In 2008 there were 59 major crimes per 100,000 people in Seattle. In 2015, there were 61 per 100,000, with the population rising 15% during that period. In 1988 there were 75,000 major crimes, meaning 147 per 100,000 people. The crime rate was 2-1/2 times what it is today.
We have far, far less crime than we did before. Far less. We don't need more cops. Seattle absolutely did NOT show an increase in crime over the past 10 years, and in the 25 years before that crime plunged from stratospheric heights. And even in the bad old days we had about as many cops as now. Our plummeting crime rate in the late 90s was not the result of hiring tons of cops. We didn't do that. More evidence that how many cops we have is disconnected with how much crime we have.
The last election showed that these loud, repetitive, sockpuppeting internet warriors on Nextdoor.com
and other local blogs do not speak for the electorate. They think crime is up but there's nowhere near enough of them to swing an election. They don't determine policy.
Their chosen candidates were mostly crushed in the City elections. If people who delusionally think the crime rate is up were a significant block, Mike O'Brien would have been out, instead of sailing to an easy victory. Sawant would have been out, Herbold wouldn't have won, and Burgess wouldn't have had the fight for his life. Ed Murray would definite have pandered to them if they represented many votes, and he would know. Instead Murry gave them The Talk: crime is at a 45 year record low, you idiots. He knew they didn't want to hear that but there's so few of them, who cares?
Demilitarizing the police is a politically winning issue in Seattle. Shifting budget priorities to human services and away from cops shuffling troublesome people from one neighborhood to another, an in and out of jail for no reason, is a loser.
No surprise that the Seattle Times is, again, out of touch with the reality of Seattle, the will of the voters in Seattle, and the policies of the elected government. Only the cops, non-Seattlites that they are, think the Times knows what's up.