Seattle Times Endorses Joe Mallahan

What, pray tell, does “Enodrses” mean?

What, pray tell, does “Enodrses” mean?

What, pray tell, does “Enodrses” mean?

BIG surprise….

Their characterization of “civic leaders” is a little off; they’re more “power-brokers” or “the establishment”. But whatever. And by saying that they’ll “help” Joe, I think they mean, “tell him what to do”.

I will now continue my grieving for the loss of a newspaper that more closely reflected Seattle’s values.

BIG surprise….

Their characterization of “civic leaders” is a little off; they’re more “power-brokers” or “the establishment”. But whatever. And by saying that they’ll “help” Joe, I think they mean, “tell him what to do”.

I will now continue my grieving for the loss of a newspaper that more closely reflected Seattle’s values.

And the waves start to lap over the railings of the good ship McGinn.

The Seattle Times endorsement and the negative reaction in the PubliCola comments string both expected.

The Seattle Times endorsement and the negative reaction in the PubliCola comments string both expected.

The Seattle Times endorsement and the negative reaction in the PubliCola comments string both expected.

The Times endorsing McGinn would have been much more shocking.

The Times endorsing McGinn would have been much more shocking.

The Times endorsing McGinn would have been much more shocking.

At least they waited until after last night’s debate where Joni Balter was asking questions.

At least they waited until after last night’s debate where Joni Balter was asking questions.

At least they waited until after last night’s debate where Joni Balter was asking questions.

Now Mallahan can join GW Bush, Rossi and Hutchison on the Seattle Times endorsement wall of shame.

Now Mallahan can join GW Bush, Rossi and Hutchison on the Seattle Times endorsement wall of shame.

Now Mallahan can join GW Bush, Rossi and Hutchison on the Seattle Times endorsement wall of shame.

Stacy x3, we missed you today. Still waiting for a response about the cost overruns….

Stacy x3, we missed you today. Still waiting for a response about the cost overruns….

Stacy x3, we missed you today. Still waiting for a response about the cost overruns….

@8 Stacy

Busy doing other stuff today. Which comment string?

@8 Stacy

Busy doing other stuff today. Which comment string?

@8 Stacy

Busy doing other stuff today. Which comment string?

@7 Stacy

I really miss the P-I. I think they would have endorsed Mallahan too.

@7 Stacy

I really miss the P-I. I think they would have endorsed Mallahan too.

@7 Stacy

I really miss the P-I. I think they would have endorsed Mallahan too.

This is a wonderful development. I haven’t been this proud since they endorsed Dino Rossi!

This is a wonderful development. I haven’t been this proud since they endorsed Dino Rossi!

This is a wonderful development. I haven’t been this proud since they endorsed Dino Rossi!

@10 – the Seattle six article and the one about the tunnel fix being in – you know, the one’s Team Mallahan doesn’t have answers for.

@10 – the Seattle six article and the one about the tunnel fix being in – you know, the one’s Team Mallahan doesn’t have answers for.

@10 – the Seattle six article and the one about the tunnel fix being in – you know, the one’s Team Mallahan doesn’t have answers for.

The street scene in Seattle creates in many of us a sense of unease because people don’t have enough shelter. They’re not usually the ones who are panhandling. I talked to a mother and her adult son in my neighborhood today who had to leave a relative’s house and they’re now sleeping in a leaky camper. They didn’t ask for any money. Tim Burgess ought to get out to some nabes and see what’s actually needed and not confine his street-scene acquaintance to what the Downtown Seattle Association merchants complains about and then portray that as the homelessness problem. Spend a few nights out on the street, Tim.

The street scene in Seattle creates in many of us a sense of unease because people don’t have enough shelter. They’re not usually the ones who are panhandling. I talked to a mother and her adult son in my neighborhood today who had to leave a relative’s house and they’re now sleeping in a leaky camper. They didn’t ask for any money. Tim Burgess ought to get out to some nabes and see what’s actually needed and not confine his street-scene acquaintance to what the Downtown Seattle Association merchants complains about and then portray that as the homelessness problem. Spend a few nights out on the street, Tim.

The Seattle Times editorial board has been pushing the panhandling issue pretty hard, having mentioned that in others of their endorsements. I agree with the Tim Burgess bill, but it is pretty low on the list of things that I am voting on this year.

The Seattle Times editorial board has been pushing the panhandling issue pretty hard, having mentioned that in others of their endorsements. I agree with the Tim Burgess bill, but it is pretty low on the list of things that I am voting on this year.

The Seattle Times editorial board has been pushing the panhandling issue pretty hard, having mentioned that in others of their endorsements. I agree with the Tim Burgess bill, but it is pretty low on the list of things that I am voting on this year.

Tim’s panhandling ordinance is ridiculous. It seeks to make homeless invisible when exactly the opposite it needed – for people to be shocked by how many there are and how inhumane it is that we have so many homeless in our City and Country. I cannot believe the Council is spending time on this when there is so much more important work to be done. I have never once been “aggressively panhandled” – what does that even mean? A polite “no thank you” usually does the trick if you aren’t into handing out money or food.

Everyone who thinks they are in favor of this ordinance should make sure that they vote yes on Prop One (which has received so little coverage by Publicola) because that is one of the only tools we have as a City to actually get homeless off the street.

Tim’s panhandling ordinance is ridiculous. It seeks to make homeless invisible when exactly the opposite it needed – for people to be shocked by how many there are and how inhumane it is that we have so many homeless in our City and Country. I cannot believe the Council is spending time on this when there is so much more important work to be done. I have never once been “aggressively panhandled” – what does that even mean? A polite “no thank you” usually does the trick if you aren’t into handing out money or food.

Everyone who thinks they are in favor of this ordinance should make sure that they vote yes on Prop One (which has received so little coverage by Publicola) because that is one of the only tools we have as a City to actually get homeless off the street.

Tim’s panhandling ordinance is ridiculous. It seeks to make homeless invisible when exactly the opposite it needed – for people to be shocked by how many there are and how inhumane it is that we have so many homeless in our City and Country. I cannot believe the Council is spending time on this when there is so much more important work to be done. I have never once been “aggressively panhandled” – what does that even mean? A polite “no thank you” usually does the trick if you aren’t into handing out money or food.

Everyone who thinks they are in favor of this ordinance should make sure that they vote yes on Prop One (which has received so little coverage by Publicola) because that is one of the only tools we have as a City to actually get homeless off the street.

Ktstine is right — we desperately need the Prop 1, Housing Levy, to be renewed. About $5.50 a month, homeowners — less than two lattes.

And until that housing is built, we need more shelter. There are about 40 unsheltered homeless people in Lake City alone. They have nowhere to sleep, period. One little neighborhood. That’s sickening.

We already have several laws that apply to agressiveness on the street. Burgess knows that, since he was a cop. This proposed legislation is just a sop to the downtown business community who want every visible evidence of homelessness out of their way, whether those people are even panhandling or not.

Ktstine is right — we desperately need the Prop 1, Housing Levy, to be renewed. About $5.50 a month, homeowners — less than two lattes.

And until that housing is built, we need more shelter. There are about 40 unsheltered homeless people in Lake City alone. They have nowhere to sleep, period. One little neighborhood. That’s sickening.

We already have several laws that apply to agressiveness on the street. Burgess knows that, since he was a cop. This proposed legislation is just a sop to the downtown business community who want every visible evidence of homelessness out of their way, whether those people are even panhandling or not.

Ktstine is right — we desperately need the Prop 1, Housing Levy, to be renewed. About $5.50 a month, homeowners — less than two lattes.

And until that housing is built, we need more shelter. There are about 40 unsheltered homeless people in Lake City alone. They have nowhere to sleep, period. One little neighborhood. That’s sickening.

We already have several laws that apply to agressiveness on the street. Burgess knows that, since he was a cop. This proposed legislation is just a sop to the downtown business community who want every visible evidence of homelessness out of their way, whether those people are even panhandling or not.

@ sarah68

Don’t worry. Tim is working on something to help homelessness and the neighbors will LOVE it. Stay tuned…

@ sarah68

Don’t worry. Tim is working on something to help homelessness and the neighbors will LOVE it. Stay tuned…

@ sarah68

Don’t worry. Tim is working on something to help homelessness and the neighbors will LOVE it. Stay tuned…

How can this be?

All the kewl kids are for McGinn! he’s perfect for their trust fund lives. Like Publicola’s inane crew

No more cars! We can walk across the Seattle bridge!

How can this be?

All the kewl kids are for McGinn! he’s perfect for their trust fund lives. Like Publicola’s inane crew

No more cars! We can walk across the Seattle bridge!

How can this be?

All the kewl kids are for McGinn! he’s perfect for their trust fund lives. Like Publicola’s inane crew

No more cars! We can walk across the Seattle bridge!

It’s pretty indefensible to base a megaproject on an unconstitutional law.

Very inefficient.

It could make every contract signed, unenforceable, too.

Remember WPPS? Lots of bonds were invalidated and there was years of litigation.

Not very competent to build this project based on ilegal law and the notion city taxpayers will vote themselves an l.i.d. to increase their own taxes to carry the cost overruns.

IF you did this in private industry — propose an unfeasible project, recklessly, in the face of known illegality — you’d be sacked, Mr. Mallahan.

It’s pretty indefensible to base a megaproject on an unconstitutional law.

Very inefficient.

It could make every contract signed, unenforceable, too.

Remember WPPS? Lots of bonds were invalidated and there was years of litigation.

Not very competent to build this project based on ilegal law and the notion city taxpayers will vote themselves an l.i.d. to increase their own taxes to carry the cost overruns.

IF you did this in private industry — propose an unfeasible project, recklessly, in the face of known illegality — you’d be sacked, Mr. Mallahan.

It’s pretty indefensible to base a megaproject on an unconstitutional law.

Very inefficient.

It could make every contract signed, unenforceable, too.

Remember WPPS? Lots of bonds were invalidated and there was years of litigation.

Not very competent to build this project based on ilegal law and the notion city taxpayers will vote themselves an l.i.d. to increase their own taxes to carry the cost overruns.

IF you did this in private industry — propose an unfeasible project, recklessly, in the face of known illegality — you’d be sacked, Mr. Mallahan.

I’m afraid that politicians coming from the private sector know that unfeasible and reckless projects do NOT get them sacked. The CEOs of the banks and financial institutions which got us into the “economic downturn” knew that government regulation had been defanged so they made billions. They’re still getting millions in bonuses, even though what they did is now known. That lesson was pretty strong, even for smaller private businesses.

I’m afraid that politicians coming from the private sector know that unfeasible and reckless projects do NOT get them sacked. The CEOs of the banks and financial institutions which got us into the “economic downturn” knew that government regulation had been defanged so they made billions. They’re still getting millions in bonuses, even though what they did is now known. That lesson was pretty strong, even for smaller private businesses.

I’m afraid that politicians coming from the private sector know that unfeasible and reckless projects do NOT get them sacked. The CEOs of the banks and financial institutions which got us into the “economic downturn” knew that government regulation had been defanged so they made billions. They’re still getting millions in bonuses, even though what they did is now known. That lesson was pretty strong, even for smaller private businesses.

@7: You mean, like “Yes” on 71? Does not compute. Guilty by association?

@7: You mean, like “Yes” on 71? Does not compute. Guilty by association?

@7: You mean, like “Yes” on 71? Does not compute. Guilty by association?

@20

well if we don’t want to take wild risks

if we don’t want private sector shifting risk to public sector, esp. Seattle residents or State residents

then we should not vote for the Mallahan Deep Bored Tunnel that’s based on the silly notion “there will be no overruns, we we are going to work like hell to ensure Seattle residents benefitted by the tunnel pay for them!”

Btw — who’s going to be inside that tax district again?

Mallahan: how many thousands of dollars will each property owner have to be at risk for for the overruns you want to impose on Seattle property owners?

As owner of a condo in Newmark Tower, what will I be liable for? Can you tell me, sir?

@20

well if we don’t want to take wild risks

if we don’t want private sector shifting risk to public sector, esp. Seattle residents or State residents

then we should not vote for the Mallahan Deep Bored Tunnel that’s based on the silly notion “there will be no overruns, we we are going to work like hell to ensure Seattle residents benefitted by the tunnel pay for them!”

Btw — who’s going to be inside that tax district again?

Mallahan: how many thousands of dollars will each property owner have to be at risk for for the overruns you want to impose on Seattle property owners?

As owner of a condo in Newmark Tower, what will I be liable for? Can you tell me, sir?

@20

well if we don’t want to take wild risks

if we don’t want private sector shifting risk to public sector, esp. Seattle residents or State residents

then we should not vote for the Mallahan Deep Bored Tunnel that’s based on the silly notion “there will be no overruns, we we are going to work like hell to ensure Seattle residents benefitted by the tunnel pay for them!”

Btw — who’s going to be inside that tax district again?

Mallahan: how many thousands of dollars will each property owner have to be at risk for for the overruns you want to impose on Seattle property owners?

As owner of a condo in Newmark Tower, what will I be liable for? Can you tell me, sir?

@22: That’s one of the many reasons I didn’t vote for Mallahan.

Thank god there’s just a bit more than a week til this election. But we’ll have the tunnel to discuss for years because it will never actually be built, although we’ll spend untold millions/perhaps billions preparing to build it.

@22: That’s one of the many reasons I didn’t vote for Mallahan.

Thank god there’s just a bit more than a week til this election. But we’ll have the tunnel to discuss for years because it will never actually be built, although we’ll spend untold millions/perhaps billions preparing to build it.

@22: That’s one of the many reasons I didn’t vote for Mallahan.

Thank god there’s just a bit more than a week til this election. But we’ll have the tunnel to discuss for years because it will never actually be built, although we’ll spend untold millions/perhaps billions preparing to build it.

Joe Mallahan on cost overruns: “YES!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj81ChdI6po

Joe Mallahan on cost overruns: “YES!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj81ChdI6po

Joe Mallahan on cost overruns: “YES!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj81ChdI6po

@22 & 23

People like you are why McGinn had to soften his position on the tunnel last week. You’re nuts, and you’re going to scare off undecided voters by spouting off that sort of nonsense about the tunnel.

@22 & 23

People like you are why McGinn had to soften his position on the tunnel last week. You’re nuts, and you’re going to scare off undecided voters by spouting off that sort of nonsense about the tunnel.

@22 & 23

People like you are why McGinn had to soften his position on the tunnel last week. You’re nuts, and you’re going to scare off undecided voters by spouting off that sort of nonsense about the tunnel.

McGinn has a new hit ad up on cable, saying do you want to make that $15,000 bet on not having cost overruns that Mallahan wants us to make?

McGinn has a new hit ad up on cable, saying do you want to make that $15,000 bet on not having cost overruns that Mallahan wants us to make?

McGinn has a new hit ad up on cable, saying do you want to make that $15,000 bet on not having cost overruns that Mallahan wants us to make?

Lulz, Publicola probably doesn’t have any undecided voters reading these comments. I would imagine that most of us here don’t say anything that’s really public, so I doubt if we caused McGinn to say anything, one way or the other. And saying the tunnel will never be built but we’ll spend a lot of money not building it — nonsense? I wish it were. Maybe you haven’t been in Seattle that long/aren’t old enough to know how many things we haven’t built.

Lulz, Publicola probably doesn’t have any undecided voters reading these comments. I would imagine that most of us here don’t say anything that’s really public, so I doubt if we caused McGinn to say anything, one way or the other. And saying the tunnel will never be built but we’ll spend a lot of money not building it — nonsense? I wish it were. Maybe you haven’t been in Seattle that long/aren’t old enough to know how many things we haven’t built.

Lulz, Publicola probably doesn’t have any undecided voters reading these comments. I would imagine that most of us here don’t say anything that’s really public, so I doubt if we caused McGinn to say anything, one way or the other. And saying the tunnel will never be built but we’ll spend a lot of money not building it — nonsense? I wish it were. Maybe you haven’t been in Seattle that long/aren’t old enough to know how many things we haven’t built.

Just saw a new ad from McGinn calling out Mallahan for getting money from tunnel builders. Very effective.

Just saw a new ad from McGinn calling out Mallahan for getting money from tunnel builders. Very effective.

Just saw a new ad from McGinn calling out Mallahan for getting money from tunnel builders. Very effective.

We didn’t cause McGinn to say anything. If anything it’s the other way around: His campaign and the interests producing his platform promote what eventually gets said on this and other blogs, and everyone here reacts to it, rather than the other way around.

McGinn’s concern right now involves all the voters in Seattle… not just the small pocket here that predominately supports him.

We didn’t cause McGinn to say anything. If anything it’s the other way around: His campaign and the interests producing his platform promote what eventually gets said on this and other blogs, and everyone here reacts to it, rather than the other way around.

McGinn’s concern right now involves all the voters in Seattle… not just the small pocket here that predominately supports him.

We didn’t cause McGinn to say anything. If anything it’s the other way around: His campaign and the interests producing his platform promote what eventually gets said on this and other blogs, and everyone here reacts to it, rather than the other way around.

McGinn’s concern right now involves all the voters in Seattle… not just the small pocket here that predominately supports him.

Well if I was a tunnel builder why would I back McGinn?? No relevance.

Well if I was a tunnel builder why would I back McGinn?? No relevance.

Well if I was a tunnel builder why would I back McGinn?? No relevance.

I love the smell of exhaust from idling cars so I gave to McGinn! LOL.

I love the smell of exhaust from idling cars so I gave to McGinn! LOL.

I love the smell of exhaust from idling cars so I gave to McGinn! LOL.

@31

yes, the uber-environmentalists love the smell of carbon monoxide in the morning, they do their best to increase Seattle’s output.

Who needs the viaduct? Thens we can keep the W. Seattle Bridge Free of Cars! Vote McGinn!

@31

yes, the uber-environmentalists love the smell of carbon monoxide in the morning, they do their best to increase Seattle’s output.

Who needs the viaduct? Thens we can keep the W. Seattle Bridge Free of Cars! Vote McGinn!

@31

yes, the uber-environmentalists love the smell of carbon monoxide in the morning, they do their best to increase Seattle’s output.

Who needs the viaduct? Thens we can keep the W. Seattle Bridge Free of Cars! Vote McGinn!

@ktstine:

“Everyone who thinks they are in favor of this ordinance should make sure that they vote yes on Prop One (which has received so little coverage by Publicola) because that is one of the only tools we have as a City to actually get homeless off the street.”

Did the last levy reduce panhandlers and homeless on our streets? Or did it just draw more from other areas of the state and country into Seattle?

@ktstine:

“Everyone who thinks they are in favor of this ordinance should make sure that they vote yes on Prop One (which has received so little coverage by Publicola) because that is one of the only tools we have as a City to actually get homeless off the street.”

Did the last levy reduce panhandlers and homeless on our streets? Or did it just draw more from other areas of the state and country into Seattle?

@ktstine:

“Everyone who thinks they are in favor of this ordinance should make sure that they vote yes on Prop One (which has received so little coverage by Publicola) because that is one of the only tools we have as a City to actually get homeless off the street.”

Did the last levy reduce panhandlers and homeless on our streets? Or did it just draw more from other areas of the state and country into Seattle?

I still don’t know for whom I will vote.

Both candidates support the Housing Levy but never make the case for why a city should want to subsidize and encourage more poor people to move in and drain scarce resources.

I like that McGinn will aggressively move for a vote to increase light rail within Seattle, and he seems in favor of making this city denser and less car dependent.

I like that Mallahan seems a little tougher on crime, but he doesn’t sound like he’s going to bring in a Bratton-type as police chief.

McGinn sounds more knowledgeable, while Mallahan sounds like a puppet regurgitating talking points from his campaign crew.

I guess I’m leaning towards McGinn at this point…

I still don’t know for whom I will vote.

Both candidates support the Housing Levy but never make the case for why a city should want to subsidize and encourage more poor people to move in and drain scarce resources.

I like that McGinn will aggressively move for a vote to increase light rail within Seattle, and he seems in favor of making this city denser and less car dependent.

I like that Mallahan seems a little tougher on crime, but he doesn’t sound like he’s going to bring in a Bratton-type as police chief.

McGinn sounds more knowledgeable, while Mallahan sounds like a puppet regurgitating talking points from his campaign crew.

I guess I’m leaning towards McGinn at this point…

I still don’t know for whom I will vote.

Both candidates support the Housing Levy but never make the case for why a city should want to subsidize and encourage more poor people to move in and drain scarce resources.

I like that McGinn will aggressively move for a vote to increase light rail within Seattle, and he seems in favor of making this city denser and less car dependent.

I like that Mallahan seems a little tougher on crime, but he doesn’t sound like he’s going to bring in a Bratton-type as police chief.

McGinn sounds more knowledgeable, while Mallahan sounds like a puppet regurgitating talking points from his campaign crew.

I guess I’m leaning towards McGinn at this point…

I guess my only question for the Mallahan campaign is if the are going to file a complaint against the McGinn campaign.

Like Obrien’s complaint against Rosencrantz.
http://publicola.net/?p=17006

Swap the postal system with Publicola, and Forward Seattle with SCAT, and a similar complaint might be able to be made.
http://publicola.net/?p=16697

I guess my only question for the Mallahan campaign is if the are going to file a complaint against the McGinn campaign.

Like Obrien’s complaint against Rosencrantz.
http://publicola.net/?p=17006

Swap the postal system with Publicola, and Forward Seattle with SCAT, and a similar complaint might be able to be made.
http://publicola.net/?p=16697

I guess my only question for the Mallahan campaign is if the are going to file a complaint against the McGinn campaign.

Like Obrien’s complaint against Rosencrantz.
http://publicola.net/?p=17006

Swap the postal system with Publicola, and Forward Seattle with SCAT, and a similar complaint might be able to be made.
http://publicola.net/?p=16697

@34

No claimed or implied connection between Prop 1, the Housing Levy renewal and a reduction in panhandling.

The housing built with Levy funding is for seniors, working folks whose wages make market rents unaffordable, disabled people who cannot compete in the economy and yes, homeless people, all of whom pay 30% of their personal income (if any) to live in Levy-funded units.

Panhandling may be offensive to some – people forced to sleep under bridges or in their cars because they can’t afford a roof over their heads offends me a lot more.

@34

No claimed or implied connection between Prop 1, the Housing Levy renewal and a reduction in panhandling.

The housing built with Levy funding is for seniors, working folks whose wages make market rents unaffordable, disabled people who cannot compete in the economy and yes, homeless people, all of whom pay 30% of their personal income (if any) to live in Levy-funded units.

Panhandling may be offensive to some – people forced to sleep under bridges or in their cars because they can’t afford a roof over their heads offends me a lot more.

@34

No claimed or implied connection between Prop 1, the Housing Levy renewal and a reduction in panhandling.

The housing built with Levy funding is for seniors, working folks whose wages make market rents unaffordable, disabled people who cannot compete in the economy and yes, homeless people, all of whom pay 30% of their personal income (if any) to live in Levy-funded units.

Panhandling may be offensive to some – people forced to sleep under bridges or in their cars because they can’t afford a roof over their heads offends me a lot more.

@36,

I asked that because ktstine claimed that housing levies are “one of the only tools we have as a City to actually get homeless off the street.”

It isn’t clear to me that it reduces poverty in a city to subsidize poverty when your neighbors aren’t also creating comparative subsidies. It seems reasonable to conclude that the vulnerable, lazy, mentally ill, and others will be drawn FROM cities like Bellevue, Mercer Island, Issaquah etc. TO places like Seattle that will give them food and housing. If poor people were not mobile, and we could do a levy that would get all the drunks and bums off the street and no more would come, I would say “great!” But what’s more likely to happen is other bums will be drawn to Seattle from less hospitable places by tales of its greater hospitality to the indigent.

Most cities want to create incentives to attract RICH and SMART people, who will boost their tax base and economy. That’s what places like Singapore do, for example. Vancouver, BC also benefits from rich folks from Hong Kong coming over and investing in real estate there because Canadian immigration law favors wealthy immigrants, unlike US law and lax enforcement of immigration law. The result is that most of the immigrants to the US are poor.

Back to the city level, but related to the national level, going out of your way to attract poor people to your city is a recipe for a declining tax base for services, parks, transportation, police, while the need for police and welfare will tend to increase.

@36,

I asked that because ktstine claimed that housing levies are “one of the only tools we have as a City to actually get homeless off the street.”

It isn’t clear to me that it reduces poverty in a city to subsidize poverty when your neighbors aren’t also creating comparative subsidies. It seems reasonable to conclude that the vulnerable, lazy, mentally ill, and others will be drawn FROM cities like Bellevue, Mercer Island, Issaquah etc. TO places like Seattle that will give them food and housing. If poor people were not mobile, and we could do a levy that would get all the drunks and bums off the street and no more would come, I would say “great!” But what’s more likely to happen is other bums will be drawn to Seattle from less hospitable places by tales of its greater hospitality to the indigent.

Most cities want to create incentives to attract RICH and SMART people, who will boost their tax base and economy. That’s what places like Singapore do, for example. Vancouver, BC also benefits from rich folks from Hong Kong coming over and investing in real estate there because Canadian immigration law favors wealthy immigrants, unlike US law and lax enforcement of immigration law. The result is that most of the immigrants to the US are poor.

Back to the city level, but related to the national level, going out of your way to attract poor people to your city is a recipe for a declining tax base for services, parks, transportation, police, while the need for police and welfare will tend to increase.

@36,

I asked that because ktstine claimed that housing levies are “one of the only tools we have as a City to actually get homeless off the street.”

It isn’t clear to me that it reduces poverty in a city to subsidize poverty when your neighbors aren’t also creating comparative subsidies. It seems reasonable to conclude that the vulnerable, lazy, mentally ill, and others will be drawn FROM cities like Bellevue, Mercer Island, Issaquah etc. TO places like Seattle that will give them food and housing. If poor people were not mobile, and we could do a levy that would get all the drunks and bums off the street and no more would come, I would say “great!” But what’s more likely to happen is other bums will be drawn to Seattle from less hospitable places by tales of its greater hospitality to the indigent.

Most cities want to create incentives to attract RICH and SMART people, who will boost their tax base and economy. That’s what places like Singapore do, for example. Vancouver, BC also benefits from rich folks from Hong Kong coming over and investing in real estate there because Canadian immigration law favors wealthy immigrants, unlike US law and lax enforcement of immigration law. The result is that most of the immigrants to the US are poor.

Back to the city level, but related to the national level, going out of your way to attract poor people to your city is a recipe for a declining tax base for services, parks, transportation, police, while the need for police and welfare will tend to increase.

Here for example is a woman who moved from Chicago to a Women’s Center in Capitol Hill with $10 in her pocket. No information about whether she has since becoming a net contributor to our city.

http://capitolhill.komonews.com/content/voters-decide-fate-low-income-housing

I feel bad for such people, and I think there needs to be a safety net, but it has to be at the national level. Otherwise, the most generous places will just endlessly attract the poorest people until they are insolvent. That’s pretty much what has happened to California, which has roughly 30% of the nation’s welfare recipients, with 10-12% of the population.

Here for example is a woman who moved from Chicago to a Women’s Center in Capitol Hill with $10 in her pocket. No information about whether she has since becoming a net contributor to our city.

http://capitolhill.komonews.com/content/voters-decide-fate-low-income-housing

I feel bad for such people, and I think there needs to be a safety net, but it has to be at the national level. Otherwise, the most generous places will just endlessly attract the poorest people until they are insolvent. That’s pretty much what has happened to California, which has roughly 30% of the nation’s welfare recipients, with 10-12% of the population.

Here for example is a woman who moved from Chicago to a Women’s Center in Capitol Hill with $10 in her pocket. No information about whether she has since becoming a net contributor to our city.

http://capitolhill.komonews.com/content/voters-decide-fate-low-income-housing

I feel bad for such people, and I think there needs to be a safety net, but it has to be at the national level. Otherwise, the most generous places will just endlessly attract the poorest people until they are insolvent. That’s pretty much what has happened to California, which has roughly 30% of the nation’s welfare recipients, with 10-12% of the population.

@ 37. T. Chen

But, think about the CHILDREN!!

Mr. T,
Sometimes, it is better to watch “Dancing with the
Stars” or to find out who is banging Lindsey Lohan, than dealing with poverty politics in liberal and progressive Seattle. Strictly wrestling with a pig.

@ 37. T. Chen

But, think about the CHILDREN!!

Mr. T,
Sometimes, it is better to watch “Dancing with the
Stars” or to find out who is banging Lindsey Lohan, than dealing with poverty politics in liberal and progressive Seattle. Strictly wrestling with a pig.

@ 37. T. Chen

But, think about the CHILDREN!!

Mr. T,
Sometimes, it is better to watch “Dancing with the
Stars” or to find out who is banging Lindsey Lohan, than dealing with poverty politics in liberal and progressive Seattle. Strictly wrestling with a pig.

@T Chen

You raise and interesting point about homelessness and whether people move here to access services. Honestly, I do not know the answer to this question.

I stated that the Levy is “one of the only tools” to get at the problem of homelessness here because it is used to build units dedicated to getting people off of the street. However, the demand is still much greater than the supply (there were nearly 2,000 on the street unsheltered in the 2009 homeless count for example). I suppose that it is possible that a portion of these people moved here to access services. I would love to hear someone weigh in on this possible phenomenon.

From my perspective, and to your last point about “net contributor to the City”, the Housing Levy is one of the tools what enables people to become “net contributors” again. When someone loses their job and/or falls on hard times and becomes homeless, it is often a hard place to bounce back from. Many times, getting into an affordable apartment helps someone gain stability, get a job and start contributing again. And in the most severe cases, an affordable unit can keep someone from being a huge financial drain on City resources. This was the case in the 1811 Eastlake building by DESC, which got 75 chronic inebriates off the Seattle streets and saved the City $4 million in its first year of operation alone (these individuals were the highest users of emergency services in the City). Instead of taking trip to Harborview every other day, they now have a place to live where they get care much more efficiently and effectively, saving us all money in the long run. So those initial Levy dollars that were used to build 1811 have been leveraged for long-term City savings.

Personally, I would love to live in a Country where every City had a comprehensive, well funded strategy that addressed homelessness. It is not an easy problem to solve, and it involves so much more than housing – i.e. health care, specifically mental health care, veteran care, etc. This would likely address your issue of regional inequities that possibly “push” homeless from municipality to municipality. In the meantime, until this happens, I am proud that Seattle is a national leader in crafting solutions through tools such as the Levy, and thankful that we have an electorate that has generously passed it every seven years. I am hoping for that generosity again this year, and urging all to VOTE YES ON PROP ONE, because we need the Levy now more than ever.

@T Chen

You raise and interesting point about homelessness and whether people move here to access services. Honestly, I do not know the answer to this question.

I stated that the Levy is “one of the only tools” to get at the problem of homelessness here because it is used to build units dedicated to getting people off of the street. However, the demand is still much greater than the supply (there were nearly 2,000 on the street unsheltered in the 2009 homeless count for example). I suppose that it is possible that a portion of these people moved here to access services. I would love to hear someone weigh in on this possible phenomenon.

From my perspective, and to your last point about “net contributor to the City”, the Housing Levy is one of the tools what enables people to become “net contributors” again. When someone loses their job and/or falls on hard times and becomes homeless, it is often a hard place to bounce back from. Many times, getting into an affordable apartment helps someone gain stability, get a job and start contributing again. And in the most severe cases, an affordable unit can keep someone from being a huge financial drain on City resources. This was the case in the 1811 Eastlake building by DESC, which got 75 chronic inebriates off the Seattle streets and saved the City $4 million in its first year of operation alone (these individuals were the highest users of emergency services in the City). Instead of taking trip to Harborview every other day, they now have a place to live where they get care much more efficiently and effectively, saving us all money in the long run. So those initial Levy dollars that were used to build 1811 have been leveraged for long-term City savings.

Personally, I would love to live in a Country where every City had a comprehensive, well funded strategy that addressed homelessness. It is not an easy problem to solve, and it involves so much more than housing – i.e. health care, specifically mental health care, veteran care, etc. This would likely address your issue of regional inequities that possibly “push” homeless from municipality to municipality. In the meantime, until this happens, I am proud that Seattle is a national leader in crafting solutions through tools such as the Levy, and thankful that we have an electorate that has generously passed it every seven years. I am hoping for that generosity again this year, and urging all to VOTE YES ON PROP ONE, because we need the Levy now more than ever.

@T Chen

You raise and interesting point about homelessness and whether people move here to access services. Honestly, I do not know the answer to this question.

I stated that the Levy is “one of the only tools” to get at the problem of homelessness here because it is used to build units dedicated to getting people off of the street. However, the demand is still much greater than the supply (there were nearly 2,000 on the street unsheltered in the 2009 homeless count for example). I suppose that it is possible that a portion of these people moved here to access services. I would love to hear someone weigh in on this possible phenomenon.

From my perspective, and to your last point about “net contributor to the City”, the Housing Levy is one of the tools what enables people to become “net contributors” again. When someone loses their job and/or falls on hard times and becomes homeless, it is often a hard place to bounce back from. Many times, getting into an affordable apartment helps someone gain stability, get a job and start contributing again. And in the most severe cases, an affordable unit can keep someone from being a huge financial drain on City resources. This was the case in the 1811 Eastlake building by DESC, which got 75 chronic inebriates off the Seattle streets and saved the City $4 million in its first year of operation alone (these individuals were the highest users of emergency services in the City). Instead of taking trip to Harborview every other day, they now have a place to live where they get care much more efficiently and effectively, saving us all money in the long run. So those initial Levy dollars that were used to build 1811 have been leveraged for long-term City savings.

Personally, I would love to live in a Country where every City had a comprehensive, well funded strategy that addressed homelessness. It is not an easy problem to solve, and it involves so much more than housing – i.e. health care, specifically mental health care, veteran care, etc. This would likely address your issue of regional inequities that possibly “push” homeless from municipality to municipality. In the meantime, until this happens, I am proud that Seattle is a national leader in crafting solutions through tools such as the Levy, and thankful that we have an electorate that has generously passed it every seven years. I am hoping for that generosity again this year, and urging all to VOTE YES ON PROP ONE, because we need the Levy now more than ever.

Hmmm…
Did anyone ever figure out why the Eastside- which has much lower spending per capita on homeless and low income housing – doesn’t have as much of an issue with homeless folks?

I agree with @40 in terms of reducing total overall cost. At the same time, Seattle won’t have the tax base to continue supporting these folks if we don’t understand how to attract and keep business and residents. Funding all of these services without the underpinnings of a strong economic engine is unsustainable.

Hmmm…
Did anyone ever figure out why the Eastside- which has much lower spending per capita on homeless and low income housing – doesn’t have as much of an issue with homeless folks?

I agree with @40 in terms of reducing total overall cost. At the same time, Seattle won’t have the tax base to continue supporting these folks if we don’t understand how to attract and keep business and residents. Funding all of these services without the underpinnings of a strong economic engine is unsustainable.

Hmmm…
Did anyone ever figure out why the Eastside- which has much lower spending per capita on homeless and low income housing – doesn’t have as much of an issue with homeless folks?

I agree with @40 in terms of reducing total overall cost. At the same time, Seattle won’t have the tax base to continue supporting these folks if we don’t understand how to attract and keep business and residents. Funding all of these services without the underpinnings of a strong economic engine is unsustainable.

I know that this may not be completely relevant to draw a parallel here, but the Seattle Central Business District has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the nation, even in this economy. Given that most if the homeless are downtown, it doesn’t seem to me that they are “driving” away business. Would it be an even more popular ritzy destination (a la Bellevue Square) without them? Maybe. But I am not sure that people come to downtown Seattle for the Bell Square experience. It is a much more “real” place and I am glad for it, because places like malls feel pretend.

I know that this may not be completely relevant to draw a parallel here, but the Seattle Central Business District has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the nation, even in this economy. Given that most if the homeless are downtown, it doesn’t seem to me that they are “driving” away business. Would it be an even more popular ritzy destination (a la Bellevue Square) without them? Maybe. But I am not sure that people come to downtown Seattle for the Bell Square experience. It is a much more “real” place and I am glad for it, because places like malls feel pretend.

I know that this may not be completely relevant to draw a parallel here, but the Seattle Central Business District has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the nation, even in this economy. Given that most if the homeless are downtown, it doesn’t seem to me that they are “driving” away business. Would it be an even more popular ritzy destination (a la Bellevue Square) without them? Maybe. But I am not sure that people come to downtown Seattle for the Bell Square experience. It is a much more “real” place and I am glad for it, because places like malls feel pretend.

And the waves start to lap over the railings of the good ship McGinn.