King Georgetown -Triumphalist assurances
Answering the Seattle Times editorial July 22nd
by Paul Schlossman

As Conservatives enjoy saying, when they are out of power or newly in power (but not when their grip on power is fixed and fixated), “there is a dialog; there are two side to a question, so were just saying this (our) side of the question.” ( At a consolidation of power, the other side receives censorship.)

I want to say a few words on the question of the Seattle Times, July 22nd, where triumphalist assurances are given us that manufacturers should stay at Sodo. Thus, Mr. Liebman’s office buildings, with zones for office buildings, should not enter. (That is keep Sodo Sodo)

I am not particularly concentrating on whether office buildings should enter. What I am concentrating on is triumphalist assurances.

Recently, I was privileged to visit Sodo and learn the consequences of the “thriving” Sodo to the thousand residential citizens who have spent decades living there. The consequences are particularly of note with reference to the trucks there, which:
    Idle there,
    Spill out diesel emissions there,
    do maintenance on the street by the residences,
    leave containers of used oil and whatnot.
    When the trucks enter and leave,  many times it is while “ going prey fast,” if I may quote a phrase from a William Faulkner story.

The above, to repeat, is in front of your residence (should you be a Sodo/Georgetown resident) not at a truck stop. Who is the Seattle times writing to when it triumphantly praises “importers, exporters, etc. Has anyone heard of “the system,” meaning the famous American distribution system (thus, diesel-powered wheels.) as written before in this column, and in this newspaper, there is the fundamental question: who benefits. Who pays. Georgetown is paying for this marvel of manufacturing and distribution.

My colleagues at the Port Observer and I recommend this: A gated community can be set up for the people, currently resident in Georgetown/ Sodo. It is not necessary for the term, gated community, to be synonymous with privileged people.

No need to change this historic district to another towering skyline. Just historic Georgetown is fine, and if the name were to be changed to show the new era of gates to protect citizens of average means, here is a suggestion. Let it be the “King-Georgetown.” also, this may emulate Georgetown in Washington D.C. Where the very, very privileged have no problem setting up restraints on transit through their venerable streets. (brick towers smiling down with windows filed with Senators and healthy children.)

Here I pause to note that the purpose of this article is healthiness, and it so happens that Georgetown in many toxic categories leads the class for unhealthiness of toxins/ emissions/ pollutions. The real point here, accordingly, is not the condition of the trucks -but the condition of the people. In short, a change in Sodo/ Georgetown should be one that protects the existing dwellers.

The short sighted editorial page of the Seattle Times wants existing profitable relations for manufactures and senders/ receivers of good to be kept in place. OK, but shouldn’t the economic benefit of some regulation (such as gating the community) accrue to, again, my friends in Georgetown/ Sodo.

Values should be maximized, indeed, because when the reality is assembled out of the puzzle pieces-it may well be that a good regulation will protect the people of Georgetown/ Sodo from the many problems of the trucks, As well  as give some of the folks the material wherewithal to face the music about toxins and illness, historically existing at Georgetown, and some have then an option to move to a new district. ( If they so choose) ( As respecting free market principles).

My colleagues and I are for free market principles, and have studied the theory, context and meaning of this as much and as long as other citizens. But, as we learned from the three Roosevelt’s, balance, balance, balance. Concern, concern, concern.





Port Observer Editorial
By Christopher Cain

Gaels in a quandary
n. pl. quan·da·ries A state of uncertainty or perplexity-
It seems Gael Tartleton, Candidate for Seattle Port Commission, is in a bit of a quandary. Gale has close ties to Science Applications International (SAIC), a company that would like to sell nuclear bomb sniffing technology to the Port of Seattle. Even if you believe her story that the large number of contributors to her campaign, who are  also executives or former executives and employees of SAIC, are just friends of hers, fine, but she should have left it that, which was nearly believable, she did not. She goes on to say that she would recuse herself from any decisions or deliberations regarding SAIC.

Here’s the problem: Who want’s a Port Commissioner who has to walk out of the room when tough decisions are being made about port security?, Gaels proclaimed area of expertise. Additionally, by saying that she would recuse herself, she is admitting to the appearance of a conflict of interest and setting up the Port Commission to be an even number of votes, thereby limiting the democratic decision making process on issues of great importance to all of the Citizens of King County.

Gael also says she wants to make our ports safer and that her background in international affairs gives her the necessary tools to protect our Ports, we agree. So then, why the Port Commission? Why not the Department of Homeland Security or Coast Guard? The Port Commission is not a security agency, although the Port works closely with them. Perhaps her close ties to SAIC and “friends” convinced her to run for Port and not sign up for the Guard.

Gael should go and do what she really would be good at, which is be a corporate lobbyist for SAIC, and not run for Port Commission.

 















































































































.