News and commentary headlines from the past week.

News:

Commentary:

This is an Open Thread.

63 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: Trick-or-Street”

  1. One Halloween I randomly encountered a closed part of 16th Ave E with trick-or-treaters walking around. It was nice to see so many pedestrians and community engagement.

    When I was in elementary school we went to all our neighbors’ houses on our street in my suburban neighborhood. Since then I’ve lived in apartments and there has never been any kids trick-or-treating. So it was nice to see that again.

    Another year I went to 16th Ave E again to see if there was a similar thing, but there wasn’t. I think a lot of the problem is people don’t know these things exist or where they are. So I’m glad the city is preparing a list, and if it gets more publicized, that would be a good thing.

  2. I have an ORCA card through my employer and it strikes me how much better it is than a monthly pass. It costs businesses $25-45 a month to purchase a “business passport” for an employee, which covers all fares at or below $3 and also bundles in a bunch of add-ons: it covers some trips over $3 (Water Taxi, Sounder, Monorail), 8 free rides a year (via a “Home Free Guarantee”), and provides a full subsidy on Vanpool/Vanshare. The “business passport” cost makes some sense to me, since they’re likely also paying for a bunch of barely-used transit passes, and I think it’s a good idea to incentivize businesses to pay for additional passes.

    However, by comparison a regular monthly ORCA card costs $108 a month, covers $3 fares, and doesn’t bundle in any add-ons. The cost is the equivalent of paying for 36 trips a month (or ~4.1 round trips a week). I can’t imagine that very many riders are paying for that. That seems like bad policy to me; the prices should be lower since we should strongly incentivize riders to pay for a monthly pass. Once a rider has a monthly pass, they’re incentivized to use transit for all their trips (it’s already paid for!) and on top of that they’re incentivized to tap every single time (it’s already paid for!).

    1. Wow I had no idea the price difference is so great.

      I agree that we should incentivize passes—one of the biggest structural effects of car ownership is that it’s a massive sunk cost so “why wouldn’t you drive” if you’ve already paid, and any ongoing expenses are spread out, so it’s easy to forget that it costs anything at all.

      1. Agree. Fares especially become a deterrent to ridership when you get into families traveling together, especially if they don’t ride often enough to justify passes. $3 each way, times two, times however many people are in the family, adds up very fast. For some short trips, it can even lead to a ridiculous situation where the public transit fare costs as much or more than taking an Uber.

        1. Children being free in WA is a good boost for families, as is the senior fare. Many people are pleasantly surprised by those facts, and end up with much cheaper rides because of it.

      2. “—one of the biggest structural effects of car ownership is that it’s a massive sunk cost so “why wouldn’t you drive” if you’ve already paid, and any ongoing expenses are spread out, so it’s easy to forget that it costs anything at all.”

        Incremental cost (not sunk),
        to drive is 35¢ per mile

        Carpooling (3 and above) is always a better value (i.e. families).

        1. The incremental cost varies a lot depending on what kind of car you drive (for an EV charged at home, it’s almost nothing, for example). But, even $0.35/mile ($3.50/10 miles) is still pretty cheap. Cheap enough that, even if it works out to be slightly more than bus fare, it’s not worth the trouble of waiting for the bus, just to save 18 cents.

          This has big impacts on transit, which trickles down into route design and service level, at times, leaving people without cars feeling like it takes forever to get anywhere outside of the limited places that people with cars are willing to ride transit to (usually, places with expensive parking fees).

    2. The price of a business pass is based on what percent of employees use the pass, so if the price is $45 then 40% of the employees must be using theirs. When new companies join, their rate is set at similar companies until they have their own track record to go by. Sounder is calculated at how much the employees use Sounder’s higher fares. The monorail and water taxi may be similar. I don’t know how the other add-ons are incorporated.

        1. The point is that of those 5 employees, less than one is statistically expected to use transit daily. It’s Kirkland after all.

    3. Recently, I lost my “all-you-can-use” employer Orca card, so it’s $3 every time I use transit. As a result, I almost always choose to walk instead (my trips tend to be relatively short ones). It’s annoying to spend an extra 5-15 minutes for every trip I take, but unless it’s raining, or I’m running late, I can’t justify the cost of the transit fare for the minimal time saved. Needless to say, I was against the move to a single fare, regardless of distance. I think it’s nuts that it costs the same to go from Westlake to Symphony Station as it does to go from Lynnwood to SeaTac.

    1. It ain’t over till the Everett Council approves it. The drivers union has been doing a decent amount of work to push against it.

        1. it (generally) boils down to a few things:
          seniority loss, job security, working conditions

          these concerns are stemming from an understandable fear of big change but these are mitigated by the ila or other circumstances

          seniority is required to be integrated equivalently by state and federal law. though, ct and the city are letting the two atu locals come to a mutual agreement on what that looks like. also, noone loses their job, most get explicitly and seamlessly transferred to ct, a few get reassigned within the city. all cbas will be required to be honored.

  4. In the recent schedule change, 1 line frequency was dropped from every 10 minutes to every 12 minutes around 7pm. And down to every 16 minutes around 9pm. That’s a meaningful downgrade both as to increasing wait times and also losing the clockface schedule.

    It really is better for riders to keep the 10 minute frequency as long as possible.

    Interesting, the 2 line doesn’t have the same reductions, and stays at 12 minute frequency until end of service.

        1. The ST schedule summary is wrong or a lie.

          If you go to page 13 of the document you posted, here are weekday evening departure times from Federal Way starting at 7:36:
          7:36 7:48
          8:00 8:12 8:24 8:36 8:48
          9:00 9:12 9:24 9:40 9:56
          10:12 10:28 10:44
          11:00 11:16 11:32 11:48

          It’s every 12 minutes from 7:36 to 9:24 and every 16 minutes from 9:24 through 11:48

          The relevant stop for many evening travelers is Seatac Airport which is 17 minutes from Federal way, so it’s every 12 minutes starting at 7:53 and every 16 minutes starting at 9:41.

          On Saturday (page 23-24) it does stay at 10 minutes until 7:41pm, then it is every 12 minutes until 9:41 when it shifts to every 16 minutes.

      1. So through trains to Everett or SR99 and Casino will take the outer tracks but turn-backs will use the center pocket track? Kind of like Beaverton on MAX used to be operated, right? The trains will reverse within the station, presumably with a change of operator since Line 2 trains will have come all the way from Redmond.

        That is a MUCH better design than having a pocket track isolated on the away side of the station, as it is at Northgate. Reversing does not require that the operator to make the long walk of the train; the departing operator can simply be waiting at the nearside end of the platform, and the incoming operator just deboards and is free until they are “up” for the next train.

        1. I like the double center platform approach. That should be an alternative for how SODO is laid out.

          That said, the trains will still have a tight reversal time with trains every 6 minutes. It works in theory when everything is running tightly, but any inevitable disruption could still result in a real operational mess.

          I think there remains a pretty big dystopian gap between how diagrams look and how train operations run every day for 100 years.

        2. I thought that Line 2 was supposed to be eight minutes at a minimum, not six. I could be mis-remembering, but I think that’s the plan.

          Two minutes is a 33% increase.

        3. Ideally that center track would be two trains in length (one inside the station and one on the nearside), with a cross-over to the southbound track just south of the platforms. That way, if two trains come closely together, the first can run into the station while the other holds in the “pocket” between the cross-over and the turnout from the northbound track until the leader can change operators and get out of Dodge.

          Like this (in schematic): The pound signs are the platforms

          ————————————————————————-/——–
          ###################### /
          ————————————--—————————–/ (South>)
          ####################### \
          ——————————————--————————————-

        4. Boo! There should be spaces between the slashes and the platforms. There were when I typed them.

        5. @ Tom:

          The Everett Link Extebdion DEIS assumes that it’s 6 minutes for both 2 and 3 Lines on Table 4-7 of Appendix G or the Transportation Technical Report.

      2. More money Flim-Flam. The options with the “structure parking” [e.g. “garages”] cost the same as the same respective option with “surface parking”????? (Well, except for a $10 million lower bound on the MAR-D options).

        I have some high-quality parking structures in Brooklyn I’d be willing to part with at an amazingly low-low price for Sound Transit.

    2. Some thoughts on alternatives:

      Alderwood: Alternative D or F both look okay to me, just to get further from the freeway. B seems like the worst option

      Ash Way: The alternatives seem roughly equivalent to me. A has access to the freeway ramps and more existing density on Ash Way while B looks more developable in the long term. Maybe B is marginally better due to long term potential?

      Mariner: B looks clearly better than D to get further away from the freeway

      Airport Road: The alternatives look equivalent to me, maybe B is marginally better due to more room?

      Industrial Center: I’ve mentioned this before but I think a station at Paine Field (C) should be built or planned as an infill station. I wonder if A could add a bridge across the freeway? Maybe even freeway stations?

      Evergreen: E seems like the best to get a bit further away from the freeway

      Everett: C seems like the best to me. Close enough to Everett Station, close enough to downtown, and next to Pacific Ave and Broadway for N-W and E-W bus service. A looks acceptable as well, and D looks like it’s too far from Everett Station.

      OMF: Clearly E, it’s the cheapest and doesn’t take valuable land on SR99

    3. Why would a station like Airport road not be in the middle of the road? Someone buy them a ticket to Chicago. Take the Blue line – all of the freeway stations are at-grade in the median – and then walk around the Loop – all of the stations are elevated above arterials.

      1. Yes, “in the middle of the road”, high enough that semi-mezzanines can be under the platform level at each end and straddling the cross-road so that bus transfers — a VERY important function here with the Blue Line crossing — are optimized in both directions.

        Yes, this clearly has many more construction impacts, and likely as a result, higher costs, but the payoff is forever.

    4. The first question I think should be asked is how many riders will a station have. The second is how will they get to and from the stations.

      Sadly, the DEIS body doesn’t present actual expected daily station ridership. It is buried in the Transportation Technical Report — sort of. There, ST only presents mode of access in the PM peak period.

      It’s certainly surreal that the base EIS document goes into great detail discussing possible local street traffic congestion but avoids giving many details about what it does to transit.

      It’s also notable that the forecasts are using a forecasting model defined as from 2016! That means that it’s not even calibrated to U Link and Northgate Link. And of course not all the recent Link extensions nor Swift lines. Those new services are assumed in the forecasts; they just aren’t used to recalibrate the base model.

      So yeah these are fundamental problems with the DEIS that make me question its usability for realistic information. But I’ll try to make some assessments what the forecasts tell us. So….

      It appears that over half of the forecasted riders are transferring from buses at these six new stations in aggregate. To me, that says that the efficiency of going from platform to bus stop is the most important station design consideration.

      After that, it is people parking at Mariner and Downtown Everett that provide riders.

      The model shows very little walking and biking. (Surprisingly, Alderwood gets terrible ridership. That alone seems ridiculous!) But rather than say that walk and bike trips are so low that they’re irrelevant, I’ll just hope that actual station area planning changes that pathetic outcome. One could even say that the ridership forecasts are unrealistically pessimistic.

      The overall system is supposed to attract 10K more daily transit riders in aggregate. The total is higher but actual new transit trips are just 10K. Of course that’s still much better than West Seattle Link at a similar cost.

      The travel time table in the technical report shows that it’s only three minutes faster from Lynnwood to Everett and five minutes slower from Everett to Lynnwood in the PM peak period. SW Industrial Center is shown as a much faster transit trip, but at just 1,500 total daily station boardings at full build in 20 years according to the nearby figure, it is forecast to be lower that every current Link station except East Main and Wilburton — so it seems like a very minor benefit.

      The appendix is here, by the way:

      https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/14-EVLE-DEIS-AppendixG.1.pdf

      A reader needs that appendix because the base EIS document won’t mention it, as I explained earlier.

    5. I really wish ST would reconsider their plan to include massive bus bays at every suburban station, as I don’t consider to be a very good use of land when there is so much development potential that the state is likely to force into existence. You don’t see massive sawtooth base circles at the most successful link light rail stations. And in the future, I’m betting these will become obsolete.

      1. The buses feeding link is the right approach over development near stations. The density doesn’t exist this far into suburban areas to justify any additional allowances when so much land is underutilized already, and buses are a smarter approach to funnel ridership from places that are too far to walk from. Lynnwood already has massive parking issues because CTs poor bus service. This is at least a step in the right direction

      2. Are you saying there should be fewer bus transfers, or that the bays can somehow be shrunk without losing runs? Bus feeders extend the benefit of link to a larger area and more people/trips. That’s important.

        There may be particular cases where bus routes could consolidate at every second or third station instead of every station. That would be a location-specific issue with unique circumstances, so we’d have to know which stations wouldn’t have transfers and where the routes would go to determine whether it’s OK.

        Avalon station is a kind of indirect example, in that the 21 is forced to go to Delridge station instead (or AJ station). The intent wasn’t to eliminate bus bays, but to eliminate the station to save money, but from bus riders’ perspective the impact is the same. There has been an ongoing debate whether the station is necessary; we don’t need to get into it here, except to note there are activists on both sides. Still, this is a de facto example of eliminating a bus-transfer location, thus forcing bus routes to another station.

        South Bellevue station has three bus bays. Replacing them with apartment buildings (as if the area’s environmental sensitivity would allow it) would allow ~300 people to live adjacent to the station. A fraction of them would use Link. At the same you’d lose bus transfers to Issaquah, southeast Bellevue, and Renton. The 556 would either have to lose its link-transfer status (short of Bellevue Downtown) or be rerouted. If it’s rerouted, then south Bellevue Way would have to be backfilled with something else. (And that’s the all-important transfers from Bellevue Square.) All those bus routes combined must yield more than 300 riders per day. And they definitely serve more areas than those three apartment buildings. And those bus routes also have an indirect rideshed possibly.

      3. I sometimes get motion sickness from the busses literally spinning through some of the transit centers.

        I think that their benefit generally falls into two categories:

        1) End of line reversals with layover amenities

        2) Timed transfers so a rider has several other buses waiting a few feet away

        After that, it’s more important to be close vertically and horizontally to a Link platform.

      4. The proper purpose of a transit center is to facilitate transfers. Transit centers allow several routes to converge, enabling transfers between any of them. This allows people to take the first route that comes if multiple routes go their direction. It means they don’t have to memorize “this stop transfers to only this route; that stop transfers to only that route”. And people can change their destination goal if their second segment won’t come for a long time.

        P&Rs are a separate issue. They should be away from village centers where they’d displace a walkshed. This is not necessarily the place with bus transfers. P&R drivers will not transfer to local bus routes, only to Link or express bus routes, so there’s no reason for the local routes to be there.

        Agency convenience is a third issue. Buses have to layover somewhere. But they shouldn’t layover in a neighborhood center displacing the walkshed. And the bus transfers shouldn’t be forced to a location that’s convenient for the agency (room for layovers and a P&R) but bad for walk-up passengers (from businesses/housing). Instead the agency should spend the money to design the network right the first time. Put bus-transfer hubs in large walkable villages, put layovers somewhere else or a few blocks away, and put P&Rs someplace else. An extra P&R station to keep the downtown walkshed and P&R separate is a good compromise. Bellevue Downtown and South Bellevue is a good example; combined Lynnwood City Center is a bad example.

  6. Urbanist has a new post about how the ballard funding gap could be solved by making dstt2 elevated but sound transit won’t even entertain the question…that 3nd tunnel will knock down the whole house of cards but the leaders are obsessed with having it.

    1. “Urbanist has a new post about how the ballard funding gap could be solved by making dstt2 elevated”

      I thought I was the only one who mused extending the monorail south down 5th Ave. Unfortunately that would be a cow for Sound Transit when it comes to land and property acquisitings, which includes many undevelopable Downtown buildings (aka unable to make way for rail).

      1. I’ve suggested several times that the monorail tracks and train should be moved to a museum feature for tourists. That would then allow for an aerial light rail segment between Westlake and Seattle Center with rebuilt supports as an earthquake safety move. The challenge is between Westlake and Washington St.

        The more important part is for ST to not sit on its hands for 10-15 years. It’s really irresponsible for ST to not put $10M on the table to develop new alternative profiles and technologies .

      1. Frankly I’m happy that the “Build the Damn Trains” people are finally realizing that DSTT2 will be bad for transit riders and that we need to seriously re-think a lot of the assumptions around Ballard Link Extension. Picking a lane and sticking with it isn’t a good thing if you’re in the wrong lane (and I think the BTDT people really were before with insisting on keeping DSTT2 as-is.)

      2. I’m happy too, June. The BTDT was however PR to get West Seattle, Tacoma Dome and Everett extension projects moving. They co-opted the Ballard interests to join in the car — only to summarily kick them out of the car and leave them standing on the curb. The Ballard supporters were suckered in!!

      3. I’m just frustrated because there’s been no new information in the meantime but only now to they seem to be coming around “maybe ST should try something else”, after STB got discredited for having the same opinion years ago.

        1. Eh, STB’s former leadership had access to Mayor Murray’s SDOT head Scott Kubly, the designer of the two tunnel extravaganza that was never put out for public comment, and didn’t ask the questions that needed to be asked/truth to power that led us to this situation (that and Seattle Subway being naive to think people in power wanted light rail to Ballard (as opposed to West Seattle)

          Frankly, Mike O”Brien now looks like Copernicus and Galileo for suggesting West Seattle to SoDo and Ballard to UW.

      4. I’m not frustrated by an anonymous author saying that Ballard DSTT needs to function better than ref design, needs to be cheaper, and needs to built quicker than 2060.

        How to usefully encourage ST to study the proposal?

        The Bellevue elevated segments have noise walls. Seems to work pretty well. it does screw up the view.

        1. I’m frustrated because the chance to get ST to prioritize funding Ballard to Downtown and to reopen study of alternative routes from CID to Westlake was last year.

          I called for it: https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/12/16/build-the-best-parts-first/

          But instead of rallying to build the Ballard Stub and defer DSTT2, “Build The Damn Trains” demanded no reductions in scope and no further EIS delays. So, the Board did the obvious thing and told Seattle that if they cared so much about getting to Ballard, that Seattle could fund it themselves.

          Anyways, I look forward to turning 70 in the 2060s and being the crotchety old guy getting yelled at by youngsters wondering why DSTT2 sucks so badly.

        2. ST will not study any alternative approach to BLE until there is serious rework of ST’s governing board.

        3. @ Nathan:

          I think people give BTDT too much credit. It appeared to me to be organized by Dow — who anctually attended the presser looking like a proud papa — as a strategic action to get the Board to go along with West Seattle. Too many transit advocates jumped on board because it appeared “pro transit”.

          It takes an enlightened transit advocate to see when projects actually hurt transit. They can create worse transfers. They can drain the operational costs by building miles of 55 mph, very low ridership new segments. They can create operational bottlenecks and inflexibility in the system that can curse the operation for a century (especially when it is underground).

          One ST3 thing that really drives me nuts is the “redundancy” argument. DSTT2 is not redundant! The track configurations will not give trains rerouting options in SODO without freezing the operation for several minutes — meaning that it can only be done for one isolated train at a time. Disruptions in DSTT stop trains at Capitol Hill and Judkins Park which aren’t near DSTT2. Even reversing at SODO station is a problem because every rider is forced onto two escalators or stairs which will get long lines when an entire train empties. The best redundancy is what we have already — the Third Ave transit trunk!

        4. I think there was a real opportunity for transit advocates to unify around deferring DSTT2, and it could have been enough to get the whole board open to it. To be fair, there was enough of a call for it that Dan Strauss actually made the Board vote on it! However, BTDT demanded no cuts, and now we’re looking at getting to Ballard sometime between 2042 and 2060. I’ll put five YOE dollars on Ballard opening in the early 2050s. Just in time for me to retire!

          Ultimately, though, I think Somers and Mello made sure all the SnoCo and Pierce reps rejected that idea, because they only care about being there to break ground on EVLE and TDLE. They don’t care Seattle’s transit problems.

      5. “they seem to be coming around “maybe ST should try something else”, after STB got discredited for having the same opinion years ago.”

        STB was never discredited. Everybody else disagreed with the no-DSTT2 alternative, but nobody proved STB wrong or faulty in its reasoning. They just said “we need the second tunnel for capacity or redundancy” but didn’t offer any additional facts to prove it. The capacity argument goes back to ST’s 2016 estimates, before covid and work-from-home and ridership shifting from peak to off-peak.

        STB offered elevated and surface alternatives in one or two one-off articles, but we never got behind it or fleshed it out more than that, because most of us thought it had no chance or we had reservations about those concepts too. (Elevated: loud, bulky, downtown will never allow. Surface: risk of being too slow.)

        1. All the reasons for no elevated still exist, but in public – ST is now 100% aligned with cost savings and bringing Ballard implementation timeline in.

          Assuming the article gets traction, ST will need to do some handwaving to find a reason not to study an elevated downtown.

        2. “ST will need to do some handwaving to find a reason not to study an elevated downtown.”

          All ST needs to do is say it’s unacceptable to downtown stakeholders and Seattle politicians due to construction disruption, views, and noise. That has been its position all along. It dismissed a Ballard-Westlake shuttle and prioritizing Seattle Center-Ballard without any handwaving: just asserting it didn’t want to and saying they might not save any money.

      6. “How to usefully encourage ST to study the proposal?”

        The two ways are to generate widespread public feedback to the ST board asking it to change its mind, or interest politicians in taking up the cause. The first is more direct; the second has more chance for success.

        Given that the board and all the politicians were firmly against studying a no-DSTT2 alternative further, the chance of them being open to an elevated alternative is vanishingly small. If they can open it up to elevated, they can open it up to a Ballard-Westlake automated shuttle, because both would do the same thing: make Ballard Link less expensive and more affordable, and address the long-downtown-transfers issue. But in May they were saying, “No way, Jose.” They think their SODO-Seattle Center concept is affordable, and the rest of Ballard is unimportant enough to be deferred.

        (“All the politicians” may not include Balducci. I don’t remember if she was open to studying a Ballard-Westlake shuttle further. But Strauss seems to be
        “build the damn trains (in whatever ST’s preferred alignment is)”.)

        1. Strauss and Balducci were on board with deferring DSTT2 and prioritizing Ballard-Westlake. Strauss forced the Board to do a full role-call vote, to his credit.

    3. This is intriguing. And it’s interesting Seattle Subway supports it, after it rejected the no-DSTT2 alternative many of us advocated for. It’s unfortunate they couldn’t have come up with this before the March board retreat and April reset, when we could have asked ST to consider it during those.

      But there is an elephant in the room. Link’s existing elevated segments are a bit loud to be around. Is it possible to do significant noise mitigation to limit it downtown?

      1. If this is done before WSLE construction has started, you could switch to silent technology such as maglev and use it from WS to Ballard.

  7. Really interested to see how the mayor’s no new taxes, all firings budget plays out. Fundamentally correct on not reaching for more taxation, she’s going to face reality of inflation and a shrinking corporate tax base. Where is the plan to attract new business and generate revenue without taxation? Maybe that’s the concept of a plan.

    1. Do businesses really need more incentives? We have a highly educated workforce, in a prestigious city, with office rents significantly cheaper than pre-covid.

    2. Tax levels should follow determining what the city should do, not precede it and limit it. The city needs to invest more in transit, sidewalks, housing, social safety net, public safety, and environmental sustainability. The only way to do that is with more taxes. The current tax level is based on arbitrary past decisions by past administrations, and is not necessarily the best level judging by what the city should do. The whole issue is the city has never fully defined what it should do, or offered an adequate complete plan. Different administrations just raise or lower taxes for one or two things they’re agitated about at the time.

      The city needs to attract new businesses AND do all those other things. Downtown Seattle needs a better revitalization plan. It did go though revitalization in the 1980s, and the result was very successful with more retail and more people downtown. The next revitalization may need a different vision, since 9-5 office-working is less popular now, and increasing housing is more critical, and people are more open to living and shopping downtown if their public-safety concerns are addressed. So should downtown evolve into more of a neighborhood? Or what should it be? The city needs to answer that. That in turn will imply whether taxes need to go up or down: whatever is needed to fulfill it. A surtax for downtown improvements might be a good choice.

      1. Wilson wrote an executive order earlier this month with a focus on building a more resilient local economy: https://wilson.seattle.gov/2026/09/09/mayor-wilson-takes-action-to-build-a-more-resilient-seattle-economy/

        ” Through an Executive Order signed today, Mayor Wilson is taking four initial actions to strengthen economic resilience:

        • Convene a Resilient Seattle Economy Task Force bringing together business, labor, community and civic leaders to build strong civic connections across sectors, convene industry-specific roundtables, and identify opportunities and strategies to build a resilient Seattle economy.

        • Develop a Seattle Strategic Initiatives Fund proposal to explore tools that can support transformative projects and economic competitiveness.

        • Expand opportunities for innovation and local and emerging businesses by directing capital departments to align assets and processes to spur economic development, innovation and diversification.

        • Improve permitting pathways and City processes to make it easier to open, operate, and grow a business in Seattle.”

    3. Really interested to see how the mayor’s no new taxes, all firings budget plays out.

      Minor clarification that there are very few firings, but instead defunding unfilled positions.

Comments are closed.