomas becomes the de facto Hendry-Middle-Infielder-Crush.
Jordan, Why don't you think
Why don't you think that this team can compete for the pennant. We have played the top teams in the NL very tough and the Brewers have shown that they are not going to run away with the division. As well, we have shown that we can also compete for the Wild Card. I'm not saying we will win it, but I see a team that can definitely compete for it and make a run.
WTF? 3 catchers? Can't
WTF? 3 catchers? Can't DeRosa and Ward play 1b? I don't understand, at all, why Soto would get called up to play 1b.
It doesn't make any sense.
Very, VERY, unimpressed with
Very, VERY, unimpressed with Soto last year, having seen him play several times.
I know AZ Phil is not the biggest fan either.
Perhaps he'll also catch lightning in a bottle and be able to hit consistently at the MLB level?
He's getting his shot just like Fonty & TheRiot.
David Samson, the Marlins
David Samson, the Marlins President, is upset that Seattle is going to pay Ichiro what he pays 2/3 of his team:
I dont get there roster
I dont get there roster mismangement either, I wish MLB would let teams do what they do in the NBA and NFL does and let teams carry like 35 players and have 25 active for the game.
"What are the chances
"What are the chances we'll actually keep Prior? Or is he on his way to a rehab project with some other team who is willing to take a chance on him regaining his old form?"
I've read this stance for a while and non-tendering him still doesn't make much sense to me. There's alot of pitching depth in the minors but as I see it, most of the prospects profile as back of the rotation starters. A better question to ask would be, would the Cubs win an arbitration hearing with him?
About the three
About the three catchers...
My guess is that the Cubs are giving Soto a chance to catch regularly, becuase we need offense from the catcher spot. Koyie Hill will probably get released, becuase he is out of options. Jacque Jones is going to be the everyday centerfielder, and you'll see, he's going to put up 2006 numbers from here on.
even with an arbitration
even with an arbitration hearing, it's only a 20% paycut max
The Cubs will likely non-tender him and try to resign him to a $1 millionish base salary with plenty of incentives. Of course so would a lot of other teams. We'll see if Prior has the same sense of honor as did Kerry Wood (not that Kerry did too badly for himself last offseason but rumors were he was offered more).
yeah not sure about the 3
yeah not sure about the 3 catcher thing, with Lee serving his suspension soon maybe it'll give Lou some extra flexibility late in the games with the bench down a man. Can't imagine it will last long.
"What are the chances
"What are the chances we'll actually keep Prior?
AGAIN, please use only P or W to discuss former starting Cubs pitchers who were counted upon to be the core of the staff...
Until at least they play on a MLB regular seson game again.
rule seconded yesterday...
"even with an arbitration
"even with an arbitration hearing, it's only a 20% paycut max. The Cubs will likely non-tender him and try to resign him to a $1 millionish base salary with plenty of incentives. Of course so would a lot of other teams."
I understand that, I just don't see a huge difference in paying someone $2.8 million versus $1.0 + incentives, in light of that fact that are aren't any front of the rotation starters in the organization besides Zambrano. That's a pittance in MLB...........if that's what the FO wants to do, that's fine. I don't think its a good move and I think that if the Cubs are banking on him going the Wood route, they're going to lose. I would be shocked if Prior staying considering all the shit that was lobbed his way, unfairly mind you.
"even with an arbitration
"even with an arbitration hearing, it's only a 20% paycut max"
Where can I look this up? I think we are making a wrong assumption here.
Where can I look this up? I
Where can I look this up? I think we are making a wrong assumption here.
Wrong assumption about what? The 20% thing is a rule that is part of the CBA.
Here is one link:
Wilkerson, who is making $3.9 million this year, has one year of arbitration left and couldn't take more than a 20 percent pay cut under CBA rules.
Here is the rule, from
Here is the rule, from CBA:
A club may not tender or renew a player under reserve to the Cube pursuant to Article XX(A) of this Agreement and paragraph 10(a) of the Uniform Player's Contract to a Uniform Player's Contract that provides a salary for Major League service that constitutes a reduction in excess of 20% of his previous year's salary or in excess of 30% of his salary two years previous. ...
Chad, here's the new
Chad, here's the new CBA:
The section you want is on page 15, paragraph (VI)(F)(3)(c):
"A Club may submit a salary figure for salary arbitration that is at least 80% of the Player's previous year's salary..."
And the arbitration
And the arbitration rule:
A club may submit a salary figure for salary arbitration that is at least 80% of the Player's previous year's salary ...
The first rule I quoted was Article VI.D.1
This rule is Article VI.F.3.c.1
I'm glad Pie was sent down.
I'm glad Pie was sent down. He should be sent down. With any luck, he'll be traded. Let's face it, the guy sucks. He's Corey Patterson part deux. Pie will never hit at a MLB level.
Au contraire, Horatio.
Au contraire, Horatio. Everyone knows Pie is a poor man's Juan Encarnacion, not Corey Patterson part deux.
Here's Slick Jimmy from the
Here's Slick Jimmy from the cubs.com story:
"I think we all agreed when we left Pittsburgh [to end the first half] that Felix needed to go down and play every day," Cubs general manager Jim Hendry said Thursday. "Lou and Gerald Perry both spent some time making some changes in his approach and swing and his movement to the ball. It's hard to get on the job training. He'll go down there and play.
"At the same time, Soto has been playing terrific," Hendry said. "This will give us a chance to see him catch a little bit. He also can help us off the bench right-handed."
That's cool. I could swear
That's cool. I could swear there was some sort of caveat to that. But I guess it's that straight forward.
Have to believe that Cuban
Have to believe that Cuban is Bud Seligs worst night mare.
Have to believe that Mark
Have to believe that Mark Cuban is Bud Selig's worst nightmare.
*Have to believe that Mark
*Have to believe that Mark Cuban is Bud Selig's worst nightmare.*
You mean besides Barry Bonds?
How does Cuban do anything bad for baseball. Dude wants to win in a city that hasn't won FOREVER. If he buys the Cubs and they win the World Series, that sure takes a lot of the attention away from performance-enhancing drugs, doesn't it?
Y'all don't think very much, do you?
Go Mark Cuban!
Go Mark Cuban!
It's not many of us no, it's
It's not many of us no, it's baseball itself. The White Sox owner doesn't like Cuban and has a good relationship with Selig. Would Selig want someone in baseball who has a notoriously poor relationship with refs when umps are even generally worse then NBA refs in attitude? Would Selig want someone with as many personal issues as Cuban?
I support having Cuban as owner, but I can also see where Selig would want nothing to do with him.
Its not really up to Selig,
Its not really up to Selig, is it?
Isn't it up to the owners?
And again - I am pretty sure that the Trib/Zell is required to sell to the highest bidder. I am not sure that MLB can do much about it if Cuban is the highest bidder.
The Cubs still are held publicly - right now by Trib stock holders, and soon by Zell and Trib employees.
I think that the cubs almost
I think that the cubs almost have to take another shot at Prior. They are paying him to rehab this year. Why spend a year's salary and then allow another team to sign him and watch him have a decent year? They took a chance with Miller, I think they should with Prior as well. He has a much larger up side and IF it works out, what a deal it would be.
As far as the owners are concerned, lets just hope that whoever buys them doesn't become cheap owners. they are going to pay more than one billion dollars for the team, lets hope they have a little left for players.
Y'all don't think very
Y'all don't think very much, do you?
Let's avoid the absurd insults please...
I for one welcome our new
I for one welcome our new fine inclined overlords.
injury news.... Kerry Wood
injury news....
Kerry Wood is close to pitching for the Mesa Rookie League team in Arizona. Wood was able to pitch this spring, but had to restart his rehab for his right shoulder. "Let's be guardedly optimistic," Hendry said. "We've been down this path before." ... Carlos Zambrano was not at Thursday's workout because his flight from Miami was delayed by weather. Both All-Stars Alfonso Soriano and Derrek Lee were excused from the workout. ... Pitcher Wade Miller (right shoulder) and catcher Henry Blanco (herniated disk) are both close to going on rehab assignments. Angel Guzman (strained right forearm) has been slowed in his rehab.
Maybe you're thinking of
Maybe you're thinking of this Chad....
The exception here is that if a player won an arbitration award the prior year that resulted in a 50% or greater salary increase, there is no maximum paycut allowed in the proposal.
but that doesn't apply to Prior...
"I am not sure that MLB can
"I am not sure that MLB can do much about it if Cuban is the highest bidder."
I was under the impression that the owners get final say.
And Rob, I was thinking of something else. I was just wrong. I could swear there was exemptions for injuries days spent on the active roster. I must have made that up in me head.
23 of 30 owners must approve
23 of 30 owners must approve the sale I believe...
about how MLB manipulated the Red Sox sale. But Dave is right, whoever Trib hired to run the sale (JP chase I believe) is required to get the best price for the team. That doesn't mean MLB can't finesse it to get the owner they want.
Dave, The Tribune will
The Tribune will become a private company once all the paperwork is finished. However lets say Cuban outbids Canning or Colangelo by a wide margin (200 or 300 million) and doesnt get the team I think he'll sue MLB and get the team. I will cite the extra inning package as an example because once Sen. Kerry started talking about hearings aimed at possibly taking away there monopoly status they folded. Cuban is not going to take getting screwed well, and will make enough noise to make this an issue, just ask Don Nelson.
FWIW, the president of the
FWIW, the president of the Marlins can go F himself for his Ichiro contract comments. That 100 mil nevestment is probably worth 1 bil to the Mariners. (or more) The Marlins should be contracted as should the Devil Rays and a team should be moved to the AL. I say we send the Brewers back. Or the Mariners or Toronto to the NL.
Probably safe to say Sampson
Probably safe to say Sampson is going to vote against Cuban.
I think the baseball anti-anti-trust law allows them to do cockamamie things like let the owners vote on who the next owner is going to be.
Also when it comes to total $ on offers, all the offers are not going to be structured the same. Most of them will have to take on some loans and depending oh how much they are leveraged Zell & co may decide not to go with one or the other. It's also possible he changes his mind, divests himself of his ownership of the Sox and continues to run the Cubs.
Did you guys notive this
Did you guys notive this little nugget at the bottom of the Sampson/Ichiro story? Long live Maximo!
---The Las Vegas Review Journal reports Sammy Sosa spent his All-Star break not pondering why Michael Young – and not he – was in San Francisco, but in Vegas attending a Cirque du Soleil thing. The paper adds this beauty: "In previous trips to Las Vegas, Sosa has gone by the alias of 'Maximo Ali.'"
While covering the NBA, I once spent an entire afternoon attempting to reach a player in his hotel room, having to ask the operator on at least seven occasions to connect me to "Dark Chocolate."
I still don't get why people
I still don't get why people say the MLB folded on the Extra innings thing. They got exactly what they wanted. The cable companies were the ones that ultimately had to back down and agree to offer the new 24-7 MLB Channel on the basic tier. The MLB played hardball by threatening to exclusive with DirectTV, and they won.
But anyway, the Trib and the MLB are likely to dance pretty carefully around each other in this sale. It's in both entities best interests to move the sale along quickly, and getting into legal battle over baseball's 90 year old antitrust immunity could drag the sale out for years.
The Tribune will become a
The Tribune will become a private company once all the paperwork is finished.
You sure about that? I thought the new deal was a split ownership between Zell and Trib employees.
Hmmm... here are the details. It is going to be a "private company," but most of the company is going to be held by the employee's stock ownership plan. Honestly, I am not sure what this means about being required to take the highest price possible.
Cuban would get about 4-10
Cuban would get about 4-10 votes depending on circumstances. Just NOT happening.
Although ... the thought of a $200M payroll in 2010 sure does make me want to believe.
Can the other owners vote
Can the other owners vote for whatever reason they want? I mean this sale is a huge deal. With the Chicago market, the national appeal, the national WGN broadcasts, etc there could be a lot of money in the Cubs. Money = power and that likely scares many other owners. Isn't it in their best interest to have someone who is cheap or inexperienced? Why would they want cuban considering that a cuban run Cubs team may eventually kill the ESPN love affair with Yanks/Sox, kill other NL teams chances, etc. The attention would shift with a year-in-year-out good cubs team, wouldn't it? Wouldn't this make other owners nervous?
This voting thing seems flawed to me. Its like voting in Fantasy Football on trades; rarely does anyone vote for the right reasons.
Nah, as I think I've heard
Nah, as I think I've heard some league official or other owner say, "what's good for the Cubs is good for Major League Baseball." The Cubs have a huge following throughout the country, and that following generates a lot of revenue for revenue sharing purposes and leads to big attendance spikes when the Cubs roll through town. None of the other owners would want to jeopardize that.
That's not to say they'd want Cuban; I'm pretty sure they'll kill his offer right away. The MLB (and most pro sports) are pretty shady businesses, and I'm sure they don't want a maverick owner joining the club.
Cuban- Bravo my man you
Bravo my man you would be my choice for owner.
The Bosox were not sold to the highest bidder when Hendry bought them a few years back.
Do the owners get any kickback with a sale of an organization?
I mean if Cuban blows away everyone bidding the owners would be stupid not to take his money.
Although I believe the Cubs will sell more than half of Cubans personal wealth. ( 2 billion-Cuban)
I will have a hard time being a fan of this team if one of Selig's cronies gets them.
The Bosox were not sold to
The Bosox were not sold to the highest bidder when Hendry bought them a few years back.
Different situation. The Red Sox were not publicly held. They were held by a private trust that was able to sell to whomever it wanted to, regardless of the price.
Do the owners get any
Do the owners get any kickback with a sale of an organization?
No... but owners to get a share of luxury tax payments, which could entice small market teams to want someone like Cuban to own the Cubs. Or it could make small market teams less interested in Cuban because he would be able to buy players that small market teams could never afford.
Who knows...
I do think that Cuban has a legitimate chance of being approved by owners. I have seen little evidence to suggest otherwise, other than made up opinions that Selig and other owners would not like someone like Cuban.
Although I believe the Cubs
Although I believe the Cubs will sell more than half of Cubans personal wealth. ( 2 billion-Cuban)
True... but very few owners pay for professional sports teams outright. They often get loans and other sources of funding to supplement what they have in cash.
Ugh... legal stuff makes my
Ugh... legal stuff makes my face hurt.
We really get to play today, right?
And also, if I am not
And also, if I am not mistaken, very few owners own the entire team. Even if the team sells for about 1 Billion, Cuban merely needs to organize a group of collective owners of which he is the majority one. He might pay 500 million and 10-15 other guys own shares that sum up to the other half or something like that. At least that's how I think it sometimes works.
You tell me who's right and
You tell me who's right and who's wrong here about the field conditions:
Hendry: 'Cubs general manager Jim Hendry said he was assured the field was fine. "I don't think you want [a concert] every week," he said, "but I think it's fine."'
Floyd: "It can't be worse than it was," [Floyd] said.
dave- I will just address
I will just address you from now on regarding ownership. ;-) Thanks.
I really believe Cuban will blow away any other bidders and wants an MLB team badly.
I read in SI back in May that there were owners who wanted Cuban.
F' Reinsdorf!!!
I will just address you from
I will just address you from now on regarding ownership. ;-) Thanks.
No problem... but I really don't know that much. It is just stuff that I have read over the last couple of months relating to the Cubs sale.
We need a resident corporate lawyer to help us with the legal stuff, just like we have a resident doctor.
Chad, Dave, et al, Peter
Chad, Dave, et al,
Peter Gammons was on ESPN this AM and the way baseball works is that the owners aren't compelled to accept the buyer who makes the highest offer. In point of fact, they get to pick the owner who in their judgment is in the best interest of baseball, blah, blah, blah. It's no secret that Bud and Jerry Reinsdorf hate Mark Cuban, also that Bud always prefers local ownership. Gammons believes it highly unlikely that Cuban would be accepted.
I for one would prefer Cuban, believe in free enterprise and capitalism (highest bidder should win), and want someone who will invest everything (not just money) into putting a winner in Wrigley Field (or wherever they end up playing).
Peter Gammons was on ESPN
Peter Gammons was on ESPN this AM and the way baseball works is that the owners aren't compelled to accept the buyer who makes the highest offer.
But the owners are not selling the team - Zell and the Trib are selling. The Trib and Zell and legally mandated to sell to the highest bidder if they are a publicly held company. And I believe, but am not sure, that the same holds true if it is hold by an employee trust.
MLB would still have to approve it, which is where things get complicated. I am not really sure that it means to have the league approve/not approve an owner who legally had the right to buy a team because they are the highest bidder.
I guess I would say this - Gammons is right - MLB doesn't have to accept the offer from the highest bidder. But I think that Zell/Trib Co. do have to accept the highest bidder. So I am not sure how the two are reconciled.
"True… but very few owners
"True… but very few owners pay for professional sports teams outright. They often get loans and other sources of funding to supplement what they have in cash."
This is know as an Leveraged Buyout (LBO), and is common in many large business acquisitions. That said I believe baseball has a cap on how much money a team can borrower.
"Different situation. The Red Sox were not publicly held. They were held by a private trust that was able to sell to whomever it wanted to, regardless of the price."
Privately or publicly held, shareholders have the right to bring suit against their managers/directors if they believe they have acted inappropriately.
As part of any sale Tribco will (has) hire(d) consultants to scrub the numbers to show the shareholders that they got the best result possible in order to try and protect themselves.
"The Trib and Zell and
"The Trib and Zell and legally mandated to sell to the highest bidder if they are a publicly held company."
Not really, they are required to get the "best deal", which may or may not be the highest bid for a number of reasons.
If the highest bidder is one that MLB will likely not accept that may not be the best deal.
It's not my field of
It's not my field of expertise, but I would think franchise law would be the applicable realm for this case.
"MLB doesn't have to
"MLB doesn't have to accept the offer from the highest bidder. But I think that Zell/Trib Co. do have to accept the highest bidder. So I am not sure how the two are reconciled. "
I claim no expertise whatsoever here. My specialty is criminal law. But if would seem that Zell/Trib would submit the highest bid to MLB for approval. When/if this is bid is rejected, they submit the next highest bid.
I believe in all major sports (NFL, NBA, MLB) the other owners must vote to accept another member into their fraternity.
Dave, think of it like
Dave, think of it like selling a house.
Would you take a $400M offer from a guy with a bad credit rating who is only putting $1M in earnest money, has a mortgage contingency, a sale contingency, an inspection requirement and wants to close in 9 months; over a guy who offers you $380M in cash today.
Unless Cuban is pre-approved by MLB, Tribco might turn him down, even if he has the highest offer, because there is a good chance the deal might never close.
The Trib and Zell and
The Trib and Zell and legally mandated to sell to the highest bidder if they are a publicly held company.
This isn't really accurate. They have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their stockholders, but they also have broad protection under the business judgment rule. Essentially, so long as they act in good faith towards what they believe to be the best interests of the company, the BJR applies and there's no liability.
This is a very low standard. A good example is the Disney/Ovitz case, where Ovitz received $140MM in severance for fourteen months of highly incompetent work. Shareholders brought a derivative suit, and Disney won primarily under the BJR.
Basically, the only way the Trib runs afoul of its stockholders in making the sale is if they're grossly negligent or self-serving.
Would you take a $400M offer
Would you take a $400M offer from a guy with a bad credit rating who is only putting $1M in earnest money, has a mortgage contingency, a sale contingency, an inspection requirement and wants to close in 9 months; over a guy who offers you $380M in cash today.
If someone was buying my house for 400 million, I would take in a second! :)
But lets be honest - this is not a fair analogy with Cuban. The money issue is not an issue with Cuban. He will have the funding necessary. It all comes down to whether or not the league would approve him. And I believe that the league would give approval.
Has the league ever rejected a buyer?
Basically, the only way the
Basically, the only way the Trib runs afoul of its stockholders in making the sale is if they're grossly negligent or self-serving.
So if TribCo accepted an offer for 1 billion, even though Cuban offered 1.2 billion, there would be no liability?
"Has the league ever
"Has the league ever rejected a buyer?"
"The American League had earlier denied Edward DeBartolo's bid (Aug. 22, 1980) to purchase the club because of DeBartolo's racing holdings."
I believe the real reason was report mob ties, but the NFL didn't seem to mind. Of course the NFL banned his son later after he was implicated in a corruption case so maybe the American League was on to something.
So if TribCo accepted an
So if TribCo accepted an offer for 1 billion, even though Cuban offered 1.2 billion, there would be no liability?
If they have a legitimate business reason for doing so (an that's almost anything vaguely rational), no, there'd be no liability. In this case, making the sale in a reasonable time frame and avoiding litigation would probably be more than enough justification.
The only circumstance where I can see this being legitimately challenged is if the Trib were to sell below market value to deliberately benefit Zell or some board members in a financial sense. In other words, if Board Members A and B own company C, and the Trib sells the Cubs well below market to C, you have a potential breach.
Has the league ever rejected
Has the league ever rejected a buyer?
DeBartolo was unsuccessful in his attempt to purchase the Chicago White Sox in 1980. The baseball team owners voted against the purchase, fearing a wealthy Italian-American who spoke Italian might have ties to organized crime. Despite such a notion, law enforcement has never found any 'connection.'
Baseball can sell to whoever
Baseball can sell to whoever it wants. The offers don't technically matter - they can take the low bidder if they want.
The prices DO matter because the Cubs sale will set a new precedent for franchise sales like the ARod/Jeter/Manny contracts did for player salaries.
But they'll never allow a maverick (good one Vorare) like Mark Cuban into the boys' club. I'd love Cuban for the record but if we want a success-driven owner with a realistic shot I'd think Don Levin is the best candidate.
Vorare, the application of
Vorare, the application of the BJR to the sale of assets is much different that of the Disney situation and
"the only way the Trib runs afoul of its stockholders in making the sale is if they're grossly negligent or self-serving."
is not accurate. Revlon duties still apply.
Baseball can sell to whoever
Baseball can sell to whoever it wants. The offers don't technically matter - they can take the low bidder if they want.
This is not true. Baseball is not selling the team. Zell/TribCo are.
vorare is right, the
vorare is right, the business judgment rule would apply to the terms of the sale that Zell/Trib obtain for the Cubs and that would most certainly include them accepting a lower-priced offer for the Cubs that they judge that MLB would approve rather than a higher-priced offer that they judge that the MLB would not approve. Because absent MLB approval, the higher-priced bid essentially has no value to shareholders.
So, for instance, let's say Tony Soprano, now with a lot of time on his hands, offers $2B for the Cubs. Zell/Trib would not be obligated to accept that bid because they could legitimately say that MLB would not approve the sale to the erstwhile head of the New Jersey mob.
Totally unrelated to this but related to above discussion: the Cubs could be moving Soto up both to create a give them a platoon at first base with Ward for when D-Lee is suspended and also to see if they can get some punch out of the catcher slot. I also think they want to know if he can contribute anything behind the plate this year, and they need to know that now.
If the Cubs are looking to trade for a catcher, who do you think is worthwhile to go after? Assume Saltamacchia is out. Myself, I say target Brian Schneider of the Nats.
Dave, The Trib will be
The Trib will be private company because ownership will be limited to Zell and Trib employees. The defination of a public company is that anyone can buy into it.
The advantage of selling to
The advantage of selling to the highest bidder is that it inflates the value of the clubs the owners themselves own. That fact can not be discounted. Similar to what huge contracts do to the value of mediocre pitchers (Buerhle), a HUGE Cuban offer would inflate the value of the assets the other owners control.
As far as Soto vs. Hill, I think Hill has been handling the pitching staff well as of late. AZ Phil, can you expound upon Soto's defense and game calling capabilities? I will take the sub-Mendoza offensive production from Hill for a dominant pitching staff.
Chad, to address why I don't think we can compete for a pennant:
1) Offensive holes at C and SS (we could keep the hole at C, and upgrade SS and this would help)
2) Bullpen depth/inconsistency
3) Lack of power
4) Starting pitching that may not hold up (Marquis, Hill)
5) We just lost 2 of 3 to the Pirates.
That's why we're not ready to shoot for the pennant. That would all change if Hendry goes out and makes some moves to better the team.
I hope we keep Mr. "P" around. I still want to see "W" and "P" in Cubbie blue. I think that their loyalty to the Cubs is warranted, and I hope "P" signs for a much lower rate than the open market, with heavy incentives. I think he's worth it.
If Selig's crony gets the
If Selig's crony gets the team, the Cubs become the Pirates in about 3 years.
The Trib will be private
The Trib will be private company because ownership will be limited to Zell and Trib employees. The defination of a public company is that anyone can buy into it.
Yes... I am aware. But I believe, because it would be in large part held by an employee trust, that the team would need to be sold in a manner that would "get the best deal," as said above.
Joe, that may be - my
Joe, that may be - my corporate law knowledge is relatively limited. I thought Unocal/Revlon applied only when the board was contemplating the sale of the corporation itself or a major reorganization/merger.
Wow, I wish that one of our
Wow, I wish that one of our posts began with "my corporate law knowledge is extensive, and here's what I think"... Soon we will have baseball to talk about...
forget tribs liability. If
forget tribs liability. If trib had a 1.2B offer and MLB rejected cuban for nothing more than personality and the next highest was 1B, couldn't Zell sue MLB for 200M??
Robr, If DeBartolo sued he
If DeBartolo sued he would have gotten the team because you cant discrimnate aganist anybody because of ethnic hertiage. I doubt Wikipedia's claim there because I think rightfully Italian-American groups would be up in arms about it. I think it had more to do with same shaky buisness practices he had with 49ers that were not mob related. Personally I doubt Cuban is going sit by and do nothing if he outbids Canning or Colangelo by a sizeable margin. Selig is pushover and will fold on this just like he has folded on everything.
"couldn't Zell sue MLB for
"couldn't Zell sue MLB for 200M??"
I believe the short answer is no.
There seems to be a general
There seems to be a general sense on this board that the "old boys" of MLB would not want to let Mark Cuban into their club. I disagree, I think in the end, money talks for these guys and all the owners would see that having the Cubs owned by a focused, savvy, boisterous showman like Cuban who is focused on winning and winning only would be good for baseball.
MLB exec still must look at the TV ratings for the 2003 playoffs and lick their chops. From a pure financial and TV standpoint, the ideal situation would be to have the Cubs, Yankees and Red Sox in contention each and every year. MLB essentially engineered such aggressive ownership in Boston with John Henry and I think they will see the same opportunity for the Cubs this year.
"If DeBartolo sued he would
"If DeBartolo sued he would have gotten the team because you cant discrimnate aganist anybody because of ethnic hertiage."
The offical reason was because of his ownership of horse race tracks as Baseball doesn't like gambling. IMO, the actual reason was that they don't like guys who spend a lot of money driving up player salaries (see the 49ers and Eddie DeBartolo jr.).
So............. What does
So............. What does everyone think of our middle infielders?
"If Selig's crony gets the
"If Selig's crony gets the team, the Cubs become the Pirates in about 3 years."
Selig cronies McCourt (Dodgers) and Henry (Red Sox) have spent money like they were in congress. If Canning ends up with the team, the payroll will atleast stay the same, and if he is the Cubs fan that I have read about payroll could even go up.
aaronb wrote:
So…………. What does everyone think of our middle infielders?
I think we have too many and need to trade Fontenot the next two weeks while he has some value. Eric Patterson is the 2B of the future with DeRosa and Theriot acting in super-sub roles until we find an everyday SS. Fontenot and a pitching prospect to the Nats for Brian Schneider would do nicely.
BTW, when is Lee's appeal
BTW, when is Lee's appeal going to be heard?
Is it freaking gametime
Is it freaking gametime yet?
This is taking FOREVER.
Let's start a JJ pool... I
Let's start a JJ pool... I say he goes 1-4 today with 2 Ks...
"Fontenot and a pitching
"Fontenot and a pitching prospect to the Nats for Brian Schneider would do nicely."
HERESY! Burn that heretic! How dare you speak of trading Godenot?!?
Oh, and I think he'll leave
Oh, and I think he'll leave 6 on base.
"Eric Patterson is the 2B of
"Eric Patterson is the 2B of the future..."
Eric Patterson is fielding-challenged (see AZ Phil) but can steal and hit some, and will bring more in trade bait than Fonty, who is a career AAAA.
"HERESY! Burn that heretic!
"HERESY! Burn that heretic! How dare you speak of trading Godenot?!?"
I think that's more like blasphemy...;-)
Levine on the radio, said
Levine on the radio, said there is no "conspiracy" from MLB to keep Cuban from owning the Cubs.
Gives him as much chance as anyone else.
Different situation. The Red
Different situation. The Red Sox were not publicly held. They were held by a private trust that was able to sell to whomever it wanted to, regardless of the price.
Hmmm, that article I linked in #46 said they were obliged to get the highest bidder and there's was a lot of fallout regarding that.
But here's my brief take...
- The owners vote is a mere formality, by the time it gets there a bid has been approved and it's been approved because they're certain the owners will pass it.
- Owners are businessman first, if Cuban outbids everyone by $500 million they're not passing that up. The dude's worth $2.3 billion. He can afford it.
- That all being said, Canning has to be the lead candidate. He was part owner with the Selig's of the Brewers, they're good buddies and Canning does have "local interests". I have little doubt that MLB will do everything they can to try and get him the team. That of course also depends on his offer. If the Ricketts or Cuban just shoot it well out of the water, MLB and Trib will have a hard time passing up the money.
Who goes down? Hill or
Who goes down? Hill or Bowen? What about when Blanco returns?
Adam... Pie was already
Adam... Pie was already sent down. It was discussed in a previous thread.
Adam - There are several
Adam - There are several articles out ther saying that ythe Cubs are going to carry three catchers for at least a few days. Once Blanco is ready, I would say that someone is gonna get DFA'd, since neither Hill or Bowen has any options. I would bet it's Hill... After that, you'd still have 3 catchers, so someone would need to be traded, or they might conclude that Soto is just not cutting it, and demote him...
Adam, I have to think its
I have to think its Hill. I doubt Hendry would have traded Barrett for Kyler Burke.
chifan- When did Henry and
When did Henry and McCourt have ownership in the Brewers?
Maybe flunkie is a better term for Canning.
Aw come on!! Where's the
Aw come on!! Where's the damn lineup??? I would watch two five year olds playing catch out my window right now if I could! PLay Ball!!!
I don't understand why we're
I don't understand why we're having such a hard time with this ownership question. I thought all Cubs fans were stockbrokers.
new thread up... lineups in
new thread up...
lineups in a bit
its not much of an
its not much of an underestimate to say wsox owner jerry reinsdorf has absolutely no respect for cuban, his actions, or even cuban the person.
reins vs. cuban has even gotten public press play and reins had no problem airing it out in public.
And Reins is going to only
And Reins is going to only have an old dusty WS trophy to hold onto and a half empty ball park if someone like Cuban comes in to Chicago.
like him or hate him...the
like him or hate him...the other owners, except for a few (such as one guy in arizona) other owners who question his personal morality more than his business sense.
it should be interesting. its usually george steinbrenner vs. the other owners (a mistake that selig helped cultivate reinstating him as an owner...they were friends) thing lately...
the boy's club likes to be comfortable suposedly.
oops..editing mistake "like
oops..editing mistake
"like him or hate him…the other owners seem to like reins..."
"When did Henry and McCourt
"When did Henry and McCourt have ownership in the Brewers?"
They didnot. They were Selig's handpicked owners for both of their franchises.
let's face it...when it
let's face it...when it comes to labor/game/fan relations...being an owner and setting the rules has been more real-business than love-of-the-game since owners started getting together to figure this game out.
its not easy, esp. since the 70s.
mark cuban has modeled himself quite the revolutionary owner in the NBA causing headaches both inside the owner's meetings...not even taking into account his "suspend me" public ego-driven crap making himself bigger than the game or his own players.
the line between owners/players is tense enough. the last collective barg. agreement was the first smooth meeting of owners/players and the dance they do in a very long time.
its hard to bring a revolutionary hothead into your fold to handle these issues when things are tense as it is and chilled out recently for the first time in a very long time.
hell, i'd be much more comfortable with todd mcfarlaine the ballclub owner than mark cuban the ballclub owner, myself...
For the FWIW file: This may
For the FWIW file:
This may be total hearsay and a trumped up anecdote but from what I've been told, Wrigley didn't sell to the highest bidder because the group of guys trying to buy the team were Jews. The only reason I believe this is that I know one of the families that was involved very well and this is the story they still stick with.
Oh and another thing. Henry
Oh and another thing. Henry brings a championship to Boston and McCourt has built a very good team in Los Angeles. And don't forget Moreno in Anaheim. The first thing he did was drop the price of beer.
Recent comments
"Like the Chapman deal for Cubs from on-field POV, wish I didn't now have to feel lousy following an otherwise likable Cubs team." @jonahkeri
pretty much sums up my feelings
You mean Yankees?
Cards lose!
You do have a point. The TheoJed certainly would need to address this in a transparent way. Milton Bradley was no help to the team.
FWIW, the Cubs would get a compensation draft pick between the 1st & 2nd rounds (around #35) if they extend a Qualifying Offer to Chapman post-2016 (probably about $17M), Chapman declines, and then he signs with another MLB club before next year's draft.
This all assumes Chapman doesn't want to be a free agent and possibly sign a $20MM+/year deal. We all know free agents get overpaid, sometimes dramatically (Hello, JayHey!). Not sure why Chapman would agree to the extension. If i'm is agent, I would tell him I could get I'm a $100M deal as a FA.
I'll root for the uniform and imagine it's left-handed Rod Beck or Randy Myers out there I suppose.
Amen to this. I guess it's gonna happen and I'm gonna have to suck it up but I really despise domestic abusers with every bone in my body and cannot stand them on any team I root for.
I just prefer they don't acquire players that choke their wives/girlfriends.
So you'd rather go with Blown Save guy, when you can trade a prospect who is blocked for one piece that could get you over the top to the Big Dance? That is pretty old thinking. This is not a move that they cannot recover from if it goes south. But the upside is potentially historic.
I'd prefer it not happen too.
it's a hell of a blockbuster, but it's for a guy who pitches 1/3rd of a season at an extreme premium considering the guy being traded and if the early extension $$$ rumors are true.
it's one of those things that is bringing a guy at the top his game, but something is nagging me that this trade piece could have been put to better use.
a huge part of me is all "hell yeah, top of the line producer"...another part of me is "hmm, that for that?"
Still don't want. Kinda hope they can't work out the extension.
obviously not, and I'm sure they did their homework...just hope they have some better answers than the Yankees
Chapman 12+ Career WAR. Currently 4.7:1 k-BB. With Rondon/Chapman/Strop/Nathan/Montgomery/Wood...Its the best pen I can recall other than Sutter or Lee Smith handling things themselves.
Its gonna suck if he gets injured, and it appears he's not the greatest of characters.
But, he'll have another Cuban to hang out with on the team.
I agree with the names you mention but there are lots of names being tossed around still and there's that small matter of Chapman agreeing to the extension.


text:
Jessica Charters
Merritt, British Columbia Canada
5 Stars
I would recommend this item to a friend.
Matching Bogger Rings
September 13, 2015
When i placed my order for these rings i was a little iffy if they would make it to me in time for my wedding. But they were delivered to my door in time for my wedding!! I was so happy. I have been in contact only by email and they were extremely prompt and so helpful. I would definitely reccommend there products. I love love the rings!!💓

subset: commoncrawl


text:
California Assembly District 50: Where All the Rich, White, Liberal People in Los Angeles Live
Black population in AD 50
Paul Robinson
In the current issue of L.A. Weekly, the feature story "Democratic War for L.A.'s Richest" takes a look at the hard-fought, highly contentious political race for California Assembly District 50 -- one of the wealthiest, most celebrity-packed, left-winger districts in the entire country.
It also happens to be where a whole bunch of white people live -- in the above map, which shows the black population in AD 50, there's just a sprinkling of African-American folks in the southeastern section of the district.
"[AD 50] is the remaining bastion of white L.A.," geographer Paul Robinson told us for the article.
Here are more maps that Robinson drew up for the Weekly that show what he means. The pink areas in the maps are generally where the white people live and the various shades of red are where other folks reside, depending on the map.
Latino population in AD 50
Paul Robinson
Upcoming Events
LA Galaxy vs. New York Red Bulls
Sun., Aug. 7, 6:30pm
LA Galaxy vs. Colorado Rapids
Sat., Aug. 13, 7:30pm
Los Angeles Angels vs. Seattle Mariners
TicketsMon., Aug. 15, 7:05pm
Premium Seating: Los Angeles Angels v SEATTLE MARINERS
TicketsMon., Aug. 15, 7:05pm
In this map, the Latino population in AD 50 is more spread out than the black population. Seventy-two percent of voting-age residents in AD 50 are white, 11 percent are Asian and 11 percent are Latino. Just 4 percent are black.
The district runs from Malibu and the Pacific Ocean in the west through Topanga Canyon, Santa Monica, Bel Air, Brentwood, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, the Hollywood Hills, Hollywood, Hancock Park and a sliver of Koreatown in the east.
As we reported in the feature story, political candidates Torie Osborn, Betsy Butler, Richard Bloom and Brad Torgan are not trying to create an often-used L.A. coalition of blacks, Latinos and white liberals for a winning campaign. As these maps show and Robinson points out, they really don't have to -- the white vote will reign supreme.
Asian population in AD 50
Paul Robinson
The above map shows the Asian population in AD 50, which is more clustered around Koreatown and Park La Brea. Robinson doesn't expect Asian or black voters to show up in large numbers in the June primary. Front runners Betsy Butler and Torie Osborn may very well win in the "top two" primary slots and face each other in a runoff in November in this hotly contested race.
Contact Patrick Range McDonald at email@example.com.
Get the This Week's Top Stories Newsletter
Every week we collect the latest news, music and arts stories — along with film and food reviews and the best things to do this week — so that you'll never miss LA Weekly's biggest stories.
In Case You Missed It
Upcoming Events
Premium Seating: Los Angeles Angels v BOSTON RED SOX
TicketsSun., Jul. 31, 12:35pm
Los Angeles Angels vs. Boston Red Sox
TicketsSun., Jul. 31, 12:35pm
Premium Seating: Los Angeles Angels v OAKLAND ATHLETICS
TicketsTue., Aug. 2, 7:05pm
Los Angeles Angels vs. Oakland Athletics
TicketsTue., Aug. 2, 7:05pm
Popular Stories
Sponsor Content


text:
* Chaco shook debt markets by paying interest in pesos
* Swap would cover about $30 million in dollar bonds
* Currency controls mean province unable to buy dollars
* Moody's downgrades provincial, municipal ratings
BUENOS AIRES, Oct 17 Argentina's Chaco province will offer to swap about $30 million in dollar-denominated debt for peso bonds because authorities are unable to buy greenbacks due to currency controls, a local government source said on W edn esday.
The central bank refused to let Chaco buy dollars on the foreign exchange market earlier this month, so the northern province repaid creditors about $260,000 in pesos on dollar-denominated bonds issued under Argentine legislation.
Rating agency Moody's described Chaco's move as a default and then downgraded a host of Argentine provincial and municipal debt ratings to reflect the heightened uncertainty. Argentina's economy minister has accused ratings agencies of issuing "terrorist" reports.
The source at Chaco's provincial economy ministry said details of the voluntary debt swap offer could be announced in the next few weeks.
"The idea is to retrieve the bonds in dollars. Obviously the offer should compensate for the fact that they are no longer in dollars ... so it's attractive to the market," the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
National and provincial bond prices sank last week in the wake of Chaco's decision to pay its dollar obligations in pesos.
President Cristina Fernandez has limited access to dollars in the last year to stem capital flight. This was the first time a province was unable to buy greenbacks due to the restrictions.
The central bank said the currency limits affect only a small amount of dollar debt issued under Argentine law. It said debtors who issued bonds under foreign legislation would be able to buy foreign currency to service that debt.
The two bonds eligible for Chaco's voluntary debt swap were issued in 2006 with a coupon of 4 percent and maturities in 2015 and 2023. Some $10 million is outstanding on the first bond, with about $22.2 million left on the longer-term issue, according to the Economia y Regiones consulting firm.
Chaco's plan to issue new peso bonds "formalizes a de facto situation," said Boris Segura, a fixed income strategist at Nomura investment bank. "It is clear that the dollar-denominated Chaco bonds have been pesified already by the central bank, by denying dollar access to the province to service them," he wrote in a note.
Segura said he did not expect other issuers such as Buenos Aires province, the capital, or Cordoba province to follow in Chaco's footsteps.
Moody's downgraded Argentine provincial and municipal credit ratings on Wednesday, arguing that they faced "growing risks ... to access foreign currency in an environment of increasingly restrictive policies by the central bank."
With the exception of Formosa province, which was placed under review for a possible downgrade, all the new ratings were given a negative outlook to reflect deteriorating conditions in Argentina, including an economic slowdown and rising fiscal and foreign exchange pressures.
"The lack of consistent and predictable policies at the national level affects the institutional framework under which provinces and municipalities operate and ultimately anchors their credit quality to that of the sovereign," Moody's said.
The city of Buenos Aires' foreign currency debt rating took a big hit, knocked down two notches to Caa1. This put it under the sovereign B3 rating and in line with other downgraded provinces, such as Buenos Aires province and Cordoba.
Moody's also sharply downgraded the local currency debt ratings of Chaco and Formosa provinces, the two districts most directly affected by the central bank's restrictions.
Argentina, Latin America's No. 3 economy, has been virtually shut out of international credit markets since it staged the world's biggest-ever sovereign debt default at the height of a 2001-02 economic crisis.
Trending On Reuters
Patents & Entrepreneurial Universities
Measuring and evaluating academic innovation


text:
Critical Care Medicine Fellows
Third-Year Fellows
Pilar Anton-Martin, M.D.
M.D., University of Alcala de Henares, Madrid, Spain, 2006
Postdoctoral Training
Hospital Universitario de Getafe/Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain, Pediatric Residency and Neonatology, 2007-2012
UT Southwestern/Children's Medical Center Dallas, Pediatric Critical Care Research Fellowship, 2012–2013
Research Project
Neurologic complications on pediatric patients during ECMO support
Pardma Garg, M.D.
M.D., Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Wardha, India, 2001
Postdoctoral Training
Columbia University Medical Center Affiliation at Harlem Hosital Center, New York, NY, Pediatric Residency, 2010–2013
Research Project
To characterize changes in gut commensal microbial population resulting from candida albicans colonization of the neonatal murine gut
Christopher Jenks, M.D.
M.D., Saba University School of Medicine, The Bottom, Netherlands, 2009
Postdoctoral Training
Louisiana State University Health Science Center, Shreveport, Pediatric Residency, 2010–2013
University of Minnesota Children's Hospital, Minneapolis, Pediatric Residency, 2013–2014
Research Project
Cytomegalovirus viremia and polyomavirus (BK) viruria in critically ill pediatric patients
Loren Malone, M.D.
B.A., University of Kansas, Lawrence, 2003
M.D., UT Health Science Center, San Antonio, 2010
Postdoctoral Training
Loyola Health System, Maywood, IL, Pediatric Residency, 2010–2013
Research Project
Simulation based training improves time to effective bag mask ventilation in pediatric residents
Second-Year Fellows
Diego Arango-Uribe, M.D.
M.D., Universidad Industrial de Santander, Bucaramanga, Colombia, 2010
Postdoctoral Training
Children's Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, MI, Pediatric Residency, 2011–2014
Research Project
Impact of negative pressure ventilation in Fontan patients
Pallav Bhattarai, M.D.
M.D., Nepalgunj Medical College, Nepalgunj, Nepal, 2009
Postdoctoral Training
The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY, Pediatric Residency, 2011–2014
Research Project
Role of SCFAs produced by B. theta in C. albicans colonization resistance
Amy Lee, M.D.
B.S., Olivet Nazarene University, Bourbonnais, IL, 2004
M.S., Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 2005
M.D., Ross University School of Medicine, Roseau, Dominica, West Indies, 2009
Postdoctoral Training
Florida State University, Pensacola, FL, Pediatric Residency, 2009–2012
Research Project
Biomarkers of traumatic brain injury in a pediatric mouse model
Poornima Pandiyan, M.D.
M.D., Stanley Medical College, Chennai, India, 2010
Postdoctoral Training
West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, Pediatric Residency, 2011–2014
Research Project
Characterizing neuroinflammation on ECMO
Michael Papacostas, M.D.
B.S., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 2007
M.D., Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, 2011
Postdoctoral Training
Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA, Pediatric Residency, 2011–2014
Research Project
The use of indirect calorimetry to evaluate energy expenditure after ECMO
First-Year Fellows
Proshad Efune, M.D.
B.A., Texas Christian University, Forth Worth, 2005
M.D., UT Southwestern, 2009
Postdoctoral Training
University of Pennsylvania/Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pediatric Residency, 2009–2012
UT Southwestern, Anesthesia Residency, 2012–2015
Chad Mackman, M.D.
B.S., University of Florida, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Gainesville, 2005
M.D., University of Florida, College of Medicine, 2009
M.S., Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, 2015
Postdoctoral Training
Ohio State University/Nationwide Children's Hospital, Pediatric Residency, 2009–2012
Medical College of Wisconsin/Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, Pediatric Cardiology Fellowship, 2012–2015
Shweta Murthi, M.D.
B.A., Washington University, St. Louis, MO, 2008
M.D., UT Health Science Center at San Antonio, 2012
Postdoctoral Training
UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, Pediatric Residency, 2012–2015
Blake Nichols, M.D.
B.S., UT Dallas, 2008
M.D., UT Southwestern, 2012
Postdoctoral Training
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pediatric Residency, 2012–2015
Alan Poole, M.D., Ph.D.
B.S., Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, 2002
M.D., Ph.D., UT Southwestern, 2012
Postdoctoral Training
UT Southwestern/Children's Medical Center, Pediatric Residency, 2012–2015
Coming July 2016
Kevin Engelhardt, M.D.
B.S., University of Arizona, Tucson, 2005
M.D., University of Arizona, College of Medicine, Tucson, 2010
Postdoctoral Training
University of Arizona, Pediatric Residency, 2010–2013
UT Southwestern, Pediatric Cardiology Fellowship, 2013–2016
Nicholas Huggins, M.D.
B.S., Texas A&M, College Station, 2006
M.D., UT Southwestern, 2010
Postdoctoral Training
UT Southwestern, Pediatric Residency, 2010–2013
UT Southwestern, Pediatric Cardiology Fellowship, 2013–2016
Stephanie Hsu, M.D.
B.S., UT Austin, 2009
M.D., Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, 2013
Postdoctoral Training
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, Pediatric Residency, 2013-2016
Kyle Miller, D.O.
B.S., West Virginia University, Morgantown, 2006
D.O., West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine, Lewisburg, 2011
Postdoctoral Training
St. Christopher's Hospital for Children, Philadelphia, PA, Pediatric Residency, 2012–2015


text:
How do I get out of present day when I've only gotten 1 power source? I'm stuck in the cave and nothing happens when I walk up to the second power source on the ledge. I am trying to go back to being Connor, but I can't.
You need to walk up the the Animus and press any button to re-enter it and become Conner again. The Animus is located across from your laptop, near Rebecca Crane.
protected by Community♦ May 12 '13 at 3:06
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
Hello dear members~
You are now able to submit your blog entries now.
Remember you can either:
Submit a blog entry about your work
Submit a blog entry showcasing another's deviants work
Submit a blog entry showcasing one of your groups
Submit a mixed blog entry
All of the blogs will be automatically accepted! Have fun!
Calling Alll Showcase Portfolio's Of 2012! by Soul-PoetsWatch
©2012-2016 Soul-Poets


text:
I find it highly amusing that Prop 1 sponsors are now on-record admitting that their pet roads+transit measure won't do a damned thing to relieve freeway congestion, which admission runs 180 degrees counter to all their fancy-schmancy assertions about reducing congestion, and commute times, and whatnot.
Face it folks, what we're seeing is yet another example of that perennial definition of insanity: "trying the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different outcome every time".
So, this is what you're faced with: either do nothing and watch vehicle traffic get worse; or spend tens of billions of dollars on road improvements - and watch vehicle traffic get worse.
At what point do we finally look at this issue with the harsh light of critical objectivity and admit to ourselves that building more road capacity WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM?
Expected Cressona Wonk-off in: 5...4...3...2...1...
"Maybe if they didnt reject light rail initiatives, congestion wouldnt have gotten as much worse."
Now THAT'S faulty reasoning, leading you to exactly the wrong conclusion.
The light rail extensions proposed by those three ballot measures would not even have come on-line yet, even if the measures had been approved.
Yes, but building 50 miles of light rail will change how we live, travel, and develop the region. If you vote no on Prop 1, you won't see as ambitious of a rail plan when it eventually returns to the ballot.
Josh--I believe at least two of the negative votes on light rail (maybe all three) were on extending rail across the Columbia to Vancouver. The reason those failed was not because rail isn't popular, but because Clark County is full of tax evaders who shop and work in Portland but live in Washington to avoid the income tax. These freeloaders don't vote for anything.
So, before Cressona posts, I'd just like to point out that RTID/ST2 will:
1. not decrease congestion
2. not fix most (or even 1/10th) of the ciritical existing roads and bridges in the region
3. not even pay for HALF of the 520 bridge rebuild (yes, that's with tolls, which I am not against for single-occupancy vehicles)
4. INCREASE water pollution
4.1. increase fish bykill (see 4)
4.2. increase salmon habitat destruction
5. INCREASE land pollution
6. REDUCE wetlands
7. INCREASE air pollution
8. INCREASE global warming gas emissions
9. COST MORE WHEN WE HAVE TO REDUCE global warming gas emissions starting in 2020 (by most estimates)
10. INCREASE regressive non-transportation-related taxes (sales tax) (am not against the transportation related tax parts at all, tho not the best choices)
And, take almost 50 years of taxes - more than half of which we'll have to pay more taxes to COUNTERACT when we do something about global warming.
Time to get our heads out of the kool-aid, people.
Yes, ST2.1 in Feb 2008 will be great.
Yes, RTID 1.3 in Nov 2008 will be great (the one without the Pierce County roads) (no idea if RTID or County vote or State vote).
But a bad idea is just plain a bad idea.
3: "If you vote no on Prop 1, you won't see as ambitious of a rail plan when it eventually returns to the ballot."
The opposite is true, Karnak. Light rail, unburdened by the RTID albatross about its neck, would do just fine among voters. It is very popular, and once Sims is on-board (tolling on some bridges to help pay for road work), it'd pass handily.
I'm glad that now the Times is coming out against this with their usual tactics, the Stranger seems to be reconsidering supporting it.
I am not being (that) sarcastic here. The Times hardly ever supports what is best for Seattle or the region, so the fact that they are so against this proposal, including using the same tactics as they used with the monorail (quoting the entire cost in 2027 dollars with compound interest) is making a lot of people think twice.
"Face it folks, what we're seeing is yet another example of that perennial definition of insanity: "trying the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different outcome every time".
So, this is what you're faced with: either do nothing and watch vehicle traffic get worse; or spend tens of billions of dollars on road improvements - and watch vehicle traffic get worse."
Thank you. It doesn't take any more to understand a "NO" vote.
(I would, however, vote YES on a light-rail/transit only plan because those trains are slick and I would be one of those density-loving people living near a station.)
As lazy as I am of car-headed buffoons over at the Times, I'm sick of you Stranger personages insinuating that more/better transit will do anything to relieve freeway congestion. If the freeways are empty and free, I own a car, and the bus is slower and costs money -- why would I take the bus? Congestion happens because cars are convenient.
As long as roads are free to drive on and transit costs money, there will be congestion on the roads. Congestion is how people pay for their place in line, for lack of a more efficient allocation system.
TOLL THE FUCK OUT OF THE ROADS. It'll solve the congestion problem and make transit viable in one fell swoop.
Where do you get off teaching logic to anybody?
For starters, if Portland voters say no to light rail -- that's hardly meaningless. They have experience with cost/benefit. More than you, dope.
And for your Imagine if they had not built light rail, would congestion have gone down pint... You need a can opener to pry open that pretzel logic. If the benefit is slight, then the negative effect would be slight too.
Traffic might get worse in either situation, but if building the roads and rails makes things 1.2 times as bad but not building it makes things 3 times as bad (just random numbers here), there is a difference.
...thus ensuring a Stranger endorsement of Prop 1.
Fremont elitist Will chimes in with his usual melange of nonsensical piffle and misleading information.
--He claims it won't fix even 1/10th of the critical bridges in the region. Will doesn't even know the bridges and roads he refers to, nor do his friends at the Sierra Club. Most are the responsibility of either the city or county they are located in.
--He then claims the region should pay even more of the cost of 520 in a new package. Will, 520 is a state highway and a state responsibility. That is what we pay gas taxes to the state for. Why you would want the region to pay even more is beyond me. Of course, you like an elevated viaduct, so your reasoning is suspect anyway.
--Will then makes some unsubstantiated claims about fish kills and water pollution. He claims land pollution (a new term). Will makes this shit up.
--Then he trots out the 50 years of taxes argument pushed by the right wing nuts. The inflated claims of costs and endless taxes have been pretty much debunked everywhere.
--There will be no ST2.1 in Feb 2008. Will has been making this claim for quite some time with no proof despite repeated requests. Put up or shut up. It is highly unlikely that Frank Chopp and Christine Gregoire will allow a vote so soon in an election year.
--And now Will has made up a new RTID vote in November 2008. I think he hopes it will include his beloved elevated viaduct.
Keep posting Will. You are a poster child for why we need to pass this package. Please attack the light rail investments again too.
Stuff like this is a reality check for the people holding out for a ST2 return in 2008. Assuming the legislature, et al allow this to happen, what makes you think ST2 by itself will win?
ECB implies that the Times Editorial Board is a pretty good indicator of Eastside opinion. If that's the case, ST2 by itself is screwed, because transit needs big positive majorities in King County to offset skeptics in Pierce and Snohomish.
It might be emotionally satisfying to vote against ST2/RTID and vote for a rail-only package that goes down in flames, but it won't get us any closer to a decent transit system.
Portland MAX is great. The Bay Area's BART is great. DC Metro is great. All those systems make you wish you never had to get on a slow, bumpy bus caught in traffic again. I want a system like that in the Puget Sound area. Build it, and start now!
Congestion isn't the problem. The real problems are lack of transportation options and the consequences that occur when driving is the only available option.
Light rail increases options. HOV improvements to highways increase options. People are going to keep voting for new roads until they have other options, and voting no to ST2/RTID limits the development of those options, making new highways a certainty.
Voting yes on ST2/RTID creates alternatives to driving everywhere, and makes future investment in alternatives more likely. It's the responsible and farsighted vote.
Congestion is good.
Congestion causes headaches for car drivers, and causes them to start thinking...maybe there's a better way.
Congestion creates incentives for alternative modes of transportation.
There is not a transportation system in the world that has relieved congestion. Rather, a good transportation system gives people choices.
Currently Seattle's choices are limited to driving, bicycling in the rain with ignorant drivers rushing past, and riding the bus, stuck in traffic.
Not much choice really.
Jesus Will!
1. not decrease congestion
I don't give a shit about congestion if I'm riding on a light rail train with limited at-grade crossings. That's the whole point!
And BTW, it will reduce congestion compared to doing nothing. Comparing 2030 congestion to 2007 congestion is ridiculous.
2. not fix most (or even 1/10th) of the critical existing roads and bridges in the region
3. not even pay for HALF of the 520 bridge rebuild (yes, that's with tolls, which I am not against for single-occupancy vehicles)
... since the state (and maybe feds) are supposed to kick in a chunk of funding too, as we've gone over in multiple threads...
4. INCREASE water pollution
4.1. increase fish bykill (see 4)
4.2. increase salmon habitat destruction
5. INCREASE land pollution
7. INCREASE air pollution
8. INCREASE global warming gas emissions
News flash: development creates pollution and damages habitat. No doubt if Prop. 1 goes down, all future development will be neutral in these respects.
6. REDUCE wetlands
Are you referring to a few acres of the arboretum? Is this significant at a regional level, except to property values in Madrona?
9. COST MORE WHEN WE HAVE TO REDUCE global warming gas emissions starting in 2020 (by most estimates)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
10. INCREASE regressive non-transportation-related taxes (sales tax) (am not against the transportation related tax parts at all, tho not the best choices)
If you're holding out for an income tax or congestion charge to pay for a large capital project, please don't hold your breath -- I don't wish you any harm.
Everybody above who says "the state will kick in the money for SR 520" -
All the state will do is raise taxes on people. If RTID does not pay for it all, other taxes on you will. That is what is so fundamentally dishonest with RTID - the full tax costs are not known because we only are voting to approve one-half of the existing taxes.
Never vote yes on a plan where they don't tell you what the full funding package will be make up of! Here, we know there's a gap, and it is growing because gas tax revenues are coming in lower and there may not be tolling (it is not popular in Olympia).
Would you put something on your personal credit cards where you knew it would only cover the price, you don't know what the full price will be, BUT you knew the interest charges would start piling up already? Hell no, but that is what is being asked of us.
Choices? If you don't like the transportation situation in Seattle and it's just curling your ass hair so...move to Portland or San Francisco or DC. Maybe if more people get frustrated and move away, my commute will get easier and I won't have to listen to whiny bitches comparing our situation to other cities.
Seattle: Love it or leave it!
@16 "bicycling in the rain with ignorant drivers rushing past"
You're so wrong...it's a great choice. Give it a shot.
Bicycling in the rain can be fun on the Burke-Gilman, especially since they reopened it thru Fremont, @16/20.
As to MHD @17:
a. you ignore pollution when it increases on all levels - in actual practices urbanites create less pollution per capita in all three measures, as you well know, compared to suburbanites. You just basically are subsidizing sprawl with RTID/ST2.
b. Wetlands - much much more than the Arboretum - read the VOTED PACKAGE. It's in the filed online addenda.
c. basically all the new global warming gasses we create we're going to have to pay to reduce - the more we increase, the more we will have to pay to reduce. basic economics. even business magazines are talking about very likely costs for this in the US.
great post @19 ...
I find it interesting you guys are looking to Portland's tax structure for inspiration. Sure it didn't cost them as much of a tax increase at the time, but it did take away from other services-- their public schools are a mess! The money comes from somewhere.
Plus, our rail line is going to be on separated grade and therefore faster and more efficient. MAX slows to a horrible crawl downtown -- ours will glide on by.
#18, What are you talking about? The state has the money for its share of 520. Prove what you are saying.
#19, This package will make living in our beloved cities even better.
ps- for all you salmon lovers out there- how many more years do you want to pour toxic chemicals off 520 without being treated first? a vote for rtid builds a bridge (yes with the help of the state and the feds) that treats the water for contaminates before it hits lake washington
Vote yes.
"Never vote yes on a plan where they don't tell you what the full funding package will be make up of! Here, we know there's a gap, and it is growing because gas tax revenues are coming in lower and there may not be tolling (it is not popular in Olympia)."
Geez, boner. You sure did have to make a lot of stuff up to end with that doozie. Does the Weekly World News put out a transportation paper you're reading?
Start reading on Page 90, then get back to us.
Then, tell me how it's possible to vote down over a billion dollars for 520 funding, and get us any closer to construction? Diggin' the strong logic there, boner.
At what point do Josh and Erica stop being objective reporters and start being paid advocates for their causes?
Nice work kids!
"I find it highly amusing that Prop 1 sponsors are now on-record admitting that their pet roads+transit measure won't do a damned thing to relieve freeway congestion, which admission runs 180 degrees counter to all their fancy-schmancy assertions about reducing congestion, and commute times, and whatnot."
Does somebody want to help COMPTE out? He seems confused. Of the "easily" variety.
Maybe he thinks adding an HOV lane to 520, and improving major intersections like @ 405 & 520 or 405 & 167 will make congestion worse?
The state funded most of these major roads using statewide gas tax revenues. It would be stupid to ditch the remaining pieces we all know the region is going to have to pay for one way or another.
Or, maybe the tooth fairy will just ride in on her white horse, and deliver a free lunch to all the naysayers?
From Josh's link - "Light rail transit does require a significant up-front investment of $22 to $60 million per mile, but it costs less to operate per passenger carried."
Do you think at a cost of 5 to 10 times those costs that the equation comes out a little differently?
COMTE @1: Expected Cressona Wonk-off in: 5...4...3...2...1...
Dear COMTE,
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
shut the fuck up already @19:
Choices? If you don't like the transportation situation in Seattle and it's just curling your ass hair so...move to Portland or San Francisco or DC. Maybe if more people get frustrated and move away, my commute will get easier and I won't have to listen to whiny bitches comparing our situation to other cities.
Seattle: Love it or leave it!
STFUA, you have read my mind.
It's funny, the primary reason I moved to Seattle in the first place was that it was the one place I could get a decent job coming out of school. As a concerned citizen (and pathetic social climber), I decided to get active in transportation issues in my adopted town. Since then, I've spent several years fighting against Tim Eyman and freeways and viaducts, and fighting for light rail and monorail. And what do I have to show for all these efforts (concerned citizen-wise)? Well, it pretty much comes down to this vote. It's really all or nothing.
And if the answer is nothing? I'm already figuring, if this ballot measure fails to reach that 50.0% mark, I'll be asking myself, "Why should I care about a place where the majority of the residents are too selfish, shortsighted, backward, provincial, and fundamentalist to care about the place themselves or to share my values?"
I'm at the point now in my career where I can work pretty much anywhere I want to. So if this measure fails, slowly but surely, I'll probably start uprooting myself from Seattle. (Obviously, I don't share the local left's optimism about what happens next if this thing goes down.) I just have to be careful to not succumb to a "grass is always greener" mentality. I mean, Portland's got its own issues. Chicago's got its issues. Tel Aviv's got its issues. I'll have to do my homework.
Anyway, if I do leave Seattle, it's not going to be a Grant Cogswell parting where we Seattleites have to keep asking ourselves, "I thought that Grant Cogswell guy left." No, I will STFU. My attitude to Seattle will be a bit like the attitude of those people in the Bible who were instructed not to look back on the city they were fleeing lest they turn to stone.
My endorsement: Will in Seattle for mayor?!...
I'm sure, eventually though, I will check back in on rare occasion to see what the latest news is with Seattle's perpetual transportation mess. The irony is that, by then, all of Seattle's failure on transportation whereas once it was a source of despair for me as a Seattle resident will suddenly become a source of delight for me as a Seattle expatriate.
Yes, I confess, I will be guilty of schadenfreude. In fact, once I'm gone I will secretly wish nothing but failure on some wonderful, decent people like Jessyn Farrell and Bill LaBorde, people who really deserve nothing but success. I will root for the "lesser Seattleites" to fulfill their nostalgic, retrograde vision for Seattle. And if our friend "Will (Build Elevated Freeways) in Seattle" ever runs for mayor or county executive, he's gonna be receiving in the mail a big, fat contribution check from little, ol' me.
Okay, now I'm really confused:
"I've spent several years fighting against Tim Eyman and freeways and viaducts, and fighting for light rail and monorail."
But despite all that, you're willing to "settle" for wasting several tens of billions of dollars on freeways that, by the admission of the people sponsoring this bill, WON'T SOLVE THE FREEWAY CONGESTION PROBLEM Prop 1 purports to address.
Why? All I can gather from your voluminous posts to-date is because you'd rather give into the political blackmail this bill represents, and see all that money go down a fucking black hole, out of fear that the REAL solution, namely mass-transit, won't see the light of day again if this bill goes down, rather than refuse to cave in, and to demand the transportation package we should have been presented with in the first place.
I guess, if that's your definition of "selfish, shortsighted, backward, provincial, and fundamentalist to care about the place themselves or to share my values", then I'd regretfully have to agree with you, because clearly some of us WON'T compromise on this issue, if it means wasting billions on make-piece programs that represent the equivalent of paying for a bucket to bail out a sinking ocean liner.
It will keep freeway levels at something close to today's. A huge task considering how many people will be moving here in that amount of time. Thankfully, no new freeways will be built in Seattle. If the east side and Pierce want more freeway lanes that's their thing.
And we will get light rail.
That's the package folks.
Vote yes.
"Why? All I can gather from your voluminous posts to-date is because you'd rather give into the political blackmail this bill represents, and see all that money go down a fucking black hole, out of fear that the REAL solution, namely mass-transit, won't see the light of day again if this bill goes down,"
Most of that "black hole" is good stuff, despite what the Sierra Club propaganda machine spews out. That is why almost every other enviro group is in support of Prop 1. Look at the chart here:
If you think HOV lanes for buses and carpools are a waste of money, then go ahead, COMTE, be hysterical.
You will never find a regional package that's greener in this state.
We have to live with the WA State Legislature. And it doesn't particularly like light rail.
That will change, but it will take time.
"Thankfully, no new freeways will be built in Seattle. If the east side and Pierce want more freeway lanes that's their thing.
And we will get light rail.
That's the package folks. "
Cale, you have just committed the ultimate sins: acknowledging political reality, and understanding compromise is the key to democracy.
Shame on you.
I gotta agree that lane miles per capita is a good way to measure whether freeway capacity is objectively expanding. From the opposition RTID gets, you'd think it was proposing the RH Thompson or a bridge to Bremerton.
The RTID projects are hardly so bold. Finishing the gap in 509 makes sense. Why should people from the south have to drive past Southcenter to get to the Airport? The gap in 167 is just as dumb. The region's biggest port and biggest industrial/warehouse area lack a direct connection.
Okay, now I'm really confused:
COMTE, it's OK. I can understand perfectly why you would be confused by some transit activists' unflinching, passionate support for Roads & Transit.
Fundamentalism comes in many flavors: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Communist, fascist, nationalist, right-to-life, feminist, and yes, environmentalist. And yet, all these strands have far more similarities than differences.
COMTE, there's really no point in my arguing with you or your Sierra Club friends. Trying to reason with a fundamentalist is a bit like trying to talk a grizzly bear out of eating you. It is simply not in the fundamentalist's nature to reason or compromise. All I can do is appreciate you and marvel at you for the phenomenon that you are, and at the role you play in history.
Ah, but you didn't answer the question, did you Cressona: Why, if you have spent so much time fighting AGAINST freeway expansion, are you now willing to cave in and support freeway expansion that even its own backers now admit won't solve the basic problem outlined in their bill?
If the RTID segment of is so good, why haven't we been allowed a separate vote on both portions? Why don't its backers have enough confidence in their "solution" to let it stand on its own two feet?
Attention rail transit advocates (Josh, this means you):
Here is why you should vote YES on prop one. For you long-suffering Seattlites who have waited for-EVER to have a fixed system that reaches throughout the city, lo and behold a city-wide system is taking shape right under our noses. And with this package, the revenue stream needed for continuous expansion will be put in place. Consider this:
Project miles stations
Central Link: 16, 13
University Link: 3, 2
SLU Streetcar: 1.3, 11
Waterfront Streetcar: 2.2, 7
First Hill Streetcar (ST2): 2.8, 16
Seattle Monorail: 1, 2
Subtotals: 26.3, 51
ST2 Additions (in-city): 8, 5
Totals: 34.3, 56
These lines serve the following Seattle neighborhoods: Cap Hill, First Hill, Central Dist, Int'l Dist, Sodo, Beacon Hill, Mt Baker, Columbia City, Rainier Beach, Othello, Pioneer Sq (2x), Fin Dist, Westlake, Belltown (2x), SLU, Lower Queen Anne, Montlake, U-Dist, Wallingford, Roosevelt, Ravenna, Green Lake, Northgate, and Jackson Park. Did I leave any out?
Quick, someone with graphics capabilities whip up a map.
That's all well-and-good Clarity, but why do we have to have a shitty-assed roads package railroaded down our throats in order to get a decent fixed-rail mass transit system completed?
assuming you live in seattle comte, you'd hardly be getting roads shoved down your throat.
its put in the places where people want it.
seattlites don't need road improvements as much as we need transit, so we get light rail. people in monroe don't need a train because they don't have the density to support it, so they get a widened rt 2, etc. it is a good compromise.
it makes sense
COMTE and friends play a very dangerous game. The Sound Transit board pushed the envelope with this package. They said they wanted to build as much light rail as possible in each direction--50 miles of rail. They could have chosen a more modest program, but they realized that this is the best chance we have to build rail for our future.
So, if the Sierra Club prevails and Roads and Transit loses, what is the likely outcome for building rail?
1) Governance reform--the bill that almost passed last session would have set up seven huge districts of 300,000 voters each to build roads AND transit. This is progress? Seattle would have one and a half reps, roads would still get built. If Prop 1 fails, this is certainly worth betting on.
2) No election in 2008 for rail. Speaker Chopp wants to preserve and expand suburban Democrats in an election year. Governor Gregoire won by 132 votes on the third recount. Neither wants a huge tax measure on the ballot in an election year. So we wait until at least 2009.
3) Things slow way down. Sound Transit loses staff due to uncertain funding. This is very important. The first five years of ST were very rough and the board and staff both had to learn hard lessons. The Monorail imploded largely because of poor personnel decisions, an immature board, and too much confidence that they had all of the answers. It takes a while to form any new organization. Typically people first fight for dominance and position. Then they attempt to form some basic rules. Only then do they begin to actually create something. Storming, norming, and forming is what the behaviorists call it.
4) If and when a new light rail plan comes back, it will cost more and offer less. Current construction inflation pegs the annual cost of delay for 50 miles of light rail at $800 million. And packages usually come back smaller the second time around on almost any tax measure.
5) Rail will take even longer to build. Years wasted that could transform development patterns in this region and also get thousands out of their cars each day.
6) Roads will be back. State government builds roads, not transit. The powerful business and city interests behind each road will continue to lobby for funding.
I wish I could play the pollyanna, don't worry be happy now, Sierra Club view. But I believe that the consequences of voting against this package could well set us back severely.
Of the roads in the RTID, I think the Seattle projects at Mercer, Lander and Spokane Streets offer real potential to help make a surface option possible on the waterfront. It fixes the South Park Bridge--worst in the state, important to freight and commuters. HOV lanes are added on 520 and 167. I think at least half of the roads projects are worthy due to safety or transit reasons.
This is a good package. We need rail now. We are 40 years behind. Vote yes.
Cressona gets a little hyperactive at times, but I could easily find myself in the same boat. Quite frankly, I agree with her on this issue and I applaud her for the effort she puts into it. To me, this vote is a bellweather about what direction Seattle wants to take. If it's voted down, I plan on moving to a city that has been brave enough to make the right choice. A city like Chicago. Or maybe San Francisco. And, in the process, I'll leave Seattle to the people like Will because I know that's not a Seattle that I want to be in.
The reality of the situation is that both packages fail on their own separately, but they pass when combined. That's compromise, that's why the legislature slapped it together that way. The legislature is saying that time for the swimming lessons is over - it's time to sink or swim.
This is our region's best chance to work together to make something great happen for all of us. I like the idea of being able to get on a train on Capitol Hill and be able to get to Tacoma. Or be able to come back and not have to get off until I'm in the U District. Or that someone in Everett could do the same trip if they wanted without ever being on a road. The fact that these communities (and the Eastside) want to work together with Seattle for the good of the whole is quite frankly amazing. It's forward thinking and it recognizes that shared regional community and coming together for common goals. Will's lesser Seattle fantasy (ie, "fuck Tacoma for being founded, they deserve it") quite frankly scares the shit outta me. The region as a whole is growing and we have a chance to set it, as a region, on a better course. Ron Sims isn't thinking regionally, he's thinking county locally. Will's lesser Seattle mindset says "'burbs having rail is sacrilege." Have you seen the growth in Bellevue? They're moving beyond their Kemper Freemans and are doing growth right. We joke about the snotty rich, but the Mercer Island folk are willing to give up their SOV in HOV access for light rail to work on I-90. The cities in this region are willing to do this in order for our region to grow succesfully. This package is about numerous intricate layers of compromise to reach a regional solution.
The roads package doesn't bother me. In my opinion we're making needed infrastructure improvements. I hate cross base highway, but I'm not a single issue voter. We've settled presidential elections via litigation, so I have a hunch that cross base won't survive the onslaught it'll have going it's way if somebody decides to actually try to make the thing. Oh, and I've got nuttin' against park and ride lots either if it encourages transit use.
All of that is why I'm voting yes. This transit package is NOW kiddies. Not tomorrow.
Cressona @27, I never said we should build elevated freeways. I said we should replace the existing elevated viaduct. Big difference. But I also said that Cary Moon was right and that Surface Plus Transit was a good second choice that was viable if we doubled local transit (which Ron Sims did a lot to have happen, and that passed).
Speaking of which, Sierra Club just phoned me tonight and asked if I wanted a No sign for the RTID/ST2 - I said, sure. Delivering it tomorrow.
Will (Build Elevated Freeways in Seattle) @40, there's no need for you to explain why you campaigned and voted for a new elevated freeway, and against Cary Moon. Actually, it all kinda makes sense to me.
Just promise me one thing...
My own utopian dream of Seattle
If you guys win this time and Sound Transit loses, please, please, please, Will, run for mayor. I will support you. Maybe it's a bit of a pipe dream of mine to think you could get elected mayor. But it isn't such a pipe dream to hope that Dino Rossi will be elected governor and Ron Sims will continue to be King County executive, or that Jack Whisner will take command of King County Metro, or that the state legislature will stay just the way it is, or that maybe even a couple Sierra Clubbers join David Della and Nick Licata on the Seattle City Council.
Call it schadenfreude, but by then I will be an ex-Seattleite, and it will give me no small amount of satisfaction to see the Seattle region reducing its carbon footprint by the most effective means possible, by reducing the Seattle region.
It's probably far-fetched for me to dream of Seattle reaching a world without us stage of decay. But it's not so far-fetched to dream that Seattle will reach a Detroit or Buffalo stage of decay, or to hope that someday Ron Sims musters the political will to convert the entire Central Link right-of-way to bus service.
I'm with Cressona on one point - I'll help Will get elected mayor too. The town obviously needs more ideas from him. You know, stuff like fucking Tacoma for being founded and having people live there, wanting to build a larger freeway on the waterfront, and rail being a Seattle-only thing that connects Northgate to the Airport. That's a package I want to vote for!
You want it, dont you? That long, hard train. Plunging into the tunnel, fast and sleek. Its been a long time coming . . . you can almost taste it. Youll ride it again and again and again. Yes, yeeees . . . OH Yes!
Christ, Im ready for another. How about you?
Are the regional governance agencies in Portland and Denver dominated by road advocates?
Currently ST is controlled by the county executives. Each county has more than 300,000 people therefore people interested in roads should be winning those races, right?
If Ron Sims is replaced by a Republican who then appoints only pro bus members to ST, ST could stop building all rail and switch to bus.
No matter where one stands on rail or roads for that matter this measure is bad legislation. There are no controls or guarantees on ST only taxing authority.
We need a regional agency that coordinates the modes of transportation and has a strong say in zoning. PSRC already has a staff that would be the starting point for the new regional agency.
don't let the door hit you on the way out.
"We need a regional agency that coordinates the modes of transportation and has a strong say in zoning. PSRC already has a staff that would be the starting point for the new regional agency."
I knew you were in dreamland, whatever. But this sets a new standard for you.
There is no way on earth a region with strong emphasis on local control would ever cede local land use control over to a mega-agency.
How is it all Prop 1 opponents all base their opposition on pure fantasy?
Could we get somebody who knows what's going on to put up a decent argument?
I masturbate every night to the idea of a Max system in Seattle. And every morning too.
Josh, I applaud your fearlessness in employing logic to make your point. It is truly commendable. I don't know why you hate freedom so much, son, but you sure know your way around a cause-and-effect fallacy.
Monkeys - the STATE growth management has already reduced local control - don't follow zoning don't get roads or transit etc.
I believe the Portland agency includes some land use control.
The only fantasy is that Prop 1 makes sense and that giving ST unfettered control over 50 years of taxing authority with no guarantees of performance is prudent.
Josh, good point about the popularity of Portland light rail. More impressive are the results for the newly opened Minneapolis line, where ridership exceeded projections by 65%.
There is abundant reason to believe that, next year, ST1 will also be popular (and it had better be, otherwise there's no point in building it). If this is true, people are going to want more light rail. Given that we live in the Pacific Northwest, the response should be much stronger than in, say, Dallas Texas, where they also like their light rail, and have just voted to double it.
Therefore, if you are an environmentalist, it makes no sense to vote for Prop 1.
With or without Prop 1, you will get more trains. But if you do the right thing and vote Prop 1 down, you don't get the extra highways that will make global warming worse.
Scotto do have the cost to build in Minneapolis? The last and most expensive line buit in Portland in 2004 was under $60 million per mile. It was also subsidized by the Feds to the tune of 73% - their Airport line was built for the trade of land at the airport. Total costs for 44 miles $1.6 billion, of course, much was built with more valuable dollars.
Minneapolis - 12 miles 17 stations $720 million started 2001 finished 2004 - 2 miles of tunnels (that weren't already a transit tunnels) 60% federally funded.
Seattle 15 miles 14 stations 2.8 billion
25% federally funded 1 mile of new tunnel started 2003 to be completed 2009.
BTW Tip Toe - that was Minneaplois' first line - somehow they got it together. And they got their funding about the same time we did.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).


text:
The Wells Foundation is a non-profit organization that supports fundamental societal change through innovative and entrepreneurial action. We offer funding for change agents who combine a vision of social transformation with creative and practical solutions. These agents identify inefficiencies, solve problems, and persuade societies to see things in new ways. Where others see social problems, they see opportunities and a call for action.
While retaining a historical connection and strong affiliation with St. Mark's Cathedral in Minneapolis, Wells Foundation is a separate philanthropic organization. Our Board of Directors actively collaborates to adapt the Foundation's mission to current social issues and trends.
Funding is available through both grants and loans. Applications for grants are accepted every Fall; visit the dedicated Grant Application page for details. The Economic Betterment Loan page contains more information about that new program.
Wells Foundation is hosting its yearly concert to Honor Our Veterans on November 9, 2014 at St. Mark's Cathedral. This third annual concert is both to honor veterans and to raise money, again supporting veteran outreach organizations with substantial grants. This concert in also in honor of the late Robert Goodale, a dedicated member of the Wells board and supporter of previous concerts.
In 2016, Wells Foundation funded various community groups and projects including Alliance Housing, Avenues for Homeless Youth, BLIND, Beacon, Bridge for Youth, Circle of the Beloved, Midwest Children's Resource Center, Emerge Community Development, Four Directions Family Center, Full Cycle Bike Shop, The Link, Minnesota Assistance Council for Veterans, Neighborhood House, People Serving People, Project for Pride in Living (PPL), St. Stephen's of Minneapolis, Simpson Housing Services, Urban Homeworks, and YouthLink. The first loan was made in 2014 to Urban Homeworks .


text:
ROSENDALE — Ulster County sheriff's deputies said a High Falls man and woman, and an Ellenville man face burglary charges in a break-in Friday at a Town of Rosendale home.
Deputies said that soon after items were reported missing from a garage at the Rosendale home, they located an SUV matching a description of one that was reported leaving the area and that the stolen property was found inside.
Deputies said they arrested James Terbush, 40, and Faith White, 33, both of High Falls; and Jeff Wolcott, 31, of Ellenville.
All three were being held at Ulster County Jail in lieu of $10,000 cash or $20,000 bond.
Richard J. Bayne
Location, ST | website.com


text:
I've uploaded several transparent background PNGs to my site and I actually link to them, and it is important to maintain the transparency for the image. I still wanted to have a white background for when people open the thumbnail, though.
I found out a really simple CSS edit. Simply go here:
Find this segment:
And replace the background with whatever color you want. This will allow you to keep the transparency on your image, but make it easier to view on the website. Hope this helps some.