Maybe the Editorial Board was just turned off by all the vile mud-slinging of the Mosqueda campaign? I know I was.

It makes about as much sense as your paper endorsing a completely unqualified wack job for mayor.

I was surprised by the endorsement as well, but comment #1 might play into it a bit, among other things. Her campaign (and her surrogates like Nicole Grant) have said some terrible, unprovoked, and personal shit about Grant. Mosqueda has also created a straw man when criticizing Grant's affordable housing proposals, treating it as if he's calling for a blanket 25% requirement across the city with no economic analysis, which is a misrepresentation of his policy.

The Times will never miss an opportunity to oppose a union-backed candidate. That will never change, and it's the real reason Grant got the endorsement.

Glad to see you've started to speculate about why the establishment paper, representing rich white mostly-male property owners, endorsed the white male property owner and landlord whose promised policies would surely use The Seattle Process to add years to the process of allowing more housing and density to be added throughout the city. Neither the editorial board members, nor their readers, nor Jon Grant need to worry about displacement though. They won't be the ones sacrificed on that altar.

I hope you and the rest of the SECB spend some time together in a quiet place until you fully grok the gridlock and predatory delay that a City Council with Grant (replacing Burgess for chrissake) would engender. Congratulations. You played yourself.

They like him because they don't think he'll get shit done.

@5: Jon Grant is a landlord now? Do you have any sources for that, or is this another example of a Mosqueda supporter's casual relationship with factuality?

When searching "landlord" and "Jon Grant," all I can find is a letter from the RHA claiming that Grant would be part of a tenant-centric bloc on the city council that would, "...guarantee immediate moves to further strengthen tenant rights by expanding the Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, further increasing notice for rent increases, and restricting rental owners’ ability to screen applicants."

Interestingly enough, considering the strategy of disqualifying Grant's policies because he's a white guy, he was the candidate that actually pronounced Charleena Lyles name correctly in a recent debate (Mosqueda vs. Grant starts at 31:55). He was also the candidate who actually showed up at meetings to listen and speak with underrepresented communities.

@7: yes, Jon Grant is a landlord. His financial disclosure forms reveal over 1,000 a month collected in rent.

https://sccinsight.com/2017/01/30/electi…

Another possible answer: Jon Grant evidently shares the Seattle Times' contempt for the city's efforts to place trivial things like pedestrian safety over any inconvenience whatsoever for motorists:
https://twitter.com/StumpToEmerald/statu…

I hope this blog post represents a step on the path to realizing what a terrible choice the Stranger made in their D8 endorsement. There are clearly many more steps to go, but it would seem to be in the right direction. (For the next step, I recommend contemplating *why* the Times board might hate unions more than "Sawant-style activism," and why they might find the rise of anti-union leftism personified by Jon Grant a salutory development.)

Mosqueda has the potential to be an important democratic candidate for higher office later in her carrier. ST would like to stop her now while it's easy.

Is he a lesbian? Then Grant's got my vote!

@8: Wow, that's a stretch to the Seattle Times choosing to endorse him because he's a landlord. He rents a room in his house.

@5, @8 (and kinda @7/11) oh my fucking god, I'm so tired of this garbage. So here we go.

Hello, I am Jon Grant's roommate. Yes, he owns the place, and yes I (and my partner, and our little dog) pay him monthly rent. That is the beginning and end to the "Jon is a landlord" story. None of us view it as the tilted power dynamic people like commenter 5 keep p. He is our roommate. We are his. That is how our household see each other -- as

With respect to his "landlord" role, he is the most tenant-friendly one I have ever experienced, by a long shot. This should come as no surprise to anyone who doesn't irrationally hate him, as he has long been an advocate for tenant rights.

Additionally, the monthly collected rent that you, @8, and others (Erica B and Michael M) have reported is just fucking wrong. And it's not an error of the form -- it's an error in how you guys are reading it. We COLLECTIVELY (my partner and I) don't even pay 1k/month. Our rent is incredibly affordable for this city.

Here's what you guys keep getting wrong about this. He has marked "A" on this form, meaning his income from a roommate (again, hi, hello, me) ranged somewhere between $1 and $4,499. This form is for one year. 12 months x $1k is way over Dollar Code A, making it impossible for $1k/monthly rent to qualify unless said rooommate (hello) only lived there for 4 or few months during that time. Making this bizarre $1,000/month conclusion obviously false. Weird huh? Math is hard.

Jon's biggest problem as a roommate/landlord is that he often forgets to put the cap back on his toothpaste.

So there you go. GTFO, @8. Oh, and Go Grant.

- Graham

Oh, and props to my friend for alerting to me to these comments after asking me if I was Chareth, as he is a 1) reasonable sounding human who does certainly seem to understand the situation far better than most, and 2) a nice Arrested Development reference. I can see why he thought it was me.

"Keep p" was meant to be "keep peddling." I wish I could edit that.

11/12, I was responding to a factual question, that's all. Unlike certain council candidates, I don't see much value in the cheap blanket demonization of either group of people positioned to profit from our housing shortage--landlords or developers. There are so many good reasons to oppose his candidacy, so there's no need to bother with something as lazy as "he's a landlord."

Ugh. I am ashamed at how many butchered sentences are in my first rant-y response. I am aware. I am well aware. Thanks. Now, go ahead and keep tearing down your candidate of choice's opposition. You can also make fun of my many typos. Knock yourself out.

And I apologize for repeating the error re: Monthly rent. My bad.

Okay, David. I'm responding to your reassertion coupled with bad math skills. I actively avoid Slog comments usually, but this is literally personal, and it's annoying as fuck.

I strongly encourage you to stick to your many good reasons moving foward, and retire your wrong numbers and items "as lazy as", because I have no desire to be even indirectly a shitty argument against Jon, or any candidate, for that matter.

Thank you. Sorry for getting so heated.

I've had to watch people say this stuff for awhile and I'm just sick of it. It's bad enough that people keep trashing my friend and housemate's character or motives, but when I am a cudgel...ugh.

As a rule, I stay out of the comment sections of everything, BUT - I have been alerted to comment 12 in this thread -

Graham, your attention is directed here: https://sccinsight.com/wp-content/upload…

The F1 for the City of Seattle is more detailed, and here, Grant marked (2) for the monthly rent he receives as income, which amounts to $1,000 - $4,999. To the extent you are stating his financial disclosure was incorrect, I would opine it would be in his and your interest for an amended one to be filed in order to disprove the reports that he receives income, per his disclosure, of $1,000 (or more) per month from rental income for a single room.

@19: totally understandable to be annoyed at having one's living arrangements be made into an political football. I'd be grumpy too.

@12: I'm sorry your personal life got pulled into a public debate. I don't know Jon, but it heartens me to know he lives in the company of intelligent Arrested Development fans. Go Grant!

@20: looking at the form, it looks like the code/amount is for money received "during the period" (what period? previous year? I'm not sure), not monthly.

This would make sense, as I sincerely doubt Rise Up Washington paid Grant 25K or more per month.

@20. Michael I looked at the link to you posted to Grant’s F1. Just curious, but where do you see column two ($1000 - $4999) as the MONTHLY rental income he receives? I took it to be annual income, just as when he checked box five for salary ($25,000 - $99,999) I assume that’s his annual salary, not his monthly salary. If he’s getting paid $25k a month plus, I’m guessing that would be a bigger story. I think this is the same issue the roommate had with your and Erica’s reporting on the form. Small detail, but I’m told that’s where god lives.

“The moderate-to-Republican Seattle Times Editorial Board” you’re living in a fucking fantasy land if the Seattle Times is now considered Republican. This is part of the reason why Trump won, because super lefties had to maintain their purity.

I am always ready to admit when I'm wrong, and, as pointed out, I completely miscalculated (and the Hashtag will be amended accordingly).

The period is annual, and the *correct* amount range, based on the two F1 reports, is $83.33-$374.92 per month. I apologize for my error.

@grkle So is he a lesbian? He sure looks like one.

Ha! It’s like a tortured logic problem. Your enemy endorses your friend so you friend must be...your enemy? Just go with it, man.

@8 - If you're worried about landlords having too much power, targeting a dude for making less than half of minimum wage BEFORE EXPENSES in rent seems a little over the top. Sure, he's a landlord on paper, the same way everyone with a couple thousand in a 401K is a Wall Street Investor.

I used to think I'd see a civil war in my lifetime between right and left, but now I think what will happen are two purity-driven self-immolations/pogroms within the right and left; after that, the civil war will begin between the two "sides" left standing.

There was a time when picking up the support of the Seattle Times and The Stranger (or the P. I., back in the day) was a sign that a candidate was a solid choice. The right of center editorial staff agreed with the left wing editorial staff. Often this was because the candidate was reasonable, and had solid, workable solutions for the city, while the opponent was a demagogue or loon. Now it appears to be the opposite.

The Seattle Times editorial staff jumped the shark years ago. They are full of right wing idiots, who oppose any type of tax, and complain that nothing should be done until the government undergoes a full fledged review and reform process. The Stranger, meanwhile, has ignored sensible, practical solutions, while hoping that simply electing candidates that are more "progressive" will solve the problem. They fail to mention that the problems facing our federal government (taxes and funding for essential programs are way too low) aren't really the core of our problems. Of course we would like to spend more money on fixing the things that hurt us all, but for the most part, that isn't even an option. Our biggest problem is that we are simply doing a poor job improving things that need improving. We are building horribly wasteful, suburban light rail segments along with pointless streetcars, while providing way too little dedicated right of way for our buses.

And that isn't the worst of it. Housing is, of course, the biggest problem we face in this city. Our outdated zoning laws (amongst the most restrictive in the region) make adding density extremely expensive. This wouldn't be much of a problem if it wasn't for our huge employment boom, which has lead to tens of thousands of workers wanting to live in the city. This isn't a case of the rich or the Republicans messing things up, it is simply a case of too many people trying to buy a place in a city with too few places. The problem can be fixed (or at least greatly mitigated) by altering the zoning laws, but that requires altering the landscape (both figuratively and literally). We need to get over ourselves and stop pretending that someone else is to blame. To quote the great progressive Walt Kelly, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

“The moderate-to-Republican Seattle Times Editorial Board” you’re living in a fucking fantasy land if the Seattle Times is now considered Republican.

What would you call them, then?

Just to be clear, if you go way back, the Seattle Times was a center right paper, while the Seattle P. I. was center left. This was before The Stranger existed. This meant that the Seattle Times supported people like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Dan Evans and host of other moderate Republicans that used to exist around here (Joel Pritchard, John Miller, etc.). Now, the editorial staff has embraced right wing extremism, like Reagan, Gingrich, Bush and Ryan. It comes in the form not only of personal endorsements, but ballot measures as well. Opposition to a state income tax, opposition to transit and park funding proposals, you name it. They are, at best, socially liberal, but clearly on the right wing fringes when it comes to taxing and spending.

"“The moderate-to-Republican Seattle Times Editorial Board” you’re living in a fucking fantasy land if the Seattle Times is now considered Republican. This is part of the reason why Trump won, because super lefties had to maintain their purity."

Sorry, but the Seattle Times consistently endorses republicans for state office. They just endorsed the republican in the one race that could win the state capitol back for the democrats: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/edi…

Grant is the better candidate.