Hire police with no money from the Council, that's a winner.
I'm left unsure exaaactly what you're driving at (dropped on my head as a youth, sorry), but don't see a problem urging the mayor to not drop the universally lauded cop-hiring plans, no matter what. No matter who says the budget has to do what, or who brings it up in a way that seems butthurty to the butthurt.

As an aside, I would love to read a solid fact-check piece on whether it's the mayor or the council that's full of shit talking about what the budget means. They are opposite, so one party is ignorant, willfully or no. But I'm not holding my breath. Either reporters don't care who's factually correct, don't know who to ask (hint: Dively), or are enjoying the back-and-forth "I know you are, but what am I?" business too much to spoil the show for us mere readers.
Oh, boo hoo! Don't make McGinn answer any tough questions on what we should do now that he has said no to the Council's plan.

The Stranger is doing the mayor's office no favors by giving him these thrice daily blowjobs. Getting his veto overruled would have been a win for the mayor! McGinn doesn't have to help create a budget that will pay for the new cops -- that's not in his job description! Criticism framed around the aggressive solicitation bill singed by all nine councilmembers is sooooooo unfaaaaaair.

All. Nine. Coucilmembers.

Don't listen to them -- all nine of them are part of a vast right wing conspiracy. You're doing wonderful, Mike. Here, the Stranger has a little backrub for you.
Cutting through the BS, this letter is grandstanding. More than a month ago McGinn stated that he was stopping everything until the end of April:…

This doesn't mean he's NOT going to hire more cops, it just means that he's halting major expenditures in advance of cleaning up the budget. A budget, again, passed by the Council. What this is, all of this, is bullshit. They're trying to take a procedural issue on the part of McGinn, fixing the budget, and turn it into propaganda against him.

They knew he was pausing on implementation of the budget. This is no shock. They know that there's a shortfall (a massive one). Holding off for 5 weeks on the hiring of beat cops is not dire, nor is he intending on canceling the hiring completely.

They're well aware of the issue, in fact, because he briefed them on it a few days ago:…

I think McGinn needs to call their bluff, do his part to fix the budget on the administrative end, and proceed again with hiring cops. And still veto the panhandling bill.
@ 2) I think the city should find a way to keep hiring cops, on schedule. It's a generally good question from the council--a healthy discussion for them to have with the mayor--which I say in my post. But the aggressive-solicitation bill really has no bearing on that discussion.
As far as the theater of this all goes, some vignettes from Nickels' early days: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.c…

Or veto drama! Nickels sides with citizen opponents over a building deal: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.c…

How about Nickels stomping all over the Council and making Jan Drago sad: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.c…
The as (tired of typing the whole thing) only mentioned more police/outreach/etc. to try to make the actual law more palatable. Which it didn't do for people who actually thought about it.
If you handed out 25,720 $50 aggressive panhandling tickets you could pay for 20 new cops first year salaries.

so ya, just do it bitches.
Maybe the Mayor should have a line-item veto.
What exactly does cleaning up the budget mean?
"Maybe the Mayor should have a line-item veto."

Yes, and when your guy loses, you can get pissy.

Why would Holden want more cops, he's only going to demand, like the rest of the Seattle cops, that they get castrated and have their nuts kept in a jar by Holden's bed.
@5, well, it does, the defenders of McGinn pointed out that the unlawful parts of the panhandling bill already have laws and just need to be enforced. Great, hire the people to enforce them.

You don't need a new law, just enforce the old ones, and you not getting the people to do that. Gosh, thanks, Mike's cheerleaders.
@11: oh it's okay nutter butters, those words only made sense in your head... time for a time out, it's gonna be ok little guy. we're here to help you. shhh, shhhh sleep now little freaky one.
Maybe our city could do a local income tax on everyone who works or lives in our City or accepts a contract therein ...

For ... millionaires.

Then we could afford all the extra cops to make the millionaires feel safe ...
@8 wins the thread. we don't need more police, they're just a roving open carry street gang.
Let's hire more police to sit in the strip clubs getting lap dances so we can all be safe.
Another idea - let's cancel the $4 million "suicide fence" on Aurora Bridge and use the money to fill the City budget deficit and hire more cops.

Want cops? Stop wasting money on stupid things.

That's how it works.

You can't have any dinner if you won't eat your pudding.
In other news: Mayor Gooood. Council Baaadddd.
actually, it was a 5-4 vote.

most things council votes on are 9-0 or 8-1 so it's not like council was unanimous or anything.
Will - it was meant to be a comment on Dominic's reporting, not City Hall itself.
What in the fuck do we need more cops for? The ones we have are already corrupt and incompetent.
@17 -- Are you ever as amazed as the rest of us at the crap that you post?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.