Letter to the editor: 2019 city elections should become a referendum on Edmonds ‘viaduct’


History can be cruel because it remembers politicians for their mistakes. Think of Nixon’s Watergate, Carter’s Iran crisis, Reagan’s Iran Contra Affair, Clinton’s Lewinsky affair, George W. Bush’s Second Iraq War, and so on.

What will Dave Earling be remembered for? I predict that he will be remembered as the Viaduct Mayor.

I admire the tenacity with which he defends bad decisions. In a recent Op-ed, “From the Edmonds Mayor: Great projects,” he listed the Edmonds Viaduct as one of his “great projects.”  He wrote: “The Waterfront Connector is a $27 million project intended to provide emergency-response access for our community at those times when both the Main and Dayton Street rail crossings are blocked, as has happened for extended periods seven or eight times since I have been in office, and occurs daily for shorter periods. During these periods, emergency response to the Waterfront is entirely cut off.”

This was an interesting piece of wordsmithing because it does not tell if there was any incident that required an emergency response.  Indeed, on February 2019, before the Council vote on this project, the Viaduct Mayor noted, “It’s not about how many incidents we have to date. It’s not about how many incidents we have this year. it’s about the future.” Spend $27 million on a viaduct because we might have such cases in the future!  It seems that Edmonds has a lot of surplus cash and no other policy priority.

The spin does not stop there. The Viaduct Mayor also puts an economic spin on his project. The Beacon reports: “Addressing the council directly about the need for the Waterfront Connector project, Earling said that hundreds of people visit the waterfront daily, thousands weekly and millions yearly. In addition, beyond the cumulative land value, the waterfront’s buildings and improvements are valued at ‘upwards of $50 million,’ he said.”

Who hoo! Mayor Viaduct has revealed an important secret: Edmonds is the new Italy with millions thronging its beaches (with apologies to Rick Steves). And the Viaduct is necessary for the tourism industry. But more good news is on the way. We are told that the Viaduct will increase property values! Really? Is there a Mayor-appointed consultant who has produced a report to support this claim?

Question: might these millions of visitors flocking to Edmonds beaches use a pedestrian bridge (constructed at a fraction of the cost) somewhere else? Or, think of the alternative scenarios (as a professor, this is what I ask students to do). Might the sight of an ugly Viaduct spoiling Edmonds’ scenic views dissuade them from visiting our beaches?

You might say. Ok, I get it. The Viaduct is a lousy idea. But what can I do?

People, you can do a lot. You probably take a stroll (or maybe even power walk) on the Sunset Boulevard. I have seen you looking at the Viaduct site, shaking your head in disgust and muttering curses under your breath. Do not stop there. If you want to stop the destruction of your beloved Edmonds, join the fight to stop this fiscal, aesthetic and ecological monstrosity.

Let the Viaduct issue drive your 2019 city election votes. The Viaduct is the canary in the coal mine because it reflects the deeper malaise in the City Hall. It shows that politicians are willing to irresponsibly spend almost $27 million to solve a future problem that could be solved at a fraction of the cost and would not destroy the Brackett’s Landing beach, the marine park, and the Boulevard.

You need to demand that all candidates running for any city-level position clearly show their hand on the Viaduct. And vote only for those who categorically oppose it. Don’t let them get away by saying, I will look into the facts.

There is also a new trick in town:  “let us maintain civility in discourse.” This seems to have emerged as the party line of the Viaducters. It seems asking tough questions is now uncivil. See through this charade.

Attend every public meeting and ask pointed questions. Organize and participate in public demonstrations that are peaceful and lawful. Imagine dozens of people standing at the intersection of 100thand Edmonds Way and holding signs, No Edmonds Viaduct (I bet the Viaducters cannot mobilize people carrying signs: build the Viaduct). Do the same in downtown during the farmer’s market. May be print T-shirts and baseball caps that say: No Edmonds Viaduct.

Continue with the “no waterfront connector” signage. But also create your own signage. Ask your neighbors to display them.

We can win against special interests. All of us came together to protect the wider setback for the Edmonds Marsh. Recall the fight. It was a 4-3 vote in the City Council: Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Diane Buckshnis, Kristiana Johnson and Mike Nelson supported the wider Marsh buffer and setback, while Neil Tibbott, Dave Teitzel and Tom Mesaros opposed it. Dave Earling actually wrote a letterto the Department of Ecology to support the narrower buffer. And, of course, now he portrays himself as the Marsh savior. George Orwell’s 1984 is getting played out in Edmonds!

The Marshpavers are now the Viaducters. Issues might change, but the characters remain the same. If the Viaducters win here, what comes next? New taxes to finance the Viaduct? Relax height restrictions and allow for high rises? Turn Edmonds into Ballard?

The 2019 election should be about the “People of Edmonds versus the Viaducters (and the Marshpavers).” Whose side are you on? You succeeded in preserving the ecological integrity of the Edmonds Marsh. Do you want to protect Brackett’s Landing beach, the Marine Park, the Sunset Boulevard and the character of Edmonds? If so, do vote and vote sensibly.

And don’t stop here. Start emailing your representatives in Olympia and the Congress. Express your opposition and ask them about their position. In 2020 they will ask for your vote, and this is your leverage. People get the government they deserve. I hope we can do better than what we have now in Edmonds.

Aseem Prakash

23 Replies to “Letter to the editor: 2019 city elections should become a referendum on Edmonds ‘viaduct’”

  1. Forget the candidates…they flip with the wind. How about an advisory, non-binding vote on the ‘viaduct’ on the ballot. How do Edmonds’ citizens really feel about it? Yes or no…

    Many Washington State communities use this voting construct to get an idea of opinions on a matter affecting a community…

    Perhaps the City Council(present and future) don’t want the opinions of the citizens on this matter…flip-flop!


  2. Well said. I had already decided I would not vote for any City Council or Mayoral candidate who supports the Sunset Connector, but it’s time to up my game on activism.


  3. Great letter..I also want to know where they stand on the “homeless tent dwellers” as they are starting to emerge here.


  4. Do any of you remember before Mayor Dave was elected and the City of Edmonds had no money available to plow snow from the roads? The COE was in bad shape. Do you remember some of the things that Mayor Dave said he was going to do? Mayor Dave talked about transparency, balancing the budget and creating a cash reserve for future projects. Mayor Dave has exceeded that! Under Mayor Dave’s leadership the COE has thrived. It is a city that is very progressive with very deep-rooted conservative undertones. Edmonds doesn’t like change. They want to stay the same. Unfortunately, the growth population has produced more traffic in the downtown corridor. An outlet is needed for Emergency vehicles to get to the waterfront. The “potential” for a catastrophic event is very real. What if our Emergency vehicles can’t get to a fire or a citizen needing emergency treatment won’t see an ambulance until one of the many coal trains finally clears the tracks? So now you call Mayor Dave the “Viaduct Mayor”? I think we should put at least 2 Pedestrian bridges/overpasses over the tracks. Progression! If common sense dictates the need for a common sense project, then by all means explore the pros and cons. Mayor Dave is a common sense person who gets things accomplished. I guarantee you a year after the overpass is built people in Edmonds will appreciate what Mayor Dave did.
    I understand the election process and the election cycle pretty well. It seems we all need someone to “pick-on”. It is unfortunate but that’s just the way it goes. So many of us follow like sheep and we don’t stop to appreciate the merits of a good person who has been in office. None of us are perfect. Not the elected officials, not the office seekers, and especially us regular “folk”. You do your best each day and you try to make a difference.
    So, before you label someone who has done a great job for your city, work out your own issues. Don’t get on a bandwagon. This should not be an election about “labels”. This should be about electing the best qualified candidate who loves the City of Edmonds.
    You all showed that by electing Mayor Dave Earling to 2 Terms.
    Ron Smith, former resident of Edmonds.


  5. Aseem–I find your letter, while quite pointed in character and passionate in verbiage, to be well off target in terms of the direction existing for this project. The Edmonds Street flyover Waterfront Connector project is well underway (since 2016) in terms of planning, design, and fundraising logistics.

    Here are the facts with regard to this matter:
    Recognition of the needs and purpose of this project go back almost six (6) years to Council’s approval of Edmonds original Strategic Action Plan [SAP] on 4/3/13 and again of 4/7/15 with updated approval of the plan. Edmonds SAP (with high levels of input, makeup, and support from the taxpaying citizenry of the city) Primary Objective #4 [ranked Mod-High] calls us to “Develop and maintain a transportation and infrastructure to meet current and future demand.” More specifically, Action Item #4a.9 within the SAP calls us to “…establish an emergency and everyday access OVER the railroad tracks… for pedestrians bound for shoreline and waterfront attractions from Harbor Square, Salish Crossing, and Downtown.”

    The current design concept and configuration of the flyover has had continuous support within the development team, our City Council, and the public. The plan provides for the LEAST VIEW-IMPACTING design accommodating everyday safe track crossing for pedestrians, bikes, and for emergency (only) vehicles– plus the unlikely potential ferry unloading necessitated by RR tract at-grade crossings blockage by a train.

    In summary, our upcoming elections with potential new mayor have nothing to do with the current nor future status of the Waterfront Connector Project other than to reflect ongoing support for the entire undertaking.


  6. Very thoughtful letter, until I got to the fear mongering. You say don’t support someone who is thinking of the future, yet you go on about what MIGHT happen if this were built i.e., a lift on height restrictions and looking like “Ballard”, which has nothing to do with this project. I hope you see the hypocrisy in that. I do think we need to think about the safety of our residents and visitors, and the lawsuit against the city that would surely come were someone to need medical assistance and not get it because there was no medical access to the waterfront. If you or your loved one were to find yourself in that situation, I would think you would be so thankful that somebody had the forethought to make your safety a priority.


  7. Great insight from a local academic. The Mayor has accomplished some nice things for our town, this is unfortunately his bogey. It’s difficult to believe one is for the environment when you are willing to put millions of cubic yards of concrete on our waterfront and most coveted beach? Professor Aseem Prakash in his previous Letter to Editor, shared the fact that Edmonds Residents are completely financially liable for GRANT FUNDING Shortfalls & COST Overrun Risk as they relate to this multimillion-dollar project. Once large-scale planned public projects reach a certain dollar threshold they should be automatically moved to a vote on the ballot, not decided by a few open houses and 4 council person majority. The Waterfront Connector project is not only an environmental, city charm, and possible financial disaster, it’s something the Washington State Ferry system and BNSF (Warren Buffett) should be shouldering financially not the great people of Edmonds. Many in Edmonds myself included see the Waterfront Connector being mainly used in the future as an accommodative bridge to our local ever-increasing Ferry traffic and inevitable Rail line expansion along our town’s shores. If you think otherwise, why is Edmonds the only small seaside town in Washington State if not the United States to have one of these concrete over engineered structures planned? We also just happen to have a single train track in direct crossing to our Ferry dock as well, imagine if there were additional tracks in direct conflict in the future? There is Plenty of great artistically valued seaside pedestrian walkway examples throughout the United States, with emergency access alternatives that could be achieved with the already $18 million in Federal funding allocated to this project that could really be environmentally sound and attractive. One must ask themselves is BNSF expanding their rail lines along Railroad avenue sooner than later? I am all for pedestrian walkways and emergency access to our beaches but this so over the top. My hope is current and future leadership revisit this project as it could put Edmonds Residents in a real financial pickle come 2022, with already looming estimated $39 million dollar School district deficit. We all have witnessed the Senior Center (looks like a beautiful complex) now 100% over original budget. As mentioned, this Connector in my opinion is a “Charm” killer from a visual prospective for our town. I hope all the current candidates clearly explain their positions on this project. I love election years! Noticed many of these signs popping up around town as well. https://nosunsetconnector.com/


  8. I have lived in Edmonds since 1955 and have seen the results of the decisions of our politicians manifest themselves ever since. Some of the decisions have proven to be very good, and some poor, at best. The “Viaduct” issue is much the same as most others. We have 2 sides to the issue and an up or down vote. My comment here is not to influence opinion or garner support for one side or the other, because we, the residents of Edmonds, will have to live with whatever the decision is. What I want to do is introduce some logic related to the decision making process. A professor from M.I.T. named Charles H. Fine wrote a book several years ago titled “Clock Speed,” which compared the process of making and implementing strategies in large corporations, comparing large hidebound industrial giants to software companies who have to bring a product to the customers rapidly in an ever changing market. Though the premise of the book is much different than our Edmonds Viaduct issue, the thought process of strategic decision making may mitigate the emotion of the ultimate yes or no vote.


  9. Leaving personality politics out of the issue, I question the viaduct on it’s supposed merits. Spending millions of dollars for this on the assumption there might be a future major event where it would be beneficial, if not critical, is kind of a dumb gamble if you ask me. If an oil train blows up anywhere near the underwater park lot, which this thing attaches to, the heat will be so intense it will render the viaduct unusable in a matter of a few minutes, if not seconds. You can’t drive emergency vehicles thru an inferno.

    If a coal train derails next to the viaduct and cars tumble down slope into the viaduct or spewing coal all over the road, it could easily be rendered useless in seconds. Anything major that happens near the underwater park lot could block the viaduct and make it all but useless. This alone, makes it a bad investment gamble, especially when you can’t site virtually any need for it up to this point other than, “it might come in handy some day.”

    The other argument here is that we are using a cannon to kill a rabbit. There is a well established air lift ambulance service locally that Dist. 1 Fire can call in whenever needed on an individual basis.
    There is a police/fire boat marinating in the bay, unused 99% of the time, that could be pressed into quick service by officers on foot if necessary. Even better would be having a small police and fire station right next to the boat. Dist. 1 says no to this, so maybe the past decision to get rid of our own fire department wasn’t so smart after all. As for ferry traffic blocked, it is a simple matter for the ferry to back up and go drop cars off at Mukulteo or Seattle.

    Personally, I’d be all for a public vote on this issue. I think it severely fails the “need to spend money on test.” I’m willing to live with it, as finished business, but I reserve the right to think it’s a stupid idea even as I walk over it to the beach.


  10. Mr. Smith,
    Thanks for your comment. I do think it is possible to appreciate some things Mayor Earling has done and nonetheless see the direction that Edmonds government, led by the Mayor, is taking now as contrary to what the majority of citizens in Edmonds want for their city. I will mention the Connector, massive redevelopment, up-zoning and form based code.

    Also, Professor Prakash makes a VERY IMPORTANT point in his letter to the editor. It is common practice today to label someone who disagrees with you as one who is “lacking civility”. Frankly, it is most often progressives who resort to this gambit. What has been going on in Edmonds over the last year has, in my opinion, been a healthy discussion about the direction the city should take. Simply because someone disagrees with your ideas on policy, particularly if they back it up with argument, reasoning, and alternatives is NOT, i repeat NOT being “uncivil”… it is disagreeing with your ideas. I heard Councilperson Tibbott say he thinks that this “lack of civility” is one of the biggest issues in Edmonds today. I disagree. In fact, I find that to be a dangerous notion. Yes, there is disagreement about the path the city should take, but it is simply that, a difference of opinion.

    Lynne Chelius


  11. Good points Lynne. Incivility is often in eye of the beholder and the accusation of it, used as a tactic. I would disagree that Prgressives have a monopoly on the tactic however. It’s pretty universal in our politics from what I can see. We can’t just disagree with someone, we seem to need to metaphorically destroy our opponents in the process, especially if they come from a perceived different ideological perspective.


  12. As one who wants to promote Civil Discourse in Edmonds, I’d like to respond to the suggestion by the author that Tough Questions are uncivil. That’s his point of view, not mine.

    I value Tough Questions. They can be productive in civil discourse, not the opposite. For example, a Clarifying or Synthesizing set of questions could be seen as tough, but they often produce understanding that help us take action.

    A Softball Question can be just as uncivil as a Tough Question if it is asked in a demeaning way. When questions come across as sarcastic or condescending, they shut down useful conversations.

    I want the citizens of Edmonds to have confidence in our city government. We should aim higher than our national political dialogs and have an Edmonds kind of discussion. We can do better. Let’s practice civility when discussing important matters concerning our future.


    1. I have an example of a softball question you threw back at me in an email I patiently awaited 26 days from you. I emailed you voicing my concerns allowing low barrier, housing first, low income homes into our residential neighborhood. (We moved from our house in Seattle due to this type of housing being expanded onto our block). You replied, “thanks for bringing the link to my attention. What specifically is your concern about providing housing and social service to families at a reduced price while they are getting back on their feet?”

      I informed him in my initial letter that in Seattle we previously dealt with mentally unstable people breaking into our homes. (They had a group home/housing one block away) The police had to forcibly remove the person in a straight jacket. That was just one incident. Who says things like that in response to a concerned citizen? And he wants to be mayor?


  13. The Edmonds Connector
    I see the ‘viaduct’ professor is at it again. In a letter to the editor on 15 April, Aseem Prakash condemns the Edmonds Connector as Mayor Earling’s mistake comparing it to Watergate, the Iran crisis, the Lewinsky case etc. Wow.

    Let’s look at some of the things the professor highlights. The mayor didn’t state how many times an emergency vehicle was held up by a train. What he did say was that the Edmonds Connector is to prevent “future” incidents. It certainly couldn’t prevent past incidents. Is the professor suggesting we wait until someone dies before we build a connector? Oh, he doesn’t live on the west side of the tracks.

    The National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 section states the fire department which handles emergency responses have several objectives, including an 80 second turnout time for fire and special operations and 60 second turnout time for EMS responses. The fire department is located 4 blocks from the location of the Connector. In fires and certain medical cases, response time is critical.

    The viaduct professor comments further “It seems that Edmonds has a lot of surplus cash” to build the Connector. The Connector will be built primarily with grants which cannot be used for other purposes than that for which made. They aren’t city money.

    He then proposes we build a pedestrian bridge for our visitors. The Connector is being built exclusively for emergency vehicles. However, once it is built, it should be used for any purpose which does not interfere with its primary purpose such as pedestrians and bicycles. It increases access to the beach. We don’t need a second bridge.

    At the end of the 10th paragraph he suggests that people shouldn’t look at the facts. As I go through the professor’s letter, I can see why he said that since facts would disprove many of the professor’s unsupported conjectures therein.

    The Viaduct professor also says the “ugly viaduct” will spoil Edmonds’ scenic views. The Connector roadway will be approximately 2 feet higher than Sunset Avenue. Yes, the wire fence extends above that. I’m 6’ 1” tall so the roadway will not block much of my vision. Certainly not near as much as the first row of homes on Sunset block the vision of the homes immediately behind them.
    The professor then lapses into politics. “It shows that politicians are willing to irresponsibly spend almost $27 million to solve a future problem that could be solved at a fraction of the cost.” Oh, I didn’t see any alternatives proposed by the professor or is he talking about a pedestrian bridge which vehicles could not use. The first committee considered over 50 different proposals before recommending the Connector.

    He refers to special interests. Are these the two committees the mayor appointed or the Council members that voted unanimously for the Connector in response to the mayor’s first proposal? Nelson who was co-chair said when it came before the Council, “We did a lot of work to get to this point, and I really do think this is the best solution under the circumstances. I’m really happy with the task force and everything we did collectively.”

    I was a member of both committees. I am happy with our work and recommendations, too.

    Kirk Greiner


  14. We need politicians, in general, to worry less about who is asking the tough questions and how they are being asked; and worry more about giving their constituents good and honest answers to all legitimate questions, no matter how they are presented. Even if someone comes across as “sarcastic” or “condescending” in asking a tough question, they deserve the best answer possible. There is a lot to be said for having a thick skin and some backbone if you are going to be a politician. I don’t appreciate a politician lecturing me about his or her definition of civility. It is also wrong for the constituents to complain that they aren’t being listened to when they choose to wait until something has been decided and then complain. I don’t agree with the Connector from an economic standpoint but I’m glad the Council has had the courage to make the decision. They did their job as they saw it. As Chris Christie says, “Politics ain’t bean bags.”


    1. I would still advocate for everyone here to attend a future 3 Practices event. I know that Mr. Wright has been to one and several other commenters have too. The point is not to “learn to be civil.” It is to learn to listen. That’s how people overcome disagreements and learn the art of finding solutions to tough issues. In my opinion, agreeing to disagree, while a common catchphrase for many (me included, although I’m working on it), does not encourage us to solve our problems. It encourages polarization. — Teresa


  15. Actually I’ve attended two of the 3 Practices events. I found them fun and enlightening and well worth my time. My Significant Other tells me I need to learn how to listen more and talk(write) less, or at least more concisely. I obviously need all the help I can get.


  16. Whether there is a need for an above-grade waterfront connector can be supported or denied with math and law. Let’s settle this part of the debate using these tools at our disposal. If you are an actuary or a math genius of any kind- or know someone who is- please come forward!

    According to this City of Edmonds website, http://www.edmondswa.gov/community-services/alternatives-analysis.html, 40 trains go through Edmonds’ at-grade crossings each day. Train frequency is expected to nearly double in the next 20 years. Most of the trains are 1 to 1.5 miles long. Currently there are two “at grade” crossings (Dayton and Main). They are 0.2 miles apart. If an emergency access easement was granted to Edmonds through the Unocal site near Marina Beach (in escrow for sale to the WA State Department of Transportation), that would be a third. The Main Street and Unocal crossing would be over 0.8 miles apart. What are the chances that all three crossings (if we can get the third) would be blocked by a stopped train at the same time AND that an emergency response would be needed at that moment also*?

    Once we have the probability of the incident coinciding with the blockage from 1) the available two crossings AND 2) the potential three crossings, we need to ask Mr Tarady (the City Attorney) if that probability is high enough in one or both cases to require a public safety response from the City (from a legal liability standpoint).

    A choice to do nothing is not in our hands- math and the law decide.

    My knowledge of a potential third at-grade crossing came from civil discourse (thank you Scot Steffy for being one of a dozen or more people I spoke to on this matter). If we succeed at getting that easement and that probability of blocking all three is an acceptable risk where the blocking of the two is not- I think we have validation for civil discourse from this exercise as well….

    *Usage of the property on the west side of the tracks will be higher than current usage due to increased population and ever-improving amenities, not the least of which is the Waterfront Center.


  17. Ms. Olson thanks for posting, good to see Council candidates posting and engaging in discussions on topics that impact our community in various ways. Also, nice to see council person Tibbott post as well. I am not sure the general public is aware of the fact that emergency services in close proximity to the Future Waterfront connector have been reduced in staff and strategy making the general purpose of this structure to be in question in my opinion. See story link below. Dayton street seems like a more logical location for this structure? My guess is Dayton site was not considered because we need to accommodate Ferry “Emergency” Offloading?

    I am confused if a “Black Swan” type emergency happens on our Waterfront; the Ferry could be directed to the Mukilteo Dock 13 miles to the north to unload? I also would like to point out that statistically it was estimated by some experts this year that the chance of recession was around 24% in 2019. I am guessing the chance of a recession within the next 5 years is more likely than today. One must ask themselves if Edmonds community is stuck funding this structure in the midst of an economic downturn and if only a portion of this structure is completed within the next 5 years, its more statistically likely that funding for our emergency services among other community staffing needs could be in jeopardy, being crowded out by this large scale capital endeavor and need for its completion? If I am not mistaken the Edmonds Police force is still not back to pre-2008 staffing levels from the last economic downturn? Ms. Olson makes an excellent point about increased Rail activity in our future, I believe it will be here much faster than 20 years from now. I have been informed that a 3rd Ferry is also in the works at Edmonds location, so you can see the logistical nightmare of more Train activity accompanied by additional Ferry traffic activity with Rail lines in direct crossing path. If we need a connector lets have an open honest dialogue about its function and location, and better yet, have the Washington State Ferry System & BNSF pay for it? If I am wrong move it to Dayton location (Ports property have plenty of space) and preserve our most coveted beach should not be an issue. BNSF (Warren Buffett) has to get that coal up to Vancouver and over to China, and Edmonds single rail line bottleneck in front of our Ferry dock is holding them up folks. My family and hardworking Edmonds residents should not be on the financial hook for billionaire Rail tycoon’s expansion plans and WA State Ferry entity expansion plans as well, let them pay for this Concrete colossus and get it off our beach is my vote, if I actually had one.


    (read some of old post quite telling by concerned Emergency service folks)


  18. Right on Mike and well argued in my opinion. Basically we have this thing hanging over our heads because Mayor Dave wanted it and pushed it to the planning board and the Council. (My view, not necessarily yours; not trying to put words in your mouth). I definitely want to be on your side with this and give me a heads up if you need help on any sort of ad-hock action committee or group to fight this Viaduct. It represents bad government on steroids, in my opinion. Let’s quit playing Edmond’s nice – nice and put some bad publicity pressure on BNSF and the Ferry system who are the ultimate cause of any future problems for us. I would suggest we start with two large signs at Main and Dayton, stating “WARNING, due to frequent BNSF and WSF blockages, emergency help may be delayed in this area.” We need to start making a big deal about how the RR is creating a potential disaster for our city to get them on board to pay for the fix. The RR needs to build an overpass at Dayton. Angry letters to Buffet and perhaps the Governor’s office might be another way to make waves at the Waterfront (sorry, too good to resist). See folks, Mike and I don’t hate each other even if we (mostly I) seemed a little uncivil on another issue. Edmonds is lucky to have Mike in my opinion. Me, maybe not so much.


  19. Please, we need to rethink this span over our beautiful waterfront. Sunset Avenue is such a
    beautiful walk along the shore. Why must we destroy something so beautiful now for
    a concrete monstrosity? Lets rethink this idea.

    Bonnie O’Brien


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *