If you're not yet convinced that the Seattle Monorail Project is an evil rogue agency, consider the case of the Kubota family:
Henry Kubota hung onto his little triangle of land near Pioneer Square, even after being sent to a World War II internment camp for residents of Japanese ancestry.The Monorail does not need all of the Kubota's property. The Evil One Track Minds are refusing to compromise and insisting on confiscating more of the property than they really need in order to finance their fiscally insolvent fantasy.
Six decades later, his family could be forced to sell the property to make way for the monorail.
The station can fit on less than half the triangle. Monorail officials are trying to condemn the whole site and use the leftover land as a storage yard for construction materials, then resell it after the line opens five years from now.Why resell it?
Fujii believes the agency's real aim is to cash in on the Kubota land, to help make up for a shortage in the monorail's car-tab tax.The Seattle Monorail: selling out the American Dream for an elevated amusement ride. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 02, 2004 11:38 AM | Email ThisLast year, SMP published a report predicting the stations would boost land values as happened near commuter stations in Portland, San Francisco and Vancouver, B.C. Monorail officials point out that their current budget projections do not depend on money from land deals. However, the agency has paid for feasibility studies of development around stations. SMP will not release its study for the Sinking Ship site.
While many west coast cities are moving along with gradual plans to develop real mass transit, Seattle flounders with it's monorail amusement ride.
The thing that none of the mass transit dreamers really understand is that there's a reason why Paris, New York and London have good mass transit.
THEY STARTED 100 *$%^&& YEARS AGO.
Mass transit is incredibly costly for the public. Doing it right takes a long time because a city can only afford to do so much at any given time and without trampling the rights of its citizens such as Mr. Kubota.
How come there's never any discussion about building real mass transit that actually connects important destinations? Instead there's talk of amusement park rides that serve far less strategic portions of the city.
Wake up environmentalists, for better or worse, we standardized the west on the auto decades ago, changing this is not something that will happen overnight, not something that should saddle our cities with massive debt, and not something that should be addressed by costly amusements when it could be done more cheaply and efficiently.
Posted by: Jeff b on December 2, 2004 11:57 AMOne - Mr. Kubota's rights are not necessarily being trampled - through the exercise of emminent domain a government agency can condemn property for public use so long as the owner is compensated at fair market value. This is a necessary 220 year old practice in this country; in other countries and times, land was simply taken with no compensation.
Two - If Mr. Kubota's parcel is what I think it is, it is the "sinking ship garage." So it isn't possible to use a portion of it for the monorail station (the east flat of the triangle along 2nd Avenue) and leave a smaller triangle at the west point that Mr. Kubota could use as a viable parking garage. Yes, he might be able to put in some retail space (not Starbucks, though, there's one across the street), but why not condemn it all and pay Mr. Kubota for it? The article is designed to appeal to your emotions, and it has evidently succeeded.
Three - the monorail has the potential to be more than an amusument ride if it works well, people recognize that it works well, and get behind expanding the system to one that can deliver transportation to the whole city. It is undeniable that construction costs 100 years ago were a fraction of what they are now in NY, London, etc., but the local economies were also a fraction of what they are now. Seattle's geogaphy is different from all cities I know of with expansive underground transportation networks - hard bedrock, high water table, narrow north/south orientation, small physical size - these all make tunnelling proportionally more expensive than it was in Paris, NY, and London (and the list goes on). Monorail can be much cheaper. The tax base supporting monorail needs to be expanded, which can only happen if the seed line is successful and wins expansion support from the people in the greater region. The alternative, Sound Transit, is a collossal waste of money, and the success of monorail will help kill it (I hope).
Posted by: srogers on December 2, 2004 01:15 PMYou're living in a fantasy world. "Expanding the system"? "Tax base...needs to be expanded"? Where do you live? Will you pay for the Monorail? Will you ride the monorail?
I live on Queen Anne Hill, and until the Monorail goes to Bellevue I will ride it at most once per month, yet I'm paying out the yin-yang for it. I grew up in Chicago - where you can land at O'Hare airport and take the El to Midway Airport for $1.50 without going outside!!!
Nobody has yet explained to me why the first leg of the Monorail DOESN'T EVEN GO TO SEATAC AIRPORT!!!! Geez, Louise, when will residents of Seattle and Washington get a clue???
How will the Monorail get support from the greater region when it goes from UDub to West Seattle? It's completely useless for most people and without parking garages it won't cut down on traffic to the city.
Furthermore we're only paying for this leg. There are no provisions for expansion, and it's never gonna happen. It will be an amusement ride - though not a very fun one.
A route from West Seattle to the airport could be the first extension of the first monorail line. Again, I only see possibilities, I don't know what will happen. Elevated transportation is the key, and I'm willing to pay to plant a seed that I hope sprouts into something useful. I am certain light rail will never be useful; at-grade transit causes as much congestion as it eliminates, and it kills people too.
As for the comment about liberals usually rooting for the little guy - I don't get it. I'm not a liberal (at least in the modern sense). For the record, I'm more of a Libertarian who usually votes Republican so as not to waste my vote. It would be impossible for government to perform most if not any of its legitimate functions without the power to condemn property, regardless of whether the owners of the property are little or big guys. The location is what matters, not who owns it. And our constitution expressly allows "takings" of private property for public use as long as the owner is compensated.
Posted by: srogers on December 2, 2004 03:17 PMIt does allow such takings, but the interpretation of 'public use' has been expanded beyond any reasonable interpretation to include speculation on rising land values. Seizing all of Kubota's property to use part and profit on the sale of the remainder is trending toward the sort of Government theft that the Constitutional takings clause was emplaced to curtail. It's bloody unfair to Kubota, and almost certainly will smell of political favoritism when the new grantee of the remainder is anointed.
And if the members of the US Supreme Court fail to uphold the overturning of Poletown, may all their ancestors be immediately converted into camels or dromedaries, as you will.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 2, 2004 05:30 PMWe also have someone from West Seattle who will use it to commute downtown.
Anyone notice a pattern? Commuters will use it, but you must live in West Seattle or UDub district. Otherwise it's just a flight of fancy (a bar-car or a once-in-a-while thing).
I, too, took the El to work every day for years in Chicago - the Ravenswood line - and linked to the Red line for ballgames.
But the problem here is that we should not compare the Monorail to light rail. We should be comparing it to the system already in place: Buses and Cars!!!
Our system works perfectly fine right now! I drive to work in Bellevue and it takes 17 minutes, maybe 25 in rush hour traffic. I take the #2 and #13 buses downtown for events.
So far I've kicked in about $500 for the monorail, which will continue for years to come. WHY? Since I have cars, I probably will not ride it. Those who DO NOT have cars are not paying ANYTHING, and they WILL ride it!!
Anybody see my point? Who is paying for the Monorail and why? How will it help them? How will it decrease traffic? How will it cut down on pollution?
How many more taxes and car tabs and the like will be required for the spur that goes to the airport? How much more for the one to Bellevue? When are they planning these? How much will this first line REALLY cost? Why are revenues so low?
This isn't pie-in-the-sky, people. It's logical to ask these questions, and NOBODY has been able to answer.
Have fun on your Monorail. I'm registering my cars in the 'burbs. Buh-bye.
Posted by: larry on December 2, 2004 05:37 PMI am the first to argue that people choose with their free market buying choices, and by and large they choose to commute and move about by car. Me too. Road maintenance and construction should be among the highest priorities for the city, county, and state governments.
But I think you're living in a dream world if you think that buses provide efficient public transportation and/or that Seattle can go for another 100 years without an efficient public transportation system. Increasing density downtown and in urban neighborhoods makes it necessary; there isn't space to build enough roads, especially with Seattle's topography. So its better to start now on something that can work than to wait another fifty years or to build an at-grade rail system that will never work.
Posted by: srogers on December 2, 2004 06:51 PMIn order to condemn the whole parcel, the SMP has meet a legal test it is a necessary and proper use (there is specific language found in case law), and one judge has already ruled that the SMP met that test. The Appeals Court will have a chance to review the judge's legal opinion, and if it is found to be in error, the decision will be reversed. Have a little faith in the system - it isn't always wrong.
Posted by: srogers on December 2, 2004 07:25 PMThe monorail planners based their revenue projection on some bogus assumed auto values that they obtained from Sound Transit during the monorail campaign. That error accounted for most of their shortfall. Now they are playing all kinds of tricks to try to fit within their reduced revenues.
Perhaps there's another side of the story, but the side presented in the Times convinced me that the Kubota family is getting shafted. Oh well, can't fight City Hall (or SMP, or Sound Transit, or...)
Posted by: zip on December 2, 2004 09:48 PMHey, you answered ONE of my questions! Bully for you!
How about taking a crack at the others? Any thoughts, or do you just cherry-pick your arguments?
* Who is paying for the Monorail and why? Why are the people who will likely NOT ride the monorail (or ride it infrequently) forced to pay for it, while people without cars who WILL ride it pay nothing?
* How will it decrease traffic, especially with no parking garages at the stations? How will it cut down on pollution?
* How many more taxes and car tabs and the like will be required for the spur that goes to the airport? How much more for the one to Bellevue? When are they planning these? When can we see a plan for anything more than UDub to West Seattle? If the first line costs $14 billion, how much more taxes and car tabs will be necessary for your dream transit system into next century?
* How much will this first line REALLY cost? Why aren't we being shown the estimates from the ONLY bidder? Why is there only one bidder?
For your information, I never stated that "buses provide efficient public transportation and/or that Seattle can go for another 100 years without an efficient public transportation system" so by definition I am NOT living in a dream world like you state. I said that one monorail line from UDub to West Seattle will not improve transit whatsoever over the current system of buses and cars.
Furthermore, Seattle HAS survived the past 100 years without the monorail. Why now? Is Seattle growing so rapidly that our roads will be insufficient? HA. Then why is my commute only 17 minutes to go 12 miles? Been to the Chicago suburbs lately? It takes them 3 or 3 hours to go 12 miles. Traffic in Seattle is not that bad and our growth rate won't change it much in the forseeable future.
srogers, you've been drinking the Monorail kool-aide. YOU are living in a dream world if you think this albatross can fly. But you're welcome to take a crack at my other questions. I'll check back and chuckle!!!! Peace out.
* Who is paying for the Monorail and why? Why are the people who will likely NOT ride the monorail (or ride it infrequently) forced to pay for it, while people without cars who WILL ride it pay nothing?
So people without kids in school shouldn't pay taxes that go for public education? People who never commute on the eastside should have their federal and state taxes redacted for the portion that pays for improvements to I-405 or other surface streets? I shouldn't have to pay a portion of my taxes to Metro because I never ride the bus? Government has certainly grown to big, powerful, and oppressive, but following your logic to its inclusion would cripple the governments power to perform even its legitimate funcions.
Who pays? Now it is those people that own cars in the city of Seattle. I believe that the tax base should be expanded. One way would be by killing Sound Transit and applying some of the money raised for that boondoggle to eleveted transportation. Probably never happen, but it could.
* How will it decrease traffic, especially with no parking garages at the stations? How will it cut down on pollution?
People will walk to the stations or drive to park nearby. In time, parking can be built - things have to progress in stages, as you pointed out in one of your first postings. Every rider who otherwise would have driven helps decrease traffic; maybe not a lot at first, but if the naysayers don't kill the idea, and it grows, then by lots in the future. Pollution isn't my greatest concern here because for every car that isn't on the road you have to account for the cost of procuding the electricity that will power the line. I don't have enough data to predict the overall effect on pollution, and it depends on what ultimately happens - one orphaned line or construction of a useful system.
* How many more taxes and car tabs and the like will be required for the spur that goes to the airport? How much more for the one to Bellevue? When are they planning these? When can we see a plan for anything more than UDub to West Seattle? If the first line costs $14 billion, how much more taxes and car tabs will be necessary for your dream transit system into next century?
I don't work for the SMP, so, as you knew when you asked these question, I can't answer them. If the system proves reliable and popular, and tax base were expanded (by county participation) to include other than just car owners, the cost could be spread among more people. There are a lot of possibilities, and just as many narrow- minded people to say it can't work. Same issue when the Wright Bros said they could fly.
* How much will this first line REALLY cost? Why aren't we being shown the estimates from the ONLY bidder? Why is there only one bidder?
Again, I have no crystal ball. How much will replacing the Viaduct REALLY cost? How does asking that question cause me to shrink before your obvious intelligence? It will cost what it costs. If naysayers sue for every little thing, as they did over Seatac's third runway, it may cost a lot more, with none of it associated with the actual cost to build it. As I understand it, the reason there is only one bidder is that there were only a few firms in the world with experience building monorail systems, and only one survived the vetting process.
"We've survived 100 yrs without monorail so why now?" Are you serious? There was no traffic; no population density, no need. Seattle is different now. You might have a nice commute, but many, many people creep along stuck in traffic daily and traffic is forecast to keep getting worse by everyone who is in the business of predicting such things; I shouldn't even have to point that out. One monorail line won't fix that, but it could be the beginning of an elevated transportation network that would. An at-grade system won't fix it, and a subway network simply costs too much. What would you have us do?
Posted by: srogers on December 3, 2004 09:22 AMCan't we all agree that the real evil in this picture is the insane Sound Transit boondoggle? How many people's property is being taken for a rediculously expensive rail line that won't take a single car off the road? At least the monorail connects places where people live (West Seattle (and Ballard, right?)) with places a lot of people work or go to school (Downtown, UW). Thus, even the initial line has the *possiblility* of reducing congestion during commuter hours. Who commutes between downtown and the airport? Nobody. So who's going to ride Sound Transit? No one. How many cars is it going to take off the roads? None. In fact, it's going to make traffic worse, because, as I understand it, they're going to rip out the downtown bus tunnel to make room for it! Great. So first we spend $B's to dig a bus tunnel; now we spend $B's more to rip it out and replace it with a rail line no one's gonna use and - worst of all - in so doing, we push the busses back up onto the streets to clog up traffic (which, btw, nullifies the benefit of taking the bus in the first place, which probably means more people will just bag it and take their car). It's insane.
Sound Transit even spent $200k recently to do a study about whether they should add a stop at South Center mall. DUH! What idiot came up with the idea of building a rail line that goes right past a mall but doesn't stop there? Are they trying to build a system that no one will ever ride? It's brain damaged. I am convinced that Sound Transit will be such a collosal failure that our kids will end up paying to rip the tracks up in 20 years.
Another thing that just infuriates me about Sound Transit is that even after the voters passed an initiative (778?) to repeal the $15 Sound Transit surcharge, and even after the State Supreme court upheld it, Sound Transit not only didn't refund the money they collected while fighting the initiative, but is still taking our money. I think it's absolutely criminal. Ron Sims and Greg Nickels should be in jail for this.
Rather than quibbling about the monorail, we should be banding together to KILL SOUND TRANSIT before it ever sees the light of day.
It's inconceivable to me that we're actually on a path to build TWO incompatible systems - that won't even connect together - and giving up the bus tunnel! Imagine instead if we took Sound Transit's money and used it instead to extend the monorail line to the airport and northgate/lynnwood, and add a line from downtown to UW and across 520 to Redmond? Maybe eventually run it along the full length of 405? That would actually be a system that people could use to get to work and would get (some) cars off the road. And it could be done far less expensively than "link light rail".
Or just give us our Sound Transit money back, like we already said...
Posted by: Brian on December 3, 2004 03:01 PM"one judge has already ruled that the SMP met that (necessary and proper) test. The Appeals Court will have a chance to review the judge's legal opinion"
Finding individual judges to support dubious land-grabs isn't particularly difficult in Seattle. Hopefully the appeals court has more respect for private property.
The Monorail may indeed need part of the Kubota property for permanent facilities - but equipment yards are available elsewhere (contractors are accustomed to finding them), so the 'necessity' of taking all of Kubota is feeble. Without the hope of selling the remainder at a profit, there's no incentive for the takers to spend the extra money for the extra square feet.
And those who come up with the werewithal to actually purchase a piece of property know very well that there is ALWAYS a "grantee" in a land sale - in layman's terms that's the purchaser - or in this case, it's the purchaser who succeeds in influencing the political sales process. It's extremely rare that in such a transaction the remainder goes on the market, without political restrictions or premeditation (remember Bremerton), to the highest bidder.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 3, 2004 05:06 PMI agree with your suspicion of individual judges; lets see what happens at the Ct. of Appeals.
Regarding "grantee", however, I don't think you're correct. Its been ten years since law school, but I believe the deed of trust created in a real estate transaction is between the purchasor, who is the "grantor", the beneficiary (the lendor), and a trustee, usually the title company. A grantee is a person or entity to which title to property had been granted by a grantor; I don't believe consideration is necessarily involved in that relationship.
Posted by: srogers on December 3, 2004 06:14 PMI humbly submit that if the remainder of the property is large enough for a contractor's yard for temporary storage of materials and equipment, then it's plenty sizeable, and Kubota may well prefer keeping that remainder in his accustomed location to going through the hassle of relocating to start another enterprise from zero. Those relocation costs are rarely covered by the 'highest and best' compensation for eminent domain - in fact, the law may forbid such extra payments.
And then the profit on any future sale of that remainder will properly remain in Kubota, rather than in a municipal agency dabbling in land speculation.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 4, 2004 07:56 PMRepublicans need to get a "clue." A majority of the people in Puget Sound want some form of mass transit. But rather than being part of the solution they would rather be naysayers and then get voted out of office. The result is more liberals in office and more legislation like the CAO.
Speaking of takings by the government, Republicans like Jim Horn have been pushing I-605 for years. Nobody wants it except the asphalt and cement companies that financed Jim Horn's campaign. I-605 would involve cutting a 180' swath of land through rural King County. So Jim Horn is proposing we force hundreds of farmers and rural residents to give up their land to the goverment. What is even worse is the fact that these people are conservatives. So people like Horn are hurting their own constituents. Now that makes alot of sense.
This in comparison to the landowner who is forced to give up his parking garage for the monorail.
One good aspect about the monorail is the fact that it is a DBOM. So the builder will operate the system for at least five years. This will force the builder to create a system that actually works. Another good aspect is the fact the monorail will be cost neutral or it may even make a small profit like the current monorail.
On other hand, roads have to be maintained by the taxes we pay.
1) The seattle monorail doesn't go anywhere NEAR the U-district.
For some reason, people keep equating "Ballard" with "U-Dub". It just ain't so. Ballard is about as far from the University District as Capitol Hill (another neighborhood that, inexplicably, voted for this stupid project).
2) Ballard is one of the better-served communities by existing roads and transit systems.
I live in Ballard. I work at the UW. On those few occasions that I need to get downtown, I can hop on 15th or SR99, and I'll be there in under 10 minutes. I can be in West Seattle in less than 20 minutes. By Seattle standards, Ballard is _exceptionally_ well-connected to the neighborhoods that the monorail targets. On the other hand, it takes me at LEAST 20 minutes to make it from Ballard to the UW by car. If there's traffic, it takes closer to 40 minutes.
Why are we building this thing again?
Posted by: A Nony Mouse on March 4, 2005 03:23 AM