text:
|Percent of "Yes" vote in T-SPLOST referendum by precinct, August 2012, Atlanta Regional Commission.
"We took on the governor, the lieutenant governor, the mayor, big business and slick political consultants," boasted Atlanta Tea Party leader Debbie Dooley on July 31, 2012. "[And] we emerged victorious." And, indeed, they did. Though the votes were still being counted when Dooley delivered her victory speech at Midtown's Hudson Grille after last summer's primaries, the outcome was entirely clear: the T-SPLOST (Transportation Special-Purpose Local-Option Sales Tax), which supporters hailed as metro Atlanta's last great chance to solve its transportation crisis, was like its commuters, going nowhere fast.1
The story of Atlanta's T-SPLOST debate follows a long and winding road that began under the state's gold dome where, after four years of false starts, legislators passed the Transportation Investment Act of 2010 (TIA). The legislation carved the state into twelve transportation districts and charged elected officials in each with assembling a list of projects to be funded by a one-percent sales tax over ten years, essentially placing the fate of regional transportation planning in the hands of area voters. The mayors and county commissioners that composed the metro Atlanta "regional roundtable" then set to work crunching numbers, vetting projects, and trading horses in an effort that to longtime observers must have seemed a fool's errand. Competition, not collaboration, had long characterized metropolitan relationships and it wasn't altogether clear that area leaders could even agree on a slate of projects, much less persuade voters to foot the bill. But in the fall of 2011 the group announced that it had approved by unanimous consent a list of 157 projects in ten counties at a total cost of 6.14 billion dollars, surprising many a local cynic and perhaps even a few in the roundtable.2
Then the going got rough. From the outset, the Tea Party assailed a project list that squandered precious resources on transit. The Georgia chapter of the Sierra Club meanwhile announced their opposition on the basis that the list lavished generous sums on new roads. And for its part, the state NAACP took exception to a plan that did too little to promote transportation equity. Old resentments resurfaced, new alliances were forged, and with a hundred and fifty some odd projects included, almost everyone most found at least a few to dislike. For a majority, that was all it took. When the dust settled and the votes were tallied, Atlanta's T-SPLOST had failed. Miserably.
It failed not only in staunchly conservative, exurban counties like Fayette and Cherokee, but also in relatively progressive and populous Fulton and DeKalb—the supposed lynchpins of the regional campaign. Only thirty-seven percent of metro voters supported the T-SPLOST, and it won majorities in only two jurisdictions, the cities of Atlanta and Decatur. The final vote totaled 257,942 in favor and 417,593 against. In the first genuinely metropolitan conversation about transportation policy in nearly half a century, Atlanta area voters basically agreed to disagree. But about what?3
"We're saying you have screwed us . . ."
Untangling the reasons for the T-SPLOST's defeat remains a difficult task, but at least one thing can be said with complete certainty: the campaign didn't lack for financing. Faced with the possibility of defeat in what area leaders were calling the most important vote in a generation, Atlanta business leaders closed ranks and opened their wallets. Georgia Power and Cox Enterprises, the parent company of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, donated $250,000 apiece. Longtime stalwart Coca-Cola added another $197,500. The construction and design industries contributed more than a million dollars alone and even the good folks at Waffle House chipped in $25,000. All told, Citizens for Transportation Mobility, the political action committee that waged the "Untie Atlanta" campaign, raised a war chest of six and a half million dollars, and spent widely on mailers, door-to-door canvassing, phone banks and television ad buys. The leading opposition group, the Transportation Leadership Coalition, made do with little more than $14,000 and shoe leather.4
Even given their tremendous spending advantage, supporters of the measure had reasons to worry. One was the region's history of white, suburban resistance to public transportation, particularly the Metropolitan Atlanta Rail Transit Authority (MARTA). When it appeared on area ballots in 1971, MARTA's suburban opponents erected a populist defense of local autonomy and defeated the measure by a four to one margin. In the years that followed, the system's critics consistently opposed its expansion, and as the ugly expression "Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta" suggests, a great many were motivated by the worst reasons. Given this tortured history of race and rail, one might expect racial considerations would impact the vote. Indeed, it's hard to imagine otherwise.5
|Percentage of metro Atlanta white residents by 2010 census block group, 2013. Data from Social Explorer.
|Percentage of metro Atlanta black residents by 2010 census block group, 2013. Data from Social Explorer.
|Percentage of metro Atlanta Hispanic or Latino residents by 2010 census block group, 2013. Data from Social Explorer.
Still, there are a number of reasons to suspect that the 2012 T-SPLOST referendum is not the latest chapter in an all-too familiar story. For one, the metropolitan demographic landscape has been significantly altered in recent decades. Between 1960 and 1980, no fewer than 170,000 whites abandoned the city and Atlanta's white population was reduced from two-thirds of the total to a mere third. Even by 1971 when MARTA appeared on area ballots, white flight had produced a black majority inside the city limits and white majorities that exceeded ninety-five percent in the suburban counties of Cobb, Gwinnett and Clayton. However, the "white suburban noose" that Atlanta Mayor Sam Massell famously described some four decades ago has largely come apart at the seams. Today, Clayton has a two-thirds black majority, Gwinnett is majority-minority, and even Cobb, that bastion of lilly-white suburban conservatism, retains a non-Hispanic white majority of only fifty-five percent. Exurban counties like Cherokee or Fayette have demographics more in keeping with suburban stereotypes, but proposed transit lines would not have even approached their borders. In fact, only a single project on the entire list would have linked majority-black and majority-white counties by transit—a $690 million dollar bus rapid transit line traveling north from Atlanta to Cobb County. What's more, recent polling suggests that suburban hostility to public transportation may be in decline. According to a poll commissioned by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in the wake of the vote, sixty-eight percent of Cobb and Gwinnett residents "strongly or somewhat" supported extending rail lines beyond the core counties of DeKalb and Fulton. Only twenty-two percent were "strongly" opposed, and in 2010, voters in Clayton overwhelmingly approved a non-binding referendum in support of MARTA's expansion.6
To be sure, these figures should be regarded with some caution. In Atlanta and elsewhere, public transportation has been saddled with racial and class anxieties that are not easily overcome, a fact best illustrated by the forty-two percent of metropolitan poll respondents who still believe that crime and transit go hand in hand. And it bears repeating that while white residents have been relocating to the city proper in recent years and while suburban communities are now home to a wide variety of minority groups, beneath the veneer of metropolitan statistics, segregation by race and class remains a persistent feature of metropolitan life. Clayton County even earned the unhappy distinction of having the single highest rates of resegregation in the entire nation at the turn of the last century according to a study by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Whether on account of the persistence of segregation at the neighborhood level, the developing phenomenon of secessionist cities within core counties, access to quality schools or a host of other quality-of-life measures, it remains true that in metropolitan Atlanta, race still matters. Even so, shifting demographics, evolving views on public transportation and in this particular instance, the nature and location of transit projects under consideration, all suggest that a simple bifocal lens that focuses on white suburbs and black cities may no longer be the best tool for interpreting metropolitan transportation debates. In short, metropolitan relationships have become more complicated and more interesting, too.7
When coupled with their spending advantage, evidence indicating newfound support for transit must have given the measure's supporters reason to hope that it might succeed where past efforts had failed. Nevertheless, a great many observers were of the opinion that the referendum stood little chance of passing all along. Ironically, that group even includes the man charged with leading the "Untie Atlanta" campaign. David Stockert, chief executive of Post Properties and chairman of Citizens for Transportation Mobility, told reporters after the vote that the referendum was bound to fail; voter distrust in government was simply too great. "We could not overcome the bigger dynamics out there," Stockert admitted. "I don't think there's anything we could have done that would have changed the outcome." Indeed, local polling on the eve of the vote indicated that some ninety-one percent of the voters opposing the referendum were motivated by a profound lack of faith in government and a poll commissioned by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution months later confirmed that some sixty percent of metro residents believed few public officials were worthy of their trust and that government was wasteful. And there was a good deal of government here, to be sure. MARTA, a perennial conservative punching bag, was to receive $600 million in repairs and upgrades. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), which oversaw the roundtable's planning efforts, was no more popular with voters, having recently extended the tolls on Georgia 400 past their promised expiration date. Add to that the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority and various jurisdictions within the ten county area and you have a veritable alphabet soup of governmental oversight. Without clear lines of accountability or a history of regional decision-making, voters were asked to support not just their locally elected officials, but, as transportation reporter David Goldberg recently put it, "government writ large." The trust just wasn't there.8
|Robert Carpenter, Tax day Tea Party protest, Atlanta, Georgia, April 15, 2009.
According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman, the region's trust deficit did not develop by accident either. Instead, it reflects the organized efforts of conservative state lawmakers who have undertaken a "crusade to destroy public faith in the institutions that they themselves lead." While prominent conservatives still routinely inveigh against bloated government agencies, it may be that Georgians today may require more government, not less. According to the conservative think tank Tax Foundation, in the decade since Republicans assumed control of both houses of the state legislature, the Governor's office and virtually every statewide post of any consequence, state tax collections have declined by a quarter, making Georgia's leadership among the most parsimonious in the nation. Meanwhile the state ranks among the ten worst in the country in such categories as high school graduation, percentage of the population living in poverty, infant mortality and access to healthcare. While such ignominious distinctions suggest that state leaders have been penny wise and pound foolish, perhaps the greatest danger is that in Georgia and elsewhere, government's inability to solve problems has become a self-fulfilling prophesy.9
While Goldberg, Stockert, and Bookman are undoubtedly correct in their assessments, it may be that voter distrust in government cannot fully account for the referendum's dismal failure at the polls. After all, with a sour economy, a predominantly conservative electorate and a historic reluctance to embrace transportation alternatives, such concerns should have been expected. And as it happens, they were. The campaign's architects understood that the T-SPLOST would encounter stiff resistance in conservative jurisdictions and plotted a path to victory that required support from only thirty-five percent of the region's Republican males and just half of Republican women. With such limited support from conservatives, however, the campaign needed to win votes from sixty percent or more of the region's transit-supporting Democrats. And it is here, among area progressives and their interest groups, that the T-SPLOST's story becomes most interesting.10
Because many of the same anxieties that animated suburban resistance to MARTA's expansion were shared by state elected officials, the legislature has for more than four decades refused to divert any revenue from the state's gas tax to fund public transportation, making MARTA the nation's only big city transportation system to make do without assistance from the state. More recently, a combination of fare hikes and service cuts has resulted in declining ridership, raising serious doubts about the system's long-term financial viability at a time when other metro transit systems have experienced modest gains. Given the paucity of prior investment, campaign managers expected that public transportation advocates would have supported the measure with few reservations. After all, a slight majority of the measure's spending was devoted to transit-oriented projects and it would have established some twenty-one new miles of light rail, including worthy projects such as the Clifton Corridor MARTA extension, the Atlanta Streetcar, and the Beltline. Perhaps for this reason, the campaign focused most of its efforts on swaying suburban commuters, touting roadway improvements at the expense of rail and transit investments in its advertisements and promotional materials. Even in Democratic Clayton County, campaign spots promoted the creation of a super-arterial highway along Tara Boulevard, but said precious little about the resuscitation of C-TRAN, the county's bus system that folded in 2010 due to a lack of funding.11
The campaign's decision to downplay its investments in public transportation caused a rift between its central leadership and its more transit-minded supporters who even opted to watch election returns separately following the vote. But it was likely the transit advocates who had jumped ship months earlier, as opposed to those still on board, who sealed the referendum's fate. In the weeks and months prior to the vote, liberal leaders condemned the measure for failing to meet what state Senator Vincent Fort called "the fairness test." Not only would the proposal be funded by a regressive sales tax, but it would be levied on essentials such as groceries and medicine while motor fuel was inexplicably exempted. It provided some $600 million in new funds to MARTA, but required they be spent only on capital improvements as opposed to operations where deficits were greatest. And it entrusted the GDOT with more than six billion dollars in new tax receipts despite that agency's woeful record of letting as little as two percent of state contracts to minority-owned firms. The campaign meanwhile appeared to be unconcerned by its growing liberal opposition. According to spokesmen from both the state branches of the NAACP and the Sierra Club, campaign officials did little to court supporters from either group during the months prior to the vote and failed to even arrange meetings where their concerns could have been addressed. The DeKalb branch of the NAACP urged its supporters to oppose a sales tax that was "unfair, short-sighted, racist and deceitful." The group objected to the composition of the "regional roundtable," the refusal of state leaders to raise the gas tax, and the fact that residents in DeKalb and Fulton counties alone have supported MARTA with a penny sales tax since its inception in the early 1970s. But most of all, it took exception to the roundtable's decision to provide only $225 million for transit to South DeKalb—enough for buses, but not rail. "We're saying you have screwed us for years," thundered branch leader John Evans, "and we've paid all this money and you won't even give us this rail line to Stonecrest Mall." For its part, the Sierra Club was less concerned by the fate of any one project than by the steady erosion of transit funding during the final round of debate last fall, while the Atlanta Transit Riders Union registered its opposition on the basis that the referendum did little to expand MARTA's operations.12
However compelling, doubts about governmental accountability cannot fully explain the referendum's defeat. Instead, it would seem that Atlanta's T-SPLOST was undone not by tax-averse, suburban conservatives as so many had feared, but by the one constituency that campaign leaders had taken for granted: transit-supporting liberals in the metropolitan core. Or perhaps the best explanation sits somewhere at the intersection of these two narratives. Historically, transportation referenda have been contests between roads, rails, and supporters of both. But as Michael Lewyn, a fellow at the Congress for New Urbanism has recently observed, the rising tide of cynicism and "taxophobia" has engineered a new, "three cornered politics" of transportation policy where small government conservatives, road supporters, and transit advocates all vie in contention with one another. When transit supporters are divided, as was the case in Atlanta, tax-averse conservatives carry the day. Whatever the case, at least one thing now appears certain. The cooperation and unanimity demonstrated by members of the regional roundtable was less the rule than the exception, and metropolitan Atlanta is more fractious and more at odds with itself than anyone might have guessed.13
"You're not Hotlanta anymore . . ."
|Transit providers and routes in the Atlanta MPO area, 2009, Plan 2040, Appendix T-2, Atlanta Regional Commission.
"Atlanta is a perfect example," Robert Bruegmann said recently, "of a place like Los Angeles, Houston, Las Vegas or Phoenix that has done everything the wrong way according to the experts—and has thrived in spite of it." To be sure, Bruegmann should know whereof he spoke. A professor of urban planning at the University of Illinois-Chicago and author of the controversial Sprawl, Bruegmann has parted ways with the vast majority of his peers in the planning profession by touting the very patterns of expansive, leap-frogging development that are so apparent in Atlanta and its Sunbelt peers. And his assessment of Atlanta at least, is more or less correct. Even after decades of robust postwar growth, Atlanta was still posting gains that made it the envy of metropolitan centers nationwide in the 1980s thanks in large part to the expansion of suburban counties like Cobb and Gwinnett, the latter of which was the single fastest growing county in the nation for much of that decade. During the 1990s, the baton was passed to exurban counties like Forsyth, Henry and Paulding, each of which doubled in size enabling the metro population to grow by nearly 40 percent. All together, metro Atlanta has welcomed more than four million new residents and grown by some 6,700 square miles in the last four decades alone—rates of growth that led urban redevelopment impresario Christopher Leinberger to speculate in the mid 1990s that it was "probably the fastest-growing of any metropolitan area in the history of the world."14
At about the time of Atlanta's greatest civic achievement, however, there began to appear dents in the metropolitan armor. Just two years after hosting the 1996 Olympic Games, Atlanta ran afoul of federal air standards and became the nation's first metropolitan region to lose access to federal highway funds. Funding was restored a few years later when the city produced a plan to reduce its air pollution, but its reputation as a "poster child" for suburban sprawl has hardly improved. And while the recent recession has revealed weaknesses in many a metropolitan economy, Atlanta has suffered more than most of its peers. Its home values have plummeted further and faster than other major metros and its unemployment numbers have stubbornly remained a point or two north of national averages. Altogether, the city shed a remarkable 9.4 percent of all jobs during the recession. However, the most ominous numbers to emerge from the recent downturn may be those pertaining to the city's young, educated workers. During the 1990s, Atlanta was bested by only San Francisco as a magnet for college educated workers in the coveted twenty-five to thirty-four age bracket. Recent numbers indicate that the region's advantage in that department has all but disappeared, however, and Richard Florida, the author and academic who introduced the "creative class" to the national lexicon, now pegs the city a humble forty-seventh in his ranking of the country's best cities for recent college graduates. As Christopher Leinberger, now a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute put it in a recent address to area leaders, "you're not Hotlanta anymore."15
|"Clifton Corridor LPA-LRT 1," recommended locally preferred alternative, Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative.
Of the myriad challenges confronting the city and its leadership, three rise to the very top: education, which has long been a point of concern; water, which, due to the parsimony of the state's conservative leadership and their inability to resolve the long-standing, tri-state "water wars" amounts to an existential crisis, and yes, to be sure, and by all means, transportation. According to the Clean Air Campaign, the average metro Atlanta resident travels a full thirty-five miles to work each morning and spends more than $360 commuting to work every month, making the region's commutes the most costly in the country. All told, Atlantans spend an average of 260 hours a year commuting, which as the "Untie Atlanta" campaign helpfully reminded voters, is "like working another full time job for a month and a half without pay." And according to Adie Tomer of the Brookings Institute, the city's transit system "ranks dead last among the country's ten largest metropolitan areas when it comes to connecting people with jobs." None of which is to suggest that a successful referendum would have solved all of the region's troubles. While commuters traveling on roads covered by the referendum would have seen congestion cut by a quarter, and while select transit projects like the Clifton Corridor rail line would have dramatically improved the accessibility of large employment centers, the average Atlantan would have seen little more than a six percent improvement in commutes on a daily basis—evidence according to regional planners that reductions in congestion do not come cheap. It may be then that the T-SPLOST's greatest impact may have been to signal to national and even international audiences that Atlanta has the wherewithal to at least address its debilitating mobility crisis. With federal expenditures for transportation expected to decline in the coming years, policy experts have predicted that states and municipalities will have to shoulder greater financial burdens for transportation improvements. And so far they have. Of the sixty-two ballot initiatives it tracked last year, the Center for Transportation Excellence counted forty-nine victories for public transportation—a success rate of nearly eighty percent. Sunbelt cities such as Los Angeles and Phoenix and southern peers such as Durham, North Carolina have approved referenda to improve their transportation networks, focusing predominantly or even wholly on rail and transit. That makes the message from Atlanta perfectly clear: we're not keeping pace. Throughout the campaign, advocates warned of potentially dire consequences to the regional economy if the measure were to fail. As if on cue, Moody's announced a "credit negative" for Atlanta and downgraded MARTA's bond rating two days after the vote. The bond-rating agency did not mince words either: "The Atlanta region needs major upgrades to its dated and limited transit system and congested roadways to maintain its long-term position as an influential economic center."16
"There is No Plan B . . ."
Throughout the campaign it hung on the lips of local leaders, chamber men and advocates of every stripe. Governor Nathan Deal said it; so too did Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce President Sam Williams, and Norcross mayor and roundtable chairman Bucky Johnson among many others. It was repeated so often and in so many venues, in fact, that it acquired an almost liturgical quality, becoming less a talking point than an incantation to ward off doubt and cynicism. "There is no Plan B."
Strictly speaking, of course, it was not entirely true. The 2010 TIA-enabling legislation does provide area residents the opportunity to vote on a reconfigured project list after a two-year waiting period. If the experiences of other national metros are any indication, it might stand a better chance of passing the second time around. Certainly that is the preference of recently-retired Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers who called on officials to begin work drafting a second project list, albeit one more focused on roads. For her part, the Sierra Club's Colleen Kiernan began calling for a transit-intensive Plan B even before votes were cast. Recent polling by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has indicated that a majority of metro voters would support serious transportation improvements under the right circumstances, but splitting the difference between these two poles of opinion will not be any easier in a few years time and there are a great many other impediments to a second round of voting besides. Consider, for example, the matter of political will. A handful of local officials who supported the plan subsequently lost reelection bids and others were narrowly reelected. That means that a second referendum would need to be an awfully safe bet to ensure the requisite support from the ranks of metro Atlanta officialdom. In any event, it is not altogether clear that a second campaign would enjoy the same financial advantages as the first. Area business leaders bankrolled the "Untie Atlanta" campaign and prudent businesspeople, the thinking goes, are not inclined to throw good money after bad. But the single greatest obstacle to a second referendum may be Governor Nathan Deal.17
|"Percentage operations budget funding source," Figure 4, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Revenue and Expense Forecast Evaluation 2011–2016.
In the wake of the referendum's defeat, Deal signaled his opposition to a second round of voting, and indicated that he would personally take the initiative for state transportation improvements, assembling a "need to do" list of high priority projects like the Georgia 400/I-285 interchange. He also forswore new taxes of any kind to fund transportation investments. In a state that ranks a woeful forty-ninth in the nation in per capita transportation spending, that leaves precious little to pay for an awful lot. According to many planners, metro Atlantans can expect to encounter more toll roads in years to come, making the near future a lot like the recent past. And if transit-supporting opponents of the referendum and their allies in progressive interest groups like the Sierra Club thought that some combination of public advocacy and budgetary alchemy might result in a better deal for transit, the governor had a message for them, too. "Yesterday's vote slams the door on further expansion of our rail network anytime soon," said Deal.18
Intransigence at the state level has prompted many observers like longtime Atlanta opinion leader Maria Saporta to conclude that the time has come for Atlanta and the core counties of DeKalb and Fulton to "retake control of their own destinies." If state leaders are unwilling to invest in the region's future and exurban voters insist on nursing an anti-tax nihilism, she reckons, then the metropolitan core must take the reigns and lead the way. However smaller in physical reach, such an approach would undoubtedly result in a project list that privileges rails above roads and that signals to corporate concerns, rating agencies, and even the "young and restless" members of the "creative class" that Atlanta and its immediate environs at least are serious about planning for the future. If truly successful, it might even compel neighboring communities to keep pace and follow suit. Left unsaid, however, is the fact that such an approach would likely require state approval to even appear on area ballots, and Atlanta, as George Hooks, dean of the state senate recently admitted, "has always been the whipping boy." State leaders are none too keen on public transportation either, and in the legislative session that just concluded, genuinely regional solutions to the city's mobility crisis were not even debated. What's more, if recent legislative proposals are any indication, state legislators may demand a handsome pound of flesh in return for any support tendered Atlanta. One measure that failed to come up for a vote during the General Assembly's 2012 session would have taken important steps towards consolidating metro Atlanta's patchwork of transit providers under a single agency—but it also would have vested state leaders with veto power over the agency's decisions despite their devoting nary a cent to local transit operations. In the most recent legislative session, officials debated one measure that would have required MARTA to privatize many of its services and a second that would have lifted its onerous spending restrictions—but only for three years and only on the condition that that the newly-minted, conservative secessionist cities of North Fulton enjoy greater representation on the agency's board. All of which begs the question: what poison pill would Atlanta be forced to swallow simply to pay its own way?19
|Jim Pickerell, Passengers board a MARTA bus during rush hour, June 1974, National Archives at College Park, DOCUMERICA Series 556787.
|Wesley Fryer, Passengers exit a MARTA train, Atlanta, Georgia, June 26, 2007.
It is worth considering, too, what changes could be made to future proposals, not only to guarantee their success at the polls, but also to enhance their effectiveness for commuters. While all of the projects included in the T-SPOLST were subjected to rigorous analysis to ensure that they resulted in reduced travel times, the project list as a whole was not paired with thoroughgoing changes in land use regulations, meaning that regional transportation policy was still chasing development rather than shaping it. While it's hard to imagine suburban county leaders surrendering their right to approve the development of land within their borders, it's not impossible to contemplate a pared back proposal, focusing on the region's core counties, that leveraged rail investments by promoting greater density in their vicinity. Still more questions remain, particularly with respect to the constituencies and organizations that took part in the debate. Among the more interesting subplots to develop during the T-SPLOST debate has been the "odd bedfellows" pairing of the Sierra Club and the Tea Party. In the wake of the referendum's defeat, leaders from both organizations hastened to reassure their supporters that the alliance would not be permanent, though they did identify areas of common agreement. Of particular interest may be the Tea Party. The group was correctly identified as a "tax slayer" for its steadfast and influential opposition to the T-SPLOST, but it remains an open question as to whether the tight-fisted, grass roots organization can retain a seat at the high-dollar table that is Georgia politics. So far, Dooley and her fellow insurgents have been content to watch from the sidelines while others debated alternatives. The Sierra Club has been no more active, and despite being one of the first groups to call for a "Plan B," has preferred to devote its resources to other initiatives. And then there is the city's business establishment. Whether leading the successful bid for the Olympics, luring major league ball clubs to town, helping to establish MARTA, or even ridding the state flag of the Confederate battlefield emblem, Atlanta's business community has been the unseen hand in large-scale regional developments. The transportation referendum, however, may well have exposed the limits of business influence in a twenty-first century metropolis that spans ten counties by some measures and many, many more by others.20
The single, most profound question facing Atlanta remains what to do next. Denver's Tom Clark may have the answer. Eight years after Denver voters approved the FasTracks transit, which he calls the "nation's most ambitious transit program," Clark and his colleagues at the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation are still basking in the glow of their own success. They seem more than a little pleased by Atlanta's failure, too. As Clark put it in a recent blog post, "'A wise man does first what a fool does finally.' What do you call a fool who doesn't do anything?" Clark didn't say, but the answer, of course, is "Atlanta." When pitching FasTracks to voters in 2004, campaign managers even invoked Atlanta's example as one that Denver could not afford to follow.21 Perhaps not coincidentally, Denver recently surpassed Atlanta among the nation's best places for young workers. It is worth noting, however, that Denver's success came only after an earlier, failed referendum. What will it take for voters in the southern capital of the Sunbelt to follow Denver's lead and approve a second referendum in years hence? They may just need to decide that they do not want to be the next Atlanta either.
Southern Spaces invites your comments on this essay on our blog »
About the Author
Edward A. Hatfield is a PhD candidate in the history department at Emory University. His dissertation, The Too-Busy City: the Politics of Growth and Development in Atlanta, 1946–1996, examines metropolitan development in Atlanta and the Sunbelt in the half century after World War II.
- 1. Craig Schneider, "Tea party stakes claim as tax slayer," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 1, 2012.
- 2. The "regional roundtable" consisted of one mayor and one county commissioner from each of the region's ten counties as well as Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed. Ariel Hart, "FAQs: What you need to know about the referendum," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 4, 2012; Ariel Hart, "Less-grand plan a political reality: collaboration can only go so far, leaders admit. Voters will say in 2012 if it's enough for a start," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 16, 2011; Atlanta Region Transportation Investment Act (TIA) Roundtable, "Final Investment List," October 13, 2011, accessed, August 26, 2012, http://www.metroatlantatransportationvote.com/documents/Final_project_list_5-3-2012.pdf.
- 3. Atlanta Regional Commission, "Draft Precinct Results, % Vote Yes," August 3, 2012, accessed August 26, 2012, http://www.metroatlantatransportationvote.com/images/atl_voting_map.jpg; "General Primary/General Nonpartisan/Special Election, July 31, 2012," Georgia Election Results, accessed April 24, 2013, http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/40378/95366/en/select-county.html; Ariel Hart, "A loud and clear 'no': metro Atlanta's $7.2 billion transportation tax referendum fails. For 37%, Against 63%," The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, August 1, 2012.
- 4. Shannon McCaffrey and Ariel Hart, "TRANSPORTATION REFERENDUM: Business behind sales tax push: T-SPLOST rests on millions in funds from Ga. Firms," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 24, 2012; Jim Wallis, "Real estate, contractors top T-SPLOST's $8M donor list," Atlanta Unfiltered, July 24, 2012.
- 5. MARTA first went before voters in 1968 when it was defeated in the city of Atlanta and Fulton and DeKalb counties, largely due to opposition from black voters. Over the course of the next three years, the MARTA board invited its critics to the negotiating table and the system was reinvented as a genuine public service capable of winning support from the city's diverse constituencies. In 1971, it appeared on ballots for a second time and was approved by voters in the city of Atlanta and Fulton and DeKalb counties but defeated by voters in Clayton and Gwinnett counties. Though Cobb county had been included in MARTA's early plans, its residents voted against the system's expansion in 1965. For more on MARTA and the politics of race, see Larry Keating, Atlanta: Race, Class, and Urban Expansion (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001) and Edward A. Hatfield, MARTA and the Making of Suburban Conservatism (M.A. Thesis, University of Georgia, 2006).
- 6. Kevin Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 5, 263; "White Suburban Noose," Clayton News Daily, November 1, 1971; United States Census Bureau, "State and County QuickFacts: Clayton County, Georgia," accessed March 25, 2013, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/13063.html; United States Census Bureau, "State and County QuickFacts: Gwinnett County, Georgia," accessed March 25, 2013, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/13135.html; United States Census Bureau, "State and County QuickFacts: Cobb County, Georgia," accessed March 25, 2013, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/13067.html; Jennifer Mayerle, "Cobb County T-SPLOST: Rapid bus transit," accessed March 25, 2013, http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/19046752/cobb-county-t-splost-rapid-bus-transit; Ariel Hart, "Poll: Need seen, but trust lacking," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 9, 2012; Curt Yeomans, Clayton News Daily "Transit advocates call for MARTA referendum," August 14, 2012, accessed March 26, 2013, http://www.news-daily.com/news/2012/aug/14/transit-advocates-call-marta-referendum/. A similar non-binding referendum was narrowly defeated by Gwinnett voters in 2008 despite the fact that the wording seemed intended to produce a negative response. Maria Saporta, "Outcome of MARTA vote in Gwinnett signals shift to regional transit," Business Insider, July 20, 2008, accessed March 26, 2013, http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/businessinsider/entries/2008/07/20/.
- 7. Ariel Hart, "Voters reject transportation tax," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 1, 2012, accessed January 25, 2013, http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/voters-reject-transportation-tax/nQXfq/; Erica Frankenberg and Cungmei Lee, Race in American Public Schools: Rapidly Resegregating School Districts (Cambridge: Harvard University, 2002), 6–7.
- 8. Greg Bluestein, "TRANSPORTATION REFERENDUM THE AFTERMATH: Exec: Tax bid had no chance: Leader of T-SPLOST campaign cites outside forces; critic rips rigid mentality," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution August 13, 2012; Ariel Hart, "Government distrust sank tax," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 2, 2012; Ariel Hart, "Poll: Need seen, but trust lacking," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 9, 2012; David Goldberg, "Is metro Atlanta vote a bellweather for transportation funding?" Transportation for America, August 8, 2012, accessed August 23, 2012, http://t4america.org/blog/2012/08/07/is-metro-atlanta-vote-a-bellwether-for-transportation-funding/.
- 9. Jay Bookman, "The self-induced paralysis of Georgia government," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Jay Bookman Blog, August 8, 2012, accessed January 25, 2012, http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/08/08/the-self-induced-paralysis-of-georgia-government/; Gracie Bond Staples and D. Aileen Dodd, "State's high school graduation rate in 'crisis,'" The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 23, 2009; Nathan Deal, 2013 State-of-the-State Address, accessed January 25, 2013, http://bettergeorgia.com/2013/01/17/gov-nathan-deals-2013-state-of-the-state-address/; 24/7 Wall St., "The States with the Widest Gap Between the Rich and Poor," accessed January 25, 2013, http://247wallst.com/2012/05/31/ten-states-with-the-worst-income-inequality/3/; "Georgia: Infant Mortality (1990–2012)," United Health Foundation, accessed January 25, 2013, http://www.americashealthrankings.org/GA/IMR/2011; "Georgia, 2012: Overall Ranking," United Health Foundation, accessed April 29, 2013, http://www.americashealthrankings.org/GA/2012; Nathan Deal, "Deal: Focus on foundations that strengthen Georgia," Office of the Governor, January 17, 2013, accessed April 29, 2013, http://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2013-01-17/deal-focus-foundations-strengthen-georgia.
- 10. Aaron Gould Sheinin and Greg Bluestein, "Deal: Rule out revote," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 2, 2012; William E. Schmidt "Racial Roadblock Seen in Atlanta Transit System," The New York Times, July 22, 1987; Hart, "Voters reject transportation tax"; Ariel Hart, "Transportation tax campaign makes 300k calls," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 31, 2012.
- 11. Since 2001, ridership has fallen on MARTA's trains and buses by fifteen percent and thirty-one percent, respectively. Overall ridership declined by nearly five percent in 2012 alone; among other major metros, only Philadelphia experienced a decline in 2012 (one percent) and ridership increased by an average of 1.49 percent nationally; Steve Visser, "MARTA bucks national trend; Ridership keeps falling," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 31, 2013; Eric Sturgis, "Group says Georgia transportation plan needs more rail," May 25, 2012, accessed August 23, 2012, http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/may/25/colleen-kiernan/group-says-georgia-transportation-plan-needs-more/; Ariel Hart, "Transportation tax campaign makes 300k calls," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 31, 2012; Hart, "Voters reject transportation tax."
- 12. Vincent Fort, "Fairness, inclusion lacking in T-SPLOST," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Atlanta Forward Blog, July 24, 2012, accessed March 26, 2013, http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-forward/2012/07/24/1583/; "T-SPLOST - Vote No.: The DeKalb Branch NAACP's Opposition to the Transportation Investment Act," DeKalb NAACP, July 3, 2012, accessed August 23, 2012, http://dekalbganaacp.blogspot.com/2012/07/t-splost-vote-no.html; Colleen Kiernan, "Metro Atlanta turning winning season into losing one," Saporta Report, October 9, 2011, accessed August 23, 2012, http://saportareport.com/blog/2011/10/metro-atlanta-turning-winning-season-for-transit-into-a-losing-one/; Steve Visser, "Cracks grow in DeKalb's support for transit tax," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, February 26, 2012; Steve Visser, "MARTA riders wary of tax," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 28, 2012; Ariel Hart, "A Loud and Clear No: Metro Atlanta's $7.2 billion transportation tax referendum fails," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 1, 2012; Hart, "Voters reject transportation tax."
- 13. Michael Lewyn, "Three Cornered Politics," Congress For New Urbanism Website, August 1, 2012, accessed August 23, 2012, http://www.cnu.org/cnu-salons/2012/08/three-cornered-politics.
- 14. Michael E. Kanell, "Time for hard choices," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 31, 2011; John Helyar, "The fragmentation of greater Atlanta raises vital questions about its future," The Washington Post, February 29, 1988; Charles Jaret, "Suburban Expansion in Atlanta: 'The City without Limits' Faces Some," in Gregory D. Squires, ed. Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses (Washington DC: The Urban Institute Press, 2002); Adie Tomer and Jessica Lee, "What's Next for Transportation in Atlanta," The New Republic: The Avenue, August 1, 2012, accessed August 29, 2012, http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-avenue/105651/what%E2%80%99s-next-transportation-in-atlanta.
- 15. Jason Henderson, "The Politics of Mobility and Business Elites in Atlanta, Georgia," Urban Geography 25, no. 3 (2004): 196–197; Jaret, "Suburban Expansion in Atlanta," 168; Kanell, "Time for hard choices," A9; Dan Chapman, "Youth appeal fades," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 4, 2011; Tammy Joyner, "Passage of transportation referendum critical to ailing metro region, some south metro leaders say," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, February 9, 2011.
- 16. "Commuting and Traffic Congestion Fast Facts," Clean Air Campaign, accessed August 31, 2012, http://www.cleanaircampaign.org/For-the-Press/Press-Kit/Commuting-and-Traffic-Congestion-Fast-Facts; Airel Hart, "T-SPLOST 'education' campaign push starts," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 15, 2012; Tomer and Lee, "What's Next for Transportation in Atlanta"; Adie Tomer, "Where the Jobs Are: Employer Access to Labor by Transit," The Brookings Institution, July 11, 2012, accessed August 31, 2012, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/07/11-transit-jobs-tomer; Ariel Hart, "Will tax shorten Atlanta commutes, reduce traffic?" The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 20, 2012; "Will metro Atlanta rise? That's up to us?," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 31, 2011; Eric Jaffe, "We Shouldn't Be Surprised That Most Transit Referendums Won," The Atlantic Cities, November 13, 2012, accessed April 23, 2013, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/11/we-shouldnt-be-surprised-most-transit-referendums-won/3885/; Eric Jaffe, "The End of Federal Transportation Funding as We Know It," The Atlantic Cities, March 11, 2013, accessed April 23, 2013, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/03/its-end-federal-transportation-funding-we-know-it/4931/; "Transportation Ballot Measures," Center for Transportation Excellence, accessed April 23, 2013, http://www.cfte.org/elections; Scott Thomasson, "Advice for Passing a Massive Infrastructure Referendum," The Atlantic Cities, August 14, 2012, accessed August 31, 2012, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/08/advice-passing-massive-infrastructure-referendum/2945/.
- 17. Eric Stirgus, "T-SPLOST supporter says options are slim if referendum fails," PolitiFact, June 20, 2012, accessed September 6, 2012, http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/jun/20/terry-lawler/t-splost-supporter-says-options-are-slim-if-refere/; Jim Galloway, "Defeat gives Deal more control, few options," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 1, 2012; Maria Saporta, "Georgia's Sierra Club opposed to regional transportation tax," Saporta Report, April 30, 2012, accessed September 6, 2012, http://saportareport.com/blog/2012/04/georgias-sierra-club-opposed-to-regional-transportation-sales-tax/; Ariel Hart, "Poll: Need seen, but trust lacking," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 9, 2012.
- 18. Aaron Gould Sheinin and Greg Bluestein, "Deal: Rule out revote," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 2, 2012; Kim Severson, "For Transit Relief, Congested Atlanta Ponders a Penny Tax," The New York Times, July 15, 2012, accessed September 6, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/us/atlanta-area-residents-to-vote-on-tax-for-transportation.html; Bookman, "The self-induced paralysis of Georgia government"; Eric Stirgus, "Does Georgia have a pothole in transportation spending?" PolitiFact, August 7, 2012, accessed September 6, 2012, http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/aug/07/stacey-abrams/does-georgia-have-pothole-transportation-spending/; Nathan Deal, "Deal: We'll reprioritize on transportation," Office of the Governor, August 1, 2012, accessed April 29, 2013, http://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2012-08-01/deal-well-reprioritize-transportation.
- 19. While it would appear that significant public funding for transportation projects may not be available in the near term, Mayor Reed has indicated that public-private partnerships may feasible for the Beltline in particular. Ariel Hart, "After T-SPLOST defeat, transit plans slowed, but not stopped," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 3, 2013, accessed April 29, 2013, http://www.ajc.com/news/news/transit-plans-slowed-but-not-stopped/nTkzh/; Maria Saporta, "It's time for Atlanta, Fulton and DeKalb to retake control of their own destinies," Saporta Report, August 5, 2012, accessed September 6, 2012, http://saportareport.com/blog/2012/08/its-time-for-the-city-of-atlanta-fulton-and-dekalb-counties-to-retake-control-of-their-own-destiny/; Thomas Wheatley, "T-SPLOST failed but Atlanta hasn't," Creative Loafing, Atlanta 8, 2012, accessed September 6, 2012, http://clatl.com/atlanta/t-splost-failed-but-atlanta-hasnt/Content?oid=6060933; Chapman, "Youth appeal fades"; Dan Chapman, "1 region, many voices," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 3, 2011, A1, A9; Ariel Hart, "Prospect of regional transit plan raises ire," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 9, 2011, accessed September 6, 2012, http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/prospect-of-regional-transit-plan-raises-ire/nQPPb/; Ariel Hart, "Boon for toll lanes, not transit," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 2, 2012, Accessed September 6, 2012, http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/boon-for-toll-lanes-not-transit/nQShc/; Steve Visser, "MARTA privatization bill stalls in the Senate," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 19, 2013, accessed April 8, 2013, http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/marta-privatization-bill-stalls-in-senate/nWxpq/; Aaron Gould Sheinin and Kristina Torres, "What survived, what sank in legislative session," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 29, 2013, accessed April 8, 2013, http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/what-survived-what-sank-in-legislative-session/nQSgd/.
- 20. "Tea Party and Sierra Club Points of Agreement for Georgia's Transportation Future," Sierra Club, Georgia Chapter website, accessed September 9, 2012, http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageNavigator/20120430_TSPLOST.html; Craig Schneider, "Tea party stakes claim as tax slayer," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 1, 2012; Aaron Gould Sheinin and Ariel Hart, "T-SPLOST: Plan B? Not this year," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 2, 2013; Greg Bluestein, "Defeat puts Metro Atlanta Chamber at a crossroads," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 2, 2012.
- 21. Tom Clark, "Atlanta makes choice to help Metro Denver grow jobs," Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation website, August 2, 2012, accessed September 11, 2012, http://www.metrodenver.org/blog-tags/fastracks/atlanta-makes-choice-to-help-metro-denver-grow-jobs.html; Ariel Hart, "Atlanta's transportation future could have road map in Denver," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 24, 2011, accessed September 11, 2012, http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/atlantas-transportation-future-could-have-roadmap-/nQJwM/.


text:
Jake is back and he's armed. The 2010 Corvette C6.R was spotted by Dan from BadBoyVettes hanging out at the Pratt & Miller shop with a new look seemingly inspired by Ninja throwing stars and, umm, razor wire.
This will be the year marking the 'Vette's return to Le Mans but you don't have to wait until June to see it on the track as it'll debut at the Twelve Hours of Sebring on March 20th. [BadBoyVettes]

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Mt Rainier National Park attracts visitors year round for a variety of activities including snowshoeing, sledding, and cross-country skiing in the Winter and hiking, sight-seeing, and mountain climbing in the Summer. All four seasons offer extraordinary photography opportunities with or without the mountain as the backdrop.
NW Trek is another area favorite and is located about 30 minutes from Ashford. NW Trek is a 723-acre wildlife park that is home to more than 200 North American animals. Take the signature tram tour through the free-roaming area and spot moose, swan, bison, mountain goat, caribou, and more as they wander through forests, wetlands and meadows. Then stroll through the walking area to see the grizzlies, cats, and other forest and wetland critters. Considered by many to be the Pacific Northwest's finest zoo.
Mount Rainier Scenic Railroad is an authentic steam locomotive experience not to be missed! The train will take you on an excursion through the lush forest and river valleys of the Mt. Rainier area. MRSR offers a variety of open window and enclosed coaches pulled by vintage steam locomotives. A great Mount Rainier activity for all ages and levels of mobility
Each cabin has:
· Private hot tub
· Gas or wood fireplace
· Fully equipped kitchen
· Super-cozy beds and linens
· Breakfast included (self-catering) - Waffles and Starbucks coffee
· Hi-end mountain décor
· Landscaped yard with a built-in firepit
· TV/DVD with a selection of movies and games
· WiFi available at all cabins
Children are always welcome and we try to provide family necessities such as cribs, highchairs, booster chairs, toys, kids videos/dvd's, plastic dinnerware, emergency supplies kit, and more.
Pets are welcome at five of our cabins which mean you can bring the whole family on vacation. Each dog-friendly cabin is supplied with a doggie basket, which includes dog tags with the cabin address and phone number, dog towels, a sticky roller for hair removal, dog treats, and plastic baggies. We also provide a washable dog bed and food & water bowls. A large dog crate is provided for your convenience. *NOTE* Dogs are not allowed on trails inside the National Park.
Three Bears Lodge - Sleeps up to 10 guests, Dog friendly
This home is full of charm and features blue-pine walls, vaulted ceilings with skylights, and plenty of places to relax and enjoy a good book. There is a private bedroom downstairs with a queen-size bed and a sliding glass door that is just steps away from the private hot tub. In the A-frame room upstairs there is another queen-size bed in one end of the area and a trundle bed with 2 twins in the other end. Also upstairs is a loft area that overlooks the living room and has 2 additional twin-size bench-style beds. A full-size futon in the downstairs sunroom allows this cabin to accommodate up to 10 guests. There is one full bathroom with shower and large Jacuzzi tub and another ½ bathroom off of the sunroom. Another sliding glass door off of the large kitchen gives you access to the front deck and BBQ.
Lazy Bears Creekside Cabin -Sleeps up to 10 guests
There are 4 private bedrooms in this home: 2 have king-size beds and 2 have queen-size beds. The living room has french doors that open onto the large entertainment deck which overlooks the backyard and Big Creek. Prepare a meal on the stainless steel BBQ on the deck or in the kitchen that features high quality appliances. There is one full bathroom and one ¾ bathroom with large shower. For additional fun there is a Game Room that is detached from the main house with 2 twin-size bench-style beds, a game table, and a full size pool table.
Dancing Bear Lodge - Sleeps up to 18 guests
This cabin sits on a private 2 acres and is perfect for larger groups and families. The main house accommodates up to 14 guests with 4 private bedrooms, 2 sleeping areas, and 2 full bathrooms. Three of the bedrooms have king-size beds, one of the bedrooms has bunk-style beds, and the sleeping areas have a total of 3 queen-size futons with extra comfy memory foam mattresses. The kitchen is large and you would be fully prepared for cooking meals for a large group. Enjoy sharing a meal with your family and friends at the dining room table which seats up to 18. For larger groups or those wanting even more space, there is the Bonus Area which adds another 2 bedrooms (with king-size beds), a kitchenette, another bathroom with rain shower, and a full-size pool table. This home accommodates up to 18 guests when the Bonus Area is included. At the end of the day relax in the 8' hot tub or roast marshmallows in the outdoor fire pit.
Cedar Cabin on the Creek - Sleeps up to 8 guests, Dog friendly
This cabin is a 3 bedroom/1.5 bath home located about 3 miles from the National Park entrance, right on Big Creek. It has two bedrooms with king-size beds and a third bedroom with a bunk bed (twin on top and double below), so it would comfortably accommodate 6 guests. In addition to the full bath centrally located near all 3 of the bedrooms, the master bedroom includes another 1/2 bathroom. The backyard overlooks Big Creek and features a jetted, 6-person hot tub protected beneath a gazebo and a fire pit for roasting s'mores. Cedar Cabin is surrounded by woods and is ideal for those seeking a relaxing, nature-filled experience.
Starry Nights by the Creek - Sleeps up to 4 guests, Dog friendly
This home is an inviting 1 bedroom/2 bathroom log cabin located about 3 miles from the National Park entrance, right along Big Creek. This cabin is perfect for couples, but can sleep up to four with a queen-size bed in the private bedroom and another queen-size bed in the Great Room. The Great Room features a pool table, shuffle board table, electric dart board, and an authentic Vegas slot machine. From the covered back porch you can enjoy the views of Big Creek from your choice of padded lounge chair or jetted hot tub. Due to the antique and one-of-a-kind Early Americana memorabilia décor in this cabin, we ask that all guests are 21 years and older.
Coho Cabin - Sleeps up to 8 guests, Dog friendly
This chalet-style home is nestled within a heavily wooded acre of firs and cedar trees, located about 3 miles from the National Park entrance. The main cabin features 2 bedrooms, an open living-room/dining-room/kitchen area, and a large bathroom with claw-foot bathtub. The dining-room table can seat up to 6 guests. Separate from the cabin, by about 10 feet, is what we call the 'bunkhouse'. The bunkhouse is a small building with 2 bedrooms and a small jack-n-jill bathroom. All the beds at Coho Cabin are full-size. Outside there is a covered fire pit/BBQ area and a jetted 6 person hot tub.
Glowing Pines Log Cabin - Sleeps up to 6 guests
This log cabin home is located 2 minutes from the center of Ashford and about 10 minutes to the Paradise entrance to Mt Rainier. On the main level you will find a bedroom with bunk beds (twin-size over double), fully-equipped kitchen, and full bathroom. The entire upper area is a loft bedroom with queen-size bed and view of the open living area below. For additional fun, try a round of rod hockey on the foosball table. Outside there is a jetted hot tub overlooking the firepit.
The Mountaineers' Discounts
We offer a discount of 10% off any stay during The Mountaineers' organized events. Discount up to $100.
Please see our website for current discounts and specials!
|Map Legend
|Mt. Rainier Cabins at Three Bears Lodge
387th Avenue Ct. E & SR 706 E, Ashford, Washington
|Mount Rainier National Park
|1 Mile
|Horseback Riding, Fishing, Hiking & More
|Minutes Away
|Summer Season
|depending on cabin and guests
|Fall/Winter/Spring Season
|depending on cabin and guests
|Peak Holiday (Thanksgiving/Christmas)
|depending on cabin and guest count


text:
GSA Unveils New Sustainable Workplace Design Tool
February 7, 2011
Online resource helps federal agencies and private sector developers utilize innovative, cost-effective green building strategies.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. General Services Administration today launched an interactive online tool that will help building managers identify and prioritize cost-effective strategies to make office buildings and workplaces more sustainable. The sustainable facilities tool, www.sftool.org, makes it easy for both government and private-sector property managers to learn about sustainable practices and compare options for their renovation projects.
"Before creation of this site, there was no one-stop tool for learning about such a wide breadth of sustainable products and options available for retrofitting and renovating buildings," said Stephen Leeds, GSA's Senior Sustainability Officer. "Now, users can make informed decisions based on the best practices GSA has learned over many years of experience with sustainable building."
The sustainable facilities tool features 3-D interactive walk-throughs of office interiors and material comparisons, where it prompts users to consider multiple aspects of office performance. It suggests dozens of detailed material and system choices to help green the workplace. The website also features sustainable metrics, links to essential regulations and guidelines, case studies, and an easy-to-navigate user interface.
"With this tool, we are sharing GSA's experiences using innovative tools and strategies to reduce the environmental footprint of our buildings with the rest of the government and the general public," Leeds said.
Since the 1970s, GSA has been a leader in the creation of new sustainable buildings and the modernization of historic properties for the federal government. To help build the clean-energy economy of the future and create jobs, GSA has accelerated investments in sustainable technologies that will reduce energy and water use, and save taxpayer money in the future. The sustainable facilities tool captures this extensive experience in reducing the federal government's environmental footprint and makes it available to the public. In doing so, GSA believes both government and private-sector building managers and developers can benefit from the agency's real-world experience with proven environmentally preferable materials, technologies, and systems.
Take a look at the tool>> www.Sftool.org.
# # #
As the federal government's workplace solutions provider, the U.S. General Services Administration works to foster an effective, sustainable and transparent government for the American people. GSA's expertise in government workplace solutions include:
• Effective management of government assets including more than 9,600 government-owned or leased buildings and 215,000 vehicles in the federal fleet, and preservation of historic federal properties;
• Leveraging the government's buying power through responsible acquisition of products and services making up approximately 14 percent of the government's total procurement dollars;
• Providing innovative technology solutions to enhance government efficiency and increase citizen engagement; and,
• Promoting responsible use of federal resources through development of governmentwide policies ranging from federal travel to property and management practices.


text:
Bloomington, IN (SportsNetwork.com) - Indiana University head men's basketball coach Tom Crean announced Monday that sophomores Jeremy Hollowell and Austin Etherington have decided to transfer.
Hollowell started 15 games for the Hoosiers last season and averaged 5.7 points and 3.5 rebounds in 29 games overall. The 6-foot-8 wing owns career averages of 4.2 points and 2.7 rebounds in 62 games at Indiana.
"Jeremy has indicated to us that he would like to transfer to pursue another college opportunity," Crean said in a statement. "We have put a lot of time and effort into Jeremy, both on and off the court and it is our expectation that he finish strong in school and adhere to team rules. We will be there to provide any help we can give to him to find another program. We hope he realizes his full potential and we believe we did everything over the last two years to help make that happen."
Etherington, a redshirt sophomore, was a member of the program for three years and scored 93 points while appearing in 53 games.
"Austin told me this past Saturday night that he would like to take advantage of graduating in May and continue to play by relocating to another University," Crean stated. "He is going to be a three-year graduate and wants an opportunity to look for somewhere he can have a larger role. Even though that is his choice, we are going to miss him. He is a fine young man."


text:
Now that video gaming has caught on in most municipalities throughout suburban Chicago, one new twist that has benefitted retail landlords is video gaming cafés.
Already the rage in some western states, such as Oregon and Nevada, these new business establishments cater to women over 35 and offer pleasant, friendly environments to socialize with friends over a drink and/or a sandwich and do some legal gambling at up to five terminals per location. Anyone over 21, including men, are welcome.
Previously vacant storefronts are attracting these new players to the market, and they are paying top rents. These businesses are virtual cash cows, with most of their revenue derived from the gaming devices and not so much from the food and liquor. The food consists of breakfast, lunch and dinner – seven days a week – and liquor, beer and wine are on the menu.
To open a video gaming café, the proprietor must obtain a liquor license from the municipality or county. Gaming machine licenses are only granted to establishments if they have a liquor license. According to Gary Leff, CEO of Laredo Hospitality, who heads up Stella's Place, a single gaming café can generate $30,000 a year in revenue to the municipality. That's not exactly red-light camera money, but it's not chump change, either.
An Oct. 8 Chicago Tribune article reported that "over the next few months, dozens of video gaming cafés could open in the Chicago area. Twenty locations are already operating in south and central Illinois. And another 80 soon could come on line, mostly in the Chicago area."
Three of the prominent leaders in the video gaming business are Stella's Place, Lucy's Place, and Dotty's Café. I recently attended a grand opening for Stella's Place at 1171A N. Barrington Road, Hoffman Estates. Dotty's just opened in Crestwood at 13557 Cicero Ave. Both are snapping up locations in towns where video gaming has been approved. Lucy's, Penny's and Betty's are three other names in this newly evolving business craze.
The benefits of this relatively new state law in Illinois allowing gaming are legion. The local taverns who obtain a gaming license stand to make an average of $5,000 per month, according to George Lange of Gold Rush Amusements, a major purveyor of the actual gaming devices. This bonus money has allowed struggling tavern owners to improve their buildings with new roofs, signage, interiors, etc. They get to keep 35 percent of the money taken in by the machines. The state takes 25 percent of the money, and the municipality takes 5 percent.
Critics of video gaming say the losers are the people who get hooked on the games, often gambling away their paychecks or mortgage payment. The addictive aspect of gambling seems to be the overriding concern of the opponents.
I probably never will partake in one of these establishments, at least not for the gaming component. I don't even play the lottery. But as a commercial real estate broker watching clients suffer with empty stores for several years, I see this new category of business as a shot in the arm. These new businesses pay top rents, they hire local employees, and they pay sales and gaming taxes. For most local economies, it doesn't get much better than that.
Towns in and around McHenry County that have approved video gaming are Algonquin, Cary, Fox Lake, Fox River Grove, Gilberts, Hampshire, Huntley, Johnsburg, Lake in the Hills, Lakemoor, McHenry, unincorporated McHenry County, Oakwood Hills, Richmond, Port Barrington, Ringwood, Spring Grove, Union and Woodstock. Others are conspicuous by their absence.
Those that haven't approved video gaming, such as Crystal Lake, have been accused of putting their local bars at a disadvantage. This approach of taking the moral high ground is the City Council's prerogative, but I just can't see why they would want their residents to spend money in somebody else's town.
It's OK to buy lottery tickets but not drop coins in a machine? Whatever happened to free will?
Opponents say these machines are the crack cocaine of gambling. I say they are no more the crack cocaine of gambling than frequent flyer miles are to credit card debt. Of course, if all towns allowed this, no one would have the upper hand.
Like it or not, these new businesses are coming to a town near you. Multiple millions of dollars are going to be made and lost in the name of entertainment.
If you are looking for redeeming social value, you are barking up the wrong terminal.
Go visit one of these places like I did, and see for yourself. You might actually like it.
• Bruce Kaplan is a senior broker associate with Premier Commercial Realty in Lake in the Hills. Reach him at firstname.lastname@example.com or www.profit-success.net.


text:
StoreCrowd necesitaba un nuevo diseño de logotipo y lanzó un concurso de diseño en 99designs.
Un ganador ha sido elegido entre 229 diseños de 60 diseñadores freelance.
StoreCrowd is a social deal/bargain hunting community for the savvy shopper who likes to save as much as possible at the checkout.
This comes in the form of (bear in mind this is our current design not the new one as shown below):
Coupon codes - http://storecrowd.com/coupons
Deals - http://storecrowd.com/deals
Our target audience varies from Coupon Clipping Mum's to savvy Tech Geeks looking to save money on that new piece of gear.
We're after an innovative approach to a logo including our branding 'StoreCrowd' (all one word).
We're giving full creative freedom to come up with whatever you like. Consider anything with a store or a crowd, or both if you can make it work!
To get an idea of where the logo will be situated here's a screenshot of our new header: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4164173/homepage.png
You'll need to consider that it needs to fit in with the color scheme & the positioning. We can make additional room horizontally but we're against making the header any higher vertically.
Consider some of the other logos that we like to see the style we're after:
Here's two ideas we had, feel free to try but ideally would like you guys to be creative so don't limit yourself to these:
Making the crowd part of the text "crowded" outside a store
Having people queue outside a store holding signs that spell the name
The problem we've faced is that we LOVE simplicity, we want something simple yet effective.
Leave comments if you have any questions! Good luck all!
Descubre cómo funciona un concurso de diseño u obtén más información sobre nuestros servicios de diseño de logo.


text:
I have joked about "Dragon Effect" before, when playing through BioWare's vaguely parallel science-fiction and fantasy-franchises at the same time. Fan artist Andrew Ryan Art, though, has done one better.
Miranda as Morrigan I can actually kind of buy in to. And of course Jack is a dangerous-looking blood mage. For the full set, which includes Grunt, Garrus, Thane, and Wrex, hit up the artist's page. Meanwhile, I will wonder what kind of role Tali would fill in Thedas.
"Dragon Effect" Progress Shot [DeviantArt via Twitter]


text:
Publication Archive
This archive contains all documents published by cep over the last few years:
cepAdhoc: Incisive comment on current EU policy issues.
cepPolicyBrief: Concise 4-page reviews of EU proposals (Regulations, Directives, Green Papers, White Papers, Communications) – including a brief summary and economic and legal assessments.
cepInput: Impulse to current discussions of EU policies.
cepStudy: Comprehensive examination of EU policy proposals affecting the economy.
The strategy "Europe 2020" replaces the failed strategy of Lisbon and is to "turn" the EU into a "smart, sustainable and inclusive economy" delivering "high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion". The Commission is setting five headline targets to be attained by 2020 with the highest priority being smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The European Council has approved three of the five key targets, but strongly mitigated the other two. Moreover, the Commission is putting forward seven flagship initiatives which are to "commit both the EU and the Member States" and to be pursued by the Commission and the Member States. The Commission intends to monitor progress of target achievement by reports to be provided by the Member States.
With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon the legal basis for the comitology system- the procedure according to which the EU Commission may adopt acts - was revoked. In future, the delegation of legislative powers to the Commission will be subjected to Art. 290 and 291 TFEU. However, detailed rules regarding the delegation and scrutiny of how these are exercised are not provided for in the new Treaty. These will have to be the objective of an agreement to be concluded between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, the interests of these parties differ considerably in parts. In its Communication (COM(2009) 673 the Commission has presented its vision of how the new procedure should be shaped.
The amendment of the Prospectus Directive is part of a simplification programme by the Commission to cut administrative burdens. Against this background, the Commission wants to make it easier to issue securities in the EU. Also, it aims at increasing legal certainty and lowering costs.
The Commission intends to promote the use of public private partnerships in order to mobilise private funds for public investment projects. To this end, it wishes to remove obstacles to the implementation of PPPs in Member States and the EU and to support PPPs through EU funding.
The Commission aims to eliminate "health inequalities" between Member States, different population groups and between men and women. To this end, it plans to have the data base on health inequalities in the EU extended, to promote the exchange of best practices and to fund these actions through the framework of cohesion policy.
According to the Commission key enabling technologies are of "systemic relevance" for the European economy and provide the basis for process, goods and service innovation. Therefore, a process is to be launched whose purpose is to identify and promote the key enabling technologies in the EU. The research base for the development of key enabling technologies in the EU is to be strengthened through "the right framework conditions and support instruments".Synergy effects created by a better coordination of research promotion and joint action by Member States are assumed to be beneficial to European companies. The Commission promotes the establishment of an EU patent and a unified patent litigation system in Europe.
The food supply chain comprises agricultural enterprises producing commodities, commodity exchange traders, food processing companies, (producers) and food retailers. The Commission criticises the lacking "resilience" to boosting commodity prices ("shocks in agricultural prices").It deems a "better functioning food supply chain" as "urgently" needed to avoid an "escalation" in prices as the economic recovery sets in. In its Communication it presents measures to achieve these objectives. Amongst other things, it intends to prepare sets of standard contracts, whose use would be voluntary for the market players.
Since the onset of the financial crisis the EU Financial Market Supervision, which is still very nationally-oriented, is up for discussion. Now, the Commission proposes the establishment of three European supervisory authorities (ESA) which are to ensure an improved prudential supervision of banks, insurances and investment firms.


text:
Queen's Own Yeomanry
Queens Own Yeomanry Beanie Hat
Beanie Hat with Embroidered Logo.Choice of 6 coloursFashion Fit HatWashable. Fashion fit. Full size. One Size fits all100% soft-feel acrylic
from £10.95
Queens Own Yeomanry T-Shirt
100% cotton pre-shrunk jersey. Seamless collar. Double needle topstitched neckline. Taped neck and shoulders. Double stitched sleeve and waist hem....View full details
from £11.25
Queens Own Yeomanry Vest
A great alternative to the T shirt for the gym and summer activities in an athletic male fit, designed for action.The cut ensures no gaping at the ...View full details
Queens Own Yeomanry Heavy Knit Scarf
One size (165 x 20cm)Comes with regiment logo embroidered on.Luxurious, heavy weight knitted scarf in classic style.100% PolyAcrylic
from £11.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Sports T-Shirt
Whether you're training for a marathon or just going for a run around the block, these t-shirts are perfect for you! 100% polyester.
Queens Own Yeomanry Pom Pom Beanie Hat
Pom Pom Beanie Hat with Embroidered Logo.Choice of 4 coloursPull-on style. Sumptuous heavy cable knit. Hand-knitted feel. Suprafleece™ thermal band...View full details
Queens Own Yeomanry Classic Check Scarf
Comes with regiment logo embroidered on.With a classic woven check pattern and tassel trim, this is the ultimate scarf for Autumn/Winter layering. ...View full details
Queens Own Yeomanry Performance Shorts
Elasticated waist. Mini mesh lined inner with drawcord. Textured fabric with inherent wickability and quick drying properties. Side pockets. Intern...View full details
from £13.50
Queens Own Yeomanry Sport Athletic Vest
Regimental badge embroidered on left breast. Performance lightweight sport vest. Extremely lightweight. Quick drying. Fast wicking moisture transfe...View full details
from £14.50
Queens Own Yeomanry Sports T-Shirt (contrast panels)
Regimental badge embroidered on left breast. 100% polyester. Quick drying fabric. Contrast panels.
from £14.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Polo Shirt
Taped back neck. Tape reinforced shoulder seams. Comfort finish cuff seams. Twin needle stitched hem and shoulders. Slanted placket. Regiment logo ...View full details
Queens Own Yeomanry Canterbury Beanie Hat
Canterbury rugby beanie headwear with regiment embroidered logo centre and Canterbury logo embroidered on left side.Choice of 2 coloursOne Size fit...View full details
from £16.50
Queens Own Yeomanry Sweatshirt
Classic sweatshirt in a crew neck style with set in sleeves. Half moon yoke with ribbed cuffs and hem. Taped neck and twin needle stitching for dur...View full details
from £17.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Performance Polo
Coolplus fibres and yarns enabling moisture transportation (wicking), breathability and also quick dry properties. Pique polo shirt with contrast p...View full details
from £19.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Hoodie
Twin needle stitching detailing. Double fabric hood with self coloured cords. Kangaroo pouch pocket. Ribbed cuffs and hem. Regiment logo embroidere...View full details
Queens Own Yeomanry Sweatpants
Deep rib waistband with inside drawcord Single back patch pocket Side pockets Fabric: 80% Ringspun cotton, 20% Polyester
from £19.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Army Rugby Shirt
Regimental/corps badge of your choice embroidered on left breast. Sublimated all over design with Army badge on right breast. Light weight, wick...View full details
Queens Own Yeomanry Teamwear Holdall Bag
Detachable adjustable shoulder strap with pad, 2 large end pockets. Protective base feet. Padded hand grip. Internal baseboard. Padded hand grip. ...View full details
from £23.25
Queens Own Yeomanry Fleece
Outdoor fleeces don't need to be bulky. Our outdoor fleeces keep you warm and look good at the same time.The compact fleece material, the smooth su...View full details
from £23.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Canterbury Rugby Polo
Regimental cap badge embroidered on left breast. The regular fit Waimak Polo shirt has a knit ribbed collar and cuffs with a CCC logo on the right...View full details
Queens Own Yeomanry Long Sleeve Quartered Rugby Shirt
Quartered Rugby Shirt with embroidered logo on left breast.This 100% Ring Spun cotton jersey weighs in at 300gsm and is available in 6 colours. It ...View full details
from £24.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Arundel Sweater
Regiment logo embroidered on left breast. A popular men's knitwear garment that combines a versatile fine gauge knit with smart durability. Fabric:...View full details
from £24.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Long Sleeve Rugby Shirt
Regimental badge embroidered on left breast. Taped shoulders and side vents, rubber buttons. Elastane re-inforced cuffs for shape retention. Twi...View full details
Queens Own Yeomanry Mountain Bike Jersey
Red Route Riders branded Long-sleeved jersey with mesh panels sides for extra Ventilation and comfortIdeal for Downhill, Enduro and Trail ridingExt...View full details
from £33.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Lambswool V-Neck Jumper
Regiment badge embroidered on left breast. 100% Lambswool Pure New Wool. Woolmark approved Machine Washable Lambswool. 9 gauge knit with semi fashi...View full details
from £34.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Gilbert Rugby Shirt
Cotton twill taping at collar opening for strength mandarin collar. Moisture-controlling materials allow air to flow close to the skin and draw hea...View full details
from £39.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Canterbury Rugby Hoodie
Regimental cap badge embroidered on left breast. This Canterbury rugby hoody features a kangaroo pocket to the centre front and a CCC embroidered l...View full details
from £39.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Gilbert Hooped Rugby Shirt
Hooped shirt. Cotton twill taping at collar opening for strength mandarin collar. Moisture-controlling materials allow air to flow close to the ski...View full details
Queens Own Yeomanry Gilbert Photon Trousers
Water-repellant, lightweight and durable training trouser. Elasticated waistband and cuff with side zip for easy shoe access.
from £39.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Gilbert Warm-Up Training Top
Water-repellant, lightweight and durable training top, ideal for use at club or school level. Elasticated cuffs and easy stretch collar, ideal for ...View full details
from £40.00
Queens Own Yeomanry Dressing Gown
Towelling kimono style robe with belt Easy tear out back neck label Large deep pockets Fabric: 100% Cotton Size:S/M (Length 120cm), L/XL (Length ...View full details
from £44.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Softshell Jacket
The Jacket is a breathable 3 layer Softshell fabric is windproof and water-resistant. Regiment logo embroidered on left breast.
from £44.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Gilbert Half-Zip Fleece
Multipurpose garment made from micro polyester fleece and elastane. Provides warmth and comfort on the touchline or on the training field. Anti-pil...View full details
from £69.95
Queens Own Yeomanry Stormtech Technical Softshell
Stormtech 3-Layer H2XTREME 5,000/5,000 Waterproof / Breathable Outer Shell Reverse-Taped Center Front Zipper Articulated Sleeves Velcro Adjusta...View full details


text:
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) Defending champion Victoria Azarenka has advanced to the Australian Open semifinals with a 7-5, 6-1 win over former two-time Grand Slam winner Svetlana Kuznetsova.
Azarenka broke Kuznetsova's serve in the 11th game of the 1 hour, 17-minute opening set Wednesday, then held her own service in the next game to win on her third set point when Kuznetsova netted a backhand.
Azarenka, who will play Serena Williams or Sloane Stephens in the semifinals, beat Maria Sharapova in last year's title match at Melbourne Park for her first Grand Slam.


text:
Send us your Arcadia photos:
Arcadia is a village in Hancock County, in the Findlay metro area.
The community was named after section of Greece
The latitude of Arcadia is 41.108N. The longitude is -83.516W.It is in the Eastern Standard time zone. Elevation is 807 feet.
The estimated population, in 2003, was 580.
Sections below provide additional information and links about Arcadia demographics, travel and tourism, nearby airports, cemeteries, the Hancock County economy, education, environment, genealogy, government, historic sites, libraries, maps, museums, newspapers and other media, nonprofit groups, real estate, recreation, religion, transportation, and weather in the 44804 ZIP code.
49% of Arcadia residents report German ancestry, and 11% report Irish. For more info on local ancestry groups, see the Arcadia ancestry & family history guide.
Post a query on a message board:
Records & databases:
At the time of the 2000 census, the per capita income in Arcadia was $18,525, compared with $21,587 nationally.
6% of Arcadia residents age 25 and older have a bachelor's or advanced college degree.
Median rent in Arcadia, at the time of the 2000 Census, was $336. Monthly homeowner costs, for people with mortgages, were $723.
Hancock County supported George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election. For more information, see our Arcadia political report.
The average commute time for Arcadia workers is 16 minutes, compared with 26 minutes nationwide.
Browse list of Ohio community profiles
Cons: Small town snobs abound...
Read the Entire Review
Read Other Reviews
More info about Arcadia:
Send us your corrections and additions
Search Associate's degrees, Bachelor's degrees, Master's degrees, Certificate programs, Diploma programs, and many others.
Enter your ZIP or Postal code to find schools near you. Your dream major may be just around the corner!


text:
While covering the Barrett-Jackson auction this weekend, specifically the $1 million purchase of the first "retailable" 2009 Corvette ZR1, we did a quick Google search for the 2009 Corvette ZR1 in order to pull up our old story on the new super-Vette from the General. When the results came up, we noticed something rather odd. No, not Motor Trend being the first result — we mean, come on, they're Motor fuckin' Trend — the fact that Jalopnik is merely a step behind them says little about us and more about Motor Trend's inability to leverage their brand name on the internet — and about how low they've let their brand name go. But we digress. What was weird was that they've got their "exclusive" "scoop" on the ZR1 set up in the "roadtest" section of their site. What? Do they know something we don't? Was there some super-secret drive of the new ZR1 they partook in with Chevy? Our sources at Chevy say no. So what's the reason?
Perhaps the magazine all about the Trend in all-things Motor was merely trying to game the Google system. Basically, if someone does a search for something like "2009 corvette zr1 road test," in order to figure out if they want to buy a super car like the new 2009 Corvette ZR1, and to read about what an actual road test in Zee Really fast 1 would be like, they'd end up with Motor Trend right on top of the search results. This despite not actually having a road test for the prospective reader to read on the new 'vette. Not to smack them for it — just stating what we're seeing — or are we missing something here? [Google Search]


text:
What is the difference between an "ante" and a "blind" in poker?
Ante and blinds are both forced bets.
Ante is a bet that everyone in the game must make in order to stay at the table. It forces there to always be at least some payout in the pot, increasing the relative value of playing a hand to folding.
Blinds are bets that only one or two players are forced to make, usually a small blind and a big blind, the small blind at half the big blind. They are bet by the two players after the dealer, and thus rotate around as the dealer rotates. The blinds start betting off; bidding starts with the player after the big blind, and players must call or raise the blind bet to stay in the game, otherwise they fold. It puts less in the pot than ante does, thus it does less to incentivize staying in the game, but it still puts enough in that it's worth it for some people to stay in as they do stand to win something, and the players who played the blinds stand to lose them if they simply fold.
2Blinds rotate around the table as well - each hand they move one player to the left, typically. In addition, they typically increase at scheduled intervals during a tournament. – lilserf Oct 21 '10 at 3:13
1Depending on the structure of the game, there may be 2 equal blinds, or only 1 blind. Also, you can't say that blinds put more or less in the pot than antes - that depends on the amount of each. – Chris Marasti-Georg Dec 20 '11 at 19:06
You can say that for a particular value, blinds put in less than ante. A blind of $N puts less into the pot than an ante of $N – Caleth Apr 17 at 16:10
Ante is given by all players before cards are dealt. It's effect is to make sure that everyone has some skin in the game, and that people don't instantly fold when dealt less than stellar cards.
Blinds are a different way of dividing up the ante so that only a few player are committed to the game before seeing their cards. They are generally split into big and small blinds. The big blind is the full 'ante' for the round. The small blind is a smaller sum. The blinds are bet before cards are dealt, but after seeing the initial cards, players can either fold, pay so that they have equaled the big blind, or place a higher bet.
When playing with an ante, all players have to give the same amount before they are allowed to see their cards. Thus, everyone has an equal stake in the current hand, and folding is less common in early betting rounds. (It's the "I already paid so I might as well stick around for another card" mentality.) Antes have the benefit of allowing players to sit out any hand (say, to go to the restroom or take a phone call) or even quite the game without any sense of unfairness.
Blinds are unequal forced bets usually imposed on two players per round. After seeing their cards, the remaining players have to call or raise to stay in the hand. Since there is initially an unequal stake in the hand, folding is common. (Why stay in if you haven't put anything in the pot and you have a lousy hand so far?) Also, savvy players can "over-raise" on the blind round to force everyone into folding, thus slowly building wealth by bleeding their opponents of the blinds. And with a blind system, if a player needs to leave the table for some reason, the fairness of the game becomes problematic, as they obviously can't leave when they are up for a blind, but leaving at another time would rob them of a "free" hand. Or does everyone wait however long it takes for that player to return?
(In case you can't tell, I consider blinds to be a blight on the noble game of poker. Antes are much more fair and superior to blinds in almost every way.)
Antes and blinds are both collected from players to "seed" the pot with a single bet. But they are collected in different ways.
An ante is collected from EACH player, but represents only a FRACTION of the basic bet. (The sum of the fractions, collected from each player, amount to about one bet.) As such, everyone "pays the same," and no one is at a disadvantage versus anyone else.
A (big) blind is a basic bet collected from ONE player. (A small blind, half the basic bet is sometimes collected from a second player.) They are called "blinds" because these players have to bet "blind" before receiving their cards. The others can look at their cards before deciding to call, raise, or fold to this "forced" bet.
The (big) "blind" bettor is thus placed at a disadvantage, but can reasonably stay in with "any two cards" (if not raised), since s/he bet before receiving cards. This adds an element of randomness to the game. (The small blind can play "loose" for only half a bet.)