Jul 25 G g commented on Seattle Times Repeats the Myth that Skyrocketing Rents in Seattle Caused Supply and Demand.
@2 is absolutely right. Demand is higher right now in Seattle, and apartments are fully rented, so rent is increasing rapidly. It would be increasing even more rapidly if we were building new units at a slower rate. It's true that major housing construction projects in Seattle are funded by multinational corporations with shareholders that have no idea they're investing in homes on *that block* in *our city* (this is new...even a decade or two ago our construction was funded by local investors). That's a problem because it leads the corporations to only care about profit, happily at the expense of building quality, neighborhood livability, existing tenants or anything else...which is why regulations (more regulations!) are SO important today. It is also true that home and property purchase costs (not to be conflated with rental costs, as this article seems to do) in places like Vancouver, Canada are artificially high because foreign investors simply want a tool for storing millions of dollars in a currency other than their own. But in Seattle we aren't seeing blocks of empty homes like you see in Vancouver, which is what would indicate that a stashing of foreign capitol is what is driving our single family and condo home values up. We're not seeing that. But this article claims to be about rising rents, not the cost of property, and these are two very different things. The apartment buildings that financial markets are investing in don't set the rental prices -- if they weren't full then rents would stall or decrease -- and the "black swan" occurrence in this particular case would be caused by supply going up and/or demand going down for housing, prices following, and then the over-leveraged multinational corporations lose their stock value in a dramatic crash. That's honestly not a terrible outcome for the renters of Seattle, who will then have more housing stock overall and cheaper rents.
More...
Jul 8 G g commented on What Might Help Is Decriminalizing Minor Offences That Increase Encounters Between Cops and Blacks.
If helmets become non-required, then we can't expect future fatal bike accidents involving cars to result in life-ruining consequences for the driver. This isn't a defense of cars -- I'd vote to phase them out entirely within cities, and then we can choose to not wear helmets. But until that happens, it's the reality we live in: bikes and cars -- two things that should never co-exist in the same space -- are side-by-side, and accidents are inevitable. As long as that continues to be the case, it is completely reasonable to require cyclists to take a minimum step towards preserving the integrity of their skull!
May 27 G g commented on Sound Transit 3 Changes: Light Rail Projects Could Open Faster.
@15: you took the analogy too far. I was not calling light rail a toy, and I think you're the only one that read it that way. The truth is, we will not get rail faster by voting no on this plan. We may get it faster than this plan by voting yes and then having Seattle add additional segments on its own concurrently, or by electing a congress and president that is willing to fund infrastructure (or a state government that is willing to stop prioritizing roads), but we cannot go back in time and grab our grandparents by the scruff and tell them to vote yes on Forward Thrust. Going back in time is the only way you're going to get the outcome you, specifically, want (i.e. light rail faster than we get it by voting yes on ST3 -- let alone the much, much faster you say you expect). We can't vote "no" and go back to the drawing board and expect faster results. We can't wait for the political climate to be just right to get this done immediately (honestly, this is the best political climate for passing this that we may see in our lifetimes: the whole region recognizes the crisis of traffic congestion, the region is growing, the region just saw recent successes with our light rail, and the economy is strong so there is appetite for spending). This is our best opportunity. And passing it does not eliminate the possibility of taking advantage of an advantageous change in federal or state policy, rather it positions us to be able to take advantage of it if and when it happens.
More...
May 26 G g commented on Sound Transit 3 Changes: Light Rail Projects Could Open Faster.
I disagree with many commenters...the timing of it is frustratingly far away in the same way that Christmas is frustratingly far away when you're a child. I want it now, too. But we will get a new line and/or new critical stations *every few years* with this plan starting in 2024 (and we will see benefits between now and then thanks to ST2). Each one of those openings will take traffic off the streets, benefiting the whole region.
May 26 G g commented on Sound Transit 3 Changes: Light Rail Projects Could Open Faster.
I'd like to point out that they're splitting the cost of the downtown tunnel based on *sub-area ridership*, so that to the degree a Redmond-to-Downtown_Tunnel line is used by people from Redmond going to the tunnel, Redmond will help pay for it...they're not just having everywhere pay for it out of the main pot (like "general fund" or something). Which, really, is the fairest way to do it. (All the suburbs want a train from their area to Seattle...why should Seattle pay for the part that ends in Seattle instead of getting an actual line within Seattle, which is what Seattle actually wants?)
May 25 G g commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Help Me Out, Sloggers.
@2 is right. Build on hobbies you already have, want to have, or used to have. I would add that it will help to make a rule for yourself to do *something* every day for an hour (at least) where there are other people, whether it's going to a coffee shop instead of your couch when catching up on email, reading in a well-attended park, taking transit just to walk around a part of the city you haven't been to, or going to a neighborhood weekly farmers market. The first few days you do it, you'll maybe be disappointed you didn't find all the new friends you want to be social with, but after a while you'll enjoy your outings for what they are, and at some point you really will meet people. (I also agree with @4: people your age in the U-District are there for a college experience, and there is no reason to subject yourself to every single conversation starting with "what are you majoring in?" and feeling like you have to apologize for taking a break from school. You shouldn't have to apologize, and the U-District is a weird little bubble where it'll be too often expected.)
May 24 G g commented on Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Lead in Pointless Washington State Primary.
@6 You do realize you're implying that Bernie voters strategize while Hillary voters don't, right? Like...Bernie voters voted in the caucus and not the primary because it's only the caucus that counts, but LOL HILLARY VOTERS ARE SO DUMB AMIRITE and got it BACKWARDS?!

Or maybe, when only the small fraction of the population that is made up of the most politically involved and motivated citizens are considered (i.e. the ones that caucus), they are much more likely to be supporters of Sanders. Since it's more than just the aforementioned small fraction of Washingtonians that vote in the general, the primary (over a caucus) is much more representative of who voters support. Unless, of course, Bernie voters SMRT, hillary voters DUMM.
May 24 G g commented on Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Lead in Pointless Washington State Primary.
@4: I caucused for Hillary and did not waste a stamp on the primary, either. Individual cases do not statistics make, but here's mine to balance yours anyway :)
May 24 G g commented on Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Lead in Pointless Washington State Primary.
@1, I care, too, and I find it fascinating that the results are so different. I think The Stranger does, too, as they have made two posts about it, both referencing what's interesting about the outcome. But Slog has been making the point recently that we as a state probably shouldn't be paying for a primary that doesn't affect the outcome of the primary race. Indeed, it doesn't even seem to be affecting the narrative about the race (currently, the results do not show up on the front page of CNN, etc., and even typing in "Clinton" into a Google News search -- which is much more than most people will do -- reveals nothing about our primary results). Your comments about why the primary results matter, and this post's assertions about the primary (when considered alongside their recent narrative) aren't in disagreement.