Last Night Didn't Bring Much Clarity

@Josh

Don’t forget the City Atty race. So far, Pete Holmes has taken all three Dem LD Endorsements.

89% in the 11th; 62% in the 43rd. 76% victory in the 37th.

That’s half of the Seattle LD’s – 3 for 3.

46th endorsement meeting tomorrow.

Sheesh!! at 3 we have politics as unusual. What is wrong with being pro-business? And having ideas? The more I hear Constantine the more I hear old Republicans and Democrats.

Hutch was on Dori Monson and I caught on podcast. Very together. Monson couldn’t catch her on anything and he tried. It sure helps, though, not to have baggage or having been in office to accumulate. OTOH, she doesn’t have any worthwhile contributions except those of a non-profit over a short period.

I’m thinking the voters don’t want the same old same old.

@Josh

Don’t forget the City Atty race. So far, Pete Holmes has taken all three Dem LD Endorsements.

89% in the 11th; 62% in the 43rd. 76% victory in the 37th.

That’s half of the Seattle LD’s – 3 for 3.

46th endorsement meeting tomorrow.

Sheesh!! at 3 we have politics as unusual. What is wrong with being pro-business? And having ideas? The more I hear Constantine the more I hear old Republicans and Democrats.

Hutch was on Dori Monson and I caught on podcast. Very together. Monson couldn’t catch her on anything and he tried. It sure helps, though, not to have baggage or having been in office to accumulate. OTOH, she doesn’t have any worthwhile contributions except those of a non-profit over a short period.

I’m thinking the voters don’t want the same old same old.

@1,

Thanks. I was trying to track down the results in the City Attorney’s race last night, but couldn’t get the numbers.

@Josh

The 43rd also endorsed Holland last nite.

@Josh

The 43rd also endorsed Holland last nite.

“Eloquent” Mike McGinn? Really?

“Eloquent” Mike McGinn? Really?

The 43rd endorsed in all three Port Commission races last night.

As christis s said, Rob Holland got the nod in position 3. John Creighton (who’s running unopposed) was endorsed for position 1, and Max Vekich was heartily endorsed for position 4.

Also, the 43rd endorsed “Yes” on the Green Bag Initiative.

The 43rd endorsed in all three Port Commission races last night.

As christis s said, Rob Holland got the nod in position 3. John Creighton (who’s running unopposed) was endorsed for position 1, and Max Vekich was heartily endorsed for position 4.

Also, the 43rd endorsed “Yes” on the Green Bag Initiative.

@6 – thanks! Vekich and Holland deserve it!

Was there any other news last night out of the 43rd?

Understand it was a nail-biter. O’Brien missing endorsement by ONE vote! painful, painful!

@6 – thanks! Vekich and Holland deserve it!

Was there any other news last night out of the 43rd?

Understand it was a nail-biter. O’Brien missing endorsement by ONE vote! painful, painful!

Between Josh’s review and our respective notes, I think that covers it — (Conlin, Bloom, Licata, nobody) for Council, (nobody) for KCE or Mayor, (Holmes) for City Attorney, (Creighton, Holland, Vekich) for Port, (Yes) for Green Bag.

Maybe the biggest point is who didn’t show up — Nickels was in DC but had a designated proxy to speak on his behalf, Hunter wasn’t there and someone made a brief statement of support (after a bit of coaxing, I think), and Jarrett didn’t even have anyone willing to say something about him.

I didn’t copy down the actual percentages for candidates, but my vague recall is that Nickels got about 25%, Drago much less than that. Mallahan may have finished 2nd behind McGinn, though I’m not sure about that. In the KCE race, Dow and Larry both made it to reconsideration (Phillips 55%, Constantine 47% on the first round), but neither of them gained very much, if anything, on the second vote.

Between Josh’s review and our respective notes, I think that covers it — (Conlin, Bloom, Licata, nobody) for Council, (nobody) for KCE or Mayor, (Holmes) for City Attorney, (Creighton, Holland, Vekich) for Port, (Yes) for Green Bag.

Maybe the biggest point is who didn’t show up — Nickels was in DC but had a designated proxy to speak on his behalf, Hunter wasn’t there and someone made a brief statement of support (after a bit of coaxing, I think), and Jarrett didn’t even have anyone willing to say something about him.

I didn’t copy down the actual percentages for candidates, but my vague recall is that Nickels got about 25%, Drago much less than that. Mallahan may have finished 2nd behind McGinn, though I’m not sure about that. In the KCE race, Dow and Larry both made it to reconsideration (Phillips 55%, Constantine 47% on the first round), but neither of them gained very much, if anything, on the second vote.

Thank you for again giving Sandeep’s man lots of attention.

Thank you for again giving Sandeep’s man lots of attention.

Did the 43rd endorse for County Exec last night?

Josh, check your numbers on their endorsement vote for Mayor. The numbers they gave added up to 145, but they said the total votes cast were 129. Going by the raw totals which sum up at 145, McGinn got 32%, and the rest trail off from there.

I’m not sure O’Brien was rightfully denied the endorsement for Pos. 8. I’d have to check the rules, but I believe they require a 60% vote, not a 60.0% vote or a 60.00% vote. If his total was 59.78% as I saw, he earned the endorsement. He should fight the 43rd leadership on that.

Did the 43rd endorse for County Exec last night?

Josh, check your numbers on their endorsement vote for Mayor. The numbers they gave added up to 145, but they said the total votes cast were 129. Going by the raw totals which sum up at 145, McGinn got 32%, and the rest trail off from there.

I’m not sure O’Brien was rightfully denied the endorsement for Pos. 8. I’d have to check the rules, but I believe they require a 60% vote, not a 60.0% vote or a 60.00% vote. If his total was 59.78% as I saw, he earned the endorsement. He should fight the 43rd leadership on that.

@8 those numbers can’t be right; 55% plus 47% equals 102%.

I was at the 43rd last night. And I didn’t vote for O’Brien on either my primary or reconsideration ballot. Here’s why:

-John Fox asked a question about whether candidates would support taxing developers to pay for upgrades to city services (roads, water, electrical, etc) that their developments require. This isn’t an issue I’m knee jerk on, but I didn’t like O’Brien’s answer. He said that any increase in the cost of housing reduces density, so he would oppose such a tax even if it was earmarked to support low income housing. Pitting density against affordable housing without even suggesting a means for compromise to me suggested that his ideological blinders are too tight for him to do public interest advocacy to ensure that Seattle doesn’t simply become a playground for the wealthy. I’m sure he’s a good enviro. But he needs to do more thinking on class issues– especially when the axis of power in City Hall is defined around developer politics.

-O’Brien kept mentioning schools as part of the thing that Seattle needs to improve. That’s nice for the voter’s guide. But he’s not running for school board. It makes me suspicious of whether his message is just liberal spin.

-There are other candidates in this City Council race who caught my attention. I had never heard of them, to be honest, and I don’t know if they’ll ever get much press attention. But I liked their no BS direct answers to questions and their openness to ideas (I have a low tolerance for feel good sound bites). I liked David Miller, who struck me as quite intelligent and a little iconoclastic. And I liked Bobby Forch, who while not having a high leadership profile, has a compelling personal history of moving from blue collar to white collar work, a thoughtful and professional demeanor, and frankly, the ONLY candidate for any of the races who even MENTIONED the need to address racial disparities in city services (note that the 43rd meeting was almost entirely white, and not one question from the floor addressed issues of racial justice or police accountability). These guys deserve more attention than they’ve so far received.

@8 those numbers can’t be right; 55% plus 47% equals 102%.

I was at the 43rd last night. And I didn’t vote for O’Brien on either my primary or reconsideration ballot. Here’s why:

-John Fox asked a question about whether candidates would support taxing developers to pay for upgrades to city services (roads, water, electrical, etc) that their developments require. This isn’t an issue I’m knee jerk on, but I didn’t like O’Brien’s answer. He said that any increase in the cost of housing reduces density, so he would oppose such a tax even if it was earmarked to support low income housing. Pitting density against affordable housing without even suggesting a means for compromise to me suggested that his ideological blinders are too tight for him to do public interest advocacy to ensure that Seattle doesn’t simply become a playground for the wealthy. I’m sure he’s a good enviro. But he needs to do more thinking on class issues– especially when the axis of power in City Hall is defined around developer politics.

-O’Brien kept mentioning schools as part of the thing that Seattle needs to improve. That’s nice for the voter’s guide. But he’s not running for school board. It makes me suspicious of whether his message is just liberal spin.

-There are other candidates in this City Council race who caught my attention. I had never heard of them, to be honest, and I don’t know if they’ll ever get much press attention. But I liked their no BS direct answers to questions and their openness to ideas (I have a low tolerance for feel good sound bites). I liked David Miller, who struck me as quite intelligent and a little iconoclastic. And I liked Bobby Forch, who while not having a high leadership profile, has a compelling personal history of moving from blue collar to white collar work, a thoughtful and professional demeanor, and frankly, the ONLY candidate for any of the races who even MENTIONED the need to address racial disparities in city services (note that the 43rd meeting was almost entirely white, and not one question from the floor addressed issues of racial justice or police accountability). These guys deserve more attention than they’ve so far received.

Jon Morgan, you are wrong on several counts.

First, on “ballots” vs. “votes”. In the 43rd, members are free to endorse multiple individuals in a race. Thus, the number of votes has no relation to the number of ballots. Whether the sum of votes for individuals in the mayoral race was 145 or 245 or 345 is irrelevant … what matters is how many ballots had votes for a particular candidate, divided by the number of ballots.

Second, your “round-off” argument is specious. When the rules say 60%, what’s clearly meant is that the percentage is greater than or equal to 0.6. Perhaps you don’t comprehend that 0.597826 (that’s 55/92, the actual values on the reconsideration balloting, taken to six decimal places) is less than 0.6.

Jon Morgan, you are wrong on several counts.

First, on “ballots” vs. “votes”. In the 43rd, members are free to endorse multiple individuals in a race. Thus, the number of votes has no relation to the number of ballots. Whether the sum of votes for individuals in the mayoral race was 145 or 245 or 345 is irrelevant … what matters is how many ballots had votes for a particular candidate, divided by the number of ballots.

Second, your “round-off” argument is specious. When the rules say 60%, what’s clearly meant is that the percentage is greater than or equal to 0.6. Perhaps you don’t comprehend that 0.597826 (that’s 55/92, the actual values on the reconsideration balloting, taken to six decimal places) is less than 0.6.

Jon Morgan again:

@8 those numbers can’t be right; 55% plus 47% equals 102%.

And on reconsideration, the percentages were 55% and 50%, which add to 105%.

Which, as I showed in comment #13, is completely irrelevant. Members were free to vote for Dow, or vote for Larry, or vote for both, or vote for neither. It would have been perfectly legitimate for two or more candidates to appear on 60% of the ballots.

The twitter feed said Donaldson 8, Drago 15, Mallahan 36, Nickels 37, McGinn 49

That’s 145 votes, so 60% threshold would be 98.

Donaldson 5.52%
Drago 10.34%
Mallahan 24.83%
Nickels 25.52%
McGinn 33.79%

Jon Morgan again:

@8 those numbers can’t be right; 55% plus 47% equals 102%.

And on reconsideration, the percentages were 55% and 50%, which add to 105%.

Which, as I showed in comment #13, is completely irrelevant. Members were free to vote for Dow, or vote for Larry, or vote for both, or vote for neither. It would have been perfectly legitimate for two or more candidates to appear on 60% of the ballots.

The twitter feed said Donaldson 8, Drago 15, Mallahan 36, Nickels 37, McGinn 49

That’s 145 votes, so 60% threshold would be 98.

Donaldson 5.52%
Drago 10.34%
Mallahan 24.83%
Nickels 25.52%
McGinn 33.79%

christis s, the denominator is ballots, not votes. If, as someone said above, the number of ballots was 129, the threshold for 60% would be 78 votes.

(Note to Jon Morgan — in this case, 77 votes, 59.69%, would not suffice. A candidate would have had to earn 60.47% to win an endorsement.)

christis s, the denominator is ballots, not votes. If, as someone said above, the number of ballots was 129, the threshold for 60% would be 78 votes.

(Note to Jon Morgan — in this case, 77 votes, 59.69%, would not suffice. A candidate would have had to earn 60.47% to win an endorsement.)

@11: The 43rd rules allow you to vote for as many candidates as you want on the first ballot. On the reconsideration vote, you can also vote for multiple candidates, but only for the ones who got more than 40 percent of the vote on the first ballot.

Or the short version: Several people voted for both Dow and Larry.

@10: It’s called a threshold. O’Brien didn’t get just over 60 percent of the vote, he got just under 60 percent. No endorsement.

@11: The 43rd rules allow you to vote for as many candidates as you want on the first ballot. On the reconsideration vote, you can also vote for multiple candidates, but only for the ones who got more than 40 percent of the vote on the first ballot.

Or the short version: Several people voted for both Dow and Larry.

@10: It’s called a threshold. O’Brien didn’t get just over 60 percent of the vote, he got just under 60 percent. No endorsement.

@16

Thanks! I heard the 129 number, but not sure if that’s official.

@16

Thanks! I heard the 129 number, but not sure if that’s official.

O’Brien was overheard saying (paraphrased) “I guess I should have campaigned a little harder for the reconsideration vote. I just needed one more.”

So perhaps the candidate has learned something important about the process in his disappointment.

As others have noted above (and also in conversation after the vote), Bobby Forch and David Miller are definitely mayoral candidates to take a second look at; I was pleasantly surprised by both.

O’Brien was overheard saying (paraphrased) “I guess I should have campaigned a little harder for the reconsideration vote. I just needed one more.”

So perhaps the candidate has learned something important about the process in his disappointment.

As others have noted above (and also in conversation after the vote), Bobby Forch and David Miller are definitely mayoral candidates to take a second look at; I was pleasantly surprised by both.

At the 34th District Dems’ candidate forum, three groups of candidates were asked the 34th-specific yes/no question: “Do you favor parking meters in the Alaska Junction?”

Those who answered “yes” were booed and hissed by much of the audience. Those answers were recorded. O’Brien was in the third group to be asked that question, and presumably he had been paying attention. He answered “yes” anyway, and was booed and hissed as the others had been.

Members of the 34th endorsed the 2007 RTID measure by acclamation. O’Brien and Mike McGinn both took pride in their role in scuttling that vote. It’s doubtful that our LD organization’s members will reward with endorsements two candidates who express such disdain for 34th District voters’ traffic mobility.

At the 34th District Dems’ candidate forum, three groups of candidates were asked the 34th-specific yes/no question: “Do you favor parking meters in the Alaska Junction?”

Those who answered “yes” were booed and hissed by much of the audience. Those answers were recorded. O’Brien was in the third group to be asked that question, and presumably he had been paying attention. He answered “yes” anyway, and was booed and hissed as the others had been.

Members of the 34th endorsed the 2007 RTID measure by acclamation. O’Brien and Mike McGinn both took pride in their role in scuttling that vote. It’s doubtful that our LD organization’s members will reward with endorsements two candidates who express such disdain for 34th District voters’ traffic mobility.

What were the numbers in the reconsideration vote for the City Council race where O’Brien lost by one vote?

And, is it ballots or votes (ie: did anyone make it over 40 in the first vote)

What were the numbers in the reconsideration vote for the City Council race where O’Brien lost by one vote?

And, is it ballots or votes (ie: did anyone make it over 40 in the first vote)

christis s,

As I said in comment #13, the tally in the Council 8 reconsideration vote was 55/92 (59.78%). That is, there were 92 ballots, and O’Brien was endorsed on 55 of them.

I don’t understand your second point, unless you accidentally omitted the word “else”, as in “did anyone else make it over 40…” The answer to the reformulated question is “no”. If someone else had exceeded 40%, he too would have been in the reconsideration vote.

christis s,

As I said in comment #13, the tally in the Council 8 reconsideration vote was 55/92 (59.78%). That is, there were 92 ballots, and O’Brien was endorsed on 55 of them.

I don’t understand your second point, unless you accidentally omitted the word “else”, as in “did anyone else make it over 40…” The answer to the reformulated question is “no”. If someone else had exceeded 40%, he too would have been in the reconsideration vote.

@22 Thanks! Just trying to understand if it was 129 ballots or 92 — missed your earlier explanation. Sounds like no one else was over 40, so in the OBrien case, 92 is BOTH ballots AND Votes? Do I have that right?

@22 Thanks! Just trying to understand if it was 129 ballots or 92 — missed your earlier explanation. Sounds like no one else was over 40, so in the OBrien case, 92 is BOTH ballots AND Votes? Do I have that right?

Yes, that’s right. Because the only question on the reconsideration ballot was “endorse O’Brien or no endorsement”.

If there had been any ballots with votes for both possibilities (or neither), they wouldn’t have been included in the ballot count. (I doubt there were any such ballots.)

BTW, given the length of the meeting and the temperature in the room, I’d say that there was remarkably little fall-off in ballot count between the first round and reconsideration. Kudos to my fellow 43rd District Democrats!

Yes, that’s right. Because the only question on the reconsideration ballot was “endorse O’Brien or no endorsement”.

If there had been any ballots with votes for both possibilities (or neither), they wouldn’t have been included in the ballot count. (I doubt there were any such ballots.)

BTW, given the length of the meeting and the temperature in the room, I’d say that there was remarkably little fall-off in ballot count between the first round and reconsideration. Kudos to my fellow 43rd District Democrats!

N in Seattle:

I hear ya! It was sweltering at the 34th last month. The Endorsement meeting on the July 8 will have more people and be even hotter!

I propose we set up tables outside! =)

N in Seattle:

I hear ya! It was sweltering at the 34th last month. The Endorsement meeting on the July 8 will have more people and be even hotter!

I propose we set up tables outside! =)

Agree with # 12. O’Brien’s answer to the question about impact fees rubbed me the wrong way as well, and I don’t even think impact fees are a good idea in Seattle.

If he’d just said they don’t make sense for Seattle, it’s a fee appropriate for suburbs, that would’ve been fine. Instead, he went much further and implied he was against any conditioning of developments for low/affordable housing, a position that would put him to the right of the entire current council and mayor.

I still voted for him and another candidate on the 1st ballot, but after that answer, I couldn’t vote for him for a sole endorsement in the reconsideration.

Agree with # 12. O’Brien’s answer to the question about impact fees rubbed me the wrong way as well, and I don’t even think impact fees are a good idea in Seattle.

If he’d just said they don’t make sense for Seattle, it’s a fee appropriate for suburbs, that would’ve been fine. Instead, he went much further and implied he was against any conditioning of developments for low/affordable housing, a position that would put him to the right of the entire current council and mayor.

I still voted for him and another candidate on the 1st ballot, but after that answer, I couldn’t vote for him for a sole endorsement in the reconsideration.

@26 @12 Fox is the one who doesn’t get it about density- denser housing is more affordable! I don’t think it’s a matter of racial insensitivity on O’Brien’s part- Fox has been misinforming people about what’s good for them. He helped kill transit-oriented development, which was supported by the Low Income Housing Alliance, even after the people who wrote the bill watered it down to address his concerns.

@26 @12 Fox is the one who doesn’t get it about density- denser housing is more affordable! I don’t think it’s a matter of racial insensitivity on O’Brien’s part- Fox has been misinforming people about what’s good for them. He helped kill transit-oriented development, which was supported by the Low Income Housing Alliance, even after the people who wrote the bill watered it down to address his concerns.

@Ivan (#20): I can’t speak for McGinn and O’Brien, but I certainly understand their positions on both RTID and on parking meters.

I didn’t support RTID and proud of it. Both McGinn and O’Brien are on record as having a true grasp of the transportation issues, especially reducing car miles, which is a key part of the Democratic agenda.

After RTID was defeated, light rail came back alone, without billions of dollars for new highways. Good for our economy, good for our environment. This is entirely consistent with the King County Democratic Platform to reduce global warming pollution and transition away from an auto-dependent society. Here are the relevant bits:

We believe it is our duty to pass a better world to future generations.

We are dedicated to:

Counteracting global climate change and its effects
Protecting the environment for ourselves and future generations
Fiscal responsibility, integrity, openness and accountability in government

Transportation and Land Use: Transportation and land use policies should ensure equal opportunity and quality of life for all. Reducing our dependence on the automobile is key to achieving better communities and reducing the impacts of transportation on the environment.

In places where there is not enough parking, meters are one of the great methods to manage parking to ensure that there will be spaces for people who are coming to the business district to shop. I often don’t go down there on weekends, because the parking is scarce. A big chunk of parking meter revenue should stay in the business district with meter revenue funding a local business improvement district for cleaning, street trees, security, pedestrian improvements, etc. It is not good for business for people to circle the block forever trying to find a free spot. And it’s not good for the environment. Whether a district needs meters are not depends on the district, and the city should work with business owners on it.

So, opponents of RFID and proponent of parking meters aren’t expressing disdain for “voters’ traffic mobility”, they are advocating plans that ADVANCE traffic mobility AND do a good job of building progressive transportation infrastructure to meet the future AND the needs of our ENTIRE citizenry, not just the ones with cars who can afford to commute.

Reducing car miles is serious business and unless we elect people who get it, Seattle won’t be able to stay in guidelines on Kyoto much longer. Sure, we can fudge the language and finagle the cement plants some more to count “the old gains”, but without doing something new, we will fall out of compliance.

Plus, it’s the progressive and democratic thing to do. Building more roads isn’t.

@Ivan (#20): I can’t speak for McGinn and O’Brien, but I certainly understand their positions on both RTID and on parking meters.

I didn’t support RTID and proud of it. Both McGinn and O’Brien are on record as having a true grasp of the transportation issues, especially reducing car miles, which is a key part of the Democratic agenda.

After RTID was defeated, light rail came back alone, without billions of dollars for new highways. Good for our economy, good for our environment. This is entirely consistent with the King County Democratic Platform to reduce global warming pollution and transition away from an auto-dependent society. Here are the relevant bits:

We believe it is our duty to pass a better world to future generations.

We are dedicated to:

Counteracting global climate change and its effects
Protecting the environment for ourselves and future generations
Fiscal responsibility, integrity, openness and accountability in government

Transportation and Land Use: Transportation and land use policies should ensure equal opportunity and quality of life for all. Reducing our dependence on the automobile is key to achieving better communities and reducing the impacts of transportation on the environment.

In places where there is not enough parking, meters are one of the great methods to manage parking to ensure that there will be spaces for people who are coming to the business district to shop. I often don’t go down there on weekends, because the parking is scarce. A big chunk of parking meter revenue should stay in the business district with meter revenue funding a local business improvement district for cleaning, street trees, security, pedestrian improvements, etc. It is not good for business for people to circle the block forever trying to find a free spot. And it’s not good for the environment. Whether a district needs meters are not depends on the district, and the city should work with business owners on it.

So, opponents of RFID and proponent of parking meters aren’t expressing disdain for “voters’ traffic mobility”, they are advocating plans that ADVANCE traffic mobility AND do a good job of building progressive transportation infrastructure to meet the future AND the needs of our ENTIRE citizenry, not just the ones with cars who can afford to commute.

Reducing car miles is serious business and unless we elect people who get it, Seattle won’t be able to stay in guidelines on Kyoto much longer. Sure, we can fudge the language and finagle the cement plants some more to count “the old gains”, but without doing something new, we will fall out of compliance.

Plus, it’s the progressive and democratic thing to do. Building more roads isn’t.

@27: I hear claims that density increases affordability. But I’ve never seen data to prove it. If you have any I’d love to see it. But I doubt you do. When challenged, most people who say density increases affordability change their story. They say that it doesn’t reduce rents per se (because that almost never happens) as much as it slows their rate of growth.

Maybe sometimes density increases the total supply of apartment units, thereby suppressing spikes in cost. Promoting that is a good thing. But the theory doesn’t usually work out in practice. Just promoting density can REDUCE affordability when most of the construction is for home ownership and not rentals; when it demolishes and does not replace rentals; and when many rentals are converted to condos.

As a result, over the last few years in Seattle, while demand for rental housing has gone up (because of the cost of gas and terrible traffic), the total supply of apartment units has gone DOWN. And the units that have been disproportionately demolished or converted are the most affordable, causing displacement. Which means that reckless new development has accelerated displacement and reduced affordability rather than the other way around.

Many environmentalists are very naive about this. I like to think it’s because they haven’t studied the issue. Otherwise it means that their version of “sustainability” is only for the wealthy. Which is not only elitist, but it also is self-destructive. Because what’s the point of having a walkable neighborhood for rich people whose businesses are staffed by poor people in service jobs who have to drive an hour each way to get to work? Sustainability has to also be affordable to all or it will simply be gentrification with a friendly face.

@27: I hear claims that density increases affordability. But I’ve never seen data to prove it. If you have any I’d love to see it. But I doubt you do. When challenged, most people who say density increases affordability change their story. They say that it doesn’t reduce rents per se (because that almost never happens) as much as it slows their rate of growth.

Maybe sometimes density increases the total supply of apartment units, thereby suppressing spikes in cost. Promoting that is a good thing. But the theory doesn’t usually work out in practice. Just promoting density can REDUCE affordability when most of the construction is for home ownership and not rentals; when it demolishes and does not replace rentals; and when many rentals are converted to condos.

As a result, over the last few years in Seattle, while demand for rental housing has gone up (because of the cost of gas and terrible traffic), the total supply of apartment units has gone DOWN. And the units that have been disproportionately demolished or converted are the most affordable, causing displacement. Which means that reckless new development has accelerated displacement and reduced affordability rather than the other way around.

Many environmentalists are very naive about this. I like to think it’s because they haven’t studied the issue. Otherwise it means that their version of “sustainability” is only for the wealthy. Which is not only elitist, but it also is self-destructive. Because what’s the point of having a walkable neighborhood for rich people whose businesses are staffed by poor people in service jobs who have to drive an hour each way to get to work? Sustainability has to also be affordable to all or it will simply be gentrification with a friendly face.

@ 28:

I repeat: The membership of the 34th District Democrats — not just me — supported RTID by acclamation. You are entitled to your position, but it is a minority position in our District.

We need more transit AND we need more roads. The sheer projected population increase for our region should make that quite obvious.

Please do not presume to define what is the “progressive and Democratic thing to do” for anyone other than yourself.

@ 28:

I repeat: The membership of the 34th District Democrats — not just me — supported RTID by acclamation. You are entitled to your position, but it is a minority position in our District.

We need more transit AND we need more roads. The sheer projected population increase for our region should make that quite obvious.

Please do not presume to define what is the “progressive and Democratic thing to do” for anyone other than yourself.

@30 fortunately “your” district didn’t agree with you at the polls

@30 fortunately “your” district didn’t agree with you at the polls

@28

Ivan:

Thank you for your response.

Yes, we need roads and other forms of transit. The debate revolves around “what kind of roads”.

The idea is to have transportation that is responsive to mobility needs of the entire area, while at the same time is careful to lay the framework for a long-term plan to minimize climate impact. “Bad roads” are throughput pipes to the suburbs and exurbs and encourage car miles and commuting.

The other structural concern is the regressive taxes instead of a different funding plan using congestion pricing.

Massive expansion of these kinds of roads using regressive taxation means that the working poor pay but don’t really get served – you have to have a car and gas money to get around. They encourage and increase car miles.

The study clearly said that if all the roads were built, as proposed, emissions would increase by 43%. And despite that, we continued with the plan and even included language that mandated all roads be built, no matter the outcome of the climate study.

We need a comprehensive transportation, not just more big fat roads. RTID didn’t solve short-term congestion or provide a long term plan that kept financial and environmental concerns at the forefront.

@28

Ivan:

Thank you for your response.

Yes, we need roads and other forms of transit. The debate revolves around “what kind of roads”.

The idea is to have transportation that is responsive to mobility needs of the entire area, while at the same time is careful to lay the framework for a long-term plan to minimize climate impact. “Bad roads” are throughput pipes to the suburbs and exurbs and encourage car miles and commuting.

The other structural concern is the regressive taxes instead of a different funding plan using congestion pricing.

Massive expansion of these kinds of roads using regressive taxation means that the working poor pay but don’t really get served – you have to have a car and gas money to get around. They encourage and increase car miles.

The study clearly said that if all the roads were built, as proposed, emissions would increase by 43%. And despite that, we continued with the plan and even included language that mandated all roads be built, no matter the outcome of the climate study.

We need a comprehensive transportation, not just more big fat roads. RTID didn’t solve short-term congestion or provide a long term plan that kept financial and environmental concerns at the forefront.

RTID didn’t solve short-term congestion or provide a long term plan that kept financial and environmental concerns at the forefront.

RTID would have solved short-term congestion in a big way in at least two specific instances in which I have considerable personal experience.

The southward extension of SR 509 would have mitigated greatly the bottleneck on I-5 immediately south of Sea-Tac airport, and the Green Taliban’s favorite target, the Cross-Base Highway in South Pierce County, would have relieved the east-west bottlenecks on SR 512 and provided much-needed freight mobility between the Port of Tacoma and the Frederickson manufacturing and distribution area, one of the fastest-growing industrial areas in the state.

So in at least these two areas, your canned Sierra Club talking points are at least rebutted, and in my mind refuted.

If the counties won’t fund these road projects, the Legislature will. Buh-bye, Christi.

RTID didn’t solve short-term congestion or provide a long term plan that kept financial and environmental concerns at the forefront.

RTID would have solved short-term congestion in a big way in at least two specific instances in which I have considerable personal experience.

The southward extension of SR 509 would have mitigated greatly the bottleneck on I-5 immediately south of Sea-Tac airport, and the Green Taliban’s favorite target, the Cross-Base Highway in South Pierce County, would have relieved the east-west bottlenecks on SR 512 and provided much-needed freight mobility between the Port of Tacoma and the Frederickson manufacturing and distribution area, one of the fastest-growing industrial areas in the state.

So in at least these two areas, your canned Sierra Club talking points are at least rebutted, and in my mind refuted.

If the counties won’t fund these road projects, the Legislature will. Buh-bye, Christi.

@33

<So in at least these two areas, your canned Sierra Club talking points are at least rebutted, and

<

Therein lies the difficulty.

@33

<So in at least these two areas, your canned Sierra Club talking points are at least rebutted, and

<

Therein lies the difficulty.

@1,

Thanks. I was trying to track down the results in the City Attorney's race last night, but couldn't get the numbers.