Seattle Transit Blog 2025 Endorsements

49 Replies to “Seattle Transit Blog 2025 Endorsements”

1. Thanks for putting this list out, was curious in particular for King County Executive. I voted for Balducci as well.

2. For executive, I have a question… Why was Dow Constantine selected as ST CEO? I think he was better off as King Executive, but I also endorse Claudia Balducci. Bruce Harrell is so hated, I don’t really hate him it’s just that he’s so controversial when it comes to battling the issues that people blow up about, so I’ll endorse Katie Wilson.

   1. The official story is that Dow Constantine was determined to be the best candidate for the job by the Sound Transit board. Unless there’s a serious breach of agency confidentiality, the public will never know who the other two candidates were and will never be able to assess that choice for itself. All I know is that rumors of Constantine’s interest in the job as the next step of his career started last November, long before the CEO selection process began.

      I think it’s important to recognize that it’s very rare for these high-level agency positions (even high-level private company positions) to be filled without the selection committees having a strong idea of who they actually want to hire for the job. As for the reasons why the Board ultimately hired Constantine instead of an outsider, it will be a very long story before the full truth comes out, if it ever does. Certainly not for a lack of effort on behalf of journalists on the transit beat, though.

   2. Bruce Harrell is so hated

      For what it’s worth I don’t hate him. I don’t know him personally but my sister does. I think he is a good man, a decent mayor and I probably agree with him on 90% of the issues. I think he is just too conservative (in the classic sense of the word) especially when it comes to housing. He has generally been conservative. Again, not left-right conservative but more liberal-conservative. He wants to move the city to the left but we wants to do so slowly. I’m generally just fine with this approach but I think years of avoiding the real issues this city faces (while employment has grown dramatically) has created a backlog of big problems. Rent is too damn high. Owning a home is too damn high. The problem is lack of new housing and our regulations are to blame. In a different era the current approach would be fine — but right now it leads to sky high housing prices, big traffic jams and substandard transit.

      Speaking of which, his record on transit is a mixed bag. Again, the city is clearly moving in the right direction. There are BAT lanes in areas where I never imagined they would add them, like Rainier Avenue and Westlake. They have taken lanes in ways that cities like Tacoma, Lake Forest Park and Shoreline are way too cowardly to attempt. But he is still too timid. There is a clear consensus in the city that we can’t just half-ass our way through this. We can’t please everyone. We need bold solutions because we have big problems.

      He inherited a lot of the problems but he didn’t show a lot of leadership back then, either. I’m sure if Durkan had proposed a full replacement of the STBD funding he would have gone along with it. But instead he went along with the reduced funding and then went along with the “compromise”. Again, this is the conservative approach. The problem is that it was a dramatic drop in funding for the buses. They run a lot less often and we still haven’t recovered. If elected would he pivot towards a much bigger funding package? I doubt it.

      In contrast I have no doubt that Wilson will be great for transit. I mean, holy cow she heads the Transit Riders Union. That is like electing the head of the Sierra Club for President and wondering if they will do much for the environment. Of course she is 100% behind Rinck’s “Better Buses” campaign. Of course she will push for more funding in the next STBD levy. And of course Seattle will pass the levy easily (it is what we do).

      At the same time I don’t think she is radical. When it comes to housing she will likely take the same approach as Spokane. When it comes to transit she will push for better buses. These are not radical positions, obviously. I was a bit worried about her lack of experience but there are lots of people — including many experienced politicians — that support her. I think she will be a good mayor and great for transit and housing.

   3. I’ve been hearing a lot of comparisons of Harrell to Andrew Cuomo, which is unfair. Harrell is nowhere near that bad.

      I hope Balducci and Wilson win. But if either of them loses, it would not be a catastrophe, like certain other recent elections.

      1. Why Andrew Cuomo?

         He’s the former New York governor who’s running for mayor of NYC, like why would you run for a lower office? He might be the next Dow Constantine, next thing you know Donald Trump will run for Miami mayor, just like Andrew Johnson became senator again until his death after his presidency, but unlike Trump, Johnson was ambitious and just didn’t like accepting that what he did was wrong (firing a cabinet member without Congress approval), it’s like having a random councilmember terminate Metro FLEX service without the approval of the board, like will someone contrast the denominational differences?

      2. “He’s the former New York governor who’s running for mayor of NYC, like why would you run for a lower office?”

         Ask Rahm Emanuel why he left the federal House to be Mayor of Chicago. New York is the biggest and most prestigious city in the US, and one of the top in the world, and many of the movers and shakers work in the city. Somebody might want that in their career.

      3. Cuomo is trying to make a comeback. He sees his fall from grace as being completely related to the sexual harassment charges. But as bad as that was, there is more than that. He was simply not a good governor. He was big on style, not on substance. Consider how he handled the pandemic. He (and de Blasio) underplayed the problem. They waited until it got really bad before they acted. A lot of lives were lost as a result. In contrast, look at what Inslee did. Remember, this was the epicenter for North America. Just like South Korea and then Italy, folks thought it wouldn’t be that bad here. We are different — we are special somehow. But Inslee knew better but he also knew the political cost of “overreacting”. So he shut down everything “temporarily”. This was brilliant. Anyone who understood what was happening realized things weren’t going to open up again for years. But by making it temporary (two weeks) it gave idiots the idea that this was just a passing problem. Many lives were saved by this smart action.

         But Cuomo figures people will believe the BS he spreads. He isn’t half the man his dad was.

3. For D2, I personally prefer Eddie Lin.

   He posted on Bluesky that “The more ‘car-centric’ a city is, the less character it has” and is strongly aligned with transit.
   https://bsky.app/profile/edclin.bsky.social/post/3ltmoe2pot22f

   My main qualm with him is his support of Prop 1B for the social housing initiative but I think he will do a better job at promoting transit.

   When CSG held their media event for safety improvements along Rainier this summer before the primaries, Ducksworth was the only D2 candidate to not attend: https://bsky.app/profile/typewriteralley.bsky.social/post/3ltzlki3bjs2r

   1. I agree that Lin is probably the better candidate for D2 on the whole. Both candidates seem to have a good understanding about street safety issues, but if I were a single-issue voter focused on transportation, I’d lean toward Ducksworth based on his experience actually doing outreach for SDOT and transportation policy for Harrell.

4. “Seattle is now more conservative than Spokane when it comes to allowing density.”

   For an example of the contrary, take a look at Bellingham, especially near Fairhaven and really just about anywhere between Fairhaven and downtown. There’s several condo buildings in progress in formerly SFH zones, and that was just what I found exploring yesterday.

   Whatever they’re doing, more politicians need to figure out how to do it in their cities.

   1. The housing crisis has reached Spokane and Bellingham and most of the country, as prices rise relative to income. That makes more voters open to density so they or their children or friends can stay in the city, even it it’s in a smaller place. And maybe more people are getting tired of the idea that low density is always better.

   2. Bellingham is zoned the way most U. S. cities are. They have a small section where they allow any kind of density. But most of the city is zoned for single family houses. In contrast Spokane is different — they allow density everywhere. It is basically just height differences. It wouldn’t matter if the city remained small (i. e. there was very little demand) but that isn’t the case anymore.

   3. The condo buildings in Bellingham along state street have been there for as long as I can remember (I’m in my 40s) and the rest of that neighborhood (South Hill) has probably the most expensive SFH housing stock in the city (or at least in pre-war neighborhoods). The multi-family developments in Fairhaven proper are so outrageously expensive (even by Bellingham standards) that I’m honestly not sure who they are intended for.

      I’m not as tied in to the day-to-day politics of housing there as I once was, but most of the multi-family development in Bellingham has been isolated to two areas:
      – Immediate proximity to WWU, which is begrudgingly accepted by nearby homeowners since it keeps student rentals out of the posh south side neighborhoods.
      – North of I5, where the city is encroaching on farm land, the median income is lower, and there aren’t existing wealthy neighborhoods to complain. These areas tend to not be very walkable outside of the Cordata Neighborhood (which, to its credit, is well laid out, and thoughtfully developed).

      More succinctly, Bellingham SHOULD NOT be held up as a model for anything housing. There’s a reason it’s the least affordable city in the country in its size range. Most of the multi-family housing that exists is of poor quality and built only as a necessity for a city that has college students as a very large portion of its population.

5. A little more about Katie Wilson from her KUOW interview….

   >But not included in the narrative Wilson tells on the campaign trail is how she affords this expensive city. The answer is simple, and arguably very Seattle: Her parents, professors in New York State, give her money.

   “They send me a check periodically to help with the child care expenses,” she said, adding that daycare for her toddler costs around $2,200 a month. She did not say precisely how much her parents contribute, noting that she does not keep track. When pressed, she said money arrives every couple of months.The checks from Wilson’s parents cover most of the cost of childcare for their 2-year-old daughter, Josie. Wilson and her husband pay roughly another $2,200 in rent each month for their one-bedroom apartment on Capitol Hill.

   Wilson is not ashamed about the help they get.

   “It just speaks to how expensive and unaffordable it is, right?” she said. “If you’re lucky enough to have parents who can pitch in a little bit, that’s not something to be embarrassed about.”<

   https://www.kuow.org/stories/katie-wilson-seattle-mayor-she-can-barely-afford-to-live-here-election-2025

   At married and 43 years old, I'd expect Katie to be 10 years into paying a 30 year mortgage on a place to live. She should have a 401k retirement plan with somewhere between $200,000 and $400,000 in it and a 529 plan for the daughter's education. This is what middle class in America looks like. Paying $2200 in rent for a Capitol Hill one bedroom and getting monthly checks from your parents? At 43 years old with a family?

   Vote for whoever you want to, but for gawd's sake! If you're a young person in Seattle, don't look at Katie's lifestyle as something to emulate. You'll end up homeless!

   1. “This just in: childcare too expensive for executive of advocacy nonprofit, only afforded with help from family”

      > This is what middle class in America looks like.

      Who said Katie Wilson is in the middle class?

      1. She is probably middle class. She probably makes good money but her husband makes less. Her parents are probably upper middle class. They are both experienced professors at Binghamton University. So figure about $100 grand each. Except her dad is pretty high up in academia and has written books for the general public. So figure a little more money.

         Now consider their age and where the live. Binghamton is not an expensive place to live. You can get a house there for about $200 grand (I can just hear tacomee thinking “Move to Binghamton people!”). It is highly likely her parents have paid off their mortgage years ago. Their parents probably have a good pension and aren’t spending their money on gilded remodels (not everyone is a greedy dick). They are both older and basically have more money than they will ever need to live comfortably. Much of that money will eventually go to their heirs. I think Katie is their only child so a lot of it (presumably) would go to her. Giving her money now (to help pay for child care) is quite reasonable.

         If she becomes mayor she will make good money but she won’t be paid like a cop. Still, it should be enough to pay the bills.

         The campaign about her is getting into the BS phase. Harrell ran a really stupid primary campaign and now they are playing catch-up. He should have emphasized her lack of experience and is only now getting around to it. But in the meantime she has gathered the support of a lot of experienced politicians that have worked for her and they all say she is ready. The obvious analogy is with her and McGinn but McGinn didn’t have that kind of political support (she has been endorsed by several former city council members as well as Jayapal and McDermott). Now Harrell is trying to play the class card. It is BS. Harrell was raised middle class (just like she was). Maybe her parents made a little bit more money but not a lot. Harrell’s grew up in the Central Area which means he was around a lot more poor people but he wasn’t poor. He also had a scholarship at the UW, then graduated from the UW Law School and took a corporate job before getting into politics. (He was an outstanding football player and if he was really poor he probably would have gone into the NFL.) Again, I like Bruce. Bruce should be very proud of what he has accomplished. He worked very hard to get where he is today and has done some good things for the city. But the idea that he knows more about being poor is just BS.

         To quote the Seattle Bike Blog “my excitement for a Mayor Katie Wilson far outweighs my disappointment in Harrell”.

   2. I wish more politicians would emulate Wilson’s centering of the working poor, dogged determination, and understanding of government finances. Mayor Harrell borrowed some of her financing ideas, and did not give her credit.

      About the only thing not going for Wilson in this race is she is not running against Andrew Cuomo.

   3. Wilson’s parents help with her $2,200 monthly childcare expenses: my first thought would be whether Wilson supports strategies to lower the cost of childcare for everyone or subsidize it. I’m sure she does, given her other positions and attitudes. She may not campaign on it because you can’t campaign on all of a thousand things, she’s already taken on a big complicated thing (housing), and it’s not immediately clear what a city mayor can do about childcare costs.

      Criticizing her because her parents help with childcare expenses and they can do so seems petty. A mayor’s job is public policy. The public policy issue is that childcare costs are too damn high, and this is causing parents to be cost-burdened, limited in what jobs they can have, some are declining to have children because of it, and the US birthrate is below replacement rate, so the population level has been kept up by immigration, but that’s now being slashed, and a declining population would cause economic problems at both the city and national level. Those are the relevant issues with childcare that a mayor or politicians in general should be concerned about.

      Not whether a mayoral candidate gets help from her parents. There’s a policy issue there too: if childcare costs weren’t so unreasonably high, she wouldn’t need that help. And it’s refreshing to hear that these grandparents care so much about their grandchildren they want to help them out.

      “At married and 43 years old, I’d expect Katie to be 10 years into paying a 30 year mortgage on a place to live. She should have a 401k retirement plan with somewhere between $200,000 and $400,000 in it and a 529 plan for the daughter’s education.”

      That’s your position. Some people want to get out of that suburban car-dependent, big-box-store dependent rat-race treadmill. And how do you know she doesn’t have a retirement plan and a 529? She couldn’t tap those for childcare expenses. Even people who do everything you say have trouble paying for childcare.

      1. Mike Orr,

         I’d be the first to say child care is expensive, rent on Capitol Hill is expensive, live in Seattle is generally expensive. But at some point people have to take personal responsibility for their own life.

         Katie could ask for a 100 grand from her parents and buy in house in South Tacoma and figure out childcare for 50% or less of what she’s paying now. That would be the route countless other adults have taken. You know the midway point for income (the mean) is around $115,000. That means there are over 350,000 people in Seattle making what Katie does and most of them don’t have family kicking in $25,000 (or more).

         If I was one of the Seattle “impoverished” folks making 80 grand (or more) and yet, failing to thrive…. let’s just say I wouldn’t be hanging around waiting for Katie’s social housing to bail me out.

      2. “But at some point people have to take personal responsibility for their own life.”

         It takes a village to raise a child

      3. Zach B

         Well, there are thousands of homeless people in Seattle “the village” hasn’t done a darn thing for. Maybe Mayor Katie moves the needle on that, but I’m not holding my breath.

         Honestly, if a person is 40 years old, paying 40% to 50% of their income to rent in Seattle and not saving 10-15% for retirement…. the chances of becoming homeless at 65 are pretty damn high.

      4. “Well, there are thousands of homeless people in Seattle “the village” hasn’t done a darn thing for. Maybe Mayor Katie moves the needle on that, but I’m not holding my breath.”

         Truly missing the point of what I said that also had absolutely nothing to do with the homeless, like at all.

      5. And the homeless comment is also frankly irrelevant to current topic at hand when we’re talking about raising children here, a completely different topic from the complexity and nuance of talking about addressing homelessness.

   4. Good on her parents for helping Katie Wilson and her family out. I’m convinced that a national free, or subsidized, child care program would do more to break the cycle of poverty, and allow more people to get off of welfare than just about anything else that could be done.

      That our national leadership isn’t talking about this, and surely would view this sort of thing as akin to an undeserved handout is crazy to me – but is not surprising.

      1. While I would definitely support that, it is worth noting that the expansion of the Child Tax Credit cut childhood poverty in half (https://itep.org/lapse-of-expanded-child-tax-credit-led-to-unprecedented-rise-in-child-poverty-2023/). Unlike a major expansion of childcare (which was attempted under George H. W. Bush) this is a program that involves very little bureaucracy. It is the type of program that Republicans of old used to love. It is basically like Social Security for young families. But of course, the Republicans killed it so they could reduce taxes for the wealthy.

      2. All those people buying into the lie that immigrants are “replacing” Americans should be loudly advocating for things like better child tax credits, student loan relief and comprehensive health care for everyone young if they really want to do something about the increasingly declining birth rate. Of course they don’t; they just like to whine. They never address the structural problems facing young family about sustainable incomes if they want children.

6. Then-Councilmember Bruce Harrell was one of the council members who rammed through City approval of the Highway 99 tunnel before Mayor McGinn was elected. As we knew would happen, it did nothing to reduce downtown gridlock.

   1. “. As we knew would happen, it did nothing to reduce downtown gridlock.”

      I’m pretty sure it was billed as a replacement project for AWV rather than a project to “reduce gridlock.”

      If reducing gridlock was the objective, the City would be removing bicycle lanes, bus lanes and parking from Downtown streets. Since the tunnel was approved, many lanes have been taken away from traffic — adding to traffic gridlock.

      1. Sure, it was billed as a replacement project for the viaduct but the obvious alternative was to improve transit and surface options. But folks thought that would lead to more traffic. As for your solutions they are backwards. Reducing bus lanes would increase traffic downtown. Reducing bike lanes probably wouldn’t do anything. Reducing street parking would have little effect. Reducing private parking is not easy to do.

         The only way to reduce traffic downtown is to implement congestion pricing. Charge money to drive through the area. Ironically we charge money to driver around. Another alternative is to just live with the traffic and provide alternatives. This means bus lanes and bike lanes.

   2. The SR-99 deep bore was a state decision; they had the funds and the ROW. McGinn fought the deep bore too much; he would have been better perfecting ST2; he had a vote on ST issues.

      1. Given that ST2 passed, and its CIP list will be complete on December 6, what could Mayor McGinn have done to make it better?

         The state still needed a vote by the City Council before the 99 tunnel project could move forward.

      2. Brent, you asked; all hindsight, but what I said at the time: Lynnwood Link could have been on SR-99 all the way north to Lynnwood rather than in the I-5 envelope; if on I-5, the stations should have been at NE 130th, 155th, and 185th streets; the First Hill streetcar should have been electric trolleybus with shorter headway; East could have had BRT on both I-90 and SR-520. McGinn pushed for rail on SR-520; he implemented the FHSC with the jog to 14th Avenue South and the PBL on Broadway. Lynnwood Link will be great; it could have been better.

7. If all I have to go on is a candidate’s position on the 1st Ave Streetcar, and the rest of their campaign site are the usual tropes about learning the value of work and word salad, I would vote for the candidate supporting the streetcar.

   We have had council members who oppose the streetcar, and none of them have been good on transportation or housing issues.

   Ducksworth’s webpage has some very positive talking points. Thankfully, opposing the streetcar is not one of them. There is also the “anti-displacement” stuff that could stand more specificity.

   I do see the value of having a Chamber-friendly voice who is also more-or-less pro-urbanism on the council. As long as they don’t become the swing vote, which is my big worry about Ducksworth.

   1. I’m pro transit but I’m not sure I see the value of the 1st Ave streetcar as planned. It’s a lot of money. I think Seattle, like every city with a modern streetcar, planned the service around nothing and I struggle to see how it provides anything a trolleybus can’t. And in some places (like Jackson) the design makes better transit very difficult.

      Sure, the SLU streetcar basically needs the connector to continue existing, but we can and should ask if the SLU streetcar is even needed. It seems more like a way for Amazon et al. to pretend they are helping traffic issues than an actually useful part of the transit network. Would connecting it through downtown help? Maybe, but it’s not like a downtown-SLU service doesn’t already exist on many lines. How would the streetcar be meaningfully better than the C? Or future J? Or 40? If the answer is just “it’s not a bus”, I feel like we should tackle bus reluctance head-on, rather than spend $300M on one line of relatively marginal utility.

      1. I agree. Ducksworth is clearly pro-transit and pro-density. Having someone like that oppose the streetcar means that it is far more likely we replace it with something much better (e. g. bus service on First Avenue). Again, it was close. This isn’t the only reason we supported Ducksworth. But basing someone’s support for transit on the streetcar is a really bad assumption.

      2. Don’t believe the $410M estimate for the 1.2 mile streetcar extension. Typically ~1 mile of urban streetcar track is an order of magnitude less. For example, the Salt Lake City S Line cost about $27.8 million per mile, while the Detroit Q Line cost around $54.5 million per mile. Unfortunately, it is common practice for leaders who want to kill a project to request an estimate for a gold-plated design that bears little resemblance to what is needed. Respect that a consultant had to work very hard to pile on enough unrelated line items to justify a horrendous estimate to be provided to the public. An ounce of value engineering will go a long way to reduce costs on this project.

         The sole reason the streetcar remains incomplete is because entitled drivers concerned about losing street parking along 1st Street whined in the mayor’s ear. Don’t overthink this one.

      3. @jmath

         Do you have any concrete reason to believe that? Two independent consulting firms spanning two administrations have found the cost to be over $250 million.

      4. The sole reason the streetcar remains incomplete is because entitled drivers concerned about losing street parking along 1st Street whined in the mayor’s ear.

         That’s not it at all. The mayors have been the ones propping it up. It is all about the cost.

      5. A big chunk of the unexpected and unusual cost of the streetcar is due the need to reinforce several blocks of 1st Avenue where the street simply can’t handle the weight. Anyone who’s taken either of the underground tours is familiar with the open areas beneath the sidewalks throughout the oldest part of town – these are known as “areaways” (https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/areaways-program). The problem is that the weight of a streetcar (and buses) can’t be reliably supported by the brick retaining walls holding back the soil dumped there to build up the streets in the 1890s. There are signs all along 1st in Pioneer Square banning vehicles weighing more than 5 tons from using the curb lane – if they did, it could collapse the sidewalls of the areaways.

      6. During the 2024 budget discussions, the Council removed the CC Streetcar from the CIP. It died of its own fiscal weight.

   2. We did not base the endorsements merely on their campaign website. My apologies for not linking to quotes from the candidates. Here are the endorsements for the The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/10/16/2025-general-election-endorsements/. It is clear that Lin supports the streetcar but Ducksworth doesn’t. The Urbanist sees this as a reason to support Lin, we see it as the opposite.

      Here is an interview of both: https://www.kuow.org/stories/seattle-city-council-district-2-candidates-talk-taxes-housing-and-public-safety. In my opinion Ducksworth has a more solid response about housing. Lin, in contrast seems to mince his words. It is not clear exactly what he wants.

      Ducksworth has experience at SDOT and is endorsed by the union representing transit drivers. It was very close. We almost marked this as “no endorsement”. Both candidates seem good and would be a huge improvement over Solomon. We give the edge (just barely) to Ducksworth.

      1. Thanks. I happen to live in another district, represented by skeptics of non-automobile modality.

         There is a lot of political history as to why the 1st Ave Streetcar project stalled out. But I decided long ago it was a better use of my time to support good transit projects, and bike and pedestrian safety, and to oppose more car infrastructure, than to use political capital opposing controversial transit projects. Really, all transit projects are controversial by default, so we ought to get it together and push hard for the most worthy ones without belittling the ones we individually find to be less worthy or less relevant to our own lives.

      2. But I decided long ago it was a better use of my time to support good transit projects, and bike and pedestrian safety, and to oppose more car infrastructure, than to use political capital opposing controversial transit projects.

         Fair enough, but I think we can do both. In many cases, fighting for good transit projects means shifting effort and money away from bad projects. I know it isn’t a zero-sum game. Theoretically we can build a lot of good and bad transit projects and it will all work out OK. But realistically, the more bad projects we spend our money on, the less we spend on the good ones. This has been the case historically, especially in this country.

         It is more than just capital projects as well. In the case of the streetcar it means a shift in service. We will have to run buses less often so that we can run a streetcar. From a service standpoint it is just really bad routing. There are numerous options for running buses on First. Yet no one has suggested a brand new bus running from King Street to South Lake Union — that would be stupid. Yet that is essentially what the streetcar is.

         But it is worse than that. The South Lake Union Streetcar makes transit worse. It indirectly hurts the RapidRide C — a much more important line. It reduces the likelihood that the RapidRide H will be extended to South Lake Union. It does all this in a way that is not obvious, but here is why: It is essential that we have good bike lanes around Lake Union. It is one of the few places where there is a level surface and plenty of urban destinations and connections (e. g. the Burke Gilman). Yet the bike lane is forced into the street as it reaches the south end of the lake because of the streetcar. To provide a safe path for cyclists there are bike lanes on Valley. Because there are bike lanes on Valley, the RapidRide C Line is stuck in traffic. Thus the South Lake Union streetcar makes transit worse. It makes bike travel worse as well.

         To be fair, this problem could be solved by moving the streetcar tracks. But that would be really expensive. I realize this is complicated and not obvious but it is very important that someone who is pro-transit (as both of these candidates are) understands the issues. I believe Ducksworth is far more likely to understand the issues and be willing to change our approach to the streetcar. I feel like Lin — like so many other well meaning leaders — take an oversimplistic, knee-jerk view of this project: they support it because it is transit.

8. For all the hordes that have been scratching their heads and wondering “Seattle? Where’s that? ?Why didn’t these folks tell me the much more important info about who do I vote for for all those who care about transit in Tacoma…?”

   Wonder no more.

   https://downtownonthego.com/about/news-events/tacoma-candidate-interviews

   I haven’t actually watched these, but I will, and will try to summarize as I go. I may need to invent a closet where time stops first…

   1. I would be interested to see if you agree with The Urbanist’s endorsements for Tacoma: https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/10/16/2025-general-election-endorsements/#south-sound

   2. I do. But not primarily for transit.

9. I had more write ins this election cycle than ever before. Wrote in Reagan Dunn for executive and None of the Above for Port of Seattle, 33rd district Senate, and pretty much all but one race that had one candidates.

10. Bruce “hasn’t been a terrible mayor when it comes to transit”?

    The 2024 levy reduced transit spending 16% and has almost no accountability measure for transit improvements.

    https://www.thestranger.com/guest-editorial/2024/05/20/79518821/shrinking-levy-transit-funding-wont-help-seattle-reach-its-climate-goals#:~:text=slash%20funding%20for%20transit%20projects%20by%20an%20inflation%2Dadjusted%2016%25

Comments are closed.