KFnet in T-Town

Oct. 19, 2009 at 2:07pm

Sounder Extension/Berm Visualized

Who's going to keep all that pretty grass green?

A new PDF from Sound Transit shows what the "D" to "M" street Sounder rail line extension would look like cutting through the Dome District. The "berm" looks pretty minimal in these mock-ups but it's cement sides would surely attract plenty of tagging. The night mock-up of the crossing over Pacific shows some lighting but I'd still like to see at least some text or something that welcomes folks to Tacoma.

Download PDF (9.4mb)

So, Tacoma, what do you think? Is the berm a non-issue? Did these visuals help?

Here are the "after" renderings in case you don't want to download the entire PDF:

Link also to Nick's thoughts

comments [48]  |  posted under berm, rail, sounder, tacoma, transit


by Nick on 10/19/2009 @ 2:15pm
Thanks for posting those images - I finally gave up trying to do that. Personally I think it looks worse than I had originally thought. Looks like lipstick on a berm to me!

by NSHDscott on 10/19/2009 @ 2:16pm
Again, these illustrations show nicely landscaped berms. Neither Sound Transit nor the City of Tacoma have committed the money (and desire) to doing the landscaping. There's no reason to assume that they will be kept pristine as we see here. And if they were kept pristine, what would be the cost ‚ÄĒ first to build the beds and irrigation and plant the greenery, then to maintain it all and pay for the water? These cartoons also don't show the fence that will surely be built on either side of the tracks, since it will be so easy to walk up that grassy hill and across the tracks.

Also, P&B was derided as a graffiti magnet, but you're right that the walls of the berm would have the same problem. And P&B was also derided as a bum magnet, but where would bums rather sleep, directly under a concrete bridge with trains roaring by overhead, or on a grassy lawn with trains roaring by next to you?

Last, the lettering ... I wish it had something too, but it does feel a bit odd to say "Welcome to Tacoma" when you're already in Tacoma. Maybe "Welcome to Tacoma's Museum District" on one side and "Welcome to Tacoma's Dome District" on the other, but it still seems like a flawed plan. I think I'd rather just see some cool architecture on that bridge, with lights at night, and call it good. That desire applies equally to both berm and P&B designs.

by The Jinxmedic on 10/19/2009 @ 2:46pm
Well, the bridge accross the gulch solved most of my complaints.

On the other hand, there's not much you can do about the Pacific Avenue crossing, other than dress up the overpass structure somehow.

The pedestrian underpass "rat maze" shown would drive anyone not on a bicycle, skateboard, or wheelchair totally nuts. Hopefully there's a set of steps that provide a straight path through that I didn't see in the graphic.

Nice grass and trees everywhere. The trees could probably be fairly self sustaining if planted properly, but whether there's actual landscaping at the end of this project remains to be seen.

Of course, photoshopping in lots of people and bicylists and plenty of new subcompact cars always makes everything look more like Ballard, so that's a good thing, right?

by NineInchNachos on 10/19/2009 @ 2:53pm
those people cut-outs are actually part of a 1% mandatory art installation.

Soon everyone in Tacoma will be replaced by one of these cut-out people and Tacoma will finally be SAFE and CLEAN

by Nick on 10/19/2009 @ 2:55pm
We also need to look at the fundamentals of both designs. It really doesn't matter if we have a berm or not a berm as far as landscaping/trees/bums/graffiti goes. We'd get the same outcome.
And I think we can all agree we're never going to see people walking on those sidewalks, or a nicely landscaped area that has zero public access, providing little to no utility.

What I am more focused on are the underlying bones of both structures. With a berm, we introduce an added cost to development in the area. We create an aesthetic that screams "suburban" which will consequentially attract those kinds of developments (if any) in the future.

With the narrower footprint of a raised passage (post and beam, truss, bridge, whatever you want to call it), you mitigate those added costs, you maintain the urban aesthetic of the area, and generally create an environment that is more favorable to dense development.

by narndt on 10/19/2009 @ 2:58pm
Considering I see a crew from the City cutting all the new grass along the Foss Waterway (which is quite a bit of grass) with $300 21" mowers from Lowes every week, I'd say that the maintenance budget is pretty much tapped out!

Turf grass is getting more and more frowned upon anyways from what I hear about the new Watersense regulations. Hopefully we'll have a landscape solution that doesn't involve yellow hay-like ugly fields, which is probably what the renderings should have as the default.

by zastica on 10/19/2009 @ 3:11pm
It would be nice if they could provide some street-level views. Then we could compare them to photographs of the areas.

by KevinFreitas on 10/19/2009 @ 4:01pm
I'd really like to see the grass replaced with self-sustaining, native plantings. Nearly no maintenance and it won't create a smooth surface encouraging anyone to sleep or hang out nearby. It boggles my mind to think of covering a decidedly non-park space with grass. Native grasses, shrubs, and trees would do best to make the berm look presentable without all the painful water needed to keep it looking fresh.

by Nick on 10/19/2009 @ 4:11pm
The thing that scares me is that we're discussing this for a part of our DOWNTOWN. This isn't an undevelop-able hillside somewhere, or a small-town overpass that needs beautification. This is a property-eating, economically-dampening, anti-density design going through an area zoned for dense urban development. 3 letters come to mind ... W T F ?

by boearc on 10/19/2009 @ 5:30pm
So a number of years ago the City changed the zoning code to block a development in this area that was going to introduce a fast food restaurant that had a drive-up window by limiting the number of curb-cuts a development could have so these nasty suburban type developments could not happen within the core. Now we are getting this great swath of suburbia infrastructure complete with recessed roadways. Ha, ha, ha, uh, ubh, gug, wug, wah, wah, wah...sniff.

by ixia on 10/19/2009 @ 5:51pm
Funny in a sad way. Tacoma loves to hire outta town consultants to give us advice on parking and plazas and hotels. When it comes to a major piece of transit they don't bother look at other metro areas anywhere. Not even Spokane. The gateway concept for Pacific spells Tollefson times 50. It is so maddening is that besides Lonergan no council seems to even read and understand what the heck is happening. It is Jake Fayís district Ėhe does not bother to show up at meetings.

by Joe TS on 10/19/2009 @ 7:02pm
Trickery, trickery, trickery. The before picture of 25th & Pacific is shown with red lights on the signals. The after picture is showing green lights. They know everyone wants green lights. I also like how they fit a quarter mile of sidewalk on 400 feet of "A" street.

by DanFear on 10/19/2009 @ 10:00pm
Itís good that Sound Transit finally presented some pictures, they should have presented them to the public months ago.

Breaking news on Do It Right Tacoma, posted this evening. There's a letter to City Council that has Post and Beam Construction costing millions of dollars less than Sound Transitís plan. Our City Council needs to carefully look into this, let's save the tax payers millions and do what most concerned citizens and the area business people want.


by KevinFreitas on 10/20/2009 @ 7:12am
All I see are walls fit for plenty of tagging, people walking to and from no where, and a massive scar running through our downtown that will be covered in weeds and litter. It's a total shame Tacoma (present company excepted) is settling for such a blight.

by tacoma1 on 10/20/2009 @ 7:41am
I am so sick of people moving Downtown Tacoma on me. Last time I was there (yesterday I believe) It seemed that I was on 11th and Pacific. Now today, I find out that Downtown Tacoma has been moved 1 mile over to the edge of town, on S 26th.

by KevinFreitas on 10/20/2009 @ 7:59am
I normally refer to this area as SoDo and/or the Dome District. Downtown-ish perhaps? It's all downtown to me until you head up and over I-5.

by Nick on 10/20/2009 @ 8:14am
I tend to look at it as sort of the growth "path" for downtown. It rests within the City's formal definition of downtown. Geologically, geographically, and transit-ally speaking, this is apparently the next most ideal place to build once the downtown core is filled in. It's nice and flat, with bedrock farther down than on the hillside (meaning one can dig down far enough to build high), and close to almost every form of regional transit.

Over time, downtown will naturally expand this direction until it hits a barrier. That barrier can be this berm thing, or it could be I-5.

I guess I just see this as a parent squandering their kid's college savings, saying their kid isn't guaranteed to go to college, so why waste money on something that isn't a sure thing? It's just a "what if." In the same way, Tacoma seems to be setting itself up for failure. Why cut ourselves short? Sure we may not see dense development here for another 30 or 40 years, but why not do everything we can to set ourselves up for the best possible outcome? It sure seems like there are plenty of other interests working to achieve precisely the opposite already...

by ixia on 10/20/2009 @ 8:26am
Downtown is an area, not an intersection.

by tacoma1 on 10/20/2009 @ 9:27am
26th and Pacific may be technically within the DT boundary, but it has no office buildings, a fast food restaurant, but no vibrancy to it, and not much commerce that contributes to the city coffers. It is hardly worth all this drama.

Ten lanes of I-5 is truly a barrier (that no one complains about) to pedestrians, bicycles, and separates our neighborhoods into south and east v.s. north and west. It also imports tons of air and noise pollution to our city.

The photos of the berm don't seem to block cars, bicycles, pedestrians, or even views of the city. The photo's in the paper last week that the architects drew, showing P&B v.s. berm, looked so similar that I was shocked. It's time to let our region have our regional transit system. The wildlife habitat in the gulch is being preserved, and that is a very important accomplishment.

One thing that I would like to see different, is to have native trees and shrubs planted rather than grass on the berm.

The post and beam construction method is barely compatible with rail transit, and certainly will be incompatible with high speed rail in the future. High speed rail likes a very smooth track. This area will have to get bermed eventually, otherwise high speed rail will just bypass Tacoma and go to Puyallup instead. Then we could be the fourth largest city in Washington.

by Chris.Tacoma on 10/20/2009 @ 9:32am
This is good enough, people. I still have issues with the design - the curvy walkway and the loads of grass depicted are not what I want - but those issues are either small enough for the local community to handle once the project is structurally complete, or they're not legally ones we can modify.

Artistic signage and native vegetation can resolve some concerns and those should be articulated in the local agreement with Sound Transit. The curvy walkway in the project is mandated by stringent requirements for access from the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, and we absolutely need federal money to complete this project.

I don't want any more of Pierce County's share of Sound Transit funds to go to rehashing this design again. There are other regional transit projects that ST promised that need to be executed. We have a light rail extension out of Downtown Tacoma on the books, commuter rail service expansion, and parking and access improvements at Pierce County Sounder stations. South Tacoma and Lakewood have been waiting since 1996 for this link to be brought online. Downtown Tacoma got Sounder more than 9 years ago. Sound Transit built 14+ miles of light rail in less time than it's taken to get a couple mile extension of commuter rail through Tacoma. Let's also not forget the fact that when this additional capacity is added, more people can commute to Downtown Tacoma and more seats will be available on ST Express buses.

by Nick on 10/20/2009 @ 9:48am
"26th and Pacific may be technically within the DT boundary, but it has no office buildings, a fast food restaurant, but no vibrancy to it, and not much commerce that contributes to the city coffers. It is hardly worth all this drama."

Precisely, a pretty terrible place to find yourself isn't it? Guess what that berm is going to do? It's going to ensure this area remains that way for decades to come.

I'm not suggesting it has to be one design or the world will end, but I *am* suggesting that Tacoma needs more self respect than "this is good enough, people."

by DanFear on 10/20/2009 @ 10:34am
The Dome District has offices, art galleries, restaurants, fast food places, Brown and Hailey (300 + employees), the Tacoma Dome and the future Lemay Museum. It's the major transportation hub of Tacoma and it's growing.

The businesses in the Dome District and many many concerned citizens are against the current Sound Transit project especially the berm, which should not be in an Urban environment.

Dome Districts recent estimates show a cost saving of 30 Million dollars. In our current economy this needs to be consider, tax payers should not have to pay so much money.

The Dome District plan is solid and relies on traditional railroad building practices, not new ideas. It will also be faster to build and get the project completed sooner than Sound Transit's plan.

by NSHDscott on 10/20/2009 @ 10:44am
This new cost estimate for P&B will make things interesting ... looking forward to reading about the reactions and rebuttals!

As for the high-speed rail that tacoma1 is talking about ... huh? I haven't read anything stating that the berm would be built to handle high-speed rail, or that P&B would be bumpier than the berm or otherwise unable to handle high-speed rail for some unknown reason. I bet that whether we do berm or P&B, more work will have to be done to accommodate high-speed rail, and that in the highly unlikely event that the high-speed rail bypasses Tacoma, it wouldn't be because we went with P&B in 2010.

by thriceallamerican on 10/20/2009 @ 10:51am
NSHDscott, there's a bit here on the high-speed rail infrastructure situation.

by Chris.Tacoma on 10/20/2009 @ 10:55am
Nick, we shouldn't settle. We SHOULD have criteria and parameters in hand before anyone does ANY engineering design work. I acknowledge and totally agree that Tacoma has settled in the past for some really crappy urban design and it has, in the past, exchanged a row of fabulous historic brick buildings for stupid disgusting dead hulks of concrete that house automobiles of people who don't live in Downtown or Tacoma for that matter. But I think that people's energy would be better invested in working in preparation for what is to come down the pike in the next few years.

For example, thanks to voters last year, we can be pretty certain that Tacoma Link is going to be extended. This is a tremendous opportunity for the community to come up with its own positive vision of what it would like to construct in terms of a surrounding pedestrian environment. What amenities should be on these "completed streets"? Think of the dense, mixed use development that could go into the empty car lots in the Stadium District or flat vacant lots on Portland Avenue or MLK. Think of the boost to downtown that would occur if we linked it to 6th Avenue and Portland Avenue, the Lincoln District, Proctor, South Pacific, and South Tacoma Way. We'd finally have an integrated city again - like we had in 1938. Hopefully we can get there by 2038.

There's so much more work to do. I just don't see any compelling reason to spend more time redesigning this project, if it jeopardizes the federal funds we need to complete it.

by The Jinxmedic on 10/20/2009 @ 11:16am
Points to ponder-

The gulch is now bridged, and no longer filled. That is a good thing, and was one of the major corrections that we wanted.

Dome access is mostly untouched, the Le May site is safe (boy, is it) and the grade crossing remains at Freighthouse Square. The parallel tracks of the Tacoma Rail Wilkeson-Electron-Ashford line remains intact, and is therefore still able to be used for the future (please build this) excursion rail line to The Mountain (as accessed from Freighthouse Square).

Native species planted along the upper berm facing the S.Tacoma Way grade (to include fast-growing coniferous trees in that location) would not require much maintenance, and would provide a "green screen" from both noise and visual pollution when proceding down to the Pacific Ave intersection. This could actually be quite nice. (Heck, Weyerhauser could even donate the trees for a sponsorship plug.)

About the Pacific Avenue crossing, not a whole lot we can do there. The grade requirements pretty well force the sinking of Pacific Avenue to well below current grade. If the crossing was raised, the berm would become gargantuan in order to keep the grade consistant. That would be a very unhappy thing for the Dome district, and would require truly vast amounts of fill. Probably the best way to deal with the Pacific crossing would be to have a design competion to make the facing of that overpass architecturally significant. Think "Alaska-Pacific Exposition Gateway 2010" or something. Or maybe a CLAW portal. Heh.

by NSHDscott on 10/20/2009 @ 11:26am
Thanks for the link, Jamie. I remember that whole deal a few months ago with Seattle Transit Blog guy mimicking Sound Transit's approach of shoving crap urban design down Tacoma's throats. Exactly what we've come to expect from the Seattle perspective.

If the second set of tracks really is an issue, though, why hasn't Sound Transit used it in their pro-berm arguments? Why do I have to go to the Seattle Transit Blog to read anything about it?

by Nick on 10/20/2009 @ 12:06pm

I definitely agree, I'm just still not ready to concede until our city council makes their decision. I think you have the right idea though, and I mentioned something similar during the berm debate some weeks ago.

If we can't get the best outcome this time around, let's at least capitalize on the opportunity it presents to improve for the future. Why not establish a design review board and establish well-defined design guidelines for every business district? Proctor has one, the brewery district just put its process through its paces with that hotel project too. Why not do this city-wide?

Then we can skip all the drama on a project-by-project basis and just continue to refine our policies to produce the kind of results we want.

This makes life easier for developers and builders (like Sound Transit), providing them with clear well-documented guidelines that can be accounted for during the design process. It also allows us as citizens to establish our priorities and standards up front, rather than the ad-hoc/2-months-before approach that's been taken so far.

Ideas? Thoughts?

by L.S.Erhardt on 10/20/2009 @ 9:05pm
why the hell are they making the bridge itself as ugly as possible? Those steel wall trestles are graffiti magnets... look at 64th & So Tac Way.

Tacoma has 4 iconic bridges, the MM, the SR-509 cable-stay and the Narrows Bridges. Why not spend a few bucks more wisely and make the damn thing look cool to go with all of our neat bridges? It's not like it'd have to be fancy functionally, just better looking than that visual atrocity.

Oh yes, and in regards to all those renders:
Since when did Tacoma become Kennewick?

by morgan on 10/21/2009 @ 6:38am
Update from the TNT: Tacoma council OKs Sound Transit agreements

The Tacoma City Council Tuesday unanimously approved three procedural agreements with Sound Transit...
Unanimous?! Really?! Why is it so important for the current council to have the appearance of moving forward together?

"We did the best we could and it's time to move on," said Councilman Jake Fey.
Isn't that what Strickland said about tearing down the Luzon?

This has to be one of the biggest blunder's of 2009 Tacoma's leaders have made. Very disappointing.

by ixia on 10/21/2009 @ 8:17am
Most votes of this council are unanimous. A quick huddle before the public show of unity. Most likely don't bother to figure out the details. In this case, they have no grasp of the main concept. As long as the council positions force the members to have to climb up and out they will continue to sell out Tacoma. Julie is a great example. Itís about votes elsewhere, Tacoma be dammed. She wants her name on the voterís pamphlets in the future. Basically, we have an unprofessional council okaying an inexperienced transit organization. And Tacoma gets royally screwed. Disturbing.

by NineInchNachos on 10/21/2009 @ 8:23am
so lame

by morgan on 10/21/2009 @ 9:19am
In other news, the Seattle city council is moving forward with it's plan to remove the viaduct and replace it with a tunnel - something the Governor did not want. By showing some backbone and a vision for the city's future, Seattle is building itself to be a better place. Who is fighting for Tacoma's future?

by fredo on 10/21/2009 @ 9:45am
"Seattle is building itself to be a better place" -Morgan

It remains to be seen if the tunnel will make Seattle a better place. This could turn out to be one of the most poorly conceived and executed boondoggles of all time. The public is not behind the tunnel and they actually rejected it at the ballot box if memory serves me. The leading mayoral candidate in the Seattle primary was an individual who opposed the tunnel. The funding for the whole thing hasn't even been worked out, yet apparently construction is going to begin. Another example of government at its worst.

by Nick on 10/21/2009 @ 10:36am
After one really really ridiculously looong city council meeting, I have to say I feel a lot better about this than I did before. Seeing the slides online I thought this looked just awful, but having commentary and Q&A while stepping through the slides at the meeting, I left convinced there wasn't going to be much more we could change.

From what I was able to see, north of Pacific Ave. (basically the dome district), post and beam was used as much as possible until there was only going to be 2 or 3 feet of clearance underneath if it were continued (effectively removing the permeability and visibility advantages post-and-beam provided). For me, that's a pill I can swallow. After this point, the only advantage post-and-beam had over the berm design was its footprint, which at that track height is going to be minimal.

I'd say the biggest problem with this design is the lack of an at-grade crossing for Pacific Ave. Depressing pacific is really the biggest blemish in the design and without it we wouldn't even be having this debate. Unfortunately, there was not a substantial debate about that particular part, so if we accept that as an undisputed part of the design, there was not much else one could change before or after the bridge.

by Nick on 10/21/2009 @ 10:41am
Also I should mention, the council was able to include and approve an amendment that contractually obligates Sound Transit and the City to maintain the landscaping/appearance of the area until private development infills the area.

by tacoma1 on 10/21/2009 @ 11:04am
I was pleasantly surprised that the city added the landscaping admendment. I am happy as can be that the project is moving forward.

To all you artists - anyone catch what the ST CEO (a Tacoma resident) said. What hasn't been talked about, and is still coming is 1% of the budget is allocated to public art. I believe that ST tends to select local artists...................ya just might wanna check with ST now. I bet you might like that bridge a little more with your artwork hanging on the side of it. If I did my math right, there should be approximately $1M for tile mosaics, metal fish, totem's, or as I learned recently, graffiti is art too.

Regional rail is good for local rail. Once people experience rail, the always want more rail. This will highlight our need for street cars in Tacoma, not preclude it.

When I wrote about highspeed rail previously, that is for future planning. I just believe that it will be part of our transportation future. It is more comfortable and environmentally friendly to take a train to Portland or Vancouver BC, or Spokane than to fly. If it was just as fast, I think that it would be the preferred method as well. I also think that in the future, with cars becoming electrified, people will not be driving 200 to 300 miles in a car. The train is the logical and practical vehicle for that. I think that as a citizen of Tacoma, if we want rail here, we have to preserve the space for high speed rail to come here. We are on the rail corridor, we shouldn't box our rail station out of future expansion by narrowing the rail right of way. ST wouldn't be addressing highspeed rail as they are commuter rail only. Highspeed would have to come with tons of federal money and planning down the track.

by L.S.Erhardt on 10/21/2009 @ 5:29pm
@ tacoma1... you forget, "local artists" means Seattle, maybe Bellevue. Not Tacoma, not Spokane, not Vancouver.

by ixia on 10/21/2009 @ 7:27pm
My thoughts exactly, Thorax. Just did not want to say the S word.

by tacoma1 on 10/21/2009 @ 7:45pm
Maybe your right, I'm not an artist, so I'm not an expert as to who is qualified for that type of work. We should still take the $1M worth of public art though, don't ya think?

by L.S.Erhardt on 10/21/2009 @ 7:50pm
Hey, I say spend more than a million, even if they have an artist from (shudder) Topeka do it.
I'm just pointing out that the State's definition of "artist" doesn't include anyone not in Seattle or Olympia. Those are the only cities in WA, after all. Everything else is "Here Be Dragons".

by jenyum on 10/21/2009 @ 8:43pm
I've been driving past the Central Link on Seattle's MLK Way for the past month, and the public art there seems pretty impressive. (I like how they've even incorporated it into the design of the supports in some places)

I feel better seeing more detailed drawings. I'm glad to see more information made public and available online even if extremely late. I echo what others have said, however, about the suburban nature of the design. I hope we don't come to regret it, in the future.

I enjoyed reading this FAQ on the Sound Transit website, which comes off as downright snarly, at times:


Well, excuse me fer having questions, mister fancy faq person.

by fredo on 10/21/2009 @ 9:20pm
"the council was able to include an amendment that contractually obligates ST and the city to maintain landscaping"-Nick

That would be an illusory agreement. All the parties have to do to avoid the maintenance "obligation" is to claim they are short of funds. Look around Tacoma, it happens all the time. The landscaping agreement will accomplish one thing for sure. It will make a lot of the post and beam people give up the good fight.

by L.S.Erhardt on 10/21/2009 @ 11:00pm
We'll regret the suburban-style because I'm sure that under Homeland Security regulations nothing new can be built within 300 yards of the berm so them terr'ists can't hide in the shadows.

We can fight all we want, but City Council isn't fighting for us... they're working against what's best for the city. An un-landscaped berm is a visual atrocity, and they know it. They don't care as long as they get their pats on the back (and I wouldn't be surprised if there were kickbacks too... never trust a career politician). I am afraid that I more and more think they're just incompetent. Shame! For the good of this city I hope none of you get reelected and that the new council has the balls to fire Eric Anderson.

by NSHDscott on 10/22/2009 @ 3:12pm
Thorax, I've recently lost a lot of faith in our leaders, too. Not all of Tacoma's various bits of bad news have been entirely their faults, and we're definitely doing better as a city than we were a decade or two ago, but things are not going well and are not improving.

Excepting the bits of good news (DaVita, Elks), there's been a lot more bad and weird news (Russell, Luzon, ST berm, waterfront hotel) and very little forward planning (streetcars, potholes, jobs and people downtown). I do have high hopes in Mayor Merritt and Councilmen Rojecki and Campbell ó not coincidentally, all new-guard candidates with business sense, hard heads, and community-building track records who aren't career politicians. 2010 should be a pivital year for Tacoma.

by ixia on 10/22/2009 @ 4:29pm
Here is to hoping you are right, NSHDscott. I do trust Merritt with his vision for Tacoma. Much trouble comes from Eric Anderson. He has a parking obsession that overrides good sense.

by fredo on 10/22/2009 @ 7:46pm
I know Jim Merritt and he's a great guy. I don't think you'll be disappointed if you vote to elect him.

Regarding our city manager, Mr. Eric Anderson, I wish bloggers would cut him a little slack. He's highly qualified, conservative and very capable at his job. If you had to work, like Eric does, for the city council that we have you would look like a clown too. If we get Merritt and Anderson together and add a few dynamic newcomers like Marty Campbell we might end up with the best lineup we've had in years.

by L.S.Erhardt on 10/22/2009 @ 9:45pm
If Anderson proves himself, I will gladly make posters and stuff praising his leadership.

But he's got a LOT to overcome to make me change my mind. True, many things are not the Civic Leadership's fault. I will absolutely agree with that.
But I will not shy away from the stuff that HAS happened (and is happening) on their watch. Why? Because I actually care about this city and what happens to it. Is that such an alien concept?

Let me state publicly: I have nothing personal against Eric Anderson. I am just very unhappy with the current leadership of the city. If he fights against businesses and development in the future, I will call a pig a pig. If he works better with the new council and the new mayor, then I will give him the props he deserves.

Mr Anderson, prove me wrong about you being incompetent. Prove me wrong.


Although I have another home on the web I thought it might be nice to lead by example a bit and put this blog system up to the test myself.

So far, so good... Funny how I build web tools for other people that are far better than the one's I have setup over on KFnet.


Hey Clear Channel, Clean Up Your Crap!

Advantage: Tacoma

Quick Bites

Recent Posts