Report Card Gives Low Marks to City Council Members

So McGinn's cronies rate the council and we're supposed to put some credence in the result? How hamhanded.

Why are backyard cottages an environmental issue?

Backyard Cottages had it's introductory briefing at Council in August, adopted in November. Three months is overly long?

Density. It allows for more development in single family neighborhoods, but without changing the singe family feel of the neighborhoods.

Each backyard cottage equals one less suburban McMansion, the theory goes, all without angering the NIMBYs.

Wasn't Roger one of the leading “ambassadors.” maybe with all the people “moving on for health reasons” or “more time to spend with their families” or the “going to go to grad school” — should find employment with the Mayor's Office after writing this report.

The density the cottages create will impact runoff in the SF neighborhoods. Also they added to parked car density in areas they exist. Most folks aren't walking to transit from the cottages. Might be a safety/gang issue in the South End.

Given that they've been in the South End for a while I tend to agree with the overly lengthy discussion by Sally and Crew. If its good enough for here there's no reason it shouldn't be good enough for the rest of the city – especially Sand Point, Magnolia and Madison Park. There are tremendous densification opportunities there.

Oh and don't forget Ballard and vicinity. Isn't is curious that Ms. Nikholic, the TOD lobbyist, doesn't live anywhere near planned transit.

Can't wait 'til these kids are the party of the past.

From the RVP blog:

johnmocha 02.04.09 at 5:36 pm
Jen,
As a first step that you can do today, I recommend coming to
South Seattle Crime Prevention Council (SSCPC) for its monthly meeting on Wed., Feb. 4, from 7 to 8:30 pm at the Southeast Seattle Senior Center (4655 South Holly Street), where Detective Bobby Sevaaetasi, veteran member of Seattle’s Gang Unit, will discuss local gang activity, including graffiti.

Oh, shit. I'm going to need some double-strength tinfoil.
Didn't have you on my list, brother; but you speak Ray real good.

Un momento…Hace 0 minutos.

¿Que es esta?

In runoff models, lawn actually counts as impervious surface, because it allows such little infiltration of rainwater.

In fact, because of soil compaction, pretty much the entire city, paved or unpaved, counts as impervious. The solution isn't to limit the number of roof-feet, by banning cottages…rather, it's to do far more creative things with the runoff: green streets, rain gardens, bioswales.

As for gangs and parking: pretty much every major city except Seattle allows them.

And this report's authors, in my view, have a very myopic view of the decision making process of the Council, but if you have a single agenda then that should be expected, right? (So publicola let's give weight to both sides of the issues, eh?)

Finally, as citizens, we bitch and complain… in some articles, like this one, we want quick decisions while in others we want a labored process. We want public involvement and then we don't… We want a decision, then we want to question that decision…

For the masses out here, we really need insightful leadership.

With Future Party doing the grading I doubt any official could get a passing grade. The Poet Laureate of Washington State would probably get a D for wasting paper.

Didn't Roger Valdez run for the City Council a few years ago?
Apparently the voters didn't give him too high of a grade.

Interesting point of view by this group. But hardly news. But thanks for sharing if only to know that this group has a huge credibility problem.

Seattle's Council is full of some of the greenest local politicians anywhere. Hands down. No doubt about it. The Council casts a huge urban environmentalist shadow.

Doesn't live anywhere near planned transit? Well, we did buy a place in 2005 to be walking distance to a monorail stop…but I guess that didn't work out for us. As for planned transit, I look forward to walking from my house to RapidRide BRT in a few years, and maybe even a light rail line as part of ST3 someday. For now, I take the bus, and that works out fine for me.
But more apropos your suggestion that one cannot be involved in an issue that impacts the greater good of our region (and as a resident of said region, impacts me and my family) unless it also impacts their own backyard directly, I think you are frighteningly narrow-minded. More housing choices (housing type and housing price) near transit give more people access to jobs in the region — and that is good for people, good for the economy, oh yeah, and good for the environment. This is something I truly care about, and I will continue to be advocate for TOD throughout the state, and in my own neighborhood as well.

The tunnel, 6 lanes on 520, minimal funding for ped-bike-transit, and light-rail stations surrounded by parking lots and single family homes; if these are some of the greenest politicians anywhere than I am frightened for our future.

johnmocha, I am also unimpressed by the credibility of this rating agency, but how is it apparent that they are in McGinn's camp?

The Seattle City Council is green in talk and grey in walk, NordicGal. You have no idea who the group is (except for Roger and he is actually well respected in the environmental community in Seattle), so I am not sure how you think they have a credibility problem.

Cottages will likely encourage further tree loss.

Sara, you rock. Thank you for all of your dedicated work. We all benefit from your leadership, creativity and commitment.

Trees are a red herring.

75% of the grading was on Mayor McGinn's two pet issues, the viaduct and the head tax.

They may not be a front group, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…

Typical Publicola commentary… lots of ad hominem on the authors, very little discussion on the content.

I don't agree with everything in here either, but personally I'm happy to see *someone* asking the council to actually back all their green talk with some substantive action – it's been sadly lacking.

Greenest in the country? Please. We trail SF, NY, Portland… Seattle has shown leadership in some areas, but we're better at model policy than actual implementation – especially in our own city. Good for them for calling bs.

Grading politicians on 3 votes skews a report card to the point of absurdity. Fail on one vote and you have a D.

The name “Party of the Future” sounds fascist, btw. If only one party is going to control the future, then I'm happy to reside in the present.

I'd like to give the “Party of the Future” an F for failing to anticipate the impact of hybrid and electric vehicles, but I'm going to bump it up to a C for providing such a rich source of comedy.

As long as we're handing out stupid grades, I'm giving Publicola an F for posting this.

They've become so obsessed with comment counts that they've begun trolling for them. I recognize I've fallen victim this time, but it's getting old.

Environmentalism should be about a wide range of issues, not just a handful of litmus tests, and furthermore each issue should be considered in light of how it interacts with all of the priorities of the city. If we want a denser city, then we need jobs and public safety in order to attract people. The strain on infrastructure must be managed. Green policies don't matter much if the city is not in a strong long-term financial position, so that must be considered as well.

As for litmus tests, which is to judge a politician by a single issue or a handful of issues, we need to be very careful. The head tax is a good example. The amount of money in question is peanuts, and is there any evidence that it actually had any impact on people's behavior? Many people such as myself support the goal that the head tax was meant to accomplish, but want to see that goal pursued in a more effective way. For these reasons it is foolish to use such an issue as a basis for judging a person's commitment to “the future”.

I've taught and TA'd courses for the past six years, and in that time I have learned that at some point, you have to introduce a curve. The Seattle City council must be in the top 5% in commitment to the environment when considered nationwide.

Look up on Google…

Friends of Seattle

Weak. Weak post, weak party (it takes more than one, even if that one is Roger Valdez, to make a party), weak excuse for a scorecard.

And since when did backyard cottages become this city's litmus for density? Where am I – Aspen? Nothing about props for upzoning downtown or blowing out single-family zones near light rail stations?

Stupid. Luckily inconsequential, but stupid nonetheless.

we have a greater carbon footprint per capita than NY or LA.

We're full of it in our self greenwashing.

what, this scoring system allows a D grade? it is deficient.

It's important for our scoring system to always yield a gradeof above average.

We are the greenest city in the world. Everyone now: we are the greenest city in the world. Let's all join in and keep saying it.

yes, we are the greenest city in the world, repeat it forever, we are the greenest because we must be! I know because I have a job where we grade on a curve, so if the test results come out a D we then adjust the grading system to say we are the smartest kids in the world, so the same method applies to ranking our city in its greenwashing.

yes, props to us and our massive blow out of single family. my god look we have plans for 1/4 mile circle at roosevelt to be all of 4 story zoning, if that's not real change i don't know what is.

btw please disregard how in snohomish they are going to allow 12 stories in 5 places or in federal way they're going to allow 45 stories, they just don't count, because we are the greenest city in the world, we are the greenest we are the greenest we are soo green….

so there!

Thanks for all the love!

But seriously, some of the questions about our grading are valid.

First, these grades are from a group with a specific point of view. If you support the tunnel, hate cottage housing, and think we'll become sustainable by handing out tax breaks to business, then you'd have given the Council straight A's. Heck, you might have even given them extra credit.

We picked these three issues because they stood out as hallmark issues for sustainability, in taxation, transportation, and land use. We could have picked one or ten. But we chose these three as representative issues of the kinds if issues we fell the Council should be making progress on if we take climate change, for example, seriously.

We were also extraordinarily fair in looking at each Councilmemeber's public statements on these issues. Erica caught this in her post. Councilmember Harrell made what we think is the wrong vote on the tunnel, but he got credit for expressing concern to his colleagues, in public, about the timing of the vote.

Politics is – or should be – about accountability. I like and have worked with most if these Councilmembers in some way over the last decade. That's want makes their actions even more frustrating. We could have just harrumphed about that frustration in private and left it at that. But what dies that accomplish? So we chose some issues, dug as deep as we could into Councilmember comments and actions, and gave a grade. Our hope is that people who see the world the way we do have something to consider as we head toward the 2011 elections.

And lastly, electing nice people who do the wrong things isn't the best strategy to make the tough decisions we need made as a city. Too often we elect people who say one thing about climate change, for example, and do something completely opposite when it comes to voting on issues that actually affect climate change. We need to hold them accountable to our values. Again, if you're a climate change doubter and think we need more highways and sprawl you'd give the Council a different set of grades.

Lots of groups (unions, enviros, etc) give grades or ratings to legislators or candidates. The purpose is to encourage and motivate change. We sincerely hope the Council improves their grades.

And yes, I get a c+ for spelling.

Agreed on the parking. The South End does have a crime issue that is gang driven. Seattle does allow gangs.

Somebody just got owned.

Sound Transit just turned down proposal with 200 good jobs – a satellite site for Swedish Hospital – for the Firestone Site in Rainier. The reason? Not good enough for TOD since they wanted to add underground parking and hence it wasn't suitable for the site. The alternative -an artists loft. Bad, no, but it doesn't really help the people who need help most. Instead if forces people with the least means to travel even farther in search of jobs.

As for your decision, you could have moved to an area where transit that is a prerequisite for TOD was being built and not hinge on an election decision. I don't believe any of the transit alternatives that you mention mandate TOD. Also can you help me out with the mix of housing in terms of low income and work force housing that is being built in your neighborhood as compared to what you pushed for in TOD neighborhoods? Also what is the mix of backgrounds and ethnicities in your neighborhood?

I do care about what goes on in my neighborhood. I care that the Rainier Valley doesn't have the opportunities or outcomes that the neighborhood you moved to has. I care about the kids who turn to crime and shoot each. I care about people who don't look like me. I care about the kids in the Title I school around the corner. If that makes my narrow minded so be it. I'm ok with being narrow minded if it results in social justice.

Hi all,

I'm in a retail business and I hear my wonderful customers from all over the country and the world express extreme admiration for Seattle's green-ness.

Some day the reality is going to crash the myth like a Bald Eagle hitting a plate-glass window. Maybe it'll be around the time the DoTs bulldozers are destroying the Union Bay marsh for a massive new unpaid-for highway. Seattle's going to look like the BP of American cities, and this Council will deserve plenty of the blame.

Thanks all,

j.

The monorail did not hinge on an election when I moved in. That was announced later in the year.
But you seemed to have missed my point. Of course you should care about what goes on in your neighborhood. What I called narrow-minded was the suggestion that no one else is allowed to care about those issues unless they are directly impacted by them as well. I think everyone should care about the issues you named, regardless of where they live.
The “TOD mandates” for affordable housing in the 2009 legislation would would have required affordable housing thresholds of at least 25% at 80% AMI and below, and at least 10% at 50% AMI and below. These standards would have been in place for over 45 station area neighborhoods in over 20 cities in the central Puget Sound region – not just SE Seattle.
However, the standards only would have applied to light rail and commuter rail stations. The publication that I co-authored later in 2009 suggested extending these standards to BRT (hey, that would include my neighborhood!) and major bus transfer stations as well. More low-income and workforce housing is needed in nearly every neighborhood in every city on our region (including mine), and should not just be relegated to one district of the region. I believe that incentives and mechanisms to provide such housing near transit makes a lot of sense.

“The density the cottages create will impact runoff in the SF neighborhoods.” But looking at the big picture, every cottage represents someone not in a larger house out in the suburbs. This larger house has a greater runoff impact, not to mention the driveway and street built for this suburban house.

i still would like to know how many of these TOD pundits actually live in the 5 over 1 construction they are advocating for everybody else to live in.

and if someone wants to put their family in a mcmansion in the suburbs, is a backyard cottage (at 800 sq ft including the car) going to satisfy them?

and its great that sara can ride the bus downtown to her non-profit job in the city, foe a lot of people who don't work downtown, a car-free lifestyle is not possible. (i am assuming that sara or her family are not keeping a car at home for the trips not satisfied by the bus service – as studies have shown that something like 80% of trips made by people living in TOD is in a single occupancy vehicle)

We don't have a Tea Party here in Seattle. We have a Green Tea Party.

I totally respect Roger and the Friends of Seattle and I certainly agree with some of the dings. The problem with this is it tries to look at the sticky dynamics of what I like to call “the 5 P's of Legislating” which include Principles, Politics, Policy, Pragmatism and Process.

Here’s an example, the report dings Burgess for not being more effusive enough about backyard cottages. Taking one sentence out of context they seem to be trying to paint Burgess as a “NIMBY panderer” when in reality on this issue and many other land use issues Burgess has been a very strong advocate for bold, principled land use actions. In fact, he has been a beacon of hope for the urbanist set. In my humble opinion he used his influence to get rid of lots of ill conceived amendments that would have diminished the value of backyard cottages. My point here is that if you are going to make ratings and grade people on a broader set of criteria that delves into the 5 P’s of legislating, and make assumptions about political dynamics you should be careful because you might not have a totally clear picture.

Roger, let’s talk more over a beer! I’ll meet you in the debate room at Grey

There is far more demand for 5-over-1 condos in the city than McMansions in the suburbs – that's why the price of real estate is so high here compared to there. Sure, the exact person that desires a McMansion isn't the person that wants to live in a cottage. But that cottage dweller would have lived in a condo in the suburbs. The now-condo-dweller in the suburbs would have bought a house in the exurbs.

Actually, it's too tough to look at individuals, it's better to look at agregate action. If there were half a million homes in Seattle and you add one more, there is one fewer home needed elsewhere.

People that work outside the city aren't the ones that will move into a place without parking. But we're not focusing on them – I'd actually rather they live close to their job (or change jobs to the city, like I did).

Is it all about me? Really? Okay, Bill, I'll play along.
I lived in multifamily midrises for half my childhood. My single mom couldn't have afforded a house, and I'm glad our neighborhood had affordable apartments where we could walk to school and the bus.
I also lived in midrises throughout my twenties. As a single person working in the non-profit sector, a small affordable apartment was the right fit for me.
Yes, I live in a SF house now (with a partially-finished backyard cottage where my parents could live someday), and as part of a two-person household with kids, it is a great fit for us and we are very fortunate to be able to afford it.
But two-person households with kids are not the fastest growing demographic in the region. Faster growing groups—including singles, single-parent households, two-person households without kids, and seniors—are all groups that may prefer (or need, as was the case for my mom, and for me in my twenties) more affordable housing choices. And accordingly I think it would be good for Seattle area neighborhoods to have greater variety of housing choices (not just 5-over-1 midrise, but also better lowrise and townhomes too) so that more options exist for different household types.
Does that help my street cred, Bill? Oh, it doesn’t really matter. Some folks are hellbent on attacking the messengers when they can't find much to argue with the message. This is not a debate that I can ever win.
On another note, how are you, Bill? Wasn’t it cute to see our kids playing together at that McGinn thing in January? How I’ll miss this silly banter with you. Best of luck to you and your fights.

They're certainly about as insular and dogmatic. Kind of the white privileged “new urbanist” mirror version, really.

(wow, this is way off thread)

actually, sara, it wasn't all about you. but my question still stands – how many of the folks advocating for density live in anything like 50/units per acre? we can all find all kinds of excuses why its really for other people. but i know that many qualify for the demographic that “should” live in belltown (e.g.) – single, dinks, older, whatever. yet they don't. no matter.

let's be clear, i am not pushing for mcmansions, and the record shows that i advocated extensively for backyard cottages. but the arguments being made here seem absurd (e.g. Matt saying a person in a cottage is better than a condo in the burbs – how about a condo in the city?). so, what is the appeal about the cottage? i would argue it is the open space and privacy – it is fundamentally a quality of life issue. housing choice is, for most people, just that.

as far as growth trends, i think the numbers show that the outlying areas are expanding faster the our in-city growth. so there still seems to be strong demand. part of that is something is wrong with how we are offering density here yet. nothing that couldn't be fixed though, and that's what we are working to do (i include you and i both in that).

so the issue for many of us remains – how density is being done and whether concurrency and other SEPA and GMA processes are being followed. and are we really doing adequate planning. i think not.

so the question is how much growth, where and how. and how are we as a population interacting with our environment. this is where council is struggling and not getting high marks in my book. sadly i believe it is because they are being over influenced by some (DPD, developers and special interests e.g. downtown property owners). and unlike FoS, i think they are trying to move too fast to solve a complex set of problems.

(on a personal note Sara, i am sorry you took my comments as attacking you – i was not. I am not “hellbent” on attacking you and your cred is just fine with me. and it is great to see kids play together. adults too)

Bill – Thanks for the nice note at the end there, but my questions still stands too. Why does the merit of a policy proposal depend on the personal life choices of each of its advocates? Speaking for Futurewise, we all take transit to work and over half the staff lives in midrise or highrise buildings. I haven't done the calculation, but I'm guessing our average density is over 50 units per acre. Those of us in SF have lived in higher density housing at other points in our lives. How does this information impact the objective pros and cons of our positions? Demanding personal information about advocates is nothing more than an attempt to devalue the substance of a proposal by discrediting the messenger(s).
Ultimately, Bill, we both know that we agree more than we disagree, and I do wish you well.

Math isn't your strong suit, is it deep throat? There were three topics graded, 2 of them were viaduct and head tax… that's 67%, not 75%.

I'd love it if 100 people or so would take johnmocha's advice and go to a meeting. Every month. Month after month.
I've never been (don't like the incense they burn) but this is the core group in the SE opposing TOD, and the stench spreads across Seattle, mostly because we're the beneficiary of the rail and the potential for density, and it needs to work here, now.

Save Our Valley? This group. No backyard cottages? This group. No car-free days? This group. No native plants? No salmon? This group. No Futurewise? This group.
They get pissed if you call them the Republicans of the 37th Dems, but…

So check out their website. Get to know the board.
Dream of becoming president here, please.

And the PubliCola software really did say “Hace 0 minutos” after my post, begging me to throw the upside-down question mark as a gang sign. Weird. I don't even speak Spanish.

Modest increases in impervious surface due to construction of cottages can in most cases easily be offset by modest removal of impervious surfaces on affected lots, and/or disconnection of downspouts from pipes that discharge runoff to streets.

Opportunities may exist to swap out paved surfaces with permeable pavers or landscaping. Back in the 1990s I connected the downspouts that drain about 80 percent of my roof to a shallow swale I dug in a corner of my back yard and landscaped with native plants. It has never overtopped and my basement has remained bone dry ever since, indicating that a lot of water that used to reach the nearest storm drain now infiltrates into the ground. The cost of this project was less than $500, which included paying a couple of guys to do the digging and hauling away the excavated dirt.

These kinds of solutions may not work everywhere because infiltration is influenced by surficial geology, but it's an approach worth considering when cottages are built.

Hi all,

Mr. X, I hit “Liked” your comment by mistake. Deep Throat, the “priveleged” insult annoys me. My position is opposed to tolling on either 99 or 520, where I support a minimal retrofit we all can afford. That and the fact that I'm for mother-in-law apts. and relaxing zoning in Seattle anywhere possible means my favored policies would reduce the cost of housing in Seattle.

But elitist is such an easy-to-use all purpose putdown, isn't it.

Best

jazzerciser

Hi all,

Now that my anger is past, I should say I do really like the term “Green Tea Party.” I've been looking the right terminology, and this might be it, so please accept my deepest thanks in advance if I decide to use it.

Best wishes,

Jazzerciser

Holy Moly..they really “nailed” that council….yesserie….that's going after them for a whole $4 meelllyon dollars.

4.5 Billion dollar tunnel?
9 Billion dollar redundant bridge?

No problem with that. Nope. No doubt they're paid for by the: Citizens to Dupe You with Phony Oversight Committee.

Maybe it's just me, but I think that Seattle's new Green Tea Party giving Richard Conlin a “D” is uncannily similar to the other Tea Party's election results the other day.

The right wing Tea Party managed to take out people that I suspect that even Bailo would consider far right because they weren't sufficiently far enough to the right for them, and it now seems poised to do poorly in the general election because centrist voters aren't on board with their fairly extreme agenda. Is giving Richard “bag tax” Conlin a D for not meeting this particularly parochial set of random litmus tests that different?

BTW – I used the white privilege thing quite deliberately – I went to one of the hearings on the proposed TDO bill and it was quite striking to see who was there in support of it and who opposed it (and in case you haven't guessed – it was the people of color who actually lived in the neighborhoods who were strongly opposed).

There's a lot more to being a progressive than blind support for density. The fact that this particular scorecard gave Tim Burgess the highest (albeit not good) marks says a lot about its merit.

“Why does the merit of a policy proposal depend on the personal life choices of each of its advocates? “

when people are pressing for changes to neighborhoods (which are distinct entities in and of themselves) and peoples' lives, from afar, without involving the people in these actions – and do so without necessarily walking the talk themselves, well…

throw into the mix those who are the beneficiaries of the proposed outcomes, and that mix often does not appear to include the people in the affected neighborhood, and, well…

as far as pros and cons of positions, it seems that often from our perspective those are not discussed as well, but just as readily dismissed as 'nimby'ism, or against progress or worse slander.

the fact that a half dozen of your people live in midrise or highrise demonstrates nothing. personally we have 9 people living on less than 1/10 acre in my lowrise zone. most buildings in our current repertoire of midrise or NC don't yield that density of people.

Actually, major crimes are densest in the downtown/first hill neighborhoods. The south end is similar to Wallingford/U District in terms of crime density.

http://web1.seattle.gov/mnm/statistics.aspx?tab…

Excellent suggestion! I'll see you there. I've been trying to figure out them out.

Caring about your neighborhood doesn't make you a NIMBY, Bill, but perpetuating the same blatant misinformation for years with nothing new or constructive to add makes it difficult to take you seriously. You know perfectly well that no private interest in the state supported that legislation, and the building interests played a significant role in its demise.
The impacts of the bill were region-wide, dealing with enormous regional tax investments, giving everyone in the region a right to have an opinion on it, and be an advocate if they so chose. And the planning details were left to the local community, where they belong.
But really, I'm ready to move on with my life, so please, please, have the last word and be done with it.

Friends of Seattle, hallmark issues?

FoS backed a big box mall with 2,300 parking spaces in Little Saigon.

you sure better pick and choose how how grade.

http://www.newrules.org/retail/news/miles-drive…

“It was the people of color who actually lived in the neighborhoods who were strongly opposed.”

You scared the hell out of them by suggesting to businesses that they were going to get wiped out by the city using eminent domain. And by suggesting that the city wanted to displace people of color to move in rich white folks.

You really just wanted to kill “TDO”, and needed bodies.
Shame on you and your bus-load of Olympia-bound turds, all from Mt Baker, Lakewood/Seward Park, Columbia City.

Kline is another target, because he's for transit. Do your worst, X.

“I live in a voodoo city, where every little thing had its own secret life”

This thing has its own secret life.
The meetings are likely one boring Robert's Rules talk about getting rid of that annoying streetlight, and how we must ask the City Council to approve the use of Roundup on graffiti.

The real action is on Facebook.
The designated SSCPC is just for City approval on the surface. Just to say YES, we are a neighborhhod group and wish to be recognized as such.

They aren't any such thing.

But if you're game, I'll be there with you.
Pint follows.

sara, i have not been talking about 1490 in this thread. but i would like your insights into my “perpetuating blatant misinformation for years”. i am curious what you think that is. but for crissakes, email me or call, this thread reads like a cat fight…

Some one at the Stranger once accused John Fox of cavorting with NIMBYs. That was the only explanation of his complete abandonment of his core principles.

This IS cavorting, but it sounds like fun. I'd have sold my soul, too:

http://www.scn.org/sastro/webfoot/dec01/pg2.htm

“BTW – I used the white privilege thing quite deliberately”

I've seen the “privileged” thing used by Jewish people to describe themselves. And I've seen your “Rotary” thing to describe yourself.

Larry David would be proud. Oy.

Seriously, I love community meetings. Much more interesting than Hollywood fare. Always a sociological motherlode. So I'm down. 7pm first wednesday in June. (Special feature: Barleywine unmasked!)

I'm starting to like this idea… maybe I'll come too!

“There are always two parties, the party of the Past and the party of the Future: the Establishment and the Movement.”

-Ralph Waldo Emerson (fascist)