Outside of Seattle, very few candidates are mentioning transit these days. It seems to be an ebb tide in willingness of politicians, including Democrats, to stand up for transit.

Jesse Salomon

Swimming against this tide is Shoreline Deputy Mayor Jesse Salomon, whom we endorsed when he got elected to the Shoreline City Council in 2015. Salomon proved our instincts right when he voted with a majority of the Shoreline City Council for upzones around the future Shoreline Station, over shouting by neighbors opposed to new housing in their neighborhood.

Salomon is challenging Sen. Maralyn Chase (D – Edmonds), who campaigned against the Sound Transit 3 ballot measure.

The 32nd District, which Salomon is vying to represent as state senator, includes Shoreline, Woodway, most of Lynnwood, and parts of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and far northwest Seattle.

While most other politicians don’t mention transit, Salomon’s transportation page is all about light rail.

Cars and buses get stuck in gridlock. Most major cities have light rail, subway, or other transportation systems that run on their own dedicated route and have traffic signal priority. We need to complete our light rail system as soon as possible and add bus rapid transit service to high commuter locations not served by light rail.

Replacing Sen. Chase with Jesse Salomon would tell the Democratic caucuses in Olympia that transit is an important priority.

The deadline to return ballots for the primary election is August 7.

The STB Editorial Board currently consists of Martin H. Duke, Brent White, and Dan Ryan.

6 Replies to “2018 Primary: Promote Jesse Salomon to State Senate”

  1. Upzoning on / next to the freeway. Brilliant! (/ sarcasm)

    Upzoning near a light rail station is great, but when the poor decision was made to put the light rail alongside the freeway, upzoning became a poor decision also.

    1. Why is that? Seriously. What’s wrong with putting density near a major transportation facility, whether it be roadway or transitway? Especially if it’s both?

      Sure, it’s noisy and was at one time hazardous to residents’ health. But since we Got the Lead Out it is much less so, and some people don’t mind the noise. Since they’re going to drive some of the time, when density is close to a major roadway, folks have to travel minor arterials for less of the journey.

    2. Huh? It’s still maximizing both the regional housing stock and that near good transit.

      1. Any chance new construction techniques could now lid a lot more space over any freeway than when Convention Center was built? Though come to think of it, James Ellis wanted a series of parks over I-5’s whole CBD canyon. Limit wasn’t a structural problem- so limits might not be final.


    3. No, just no. All things equal, it’s nice to not live too close to a freeway.

      But plenty of people would prefer the negative of “live near freeway” alongside the positive of “live near light rail station” than none of the above. I certainly would.

    4. I chose to live next to a freeway and have a couple middling transit options. I’d prefer to live further from the freeway if it didn’t increase my commute time, but I would not choose to move to a location with worse transit options.

      Shoreline Station is where it is in part because NIMBYs opposed the Highway 99 option every step of the way.

      The only groups I’ve heard complain about the upzones are neighborhood associations near the station. They didn’t even bother to concern troll about the health of anyone moving into housing next to the station/freeway. They just flat-out said they didn’t want those people as neighbors. I have to give them credit for honesty at least.

Comments are closed.