report this user
Mar 21 algorhythm99 commented on Amazon: Killing Jobs One Robot At a Time.
@2 has the right question
Whether Bezos comes down in favor of taxing robot labor and/or a universal basic income in the next 5-10 years is one of the most important questions facing, well, all of humanity really.
Mar 20 algorhythm99 commented on Make Sure Your MAGA-Hat Wearing Relatives Watch This.
@8 comment of the year
Mar 19 algorhythm99 commented on Uber Loses Legal Challenge, but Seattle Unionization Law Still at Risk.
"Unionization = Communism" is one of those just staggeringly wrong things you see people try to sneak by in comments.
Mar 10 algorhythm99 commented on Do What The Urbanist Says.
@3 couldn't be more right about "each additional unit allows a household to live here"

But, no one is tearing down units and replacing them with more units that cost the same. Each existing structure torn down to build new, denser structures does, in fact, displace people. (Which is why, as Dan has pointed out, it's always better to build on a parking lot or other wasted urban space.) There are no affordable new units. @2 is right, too.

We should be upzoning and we should be building new buildings, but don't pretend that the we're accomplishing anything other than housing more rich people.
Feb 22 algorhythm99 commented on CHS: Developers Are Going to Tear Down the QFC on 15th!.
@5 and @19:
I don't think either of you is really wrong or right.

"The only reason this is complicated is because it is land, but the situation is exactly the same. If 10,000 people want to live in Capitol Hill, but there are only 8,000 units, then of course the apartments are going to be very expensive. But if you build a few thousand more, they will be cheaper." @19

I understand that this is the capitalist ideal, but I just don't think it's true. Developers set the prices and I don't see any evidence that they consider supply a factor. They have zero incentive to build anything on Capitol Hill that isn't expensive. And there's many many people who are ready to jump up to rent a new expensive unit on the Hill. A virtually limitless amount of people want to live on Capitol Hill. If you add 1000 extremely expensive units to the 8000 existing, mostly expensive units, none of the prices of those units change. There is not really such a thing as a new *and* affordable, housing unit in practice. The new $2000/month 1 bedrooms on Capitol Hill are not going to magically cost less if you build more $2000/month 1 bedrooms.

That's where @5 is totally right about the important of non-new apartment buildings. The people that "cook [our] food and bus [our] tables" are never going to live in new apartments because they will never be able to afford a new apartment. It's not a coincidence that shiny new urban areas like downtown Bellevue or SLU have no cheap eats, no dive bars, no rock clubs, etc. They only have new buildings, and new buildings only contain rich tenants.

The best we can do is exactly what this particular post is about: get rid of single family homes, get rid of parking lots, get rid of single-story buildings, and hope and pray that @19 is even slightly right.

In this case?

Feb 22 algorhythm99 commented on CHS: Developers Are Going to Tear Down the QFC on 15th!.
The "neighborhood character" argument isn't about preserving parking lots and single-story buildings, it's about knowing that the "storefronts and apartments" that'll probably replace QFC and Rudy's will be comprised of more of the same fashion boutiques, furniture galleries, expensive tapas places, and luxury condo leasing offices, all owned by wealthy gentrifiers that never set foot on the hill, that are taking over Pike/Pine. If you're not going to get an actually valuable cafe, nightclub, or pub, or store out of it, redevelopment is a hard sell. And same with the apartments, Dan. If no one you work with can afford any of them, where's the benefit? SLU is really dense, but it's also a Bellevue-esque cultural wasteland. And there's no cheaper options for anything than, for example, Whole Foods and Lunchbox Lab.

I'd love for somehow to figure out how to take the existing residents and the businesses that are actually valuable to the community (instead of just cash cows for their owners) and put them in newer, denser buildings, but you just don't see it.

Feb 21 algorhythm99 commented on UPDATED: In State of the City Address, Mayor Promises New Tax for Homelessness, Threatens to Sue Trump.
"clear[ing] out the ... vagrants" (@9) *is* "what we're doing" (@4). The favored term for it is "sweeping". And you're right, it doesn't reduce homelessness at all. You can't just make homeless people disappear unless you make them not homeless anymore. The city isn't doing that, yet.
Feb 21 algorhythm99 commented on UPDATED: In State of the City Address, Mayor Promises New Tax for Homelessness, Threatens to Sue Trump.
@3 I don't understand your question.

Providing housing to homeless people will absolutely reduce homelessness. And that requires tax revenue to fund.

On the other hand, no one who pays property tax in Seattle is going to be taxed into homelessness. This a good chance for a reminder that taxation in WA is radically regressive. The richest Washingtonians are staggeringly undertaxed.
Feb 9 algorhythm99 commented on Victim of Shooting at UW Milo Yiannopoulos Protest Still in Serious Condition, Alleged Shooter Remains Uncharged.
So, a facist agitator shot an anti-facist actively engaged in de-escalation, and the shooter is not being charged with a crime, and "The campus and the community remain safe"?

Fuck you SPD.