Forum and Classifieds

My Ballard Forum » Open Forum

Cowards

(23 posts)

Started 1 year ago by cdpenne
Latest reply from eric

cdpenne

offline
Member

I find it amusing the cowardice displayed by the regular commenters from the home page stories. Apparently they only feel comfortable sharing their thoughts from behind a thick veil.

Posted 1 year ago #
great idea

offline
Member

kenny's not on facebook

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK543f0_UKc

Posted 1 year ago #
cdpenne

offline
Member

BG Trail & Urness House in one day! The Suedes are daring people to jump back in. I can't believe the woman who's dismissed suit against the Urness hasn't chimed in. She was a regular before. And where are the BCOC haters who used to be like clockwork?

Posted 1 year ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

They're commenting over at Wallingford. That site is not yet under facebook rules.

Posted 1 year ago #
Nora Bell

offline
Member

Yeah, I noticed the commenting has gotten A LOT tamer. Such a snooze fest. Sure there were some nasty trolls before, but can we really say it's better now? I think a lot of it goes back to what's been said on the previous post on the subjct. Some of the interesting commentators don't like Facebook and refuse to join.

Posted 1 year ago #
BriarRose

offline
Member

cd you haven't figured out yet that this is an entertainment media. Amazing!

Posted 1 year ago #
SEdholm

offline
Member

I can't comment on those stories til I am home and I usually don't jump on the site as much at home unless it is on my phone (and that doesn't play well with FB comments). That and I am getting away from FB, Google+ is better.

Posted 1 year ago #
Tamarin Bean

offline
Member

I've noticed many comments by new people, who don't seem to know what the stories are really about, and don't live anywhere near here. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but the gushing, inane and overly supportive comments are too saccharine for me. It no longer feels like a neighborhood blog.

And, I wonder if the powers-that-be realized that many employers block Facebook? They can still read the articles, I THINK, but can't comment.

Posted 1 year ago #
crownhiller

offline
Member

Right - I was thinking about the employer/facebook linkages too - there are many who don't allow employees to log on via company servers. It's an interesting question - is the lack of comments because people want to be anonymous, or because they can't/won't use FB? I assume some combo of both I guess. I do find it equally interesting that only MB went w/Facebook - phinneywoodmy, wallingford - all the other sister sites did not.

Posted 1 year ago #
Norse

offline
Member

cdpenne - I'm here I just don't belong to Facebook nor will I ever. And I am not a coward -- my name is all over the appeal I filed on the Urness House had you bothered to actually read some of the paperwork -- it's Rondi Susort. I've lived in Ballard on 65th Street for the past 26 years and I'm in the phone book.

I don't know how closely you've followed the progression of these types of supportive facilities for the chronically homeless drunks, drug addicts and sex offenders being built in Seattle neighborhoods, but I have. DESC is building an 87 unit facility on 105th and Aurora, the Catholic Community Services is building a 70-unit (or so) facility on 42nd and Aurora, DESC is building another 70 unit facility for the chronically mentally ill in Delridge, there is another facility built on Avalon in West Seattle, LIHI will be building the Urban Rest Stop on 20th & 57th along with another 70+ facility near 47th and 12th NE. This is all being done because the City wants to redevelop Pioneer Square. So they are moving the chronic drunks/drug addicts out to safe, stable neighborhoods because the organizations (and City) building these facilities think it would be nicer for the drunks and the land is cheaper. Check out the Seattle Channel's Inside/Out program for May 6, 2011. You can watch it either from your computer or on demand. Then check out the West Seattle Blog from June 27--there are video clips of Bill Hobson talking about the Delridge project. His speech is the same from project to project. And, for your information, the main gist of the lawsuit against the Urness House was to require the City to do an EIS on the project to determine the impacts of moving large groups of chronically homeless individuals on the neighborhood--is this such a bad idea or do you believe that every decision made by the City of Seattle is good for it's citizens? Me, personally, I am tired of the constant redevelopment of downtown to the detriment of residential neighborhoods.

I have asked the City Council (Sally Clark) about updating the neighborhood plan (that was created in 1997 and was supposed to be updated every 10 year) so that issues such as these could be dealt with with the community. Her basic response to this question was: "I should note that I think Ballard is one of the neighborhoods that does the best job working it's neighborhood plan. The Ballard Civic Center is a result of the plan and a great model for other neighborhoods." They are updating the Rainier Beach neighborhood plan most likely to deal with growth around the light rail, etc. If you want to see the entire email between me and Sally Clark I would be happy to provide it to you but it's too long for this post.

So, given the change made by the Geeky Swedes, people that don't follow civic issues or are willing to go beyond sound bites and read about what is actually occurring will no longer have a reasoned perspective that differs from the Geeky Swedes and MyBallard is no longer reflective of the community.

Posted 1 year ago #
wally

offline
Member

Norse,

There may be good reasons to appeal the Urness House, but the lack of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not one of them. An EIS only deals with environmental issues. It doesn't (and isn't allowed) to look at things like reduction of property values, etc. Since there is unlikely to be any real evidence that chronically drunk folks create more of an environmental liability than sober folks, an EIS is not really the venue to talk about the potential impacts. Unless you can provide a study showing something aking to "drunks barfing outside create groundwater contamination" or similar, you're going to lose the EIS argument. I would suggest approaching the appeal from a different angle.

Posted 1 year ago #
great idea

offline
Member

"Geeky Swedes and MyBallard is no longer reflective of the community."

so are they (the geeky swedes) the real cowards then?

Posted 1 year ago #
Alferd Packer

offline
Member

Crownhiller, excellent points. Thank you.

on the employer linkages, that is a very interesting little nut, isn't it? I pointed out to a friend that her post showed up as <name> <small employer name>. She was mortified and changed her Facebook profile to get rid of the employer association.

Employers have different acceptable use policies for company provided internet access. Some are enforced by banning sites (quite commonly, these are all social media sites, youtube, porn sites, et al). Other companies just log all traffic, so there would be no difference before and after FB, the commenting would be stifled based on who reads the logs and when.

Not speaking for the GS, but I can definitely see why they went with something different on MB vs the other sites like PW. The volume of comments on most of the other sites is much lower than the pre-FB levels on MB.

What I miss most from the printed newspaper is the well crafted letter to the editor expressing a point of view. The comments even the FB ones tend to be not that well thought or reasoned. Norse's comment above falls into what I miss from print media. The old comments quickly degraded into name calling and one-liners which didn't really represent a reasoned debate.

Posted 1 year ago #
Norse

offline
Member

Wally -- I focused my appeal on the terms of the 1997 comprehensive plan and the rationale for making Ballard a HUB. For example for every 1500 apartments built in Ballard the city was to set aside 1 acre of open space. Ballard grew way beyond the goals established in 1997--I think it was 178% of the 10 year goal or about 2000 apartments/condos and they have added .3 acres of public parks. The city was also supposed to improve streets in Ballard. I also am concerned about public services -- police and fire (as we all know the homeless put a big stress on public services). In the comprehensive plan the city acknowledges that the police and fire response times in Ballard is inadequate. I don't know if you lived in Seattle in 1994, but the Seattle Police Department had determined that their earlier consolidation of police into the North and South precincts did not service Ballard or West Seattle adequately. So the City put a large levy on the ballot for a new city hall, renovation of numerous fire stations and to add a precinct in Ballard and in West Seattle among other things. The levy failed but since that time they have built a police precinct in West Seattle so Ballard is the last neighborhood underserved by the police department. And, as the City is preparing to move the chronically homeless out into neighborhoods north of downtown, an increased police presence is so far not being considered. The Urness House will also house level 2 sex offenders. This project is 2 blocks from the new park and 1 1/2 block from the city library. But again, that is why the neighborhood was chosen so the tenants of the Urness House can enjoy the park and library.

Great idea -- You make an interesting observation about the Geeky Swedes. Maybe, or maybe they want Ballard to be known as the new Stepford wive's neighborhood.

Posted 1 year ago #
Apple

offline
Member

@ Wally, by law the purpose of an environmental impact statement is to review any proposed action "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." Drunks, sex offenders and addicts would seem to meet the criteria for an EIS.

Posted 1 year ago #
BriarRose

offline
Member

great idea...for the win

Posted 1 year ago #
wally

offline
Member

Norse, your arguments seem geared to the larger issue of overall development in Ballard via the comprehensive plan, primarily as involves density. OK, but I don't see how this is Urness House specific or would require this specific project to produce an EIS.

Apple, "seem to meet" being the key part of your phrase. "Seem to meet the criteria" does not equate to "do meet the criteria". Key environmental elements for SEPA are Earth, Air, Water, Plants, Animals, Energy and Natural Resources, Environmental Health (hazards and noise), Land and Shoreline Use, Housing (impacts to, not addition of), Aesthetics, Light & Glare, Recreation, Historic and Cultural Preservation, Transportation, Public Services, and Utilities. Basically, something like the Urness House would be expected to have a minimal impact on every one of these elements except _maybe_ Public Services. The requirement for an EIS would be valid if and only if other similar facilities have shown a substantially increased need for police or fire protection services. One of the arguments for giving homeless drunks a place to live is to reduce the need for police/fire/medical services (i.e., the drunks are expected to be drunk in their room, not picked up and taken to an ER/jail until sober), so I'm not sure if this would hold up. This would leave the sex offender question. Does housing multiple offenders in a single location require an substantial increased need for police protection? I don't know. I've heard arguments made both ways.

I'm not arguing for or against the Urness House project. (And given that I frequent the park and library with my girls, the idea of more drunks/sex offenders hanging out admittedly makes me nervous.) What I'm saying is that you're barking up the wrong tree if you're trying to stop it via the argument that an EIS is required. Find a better reason to stop it.

Posted 1 year ago #
great idea

offline
Member

EIS looks directly at social and economic impacts to local communities so would likely be the proper channel to challenge this project.

Posted 1 year ago #
wally

offline
Member

greatidea. You are correct. But I've never seen the "degradation of property values argument" succeed in an appeal of an EIS (or succeed in the argument that there is a need for an EIS). Have you? I'd be interested in that.

And other economic/social impacts seem sort of nebulous for inclusion in (or argument for) an EIS.

Posted 1 year ago #
Norse

offline
Member

Wally - what I have learned from this long process came from McGinn at the April town hall meeting I attended at Ballard High School. (Another program on the Seattle Channel.) There was a group of people from 41st and 1st Ave. NW complaining about a developer that was able to get a permit to build a 3-story skinny minny among an entire block of one story houses. What that developer was able to do was add the property through a "fill in" clause of our zoning code. Anyway what McGinn said is that in our city if an application process is initiated that meets the zoning codes of a particular neighborhood it is virtually impossible to stop the project. So until the City of Seattle is required (via lawsuits) to provide EIS's on developments that change the nature or character of a neighborhood, the Urness House will most likely be built, along with every other project of it's type that I listed in that first email, except the LIHI project with the Urban Rest Stop.

Posted 1 year ago #
brown_eyes

offline
Member

I'm interested in the theory that Seattle is moving homeless services out of downtown to the neighborhoods. I know they are building facilities in the neighborhoods but I haven't heard anything about any downtown places closing; I just thought we were adding to the existing housing stock. I'll have to look into that.

I'm ok with long term or permanent housing for the homeless. That means they aren't on the streets. I'm not keen on temporary or the equivalent of "out patient" facilities in neighborhoods, e.g. overnight shelters, soup kitchens, needle exchanges. I think draws homeless people into the neighborhood and then they stick around because it's convenient. A couple places up on Phinney started soup kitchens. At first, you'd see guys taking the bus in and back and then, after a few years, we started to get a homeless population up there that just hadn't been there before.

I'm ambivalent about urban rest stops. On one hand, they definitely come under the day use facility that might attract more homeless into the area. On the other hand, I'm guessing that the sort of homeless who are wanting to be clean and presentable are the sort who probably aren't going to be scaring your kids and driving away customers from your business.

I hate the whole idea of sex offenders, but, they pretty much are among us already. A few years ago I looked at the web site that shows offender's approximate locations and they were all over the neighborhood. Maybe it's better if they live somewhere that is at least marginally monitored.

Posted 1 year ago #
bluegrayshirt

offline
Member

Wally – What other avenues are open to concerned residents who would like to see an adequate evaluation of the potential impacts of this project? You say a couple of times that Norse et al. are barking up the wrong tree -- what’s the right one? I ask because I don’t know what that would be.

I haven’t been following this as closely as Norse, but from what I saw the City’s SEPA process was a joke, with no serious attempt to evaluate the potential impacts of the project. Yes. The potential impacts of this type of project -- the ones Wally calls nebulous economic/social impacts -- are difficult to evaluate but that shouldn’t mean the City can just ignore them, as they did here.

Like a lot of folks, I support housing for the homeless (yes, even when it’s within a couple of blocks of my house, like this is), but I’m concerned by the scale of this project and the provision of so-called “out-patient” services. Do I have a reason to be concerned? I don’t know. The problem is nobody else seems to know either because the lead SEPA agency failed to take the “hard look” it’s required to under SEPA.

Posted 1 year ago #
eric

offline
Member

cd, people have all sorts of reasons why they aren't posting on the front page. keep your petty lil insults to yourself - i don't see you lighting it up in the comments either.

i'm a very low-key facebooker - i got suckered in looking for a couple old friends. i'm pretty anonymous on FB and am hardly worried about posting b/c of people knowing who i am, just feels wierd to be forced to do so all the sudden. especially how gooey and sweet it is now. prob say one wrong thing and 86'd. wouldn't want to risk that.

anyway, your posts are pretty ranty and antagonistic. you ok? or just being a wild and crazy challenge to the paltry intellect that subjegate all us robot hive capitalist shill thinking blah blah

Posted 1 year ago #