Comments
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.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grQJT1OYt…
It doesn't make any difference who is elected, as each has their own agenda and the citizen usually gets lost in the dust.
Which doesn't tell you much, does it?
You may not agree with their agendas to varying degress, but they ALL affect the city.
For me, I'm excited to see transportation/transit/cyclist+pedestrian works moving forward in ways that we'd only talked about for ages. We've got the foot on the gas at a crucial time. McGinn's been a champion for that and will continue to do so -- we're just getting started.
I also am content to have a mayor that spends more time in town hall meetings and reaching out to immigrant communities and advocacy groups than he does gladhanding with the city council. Moderate councilmembers can get their noses bent out of shape if they'd like, but they're their to serve the city, as is the mayor. Not their own careers.
It's not clear what a victory for Ed Murray (or anyone else) really means, other than a defeat for McGinn.
Murray's candidacy website doesn't even have an "issues" page. I think that speaks for itself.
McGinn also warned us of the need to replace the seawall if tunnel is happening, and the fucking City Council said what back then? "McGinn you don't know what you're talking about." They didn't want people to realize if you do the tunnel you have to throw in another $200 million bucks for the seawall.
So when the tunnel is too late to stop, what did the fucking City Council say? "Oh shit we have to rebuild the seawall." Exactly what McGinn was saying back in 2009, except now the seawall will be built at the new price of $300 million. Bunch of fucking liars, that City Council.
Nobody in this pack of candidates can match McGinn on real progressive issues and sweeping changes that might give us a chance against climate change.
http://350.org/en/about/blogs/seattle-ma…
Murray's campaign seems to be running on vanity. And Steinbrueck... I really liked Steinbrueck when he was in the council. Steinbrueck, Licata, and Judy Nicastro. (Remember her?) And Heidi Willis! My god, the hit job that bozo did on her. (Only to get kicked out in the next election.) But now, I'm not sure what Steinbrueck's doing here. Coming to think of it, I don't know what Murray's doing here. We need him in the senate.
So it's McGinn all the way for me.
Yep, what college educated white people want, they get.
since he got in, the DOJ found seattle police assault us regularly. mcginn denies this, and will not hold one single officer or supervisor responsible. major constitutional rights violation fail.
then he partnererd up to billionaires hansen, ballmer and nordstroms to let them get public goodies in a subsidized stadium deal. help the one percent much?
these acts deserve rejection at the polls, and any normal, good liberal democrat will do -- murray deserves props for getting equal rights done and being a real leader despite losing control of the senate. steinbrueck is good on city issues. harrell is part of the problem as he didn't really do anything to rein in spd. for all the mike bikes crap we were subjected to in the election, his buddying up to billionaires erases mcginn's liberal and progressive credentials totally.
that stadium would hurt middle class jobs and give huge megamillions of benefit to one percenters who use public finance to backsteap their equity boosts when they sell a team. this is romney style socialism for the rich. hansen turned onthe spigot to buy the team, too, throwing down hundreds of millions more for a price and his relocation fee -- he dind't need a nicel of public finance -- mcginn just shoved it at him needlessly and left a couple hundred million on the table.
No doubt, he still hasn't stopped it yet!
Most of the 1% could care less about the Sonics. If you look at the people in the rallies, or listen to the sports radio broadcasts, it should be obvious that most of the fans are middle or working class. The government will chip in far less than they did for either of the two stadiums (if things work out well, the government will end up paying nothing). It still might seem stupid (if you aren't a sports fan) but the same could be said for numerous government programs. If you don't like art, then funding anything art related seems stupid (especially since so many of those art projects go to already wealthy artists).
I debate that "most" of the people going to games would be middle class. Certainly there is a large fan base rooting for the sonics.
"The government will chip in far less than they did for either of the two stadiums (if things work out well, the government will end up paying nothing)." this is a fraudulent statement. The government will pay the $272 in arena tax credits to hansen. The government will lose $330 million in real estate taxes. The government will make zero profit on its $200 million loan -- so it is "paying" the opportunity cost of providing that money, another $250 million.
You admit the govt. is chipping in. Why do we need to chip in anything much less $750 million to billionaires?
" It still might seem stupid (if you aren't a sports fan) but the same could be said for numerous government programs."
riiiiiight, subsidies to billionaires enabling them to make hundrds of millions of dollars are just like spending on roads, rail, busses, education and health. Spending for the one percenters is just like spending for the poor, I guess, in mcginn's world. This is my point! it's not the same and it's a betrayal of progressivism to go around claiming it is. why do you think people mistrust govt., when so called liberals try to justify aid to billionaires by saying it's like other govt. programs?
" If you don't like art, then funding anything art related seems stupid (especially since so many of those art projects go to already wealthy artists). " I would support cutting many wasteful art expenditures. Civil servants can put up $24 posters reproducing Monets and Picassos like college students buy. Art spending for paint brushes for school kids is a diff. matter. But yes, it's socialism for the rich to go spend $300,000 on ugly public art that most people detest and that enriches rich artists. Or to give chihuly a sweetheart deal at seattle center.
if you point to subsidies for opera or symphonies, (a) those are not as big as the $750 million subsidy for hansen, (b) they don't enable a private investor to make hundreds of millions of dollars on sale of team, and (c) I am not that supportive of those either. Not till we fund samba domes, fok ddancing facilities nd popular culture that people DO instead of just consume.
"We waste money on lots of things that enrich rich people" worsens the offense to progressive values, BTW.
And --- SPD. 20% use of force illegal. don't we have to hold mcginn accountable, since he was in charge and since he fights the basic conclusion that there is a problem to this day? he is a constitutional rights violations enabler dude -- not progressive!
That's just one example, but McGinn is really great on climate and increasing Seattle's reputation as a leader on the issue. Here is a link to 350.org for more info: http://350.org/en/about/blogs/seattle-ma…
Whenever someone talks about transit or the environment, it's a no-brainer. McGinn's clearly the right candidate for them. With housing affordability, it's a slightly more complicated discussion but many people, including myself and the Low Income Housing Institute, strongly believe McGinn is the best candidate on this issue as well.
And with police reform. Yeah, I said it. This is the most warped conversation people have on the city level. We've had problems with police force for a long while, well before McGinn held office. But some very high profile examples have finally pushed this to the forefront of the conversation. An emboldened DoJ helps this as well (again, that's a good thing). Murray made a comment at one of the forum about Seattle being a rare city to be under this investigation, but the DoJ has expanded their police department investigations/monitoring to an unprecedented extent in recent years. We're one of 17 cities in the nation that had one initiated in just the last couple years.
When people harp on McGinn for not doing enough on police reform, it's generally about heads not rolling fast enough (and with the officer's guild/union rules in general, this isn't something a Mayor can just decree with impunity). Or it's about not being satisfied with the frequency and degree of condemnation (this is all perception-based, and can be refuted with a quick googling). Strangely absent from the conversation is the community police commission, the steady march of revisions and reforms, and the insistence that the department and local advocacy groups -- particularly from communities of color -- have a seat at the table and are helping craft sustainable, long-term solutions to reform.
It's frustrating, because this isn't a conversation you can have with rapid-fire soundbites and justifiable anger at embarrassing misuse of force and judgment by some in the SPD. But the truth of the matter is that the Mayor's done more substantial work toward true, sustainable reform than any Seattle mayor in recent memory. This is a major reason why I support him.
How much CO2 did that reduce?
I think he depends on Wikipedia to tell him what's going on.