Too much of anything is a bad thing. Including freedom, irresponsibly exercised. I had my own "broken windows" moment the other night. I was on the front deck of my Seattle home with my son, and we were looking through his telescope at the moon. Two young men in a tricked-out white pimpmobile screeched up to the curb, and one got out to urinate against the neighbor's landscape rocks right across the street.
Read on. (Mac Safari users must click on time stamp to continue).
I found this to be offensive, anti-social behavior, certainly deserving of an calm objection or admonishment on my part.
The driver got out, so I had a look at him for a moment. I realized, much to my own chagrin, that I had better not say a thing, or even look too hard. For all I knew, these could be idiot gang-bangers with guns. I turned away, not wanting to end up on anyone's hit list. They'd sure remember where I lived if I said anything. No. Not smart.
In the larger scheme of things, a random pissing doesn't really add up to much, I suppose. But multiplied many times over, by attempted break-ins in our (nice, but not too fancy) neighborhood, by litter-leaving passers-by, by anemic police staffing levels and slow response times, and by sorry public schools, the middle-class taxpayer gets the shaft.
All the more reason for an urban Republican agenda for Seattle. I shared the idea briefly this morning during my conversation with Kirby Wilber on KVI-AM 570. (I had been invited to discuss my "Blue City Conservatives" piece in the Seattle Weekly).
Here's the thought, admittedly in nascent form: representatives of the GOP (state legislative) district organizations in Seattle, plus GOP-leaning Seattle business people and other interested parties should join together in a formal effort to draw up a Republican Party urban issues agenda for Seattle.
It should address the need for district elections to the city council; school choice (resuscitating the campaign for charter schools, but with more vocal support from minorities); financial reforms, merit pay for teachers, and higher curriculum standards in Seattle public schools; increased police staffing without additional taxes; small business and economic development concerns; and especially, a coherent regional transportation plan which meets city needs for more transit and an improved Alaskan Way Viaduct, meets suburban needs for better road capacity, and prescribes some creative, bold funding methods to boot.
Such an effort would give the party increased visibility and viability in Seattle, where - goodness knows - there are more Republicans, and unaffiliated moderates and conservatives than folks outside our fair city might possibly imagine. A GOP urban agenda for Seattle would be a great first step toward attracting quality candidates for the city council and Seattle seats in the state legislature.
Here's the question that has to be answered, and compellingly, for Republicans to mount the necessary comeback in Seattle. What does the GOP stand for, to supportive and potentially supportive Seattle-ites? Right now, the answer is: David Irons (candidate for King County Executive), Insert Name Here for U.S. Senate in '06, Dino Rossi (for Governor in '08), and George Bush. Fine folks all, in my book, even Insert Name Here (Safeco Insurance CEO and former Slade Gorton chief of staff Mike McGavick, maybe?).
But GOP politics in Seattle has to get more local, on the issues.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 17, 2005 01:06 PM | Email ThisI just hope Bellevue doesn't sink as far as Seattle, but I see signs of the same thing. It is all disguised as "good intentions".
Posted by: Janet S on June 17, 2005 01:12 PM(1) Making Seattle hospitable for families again. This will bring in a whole lot of good things. To do this, we'd need to improve the schools and clean up the parks, making them kid-friendly. We'd also need to eliminate crime and drive out all the elements that parents don't want.
(2) Doubling or even tripling the police presence. This would focus on building the public image of the Seattle Police, working to lower tensions between the police and the community, and increasing the police force with experienced officers and leaders.
(3) Inviting businesses back into Seattle. Lower the city taxes, reduce or even eliminate all the useless regulations, and give tax credits to positive and cooperative businesses. (For instance, strip clubs get nothing. Businesses that employ people in decent work and keep their lot clean and tidy get lots.)
(4) Slice up Seattle into regions, and give those regions more control over their neck of the woods. This would allow the many different communities in Seattle to be adequately represented.
(5) Stop giving money and benefits to the homeless. While we may channel our funds through institutions that have a proven track record for reforming homeless, we should not compete with them. We should enforce the no-loitering and no-panhandling rules.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on June 17, 2005 01:31 PMWe do need to get even tougher on crime, the murder rate was the lowest it ever was in 25 years, but tell that to those who were murdered last year. I agree with the Mayor and Police Chief, muggings have to be curtailed, and especially in areas that are not 5 blocks from the West Precinct.(I should know, I am a victim of a mugging, 5 blocks from the West Precinct, after just getting off the Night Owl 7 on my way to work at the temp agency.)
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on June 17, 2005 01:35 PMThere's a slew of streets that could use a bump from two-lanes-with-non-prime-time-parking-blocking-one-lane to two-lanes-always. 'Prime time' is uniformly too narrow.
85th NW, 25th Ave NE, Madison come to mind immediately. There's plenty of other examples. This sort of transportation improvement costs primarily in sign changes.
Posted by: Al on June 17, 2005 01:38 PMYou are most definately right on #2, we do need more police in Seattle, and we have to stop disciplining Seattle Cops for off-duty shenanigans that are non-violent, such as the one who spanked the kid. I knew that one, he is one of the best cops in the city.
Also, the Fire Department needs to be well staffed for several reasons, one is to prevent June 6, 1889 from ever happening again. Another is Medic One should never lose any funding. Again, another service that I never wanted to need to use, but was glad to have it the morning I needed it.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on June 17, 2005 01:42 PMCharter schools sound so nice in theory, but the empirical data from elsewhere is that they drain money from public schools while providing, on average, a poorer education than public schools. Perhaps there is a valuable role for some types of charter schools, but I doubt it's as the centerpiece of a serious education platform.
Posted by: Bruce on June 17, 2005 01:43 PMHe was not here 24 hrs before he was in an emergency room for the beginning of years of sponging off the American taxpayer.
However I'm sure you will all be delighted to know he is now an employed, productive member of American society. That's right. He's now a paid AIDS worker. Paid to show others how to live off the system just like he did.
Nice article about peeing in the streets. Broken windows and all, worked in NY. But when your governments loony left liberalism is so run amok it's attracting AIDS welfare bums clear from the other hemisphere, well let's just say we got our work cut out for us, y'know?
Posted by: chuck Miller on June 17, 2005 02:08 PMSo Bruce...precisely how do charter schools differ from public schools?
Posted by: South County on June 17, 2005 02:19 PMI think the shark has it right by going after the schools.
Posted by: swatter on June 17, 2005 02:32 PMAll conservatives move out of the city for one year.
We then blockade the bridges, roads and ports going into Seattle so no food can get in.
Seeking an all-organic solution to this blockade, Eugene (OR) residents try flying in pesticide-free turnips.
The Eugene hippies realize that there are too many air traffic control regulations making them give up (but happy that there are many regulations).
Progressives in Seattle starve.
Urban conservatives move back in.
(Unfortunately, they still won't be able to elect a GOP mayor since all those deceased progressives will still be allowed to vote.)
* Also, every downtown GOP'er I've met rabidly favors the Monorail. Give it up dudes. SOVs are where it is at!
Posted by: Unicorn on June 17, 2005 03:14 PMI remember the nonchalance when Honeywell left town in the early 80s. It was a no big deal thing.
Posted by: swatter on June 17, 2005 03:21 PMRemember that our pseudogoverner said that Airbus jobs are not wanted.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 17, 2005 03:27 PMAnd now Boeing says that Airbus should be allowed to bid on US government projects. Quid pro bono (or whatever) for Boeing getting EU contracts? I think so, but I doubt it would be recriprocal.
Posted by: swatter on June 17, 2005 04:15 PMIs the GOP too far right for Seattle Conservatives?
You are right, it probably will not be reciprocal. Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have better fighters than the Eurofighter Typhoon, and some are even cheaper, but EU nations will be under pressure to by the Eurofighter, or the French Dassault Rafale. The latter looks like a more capable fighter than the former. So far, the EU is not getting very far in the lucrative Eastern European Fighter Market.(Replacing obsolete Soviet types with Western ones.)
I wonder, would BOEING be for more passenger carriers flying into Boeing Field Internation, aka King County International Airport if it were Jet Blue asking to move in?
I'm not sure what you're asking. You probably already know that charter schools are freed from many of the benefits and constraints of the public school organization. But I wasn't addressing the theory (which I find attractive), but rather the disappointing track record of charter schools in a number of states in recent years.
Posted by: Bruce on June 17, 2005 11:13 PMKeep harping on that one. At least there is a slight chance with district based elections to get one person somewhere in city government that is something other than a far left Democrat.
Then, some of these things might be talked about within government instead of only on blogs.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 18, 2005 09:40 PMi can see where you're coming from with your platforms, but some are just absurd.
what does "financial reforms" mean?
charter schools bombed in the state and went down even worse in king county. seattle supports public schools- didn't you see the outrage about closing some of the recently?
how will you "increased police staffing without additional taxes"? where will the money come from? a tax cut?
good luck.
anyone who runs in seattle must be a pretty liberal republican. however, it wouldn't matter because they'd still lose. unless the GOP moves moderate nationally, it's more likely that we'll have conservative democrats, middle of the road democrats and liberal democrats and green party members make up the political institutions of this city than ever get republican into office in Seattle.
a huge majority of seattle sees the national republican party and thinks of the iraq war (more unpopular here than nationwide), terri schiavo and the breakdown of the seperation of church and state, increased corporate profiteering, and the horrid environmental record of the GOP since Nixon. they see this and think of all republicans, right or wrong, in this light.
when the dan evans of the world take over the party nationally, then the GOP will have a spitting chance in seattle.
until then- forget about it.
Posted by: grznt on June 20, 2005 04:18 PMIt's just a shame, because the liberal policies in the areas of education and economic development are driving me nuts.
Too bad we can't seem to have a "best of both worlds (fiscally conservative & socially liberal)" scenereo.
Posted by: D.W. on June 20, 2005 04:41 PM