proftrees.bsky.social
Socialism, Soccer, Seattle, Sandwiches, Software, Spoons
Non 's' interests: ballard fc, manchester united, economics, crosswords, trees, graffiti, whittling, tattoos, linocut prints, video games
183 posts
50 followers
199 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
All I read was: "harrell is going to be pegged"
comment in response to
post
The person to the left of Pedro's waist didn't get the memo, he's looking directly at camera where as everyone else is looking at Pedro because that's the point. Shocked that's the photo they chose. Given the extra is dead center in the pic they draw the eye.
comment in response to
post
Saka, as chair of the transportation committee, could fix this if he wasn't using his only brain cell to get rid of curby.
comment in response to
post
Moses parted salty water, Michael Pham parted frozen water.
comment in response to
post
What if there was a little curb around the perimeter of 'curby park', then Saka can never go to the park because a curb is too much of a barrier for him. Though he'll rerun for city council claiming 'curby park' is an anti-immigrant 'walled garden'.
comment in response to
post
Of course, it doesn't actually matter how long it takes for trees to mature. We should be planting them all the time and letting them grow up in a staggered fashion, just as would happen in a real forest, where a mix of trees of all species and ages create a diverse, varied, and healthy habitat.
comment in response to
post
If you delay protections by 1 year then we could lose tons of mature trees, which will have negative impacts for 20 years. If you delay planting by 1 year, then your 20 year timeline becomes a 21 year timeline, relatively small change. Now we can't that kick the can down the road forever.
comment in response to
post
Both are good, we can and should do both. Right now we need to protect what we have while planting more. I think that the discourse is focused on protection because of it's immediacy. Big tree removed = big impact, same day. Potentially big tree planted = potentially big tree in ~20 years.
comment in response to
post
I agree with your stance that the city gov shouldn't govern aesthetics but I disagree when it comes to trees. Trees are not just an aesthetic choice, they have functional impact, and mature trees don't just impact the property they lie on. In a city I think it's fair to regulate their removal.
comment in response to
post
I never think, 'oh well thats not my neighborhood so I won't say anything', because it could be my neighborhood when my lease ends and I move. I've also lived on district boundaries, and I don't think that my opinion becomes less valid because I'm one block over. We are 'One Seattle' after all.
comment in response to
post
City council districts are not as rigid as many council members think. If you own a home then you might be in the same district for decades, but that doesn't apply to most people. I could have stayed in a neighborhood, but I've lived in 3 districts (almost 4 by 1 block) in the past 8 years.
comment in response to
post
I'm really tired of the arguments that schools or transit is too small to handle more housing. Building housing takes time and in that time we could also scale up our schools. It's not a theoretical econ class with "all else held constant". Cities are meant to grow.
comment in response to
post
Curbs are used throughout the city, this is not unique, preventing left hand turns is not waging war against cars or immigrants. Traffic barriers for safety are not equivalent to immigration barriers and racism. Also, politicians should not use emojis, it's kinda unprofessional.
comment in response to
post
Seems like SDOT probably should have taken responsibility for making the signs, high foot traffic isn't unique to the cwc, and we'd just need to make the same signs next year for the wc. At the very least you'd think they'd have been in contact with FIFA and part of the planning/review process.
comment in response to
post
Oh, interesting. FIFA screwing up yet another thing this year. Maybe lucky for them they aren't drawing the crowds they wanted because of high prices and poor planning, so fewer people will see this blunder.
comment in response to
post
No wonder the city council doesn't think physical signs don't work and we need stupid kiosks.
comment in response to
post
Given people's confusion as to what this is, I think that the next design iteration should be a bicycle graphic where the 2 wheels are both soccer balls.
comment in response to
post
Awesome to see the bike and soccer community working together!
I don't know if I'd classify this as 'guerilla' though, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways got permission to do this from the city, unless they are admitting to graffiti.
comment in response to
post
Saka is the chair of the transportation committee but he's only focused on spending millions of dollars to remove safety features and make it easier for cars.
comment in response to
post
"Abate any debate"
They want our walls to be grey and our streets to run red.
comment in response to
post
Today the pres of the sports commission explicitly said that they were going to 'smash' the record, so I'm glad we are going to actually put our best foot forward.
comment in response to
post
Good news. So today the sports commission announced 1500 registrants and not the 1000 limit that was listed online, plus 4k on the waitlist. No risk of Seattle getting egg on their face.
comment in response to
post
Sorry carter subaru. You aren't a bad business, I even bought my car from you, but car dealerships don't belong in major neighborhood centers especially when we are trying to discourage inner city car use and have a housing shortage.
comment in response to
post
Thank you!
What does 'in proximity' mean? They don't define it! I want them to explain the previous cases where they would have applied this change. This didn't come out of a vacuum, so when were they held back? They only applied it 17 times, how many are they looking to add to that with this?
comment in response to
post
Their exceptions are also curious. Given their definition, socializing and dancing during 2-6, a place with an all ages dance license can still qualify under that criteria.
comment in response to
post
Their definition doesn't require that a lounge serves liquor, but the provision requires that a lounge has a liquor license.
comment in response to
post
Also there's specific language that I think should be challenged in the april ord (120956). "After hours nightlife lounge" defined as a place open 2-6 for socializing and dancing or smoking, but then they state the lounges can't operate without a liquor license with extended hours added activity.
comment in response to
post
I think an aspect that is confusing to me is that in some cases we are creating new legislation to make stuff that's illegal and not enforced more illegal and claim that it'll help. They bring up that the clubs are serving liquor illegally, so why aren't we cracking down on them already?
comment in response to
post
Can you share the bill? Is there a reason why it's only available upon request?