Cathy Tuttle cleverly plays to our territorial dispute with Fremont, our status as new parents and our soft spot for silly pictures to ensure we cover Thursday’s fundraiser at Wallingford’s Fremont Brewing Company for the Green Bag Campaign:
Party with the Bag Monsters at Seattle’s newest and most sustainable brewery!
Fremont Brewing Company is a new, locally-owned business hosting a party for Seattle’s Green Bag Campaign on Thursday, June 18th at 6 p.m.
Fremont Brewing is at 34th and Woodlawn Avenue North (arguably part of Wallingford, even if they call themselves Fremont). Anyway, it is an easy walk or bike ride away (don’t drink and drive). Kids (including Wallyhood babies) are welcome.
The Green Bag Campaign supports the August 2009 vote by citizens of Seattle to keep our first-in-the-country law encouraging reusable bags. The plastics industry (read Exxon, Dow & Co.) is going to spend loads of money to overturn Seattle’s decision, and, if they win, almost a million bags a day will go to the landfill and oceans so they can keep their profits. Green bags for a green city! Bag Monsters rule!
34th and Woodlawn is definitely Wallingford. Don’t even try it, Fremont.
CORRECTION: Commenters have noted that the Brewery is at 34th and Woodland Park Ave N, not Woodlawn. While this does place it just outside the existing borders of Wallingford, it is still squarely in the territory marked for imminent annexation. If we were the Fremont Brewing Co, we might just have our graphic designer start on “Wallingford Brewing Co” sketches, just to be prepared.
According to their website, the Fremont Brewing Company is at 34th and Woodland Park, not Woodlawn. This, of course, makes a huge difference when it comes to Fremont/Wallingford territorial bragging rights.
Yep, stop the presses! This is definitely not Wallingford.
Indeed, the brewery is behind the Bikram Yoga studio on 34th and is securely in Fremont territory. =-)
Updated post. Agree it is within Fremont territory, but I wouldn’t call it secure. Everything up to Aurora will eventually be reclaimed by Wallingford.
Interesting that no one has actually posted a comment regarding the campaign for bag tax. As much we all love a good green intiative in this town isn’t time we start working on poverty issues. Like the fact that we have one of the most archaic tax structures in the nation. One that disproportionally taxes the poor here we are panties in wad over plastic bags. Listen folks I agree that a plastic bag is one our biggest wastes however porposing an additional tax to that would bear heavily on those with very little means as it is. Here’s an idea why not take all the time money and effort that you’ve put into proposing another nanny law and actually make reusable bags and hand them out to people going into grocers. Maybe focus on the south end of town where you have pushed the low income people. Oh but wait you might be too afraid to leave Wallingford and cross an arbitrary line in the sand for your territory. This is what give librals such a bad name.
I live at Wallingford & 35th & refer to it as “Wallingford-on-the-cusp-of-Fremont” when talking to Fremonsters.
Perhaps the Brewing Co. should rename themselves “Fremont-on-the-cusp-of-Wallingford Brewing Company.”
Eli: If this ballot measure passes I imagine reusable bags will be made available to those who cannot afford them. To make them free and readily available to all would likely just lead to their frequent disposal and defeat the purpose of the fee.
While I don’t hear Seattle’s advocates for fighting homelessness railing against the proposed fee, I do hear a lot of moaning from 7-11 and the American Chemistry Council. I think that speaks volumes.
Can someone please hug Eli? He is angry, and can’t spell very well.
The bottling industry made a similar argument trying to keep the $.05 deposit off of cans and bottles in many states (including Washington). They claimed that it was a regressive tax, because the poor drank more soda and could ill-afford the extra nickel.
In practice, those who felt the value of the nickel would take the time to return bottles and cans for deposit, and those who didn’t, didn’t, so it was actually a progressive tax. Better yet, it created a way for the homeless to earn money while improving the environment (by collecting bottles and cans the rich had discarded).
I expect we’ll see similar behavior with bags: those people who really feel the impact of the tax will make sure they bring extra bags. Those people who have money to burn can make donations to the state for the privilege of creating waste.
Plastic grocery style bags can be bought in bulk retail for about a penny a piece. I think we can probably all agree how bad they are for the environment, and that re-usable bags are the way to go. However, I can’t see taxing an item at 20 times it’s retail value. It seems there would be a better approach, perhaps an outright ban on them like Styrofoam?