Oct 20 Hutch commented on We Believe You Should Vote No on Initiative 732.
I get the "we need action now" argument, but it's worth stopping and thinking about the context around this vote. The fate of the world does not rest on carbon policy in Washington State, which is heavily powered by hydro and responsible for ~1.3% of American GHG emissions. The reason we're doing this at the state level is to provide an example for climate action that can be applied at the national (and international) level. Any low-carbon future we can imagine is going to require massive changes to how we power our homes and how we get around. A tax is one variable among many on fossil fuels, the price of which fluctuate based on supply and demand and a host of other variables. (See BC, where carbon emissions actually rose several years back when the price of oil tanked internationally). We're not going to get where we need to go without massive investments in things like energy efficiency, solar, wind, battery storage, transit, urban density, etc. And it's not really clear where we'd get the money for that sort of thing, if not taxing dirty fuels. As far as "pass this and make it better later" goes, you think we'll be able to go back to the legislature in 2018 and convince them to reinstate the B&O tax (or raise the sales tax by 1%) so that we can fund green alternatives or help transition workers in fossil-fuel dependent industries?

All state climate policies are dress rehearsals for national action, which is really what we need. I-732 sets the bar extremely low. In a country that is getting more diverse with every passing year, it's hard to imagine a national climate policy that doesn't include communities of color or labor unions, both of which were ignored by I-732. I-732 would be the ultimate pyrrhic victory - white Seattle liberals get to pat themselves on the back for "FINALLY DOING SOMETHING" while setting the national climate movement back, as other states copy the model of revenue neutral climate programs that barely move the needle on emissions.
Oct 18 Hutch commented on The Stranger's Endorsements for the November 2016 General Election.
Throwing Communities of Color under the bus for a climate policy that aims for a ~2% cut in carbon emissions per year from a hydro-powered state responsible for ~1.3% of the total emissions in the United States would be Peak Seattle Liberal.
Oct 4 Hutch commented on The City of Seattle Wasted $65,000 on Failed Whistleblower Witch Hunt.
This entire debacle was infuriating on so many levels - the fact that basic police accountability was a bargaining chip in a labor negotiation, Murray telling the public they were bad progressives for wanting information on A LITERAL LIFE OR DEATH MATTER TO BLACK PEOPLE, $65,000 of city money down the drain in what was obviously a goose chase from the very beginning. Keep up the good work, Ed!
Sep 17 Hutch commented on The Critique of ACT Theatre's Bad Apples Is Contained In Its Title.
The problem was more than just structural. Mr Langs and Co. have a black character play the (white IRL) sadistic, rapey ringleader to what end? If you're going to reinforce bad stereotypes about black men on stage the audience better learn something goddamn important about race at the end. And it's pretty convenient for haughty high-minded liberals like Langs (and all rich white liberal Seattle theater audiences) that all of America's sins were committed by dumb inbred Southern hicks like Lyndsay Skinner. (Half the play's gags were "aren't people from the south dumb!") I'm sure he'd devote the same opprobrium and condemnation to Obama's drone war or complicity in Israeli Apartheid he did to Bush's reign of terror.

Those Hispanic people playing Arabs on stage weren't the only people in the room that got tortured during this show. I'm not easily offended (I went to see a musical about torture for fuck's sake), but this was hot garbage.
Sep 9 Hutch commented on Re-Bar Owners Hope to Turn Building into Historic Landmark to Avoid the Wrecking Ball.
Historic preservation all too often gets abused by "Preserve Our City In Amber!" forces disguised as arm-chair architectural critics (hundreds of which live in Seattle and dominate design review boards and other land use apparatus). That said, I think Re-Bar has a much better argument than most - preserve buildings that were central to the cultural fabric of the city rather than ones that are subjectively aesthetically pleasing.
Aug 11 Hutch commented on Solutions to Seattle’s Growing Housing Crisis: Part Four.
I'm into most (nearly all, even!) of these proposed solutions. It's clear that our country's homeownership fetish and use of property as a wealth generation tool breeds a lot of anti-social behavior (NIMBYism, intergenerational wealth that breeds inequality, etc.). And as our society increasingly recognizes that urban, low-carbon living is going to be a necessity if we're at all interested in combating global climate change, it's vital that we find a way to grow our cities in a way that allows people of all income levels to stay there.

The problem with most of these solutions is that they're aspirational rather than practical. I'm absolutely in favor of turning Seattle into a European model, where the government provides housing for the middle class. Do I see that happening in my lifetime, given the political climate in this country right now? Not really.

What sort of local political action will Charles' series actually breed, while he sits around waiting for the proletariat to march on DC? Knee-jerk reactionary feel good legislation like Lisa Herbold's one-for-one affordable housing replacement measure (which would have the effect of making lots of new housing projects unbuildable unless height restrictions were suddenly removed across the city - which they won't be, based on how difficult it's been to add a single story to urban villages under HALA). Rent control that will help current residents enjoy Seattle while locking out future generations (see how that's working out for San Francisco?). And perhaps most insidiously - more ammunition for the (old, white, wealthy)n slow-growth, Lesser Seattle forces who can leverage the value of their own property investments by using the "Wall Street is Raping Our City" line to oppose efforts to build more housing.

It's striking to me that under proposed solutions, Charles and Cary fail to even tangentially mention Mandatory Housing Affordability, an actual, tangible policy that is on the table right now, which would create a permanent, lasting connection between market-rate housing and affordable housing. It's more modest than a lot of us would like, but it's got a better chance of creating actual affordable housing than this masturbatory intellectual naval-gazing and howling at the moon about the injustices of global capitalism. But I assume that Charles, like a lot of the Hard Seattle Left, is too morally opposed to the concept of people making money off real estate to see the forest for the trees.
Aug 10 Hutch commented on Why NIMBYs And Their Haters Can’t Offer a Deep Solution to the Seattle’s Growing Housing Crisis: Part Three.
@8 - Political will? We just doubled the Housing Levy, which is great. If we were serious about doing something like that we'd have had to increase it by how much? 10 times? 20 times? I'm hoping we get to that point by 2030, but it's not politically feasible right now.
Aug 10 Hutch commented on Why NIMBYs And Their Haters Can’t Offer a Deep Solution to the Seattle’s Growing Housing Crisis: Part Three.
@7 - The numbers will always vary on this depending on the neighborhood and circumstances, but here's the general status quo right now: when those 500K craftsmen homes reach the end of their useful life, they're replaced by $1 million+ single-family homes. If you're asking which outcome is better - $1 million SFH or 2-3 $700,000 townhomes - from both an affordability and carbon/climate change perspective, it's no contest.
Aug 10 Hutch commented on Why NIMBYs And Their Haters Can’t Offer a Deep Solution to the Seattle’s Growing Housing Crisis: Part Three.
Charles, I'd love to live in a European-style country that provides subsidized housing for the middle class. But I don't. I live in a neoliberal (Reagan may have made it worse, but it's always fundamentally been that way) supply-and-demand-based economy. Naval-gazing about the injustices of global capitalism and shaking our fists at the free reign of speculative capital may be intellectually pleasing, but how can we fight that through local housing policy? Vancouver's foreign buyer tax is arguably racist on its face, legally dubious in America and ineffectual (although I'm interested to see how it plays out in the coming months): http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bc-forei…

There's a lot of people in this city whose opposition to development stems from the knee-jerk aversion to the idea that rich people are making money off real estate, as if this is some sort of new, unprecedented phenomena. Investors made a tidy profit off those 1950s apartment buildings that by virtue of being old are now magically "affordable" - am I supposed to be extra pissed off in the year 2016 because it's happening again? Now that you've stoked this anger with this series of pieces, I'm eager to see your conclusions and hope they're constructive rather than symbolically yelling into a well.
Aug 10 Hutch commented on "I Am Not Afraid of a Building"—Debora Juarez and Mike O'Brien Debate Privilege and Controversial New Police Station.
The "bunker" thing is goofy double-speak that distracts from the main issue - the preposterous price tag. It's no more or less secure than any other police station.