Jesse Greene

As the candidate filing deadline approaches next week, the only urbanist-y candidate running for Seattle City Council District 1 (West Seattle and South Park) has withdrawn.

Jesse Greene was cognizant that the housing crisis is at least partially a supply-side problem, a position that rankles neighborhood activists. He submitted his withdrawal papers last week, leaving a hole in the race. But he also endorsed fellow challenger Phil Tavel.

Freshman incumbent Lisa Herbold has been strong on supporting lower transit fares; but also opposed to relaxing mandatory parking requirements($) in new buildings; generally opposed to upzones, eventually bartering her vote for the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda upzones in urban areas of the city to reduce their scale, including around the future Alaska Junction Station($); and has championed spending hundreds of millions of dollars to bury West Seattle Link without any realistic funding source.

All of the candidates in the race pledged to follow the campaign spending limits in the city’s Democracy Voucher program, but only Herbold has qualified for vouchers as of publication time.

The remaining three challengers include:

  • Brendan Kolding, who opposes upzones before light rail expands, and even then still wants to have mandated car parking in all buildings regardless of their proximity to frequent transit.
  • Isaiah Willoughby, whose superpower is invisibility on the campaign trail.
  • Phil Tavel, who was involved in SCALE, the neighborhood activist group that tried to stall HALA urban-area upzones and Mandatory Housing Affordability requirements in court.

56 Replies to “Last urbanist withdraws from D1 race”

  1. If you look at the plan for elevated light rail to Alaska Junction you see that it wouldl displace hundreds of residents and businesses, many of them in one block bounded by Alaska, Oregon, 40th Ave and 41st Ave. This would drive up housing costs throughout the Junction area as the displaced residents tried to find housing. In a densely built-up area. So much displacement is simply unacceptable…an alternative must be found and financed. Had ST proposed an elevated line through South Lake Union and Uptown the opposition would have been ferocious.

    Regarding parking requirements for new buildings, while we would like to see no parking needed for residential buildings in neighborhoods well served by transit, the reality is that most people still have cars. If there is no parking available in their building they will park on the street. Many people park on the street now rather than pay for parking in their buildings. West Seattle streets are already over capacity for on-street parking. Ending parking requirements for new construction is foolish and creates real problems for the neighborhood. I pay $50 per month to park my car in my building, I use transit or feet most of the time, but some trips are still not practical by transit. It’s too soon to do away with parking requirements in residential buildings.

    1. If ST3 had included the money for a tunnel to west seattle I do not believe it would have passed. At least I know it wouldn’t have had my vote. Trying to force a tunnel now, after the vote, is a bait and switch that I find extremely upsetting.

      The people voted for a representative line that was elevated. That is what it should be. That is what it will be when the gold-plated-platinum-dream of a tunnel finally dies after the political leadership stops prevaricating, and acknowledges two things: 1. that the funds to build it just aren’t there – and never were! and 2. that the rest of the Sound Transit district won’t support it.

      1. Exactly. It is also possible that ST would have decided to build something most cost effective. At it is, West Seattle elevated rail is a terrible value. West Seattle underground rail would be even worse.

      2. Well, ST3 probably would have passed because the people who want Ballard, SLU, DSTT2, Everett, Tacoma, Issaquah, 405 Stride and 522 Stride would have voted for it. If we voted against it we may not have another opportunity for twenty years. People don’t look at the cost and say, “If it’s twice as much I’m half as likely to vote for it.” Most of the people who said $54 billion was too high were the same ones who would have said $25 billion or $10 billion is too high.

        However, we voted for a budget scaled for elevated. The time to argue for a tunnel was before ST3 was written.

        I don’t know what RossB means by, “It is also possible that ST would have decided to build something most cost effective.” Under what budget scenario and political circumstances is this referring to?

        ST as a whole is not pushing the West Seattle tunnel. West Seattle activists are. Two Seattle boardmembers have spoken in favor of finding funds for the tunnel, probably in response to the activists. David Somers didn’t say he loved the idea; he just said he’s less opposed to it if it’s based on third-party funding and the financing doesn’t threaten Everett’s timeline.

    2. The tunnel isn’t happening. There’s no money for anything like that.

      People will be paid market rate for their property, and will move elsewhere. Big deal. It happens every day. Every major construction project has demolitions via eminent domain. Every light rail stop for that matter…

      1. “People will be paid market rate for their property…”

        Maybe, maybe not. Having gone thru a condemnation action for a property I own I can tell you that the first thing any of these impacted property owners should do is get an experienced attorney to protect their interests and to make sure that they are fully compensated for the taking. The second thing they need to do is get their own appraiser, someone who has extensive experience in condemnation cases.

        “….and will move elsewhere. Big deal.”

        You’re right; it is a big deal to those residents forced to relocate and for those property owners forced to “sell” their parcels. This is one of the areas that has dogged the Lynnwood Link project over the last couple of years. As a matter of fact, we were originally told by the agency that this project should entail no more than 100 relocations along the alignment. Well, based on the Feb 2019 Link Progress Report, this is where things now stand:

        Acquisitions needed: 373
        Acquisitions board approved: 355
        Offers made to date: 315
        Closings to date: 161

        Relocations required: 249
        Relocations completed: 206

        “Every major construction project has demolitions via eminent domain.”

        Not necessarily. Sometimes only partial takings are needed. Sometimes only easements are required. In the road project (a 2-mile minor arterial corridor) that caused a condemnation action on my own property I don’t believe there were any residential structures destroyed by the project, though there were scores of partial takings.

        My hope is that ST will stop its practice of acquiring far more property than it needs for construction, especially when it comes to station siting. For example, Northgate Link’s Roosevelt Station has resulted in 50% of the property acquisitions ending up as surplus property. When this condemned private property then ultimately ends up back in the hands of another private property owner that is an abuse of the intent of eminent domain in my book.

      2. You don’t think affordable housing is a legitimate public interest? Isn’t there a rule saying that surplus construction staging land must be turned over to affordable housing developers?

        We were having a discussion in an earlier thread about how ST’s land acquisition strategy during construction of the initial alignment resulted in oddly shaped small parcels along MLK that it can’t get rid of, and many are just fenced-off vacant lots now.

      3. That is, ST’s strategy during the RV alignment was to take as little land as possible.

      4. “Isn’t there a rule saying that surplus construction staging land must be turned over to affordable housing developers?”

        Yes, I think that’s a law ST pushed for so that it could legitimately sell to the non-highest bidder. Housing is a fundamental need and in critical shortage, and TOD directly affects the success and effectiveness of the high-capacity transit line, and lower-income people are more likely to use transit and need it. So one, we need lots more housing. Two, it doesn’t help much if only millionaires can afford to live within walking distance of stations.

    3. We don’t need parking requirements because developers will just build enough parking for market demand, anyway. Parking requirements usually require more parking then people actually need.

      1. Exactly. Nobody is suggesting that home builders be prohibited from including parking in their developments, just that they be allowed to decide for themselves how much parking they think their residents will demand (and be willing to pay a fair price for). In many cases they’ll still build a parking lot because plenty of folks own cars and will insist on having a place to park one at their home, but sometimes they won’t. That’s okay with me.

      2. It’s a nice argument, but about as realistic as saying “Homeowners will move as much stuff out of their garages and driveways as is needed to not depend on street parking.”

        If developers can make more money using the same space for housing instead of parking stalls, let them build more housing. Street parking spaces get filled by induced demand even if the developers build parking garages. And then too many people insist they need to park on the arterials, where bus and bike lanes could have been built, instead of parking on side streets.

      3. It’s a nice argument, but about as realistic as saying “Homeowners will move as much stuff out of their garages and driveways as is needed to not depend on street parking.”

        If the street parking is priced similarly to space in private garages nearby, this is exactly what will happen. Everyone has a price at which they would decide they’d rather clean the clutter out of their garage than pay a monthly fee. A few folks might clean out their garage if the alternative is paying $50/month. Raise it to $100 and a few more will.

        With parking minimums we ensure that there’s abundant parking even when there’s scarce housing. I find this policy to be exactly backwards in its priorities. If anything, we should have it the other way around. Want to build a new garage in your back yard? Fine. Put an ADU on top. Want to dig out an underground parking structure for 100 cars? Fine, but you had better put at least 100 homes on top.

      4. “If the street parking is priced similarly to space in private garages nearby, this is exactly what will happen.”

        Drivers choose street parking for two reasons. One, it costs much less than a garage or lot, and two, they can get into and out of their destination more quickly. All my friends circle the block for a street space and won’t consider a pay lot, and if they can’t find one after several minutes they leave and vow not to come back to the neighborhood.

    4. “This would drive up housing costs throughout the Junction area as the displaced residents tried to find housing.”

      Housing costs will rise regardless of those hundred people, because they’re a drop in the bucket compared to the Seattle’s overall population pressure. Some of them will look for opportunities anywhere, not just in the immediate area. and those who look only in the immediate area will probably widen their horizons. It’s ironic to talk about a hundred displaced people when West Seattle has hundreds of acres of single-family houses that could be upzoned to alleviate the housing pressure more substantially. If even a third of them became lowrise apartments and the rest allowed ADUs and duplexes, that would probably solve Seattle’s housing shortage and costs would stop rising. We’re not a region of 200,000 any more, so we need to stop acting like it and pushing out people who didn’t buy a house twenty years ago.

      “the reality is that most people still have cars. If there is no parking available in their building they will park on the street.”

      That’s the common refrain. There are people like me who don’t have cars and wish we didn’t have to pay for parking we don’t use. $50 parking in your building is a bargain compared to $250 in mine. When the owners can’t fill the parking spaces they put the difference in everyone’s rent. Apartment parking is around 66% full on average — the extra is parking that’s required but not used. As bus service becomes full-time frequent, fewer people keep their cars. My roommate got rid of his when it started needing expensive engine repair, and found he could commute from Capitol Hill to Kent on the bus.

      1. “When the owners can’t fill the parking spaces they put the difference in everyone’s rent.”

        Perhaps in some cases that’s true but I don’t think one can necessarily just make this sort of blanket statement. Market conditions still prevail and will set the rates accordingly. My spouse works for a residential developer who has several apartment buildings in Bellevue and I can state for a fact that their lease rates do not factor in their underground parking vacancies. Those parking spaces are handled through a separate lease agreement.

    5. Charles, while we can both agree that many people living near transit still have cars, relaxing parking minimums does NOT mean no parking! And developers could always include more than the minimum, if they felt that is what the demand calls for. The market could and should play a larger role! Finally, most people who need to park their car on site simply don’t live in buildings that lack on site parking. There are plenty of buildings with on site parking to choose from, and again, let the market do it’s thing!

    6. Hundreds of residents and businesses displaced?

      Hardly. First of all, much of the displacement would be in Delridge. A tunnel would do nothing about that situation. Secondly, most of the plans involve very little in the way of lost property. The only plans that call for a fair amount of lost property (but still not hundreds of properties) are the plans that involve swinging around so that the train is facing south (the yellow line as shown here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2019/04/23/elevated-light-rail-could-limit-housing-development-in-west-seattle/). I agree with you on that point — that is a terrible alignment. Third, even underground development sometimes results in property displacement. My guess is an underground alignment would result in the same amount of property displacement, maybe even more.

      If you really want to limit displacement, then it makes sense to favor the original plan (for the junction).

      1. “Secondly, most of the plans involve very little in the way of lost property.”

        I would caution against taking ST’s initial takings/displacements estimates as being all that accurate. They have a history of understating the number of properties impacted by the alignment options. (See my post above about Lynnwood Link.)

        “My guess is an underground alignment would result in the same amount of property displacement, maybe even more.”

        I don’t know about that assertion. While I recognize that the topography involved with the WS alignment options is very different compared to other Link segments, I think it’s still worthwhile to review the two northern extensions that have been almost exclusively tunneled lines.

        Here’s how U-Link worked out as far as property acquisitions and relocations:

        Capitol Hill Station:
        Total parcels acquired: 19
        Relocations required: 140

        Tunnel Easements:
        Total parcels needed: 223
        Relocations required: 1

        Here’s how Northgate Link’s ROW numbers stood as of Dec 2017:

        U-District Station:
        Total parcels acquired: 15
        Relocations required: 4

        Roosevelt Station:
        Total parcels acquired: 19
        Relocations required: 26

        Northgate Station:
        Total parcels acquired: 11
        Relocations required: 13

        Tunnel Easements:
        Total parcels needed: 190
        Relocations required: 0

        Total for Northgate Link:
        Total parcels impacted: 235
        Total relocations: 43

        With all that said, if ST must indeed build a light rail line to the WS Junction, then they should stick with an elevated guideway as planned in the RA that voters approved. Adding a bunch of costs for tunneling to this already somewhat dubious light rail segment with little to gain from doing so seems ill-advised.

  2. I’m really bothered by labeling a candidate as the “last urbanist”. It’s not a political party or a manifesto. Putting simplistic labels on candidates is suggesting that candidates are ideologically different when that’s just not the case. It detracts from the nuanced complexities of transit issues that get discussed on STB.

    1. I took it to mean none of the other candidates support full HALA or more beyond it, or converting GP/parking lanes to transit-priority lanes, or reducing parking minimums, etc. That may or may not be accurate but it’s not surprising for West Seattle. I was concerned at first that this was a citywide phenomenon, but that remains to be seen. The last round brought a significant number of pro-urban councilmembers, more than Seattle had previously. The concern with this round is that might reverse. We expected West Seattle would probably want to go slowly. If there are other candidates who support these reforms or are only mildly hesitant about them, that’s good news and worth highlighting them.

  3. Not to threadjack, but do you have a story coming up on District 6 (Mike O’Brien isn’t running)? There are at least 12 candidates and most of the local press/angry horde is the homeless question, not so much 14th vs. 15th/tunnel vs. drawbridge questions.

    1. Thread away on D6 if you wish. We also have open threads with every Sunday video and every news roundup.

  4. Is Herbold that bad? She voted for MHA and upzones along with everyone else.

    Parking minimums get focused on a lot on this blog, but I tend to think that’s a secondary issue compared to zoning. As long as Seattle has good housing production, I think we are in good shape.

    Overall, I wouldn’t expect West Seattle to have the most liberal council member.

    The people I’m really worried about are the anti-upzone, anti-homeless groups. The cranky conservative coalition.

    1. It is possible, and likely IMHO, the upzones would have come out better if nobody had bartered with Herbold and let her just vote No, like they did on parking reform.

    2. Parking minimums and other zoning issues both have a big effect on housing production. Zoning limits the number of homes that can be built on our increasingly expensive land, pushing up the cost per home. Parking minimums also add cost to home building. The more it costs to build a home, the more the resulting homes will cost. The money and space that is used to build a parking garage could just as easily be used to add a bedroom instead. We shouldn’t have laws that require the former at the expense of the latter.

    3. “Parking minimums get focused on a lot on this blog, but I tend to think that’s a secondary issue compared to zoning.”

      You’re right, the limit on housing units is primary. If zoning requires two units when ten could be there, that’s eight households who flat-out can’t live in the neighborhood. And because the two units are doubtless larger, they cost 2-3 times as much and only the wealthiest can afford them. In contrast, a parking space (and the empty space behind it so it can get in/out) is the size of a kitchen or bedroom, so it’s effectively adding 20% to the size of the apartment (more if it’s a studio). That’s substantial but it’s not as much land as a SF house takes, or the difference between a 2-story and a 4-story building.

    4. I agree that zoning is the bigger issue. Zoning includes density, height and setbacks — clearly with greater impact than a mere parking space. As far as affordability goes, new units are always significantly more expensive with or without parking — and excess parking has market value as rental income to offset the homeowner cost.

      1. Excess parking as rental income doesn’t work very well when every other nearby building also has excess parking. There are also security/access issues with landlords and condo associations in many cases.

    5. Parking requirements are a zoning regulation. They push up the cost of development significantly. This leads to fewer homes, which in turn leads to more expensive homes.

      Estimates vary, of course. I’ve seen the number as high as $50,000 per unit for underground parking (https://www.sightline.org/2018/11/05/whys-the-rent-so-high-for-new-apartments-in-seattle/). Above ground parking is cheaper, but takes up space, which in turn makes it more expensive to build things like row houses and low level apartments.

      It is far too easy to say that one aspect of zoning is more egregious than another. But without more study, it is hard to say. Every development requires eliminating the existing use (e. g. single family house) and building something else (townhouses or apartments). You could upzone the entire city, and still see nothing built if the cost of development is too high.

      Having cheap properties means we are more likely to see increased development. An empty lot is far more likely to be developed into an apartment than a huge house. Unfortunately, as time goes on, we are losing more and more of those cheap properties. Cheap house are being destroyed, and empty lots are being developed, but most of the time, they are being replaced by new houses. Those houses can eventually be converted to apartments, but requiring parking may be the most expensive aspect of the conversion. Bulldozing expensive houses and building something new (like a big apartment) is likely to be far more expensive (especially if it requires parking). Thus it is quite possible that parking requirements are the single worst aspect of our currently overly restrictive set of zoning regulations. (Although my guess is that owner occupancy ADU laws have that honor).

      1. “It is far too easy to say that one aspect of zoning is more egregious than another. But without more study, it is hard to say.”

        It could do with more study, but I stand behind my assumption that height limits and single-family restrictions have a bigger impact than parking. Height limits and minimum lot sizes are what stand between us and Los Angeles’ density. Parking requirements are what stand between Los Angeles and New York”s density (and walkability). If I had to choose between Seattle’s and Los Angeles’ density; I’d take Los Angeles’.

        “You could upzone the entire city, and still see nothing built if the cost of development is too high.”

        It’s not that expensive to build. The reason many lowrise areas still have mostly single-family houses and old two-story buildings is that the difference between the zoned maximum and the current buildings isn’t enough to make it worth it. If you can only build a three- or four-story building where a two-story building sits now, it’s not worth it to bulldoze the building for the marginal gain. But if you can build a six- or seven-story building, suddenly the calculus changes. That’s what happened on Broadway. Developers are also hesitant to build in less-desirable areas (particularly Rainier Valley and Lake City), so they do the lower-hanging fruit in other neighborhoods first.

        “As time goes on, we are losing more and more of those cheap properties”

        This should be engraved on a plaque in City Hall where the councilmembers can see it every day. We’re losing opportunities as the 1950s-60s buildings are replaced under the current zoning. It’s getting better but I still see 3-4 story buildings from the 1990s and 2000s and think, “If only they were four or six stories. But they won’t be replaced for decades.”

      2. “It is far too easy to say that one aspect of zoning is more egregious than another. But without more study, it is hard to say……You could upzone the entire city, and still see nothing built if the cost of development is too high.”

        Agreed. I think Minneapolis’ recent citywide SF zoning change and the impact it has on that city’s housing problems will be interesting to observe over the next few years. Seattle should certainly be paying attention.

        And then again there’s this recent report from the citylabs site on a “new study of zoning changes in Chicago (which) finds that they led to higher, not lower, local home prices, while having no discernible impact on local housing supply.” It will be interesting to see if the study’s author does a follow-up investigation on his rather contrarian findings.

        https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/01/zoning-reform-house-costs-urban-development-gentrification/581677/

      3. Chicago has for decades allowed enough infill housing to meet population demands, so there’s no huge pent-up demand like there is in Seattle and the Bay Area. So a new luxury building just means some people are getting a better unit, not that they’re moving from an overcrowded place or unreasonably long commute

        This article is also looking at the effect on specific upzoned lots. Of course they will become more expensive: the units are newer and more desirable relative to the city’s average. What matters is the citywide impact. The people who move into that building aren’t putting price pressure on the buildings they moved out of or would have chosen if this building didn’t exist. There’s also a neighborhood effect: when new buildings go up on Capitol Hill, surrounding buildings try to raise their rent arguing that “It’s a better neighborhood now”. Whether they succeed or not depends on how much pent-up demand there is for anything in the area. And that comes back to the number of people looking for housing compared to the number of units available, at the various income levels people have, and with each building a different level of quality.

        “although it is important to combat unnecessarily restrictive zoning and building codes … easing these codes would do little to address housing affordability”

        Prices are sticky on the way down because nobody wants to take a loss. When there’s a housing shortage, prices go up rapidly, but when the opposite happens, prices go down more slowly and may never reach their previous level. Owners offer move-in sales or leave the place empty as long as they can to avoid lowering the base rent. And even if they did go down reciprocally, people’s income hasn’t kept up in the intervening years so they have less purchasing power than they had. So therefore we’ll need a lot of non-market housing to fill the gap. Especially when you consider that wanting a place in a transit-rich, walkable area is not an unreasonable demand that should be available not only to affluent yuppies but should be available to everybody.

      4. Also, during the study period, nothing actually got built. The upzoning was limited to a fairly small area, and the study period was (iirc) just 5 years. Chicago has a long history of aldermanic corruption w/r/t building permits, so I don’t find that these results disprove the idea that upzoning hurts affordability.

        Hasn’t stopped NIMBYs from coast to coast from using it as a cudgel, though.

  5. West Seattle voters are crewed. There is nobody running who I want vote for. IF I vote at all, and that is a huge IF, it will be for Herbold, unless a real urbanist candidate emerges. Despite the fact I often strongly disagree with Herbold, the most important thing now is to keep Kolding and Tavel off of the city council. To be clear: I wasn’t going to vote for Greene either; the only issue on which he’s better then Kolding or Tavel is housing, and that’s not enough to get my vote. That said, I wouldn’t have voted for Herbold just as a vote against Greene if it came down to those two in the general election, but I’m willing to vote for Herbold as a vote against either Kolding or Tavel.

    1. I can think of one potential candidate who could actually defeat her, and he is now free of the fundraising ban in effect during legislative sessions.

    2. I don’t know who Peter Leahy is, but based on his comment he’s the person most likely to get my vote in the D1 race.

      1. To the best of my knowledge, Kolding’s expressed no support for either building more housing or improving transit. He has been fairly clear he wants no more housing built until ST3 is done. He wants all new housing to have parking with no exception for urban areas or access to transit, which will raise housing prices, especially combined with is clearly stated opposition to zoning changes for more density. He constantly repeats the outright lie that the city doesn’t support the police and the police “aren’t allowed to do their jobs,” citing some phantom (made up) “unofficial policy.” His clearly stated policies are to effectively make it illegal to be poor.
        I disagree with every position he has, the entirety of his philosophy of governing, his refusal to acknowledge even basic human needs like housing, his belief that homelessness can be solved by strong arm policing, his promotion of policies that will clearly raise the cost of housing, his opposition to safe injection sites that will save live and provide an access point for treatment, and others. He is by far the worst and most dangerous candidate in the race.
        So, what’s my problem with Kolding? Everything. I believe all this strongly enough to put my real full name on my comment.

      2. Thank you Peter Leahy, Joe A. Kunzler will be weary of endorsing this candidate then.

        He’s not Ari Hoffman who bikes and wants to cure homelessness and wants to end addiction and back the blue and be the Shawn Kemp of the Seattle City Council…

        He’s not Ann Davison Sattler who has a heart of Sonics-tinted gold and wants more density around transit centers with a mix of housing…

        He’s not Heidi Wills with strong environmentalist chops…

        I admit to a natural bias to backing police. I also am opposed to taxpayer funded heroin dens. But I am pro-transit and pro-density. Our disabled kids of today shouldn’t look forward as I do to 3-5 hour one-way depressing commutes to/from services and community.

      3. Hoffman is [ad hominem], full stop.

        Good thing you live in Skagit and your endorsement isn’t worth jack, Joe.

      4. Uh Pat, I give $12/month to Mr. Hoffman and to call Ari Hoffman a fascist is a lie. Ari Hoffman is one of the most charitable candidates out there – he hires from the Millionair Club, helps run charities and cemeteries with equal vigor, and so much more.

        There is a candidate for Seattle Council who very much is a fascist and habitual liar. He doesn’t need me to promote him.

      5. Joe, do you actually have any point to make? You are correct, Hoffman, Sattler, and Wills are they separate individuals and are not Kolding. All of them are also not running in District One. I really don’t get your last sentence, Kolding has proposed no transit improvements or any other mobility projects that would help anyone get around easier.

      6. Speaking of habitual liars, Hoffman is in with the Safe Seattle crowd, who routinely circulate false rumors about grisly homeless murders. He uncritically signal boosted the rumor about a beheading, which suggests he is either a) not very smart or b) not very honest, or both.

        Putting the homeless in jail/forced treatment isn’t a cure to homelessness. I know you have natural reactionary tendencies, but it is fortunately not illegal to be homeless. To imply Hoffman is “anti-hate” is hilarious.

        I can’t wait for this fool to get stomped in the election.

      7. Pat;

        I want to get this discussion back around transit and not reactionary knee-jerk bashing of our fantasy draft picks for Seattle City Council. I notice you haven’t dropped any names – says a lot about the anti-Ari choice that she’s incredibly weak sauce.

        I don’t think it’s much to ask to enforce the law, that our buses & trains be safe for the riders, the addicted get medical attention they need, and that the unhoused get housing. Period. I also like Ari Hoffman want fare gates since I personally have forgotten to tap on/off the sexy light rail. Thanks.

        JOE

  6. Of those difficult remaining choices, I pick grudgingly Brendan Kolding in the hope we can over time win his heart and mind. Brendan is a law & order candidate and former law enforcement officer and endorsed by some pro-housing, anti-hate stud in another district I really like, which makes his resistance to density barely tolerable.

    The incumbent is pro-Tsimerman (won’t throw him out), anti-security and as per above pro-“free” parking. I think it’s time for a change.

    1. Maybe you don’t realize this from your perch up in Skagit County, but Alex Tsimerman isn’t anyone’s policy priority. In plain English, Seattle voters plainly do not care what Tsimerman says or does. He is an shit-flinging idiot with no actual impact on city policy, and there are more important things to worry about. Emphasis on *Seattle* voters, because you aren’t one.

      That, and don’t you remember what happened the last time Council cut off some rambling fool during public comment? Your right-wing buddies from all over the country descended on the inboxes of councilmembers (including Mosqueda, who wasn’t even there) to shower them with invective.

      1. Pat;

        a) Maybe if Tsimerman was just ejected as per enforcement of Council & Board Rules, his antics wouldn’t suppress the voices of so many pro-transit folk. I talk to them, I am one of them. Therefore enforcement of Council rules IS an election issue and I will financially & editorially back those who will enforce them.

        b) To equate Richard Schwartz to Alex Tsimerman is to demean ALL pro-bicycle folks who are natural transit allies. Also I could copy-paste Brandi Kruse’s good editorial but out of respect for her copyright I will only link to it.

        c) I don’t have that many right wing buddies. If you’re truly upset about the invective that happened, then be consistent and be upset about Tsimerman equally as Brandi Kruse and I genuinely are demanding Tsimerman be banned. Stop the hypocrisy. Please. We can all come together on this, can’t we please?

        THANKS!

Comments are closed.