?

Log in

No account? Create an account
elephant

existential voting crisis

For most of the time that I've lived in Seattle, I've been pretty much willing to rely on the suggestions of the Stranger's election cheat sheets whenever voting time rolled around. After all, why go to the trouble of looking at candidate websites and reading the voter guide when the funny people from the alt-weekly were willing to do the heavy lifting.

But in this week's issue the Stranger's election control board [#] is telling me to vote for ethically-challenged monorail killer Greg Nickels and long-time monorail hater (and new strip club regulations supporter) Richard Conlin, while advising me to vote against the state wide indoor smoking ban. I feel like I woke up in bizarro world.

On top of that, I found myself feeling sympathetic for Knute Berger, the usually marginally insane editor of the Seattle Weekly after Seattlest and the Stranger spent the morning attacking his column [sw] for complaining about gentrification and moving back to Seattle, respectively.

I really don't like this spinny disoriented feeling. I wish it would stop.
Tags:

Comments

i think i agree with voting against the smoking ban. their problem with it is the 25-foot rule.
I don't agree that it's worth defeating the ban over that provision. I feel like the Stranger is over-reacting. Businesses that find the 25-foot rule impractical can negotiate with the health department for an exemption.
i don't know. i do want it pass, i just wish that stupid rule wasn't in it. very unnecessary. but business can get an exemption from it? if so, that does help things.
Here's the section of the initiative relating to the distance rule:
Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 70.160 RCWto read as follows: PRESUMPTIVELY REASONABLE DISTANCE. Smoking is prohibited within a presumptively reasonable minimum distance of twenty-five feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited so as to ensure that employment is located. The presumption will be rebutted if the1 applicant can show by clear and convincing evidence that, given the unique circumstances presented by the location of entrances, exits, windows that open, ventilation intakes, or other factors, smoke will not infiltrate or reach the entrances, exits, open windows, or ventilation intakes or enter into such public place or place of employment and, therefore, the public health and safety will be adequately protected by a lesser distance. [secstate]


This is also something that could be dealt with in the legislature. And 25 feet isn't an especially large distance. Also, people passing by on the sidewalk are exempt from the law.
well see, this is why i can't trust newspapers to make decisions for me :P
clear and convincing evidence is a very high standard.
yeah but the "Grow up, things change, deal with it" part is pretty funny - especially since it's in reference to the King Dome implosion.
I'll give you the thing about the Kingdome, but it isn't really a good attitude toward pricing the non-rich out of urban centers. Like I said, sometimes Knute Berger's columns are off the wall, but it's disappointing when one that actually makes sense gets trashed.

Maybe just overdosed on cynicism this week.