Port Townsend-Coupeville (Keystone)

[zman]

I think that the only safe way to "rebuild" the SEs is to replace the entire hull and car deck.
By the time that is done, you could have built a new vessel with better engines and technology.

The way things are going, it almost seems that WSF wants to make a boat sink.

[SS Shasta]

Sorry if I created a controversy. I was just trying to express what the average citizens/taxpayers are thinking. They likely don't know and likely don't care about lawsuits over building new vessels. They do, however, think that their taxes are too high and many plan to do something about it. They vote their feelings, and folks like Eyman take advantage of their lack of understanding to exploit issues for personal profit (also my opinion). It's an unfortunate situation, but one that cannot be ignored.

[SS Shasta]

Just wondering if it is possible to increase the depth of Keystone Harbor by about 3 1/2 feet to allow two of the Evergreen Sized vessels to dock there? Has WSF considered this idea?

Then the MV Klahowya and MV Tillikum could be used on the route. The MV Evergreen State, with deeper draft, could continue to serve the Islands.

Seems like if this was possible, the 4 new ferries could be built according to current plans. There would be no immediate need to shift funding to build smaller vessels. One thing for certain, no new vessels should be built with smaller capacities than the current Steel Electrics for this route or any route.

[SS San Mateo]

shasta said:

Just wondering if it is possible to increase the depth of Keystone Harbor by about 3 1/2 feet to allow two of the Evergreen Sized vessels to dock there? Has WSF considered this idea?

Yes, and it was dropped (along with all other improvement options).

[Barnacle]

The Environmental People of various groups opposed any alteration of the harbor (never mind that it's man-made). Thus far, it would seem that the locals actually want the Defiance and San Diego back.

[Mill Bay]

Did anyone hear anything about the state rejecting the idea of a private ferry service to fill in on the route?

Apparently an operator called Puget Sound Express had offered to run a passenger ferry service to replace the Snohomish, but the state officials decided that the usage rates weren't high enough to justify a private contractor.

[Jeremy]

The big problem with Keystone Harbor is that it's too shallow for any other ferries aside from the Hiyu, Rhody, and the S/E's, and even these boats can't dock at Keystone during very low tides. The Hiyu and Rhody can't operate on that route because of Coast Guard restrictions and the S/E's are now officially done for. The only way Keystone Harbor can be made to handle any larger boat is to dredge the harbor, which is very costly and has major environmental concerns. The best thing is to build new boats that can handle the shallow harbor at Keystone. WSF should look at the designs of some of smaller BC ferries as an example, such as the Queen of Capalino.

[Deleted]

I would agree with Jeremy that Queen of Capilano would be a far better design than what WSF currently plan, the very small Steilacoom Nichols Bros design. The problem is WA law requires all ferries be built only in WA plus Jones Act requires all US vsls in domestic service be built in US yards. An exemption would require an Act of Congress.

[Nick]

Problem with the Cap/Cumbie is that they have a fairly significant draft at 3.8m or 12.8 ft. This is due to their RAD (right angle drive) system, as opposed to a conventional shaft line drive system that is present on WSF's Hiyu and Rhodie.

[zman]

This is a low tide in August at Keystone with the Nisqually.

[Barnacle]

August... wow. Must've been really close to the end then.

[Emory Lindgard]

Nice pictures, Zack, ;D
of the Nisqually. I really like the framing of the fog and low tide.
I really shows what low tide can do to Ferryboat travel.

Emory on Whidbey

[SS San Mateo]

State wants newer ferry

www.thenewstribune.com/news/government/story/235296.html

ROB TUCKER; The News Tribune Published: December 21st, 2007 01:00 AM

The state ferry system will get Pierce County’s new Anderson Island ferry to meet its emergency needs instead of an older boat, officials said Thursday.

Pierce County officials said the M/V Steilacoom II, which entered service earlier this year, will be sent to work the state’s Port Townsend-Keystone run sometime next month.

Some Anderson Island residents are worried because the new Steilacoom II that serves them wasn’t designed to handle the rougher waters between Port Townsend on the Olympic Peninsula and Keystone on Whidbey Island.

“There’s a lot of concern,” said David McGoldrick, an Tacoma attorney and island resident. He said residents on the ferry committee of the island’s citizens advisory board proposed that the county place protective conditions on the temporary lease of the Steilacoom II to the state, “to make the best out of a bad deal,” he said.

Those included an 18-month maximum lease and the return of the boat in prelease condition at state expense. The amount and terms of the lease have yet to be determined.

Toby Rickman, deputy director of Pierce County Public Works and Utilities, said the state’s request for the Steilacoom II instead of the 13-year-old M/V Christine Anderson was reasonable.

“If we were the state,” he said, “We’d have asked for the same thing.”

The county had offered the Christine Anderson for temporary duty about a week ago. But some state ferry captains expressed concerns that the older boat might not handle the rougher waters on the longer Port Townsend-Keystone run as well as the Steilacoom II. Rickman said the Steilacoom II is more agile in rough water and can stop quicker at docks than the Christine Anderson.

The Port Townsend-Keystone run has much stronger currents and higher winds and waves than the runs from Steilacoom to Anderson and Ketron islands, he said.

Leasing the Steilacoom II to the state temporarily helps resolve the crisis that followed the discovery of leaks and corrosion in four of the state’s 80-year-old Steel Electric-class ferries.

The state dropped those boats from service Nov. 20. There were no smaller ferries that could replace those vessels on the Port Townsend-Keystone run, so the state temporarily stopped service there.

The state has provided passenger-only ferry service from Seattle to Port Townsend, but it needs to restart the regular run from Port Townsend to Keystone to provide the necessary over-the-water link to state Highway 20 on both ends. That means carrying cars as well as passengers: The Steilacoom II can carry 54 cars and 299 passengers.

Rickman said the Christine Anderson, which also carries 54 cars but only 250 passengers, is reliable and ran without problems all of last year. It carried about 200,000 people during the year, officials said. It served Anderson Island’s 1,000 to 1,500 residents and the 13 homes on Ketron Island. In the summer, thousands more people visit Anderson Island.

When the Steilacoom came into service last January, it and the Christine Anderson alternated every two weeks on the run.

Traci Brewer-Rogstad, deputy director of the ferry system, said the agency is getting ready to seek bids on three new ferries with a similar design to the Steilacoom II to serve the Port Townsend-Keystone and San Juan Islands routes. But the first one won’t be ready before April 2009. The three boats will cost about $100 million in total.

She said running the Steilacoom II temporarily on the Port Townsend-Keystone route will allow state engineers and captains to determine what design changes are necessary on the three new ferries.

Brewer-Rogstad said the state will loan Pierce County the smaller state ferry Hiyu as a backup. The Hiyu, which carries 34 cars and 200 passengers, won’t be available for several months. It will be filling in on the San Juan run for a state ferry that’s out for maintenance. If the Christine Anderson breaks down and the Hiyu is busy elsewhere, Brewer-Rogstad said the state will supply a passenger-only boat or return the Steilacoom II.

Rob Tucker: 253-597-8374

[e-mail]

[SS Shasta]

..........And the State wants to use the MV Steilacoom II design to build 3 replacement vessels for the Steel Electrics?

[Barnacle]

With modifications, yes.

Okay, I'll reluctantly bite. What's your axe to grind with WSF?

[Political Incorrectness]

Can't point the finger at "only" WSF. However, you could say that the state was listening to the minority interest of the people. I just got one question, are they complaining about having no service? If so, why has the media not gotten to them on it about that this could have all been said and done already if the communities were willing to allow expansion of there ferry terminals.

Second off, wouldn't it be better to try and keep a ferry on that route like the BC ships since the Inlet has some bad currents and cancellations due to poor weather conditions? Seriously, it might be better off to try and make a compromise and effect the least amount possible. At this current stage, you are involving the tax-evaders (of what barnacle likes to call them) of Washington paying for an extra crew to service another boat when you could have two bigger vessels. Is it really worth the cost to build 3 and do rebuilds of the critical infastructure of the terminals such as the wingwalls, spans and such? Or would it be better to expand the terminals anyways regardless. Clearly the current terminals are not going to work with 3 vessels. If they have to expand anyways, then what was the point in protesting change? It is just like the WASL (in some ways not all might I note) People did not like that and now we are living with it. This issue cannot be dealt in a case by case basis due to the fact that you are involving tax dollars and communities plus others who travel that section of the marine highway.

[whidbeyislandguy]

Sen. Haugen: State can’t wait forever for new ferries

Dec 22 2007
COUPEVILLE — State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen lambasted critics this week who are second guessing the move to spend $100 million on new ferries.

The Camano Island Democrat also had harsh words for Washington State Ferries, which she said is more focused on building new, multi-million-dollar ferry terminals than spending money to construct the vessels needed to ply the waters of Puget Sound.

In late November, vehicle-ferry service between Whidbey Island and the Olympic Peninsula was shut down due to extensive damage to the steel hulls of the state’s Steel Electric ferries.

Last week, Gov. Christine Gregoire announced she would put $100 million in the 2008 supplemental state budget to pay for new ferries that are needed now that the state has permanently pulled its four Steel Electrics from service.

The state is looking for a quick fix to get car-carrying vessels in place that can serve the Keystone-Port Townsend route. But some have questioned whether the move to build a smaller 54-car ferry within the next two years is the right way to go.

At a “council of governments” meeting Wednesday, Haugen defended the plan for new ferries. It’s no surprise that the Steel Electrics — which were built in 1927 — need to be replaced, she said.

“People have grumbled a lot about the ferries, there’s no question about it,” Haugen said. “People say, ‘How did we get to where we are?’ Well, the fact of the matter is, we’ve always known the Steel Electrics needed to be replaced.”

She recounted how the state ferry system wanted one size of boats — ones that can carry 144 vehicles — and also wanted to move the Keystone terminal.

“There isn’t enough money, or enough time, to move that terminal. You who live here know that people weren’t supportive of it.”

The ferry system also figured funding for the project was available. It wasn’t, said Haugen, D-10th District.

“We all have heartburn over the fact that it’s a smaller boat,” Haugen said, adding that some within Washington State Ferries are resistant to the plan for smaller vessels.

“As far as the seaworthiness of it, I can tell you, the ferry system does not like the way we’re going. And so the ferry system is going to tell you all sorts of things, because they want to do what they want to do,” Haugen told other elected officials at the meeting in Coupeville.

“We are finally telling the ferry system you’re going to do what needs to be done, not what you want to do. And so that’s why we are moving in this direction.

“These boats can be done fast,” she said. “We don’t need to wait.”

Haugen, who is chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee, said there are two issues: Getting boats back in service or waiting years for bigger vessels.

There is no sense in waiting for larger ferries because they can’t be used on the Keystone-Port Townsend route without a new terminal.

And a new terminal is not in the future, Haugen said. As it stands, the state will have to take money from the new terminal project in Mukilteo to pay for new ferries.

“We’re never going to be able to build a new (Keystone) terminal. The fact of the matter is, we’re going to be taking money out of Mukilteo,” she said.

She also criticized Washington State Ferries for its focus on multi-million dollar terminals.

“We need to build boats. The ferry system needs good boats. It doesn’t need fancy terminals. It needs safe terminals that work well.

“The most important thing to me is to get boats back on that run,” Haugen said.

State Rep. Barbara Bailey, R-10th District, however, said she didn’t want a short-term answer to a long-term problem.

“We’re going to have to live with it for a long time,” she said, adding that she has concerns about the size of the new ferries. “We’ll probably have — with those boats — more cancelled runs than we actually experienced in the past. That concerns me,” Bailey said.

“They are smaller boats, but they’re the only boats, I’m being told. This is the only design right now that can be done quickly, because it’s already been designed and built in the state,” Bailey said.

Bailey, though, was pressed if she agreed with the governor’s decision to spend $100 million on the new ferries.

“Right now, that’s the only proposal we have,” Bailey said.

South Whidbey Record

[guest1]

I would hope that Senator Haugen does not show naked prefrence for Nichols Bros., the on-the-ropes builder in her own district.

There are other boat designs that could be built quickly. If it takes a few more months to select the proper boat it should be done--because this decsion will have effects for decades.

[whidbeyislandguy]

I am sure that is not the case when it has been given to them and all the word from the building companies is that Todd will build them, not Nichols Bros.

[old_wsf_fan]

whidbeyislandguy said:

Sen. Haugen: State can’t wait forever for new ferries

Dec 22 2007
COUPEVILLE — State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen lambasted critics this week who are second guessing the move to spend $100 million on new ferries.

The Camano Island Democrat also had harsh words for Washington State Ferries, which she said is more focused on building new, multi-million-dollar ferry terminals than spending money to construct the vessels needed to ply the waters of Puget Sound.

In late November, vehicle-ferry service between Whidbey Island and the Olympic Peninsula was shut down due to extensive damage to the steel hulls of the state’s Steel Electric ferries.

Last week, Gov. Christine Gregoire announced she would put $100 million in the 2008 supplemental state budget to pay for new ferries that are needed now that the state has permanently pulled its four Steel Electrics from service.

The state is looking for a quick fix to get car-carrying vessels in place that can serve the Keystone-Port Townsend route. But some have questioned whether the move to build a smaller 54-car ferry within the next two years is the right way to go.

At a “council of governments” meeting Wednesday, Haugen defended the plan for new ferries. It’s no surprise that the Steel Electrics — which were built in 1927 — need to be replaced, she said.

“People have grumbled a lot about the ferries, there’s no question about it,” Haugen said. “People say, ‘How did we get to where we are?’ Well, the fact of the matter is, we’ve always known the Steel Electrics needed to be replaced.”

She recounted how the state ferry system wanted one size of boats — ones that can carry 144 vehicles — and also wanted to move the Keystone terminal.

“There isn’t enough money, or enough time, to move that terminal. You who live here know that people weren’t supportive of it.”

The ferry system also figured funding for the project was available. It wasn’t, said Haugen, D-10th District.

“We all have heartburn over the fact that it’s a smaller boat,” Haugen said, adding that some within Washington State Ferries are resistant to the plan for smaller vessels.

“As far as the seaworthiness of it, I can tell you, the ferry system does not like the way we’re going. And so the ferry system is going to tell you all sorts of things, because they want to do what they want to do,” Haugen told other elected officials at the meeting in Coupeville.

“We are finally telling the ferry system you’re going to do what needs to be done, not what you want to do. And so that’s why we are moving in this direction.

“These boats can be done fast,” she said. “We don’t need to wait.”

Haugen, who is chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee, said there are two issues: Getting boats back in service or waiting years for bigger vessels.

There is no sense in waiting for larger ferries because they can’t be used on the Keystone-Port Townsend route without a new terminal.

And a new terminal is not in the future, Haugen said. As it stands, the state will have to take money from the new terminal project in Mukilteo to pay for new ferries.

“We’re never going to be able to build a new (Keystone) terminal. The fact of the matter is, we’re going to be taking money out of Mukilteo,” she said.

She also criticized Washington State Ferries for its focus on multi-million dollar terminals.

“We need to build boats. The ferry system needs good boats. It doesn’t need fancy terminals. It needs safe terminals that work well.

“The most important thing to me is to get boats back on that run,” Haugen said.

State Rep. Barbara Bailey, R-10th District, however, said she didn’t want a short-term answer to a long-term problem.

“We’re going to have to live with it for a long time,” she said, adding that she has concerns about the size of the new ferries. “We’ll probably have — with those boats — more cancelled runs than we actually experienced in the past. That concerns me,” Bailey said.

“They are smaller boats, but they’re the only boats, I’m being told. This is the only design right now that can be done quickly, because it’s already been designed and built in the state,” Bailey said.

Bailey, though, was pressed if she agreed with the governor’s decision to spend $100 million on the new ferries.

“Right now, that’s the only proposal we have,” Bailey said.

South Whidbey Record

[EGfleet]

whidbeyislandguy said:

I am sure that is not the case when it has been given to them and all the word from the building companies is that Todd will build them, not Nichols Bros.

I knew I saw this somewhere, it is in the Seattle Times article:

But Gregoire said the job of building the new boats will be open to any Washington shipyard. Elliott Bay Design, which designed the Pierce County boats, is being asked to come up with a design for the new state boats within two months, said Hammond. After that, there will be a four-week advertisement for bids for the boats.

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004071346_ferries14m.html

So no one has a slam dunk on the contract and they will be making vessel modifications to make sure they are suitable to the run, by the sound of it.

[Low Light Mike]

And here's an article from the Whidbey News-Times:
========================
tinyurl.com/2qe7a2

Sound Off: Gov. takes bum advice
Dec 29 2007
By Bill Viertel

Below average and average leaders in any field of endeavor, whether in business or government, concentrate on the day-to-day tyranny of the urgent, reacting to crisis after crisis, and engaging in purely tactical activities.

Above average leaders are able to visualize and foresee future problems and needs, share their vision and bring others to that same level of awareness and understanding, strategize and plan solutions in advance, and marshal forces so that the future needs are met, problems are addressed, and solutions are implemented before the visualized crises arise.

Today’s complex issues and interconnected variables require above-average, even exceptional leaders. Otherwise we simply lurch from crisis to crisis, an approach that ends up costing far more upheaval and money than a carefully predetermined and executed plan. Nothing could illustrate the less effective approach of sub-par leaders than the debacle of the Keystone-Port Townsend ferry run.

These same leaders are now acting quite virtuous about having taken swift action to shut down a situation dangerous to public safety, when in fact their swift action is a knee-jerk response and comes about 20 years too late. Where have they been? They have been asleep at the switch, tending to the tyranny of the urgent, not getting out of their offices, not thinking and planning ahead, not ensuring that solutions are in place when needed. In other words, they have not been doing what we pay them to do. If we wanted government by crisis, we wouldn’t need representation; we could simply wait for the next manmade disaster and refer the problem to the specific state fix-it department to react with a patchwork Band-Aid. How ironic that the comedy routine most synonymous with this kind of frantic, chaotic, directionless, and unplanned way of conducting business is the iconic Keystone Cops.

It would be bad enough if the precipitous loss of the four unsafe Steel Electric boats capable of being used on the Keystone-Port Townsend ferry run was the whole story, but the errors in judgment that created this debacle continue unabated. There were several problems with this run: The aged boats, the frequent cancellations due to strong winds and low tides, and the long waits (sometimes three or more hours) and strandings due to woefully out-of-date capacity.

I live four minutes from Keystone, and I don’t dare go to the Olympic Peninsula for a full day with my car from April to October because I can’t be assured that I can get back. Sometimes the last three boats of the day are already spoken for by 4 p.m. with waiting cars relegated to an overflow holding area. Building new but small 50-car ferries that still have to use the Keystone Harbor solves only the first of the three problems. The only way to solve the cancellations and existing capacity issues is to build much larger boats and a new Keystone terminal outside and immediately east of Keystone Harbor.

Put the small boat ramp in the Keystone Harbor and use the current ferry parking lot for the small boat ramp parking. Move the ferry terminal and associated parking immediately adjacent to the east of the harbor where the boat ramp parking is now, jut it out into the water like the Clinton dock, and use pilings that can withstand the high currents and waves. Stay a quarter mile away from the nearest homes. To do anything else is a solution that leaves the same old problems, has zero longevity, and would be a complete waste of tens of millions of dollars.

A small number of locals are against larger ferries and moving the terminal and have exerted undue influence. Many of these people live near the present Keystone terminal, which predates their homes by many decades. For them to argue against a new terminal and larger boats is like someone building a home next to existing SeaTac Airport and then complaining about the jet noise or next to an existing national forest and then complaining about bears in their yard. Washington State Ferries is choosing to listen to these selfish people, and their plans for the run will leave this vital transportation link handicapped and inadequate from the moment they are completed and for decades to come.

Governor Gregoire did not create this disaster. The die was cast on this problem many years before she took office. The Legislature, WSDOT, and WSF are the culprits, allowing a vital transportation link to atrophy and die through negligence and neglect.

The governor is now getting bum advice from the so-called experts at WSF and WSDOT on what to do about it. If the plans for addressing this route’s deficiencies are not changed to address all these problems, some heads should roll and new blood with vision, courage, pragmatism, and fiscal responsibility should replace them.

We need a course change from shooting behind the duck to a solution that addresses the already-existing problems and that meets the public’s needs for decades into the future. An old folk song has a line that goes, “We want leaders but get gamblers instead.” Let’s not let sub-par leaders gamble with our present and future needs any longer. We need an all-out letter-writing campaign to the governor to show her that the advice she is receiving is at odds with the needs of the vast majority and with the facts and that she may need to change the players on the state team who refuse to see the reality of the situation.

Bill Viertel
lives in Coupeville.
===================

[BreannaF]

flugelhorn said:

And here's an article from the Whidbey News-Times:

Sound Off: Gov. takes bum advice
Dec 29 2007
By Bill Viertel

In a nutshell, what Bill said. It took a strongly worded letter to the editor of a local newspaper. But at last, the obvious makes it into print at some level.

These same leaders are now acting quite virtuous about having taken swift action to shut down a situation dangerous to public safety, when in fact their swift action is a knee-jerk response and comes about 20 years too late. Where have they been? They have been asleep at the switch, tending to the tyranny of the urgent, not getting out of their offices, not thinking and planning ahead, not ensuring that solutions are in place when needed. In other words, they have not been doing what we pay them to do. If we wanted government by crisis, we wouldn’t need representation; we could simply wait for the next man-made disaster and refer the problem to the specific state fix-it department to react with a patchwork Band-Aid. How ironic that the comedy routine most synonymous with this kind of frantic, chaotic, directionless, and unplanned way of conducting business is the iconic Keystone Cops.

Well, duh! But I did want to point out that this contained a pun (Keystone Cops) that was almost Flugelesque in the number of different ways that it could be considered a pun. Or considered something appropriate to say. Or whatever.

I live four minutes from Keystone, and I don’t dare go to the Olympic Peninsula for a full day with my car from April to October because I can’t be assured that I can get back. Sometimes the last three boats of the day are already spoken for by 4 p.m. with waiting cars relegated to an overflow holding area. Building new but small 50-car ferries that still have to use the Keystone Harbor solves only the first of the three problems. The only way to solve the cancellations and existing capacity issues is to build much larger boats and a new Keystone terminal outside and immediately east of Keystone Harbor.

I am a big believer in saying that increasing capacity will increase usage. There was an example yesterday in a discussion about the Pt Defiance run. Transit systems have found that if they increase service on a route to the point that a bus will be there when the rider wants it, then ridership will improve. And we all know that if we build or widen any highway or bridge, traffic will use it to capacity soon enough.

And why would we want to increase usage of ferries? Not only so Bill V can visit the Olympic Peninsula more reliably. But also so trade between regions can occur more often, thus increasing prosperity. And so tourists can get to the region reliably, thus increasing prosperity.

Put the small boat ramp in the Keystone Harbor and use the current ferry parking lot for the small boat ramp parking. Move the ferry terminal and associated parking immediately adjacent to the east of the harbor where the boat ramp parking is now, jut it out into the water like the Clinton dock, and use pilings that can withstand the high currents and waves. Stay a quarter mile away from the nearest homes. To do anything else is a solution that leaves the same old problems, has zero longevity, and would be a complete waste of tens of millions of dollars.

Sure, there are problems with this. At least opening a discussion of this would be a step in the right direction.

A small number of locals are against larger ferries and moving the terminal and have exerted undue influence. Many of these people live near the present Keystone terminal, which predates their homes by many decades. For them to argue against a new terminal and larger boats is like someone building a home next to existing SeaTac Airport and then complaining about the jet noise or next to an existing national forest and then complaining about bears in their yard. Washington State Ferries is choosing to listen to these selfish people, and their plans for the run will leave this vital transportation link handicapped and inadequate from the moment they are completed and for decades to come.

Sadly, we now live in an era where we value the needs of the few more than we value the needs of the public as a whole. If you live in Washington, that is.


In general, I wish that just once, the leaders in Washington's government would address these questions. Even if the answer is one that I won't like, it would still be nice to get the questions addressed.

[EGfleet]

This guy may have some valid points, but I would certainly argue the "small vocal minority" on the issue of smaller boats.

If it was in fact only a "small minority" then where the heck was the majority? They've had meeting after meeting at Port Townsend and Whidbey, and if they truly wanted bigger boats and an expanded/relocated terminal at Keystone they should have made themselves heard. You can go back over the last year and look at all the newspaper reports and see time and again the people at these meetings were all saying the same thing: we don't want bigger boats.

From everything I've been reading, these boats sound exactly like what Port Townsend and the folks that live around Keystone wanted.

If there was support for moving the terminal and getting bigger boats, well, sorry folks, you blew it. It sounds an awful lot like sour grapes at this point.

[Barnacle]

Port Townsend and Keystone may think they're getting what they want; I can assure you all they're certainly getting what they deserve.

I've been bemoaning the fact that the only reasonable solution was taken off the table by a very small group for years. These are the kind of people that show up to PTA meetings to raise all kinds of hades--never mind that they don't have children...