After Allegations of Developer Blackmail, Mayor Backs Away from Deal on Project Across from City Hall

Comments

1
Murray: "They do not represent the values of our city."

Actually, they do represent the values of the city. Everybody knows the developers have a "special relationship" with many of the power players in local politics. In this case, the developers in question were just amazingly stupid.
2
I don't know that Jon Grant comes out of this smelling like a rose. He's clearly involved in shady deals. He just chose to reveal one of them when it worked to his advantage.
3
@2, really? What shady deals do you think he's involved in? The developer just gave him the opportunity to rid himself of $200k in opposing funds, and he went directly to the press. What smells bad about that?
4
@3 Let's ask first why he's involved in the lawsuit in the first place. Was he protecting the tenants that live down in that hole? I have no inside information, but it seems like there's a lot of back room politics involved in this that hasn't come to the surface.
5
@4 He was the director of the Tenants Union at the time. The building was going to be chock-full of million dollar condos and NO affordable housing. The tenants made the collective decision to fight against this. Jon was fighting for affordable housing to be included in the development.
6
@5 He didn't have any power to add affordable housing in the building (most of which was going to be office anyway). Only the power to stop it. How does that help any tenants? Of course I'd strongly argue that any unit keeps a lower-income household from being displaced (that well-off household will just pick an existing unit in the city if we don't add supply). But even without that argument he wasn't helping anyone.

And when someone without legal standing files a lawsuit that stops a huge project and leaves us with a big hole in the ground, I have to ask what his angle is. Saying it helps the tenants is just a lie.
8
Matt, get back to your tedious drainage plans.

Everyone else, let's celebrate a rare victory against the corporatocracy that has long ruled Seattle.

And, needless to say, #ElectJonGrant!
9
@6:

If Grant is so "powerless" why did Mr. Allen just attempt to blackmail him into trying to persuade the organization he used to run into dropping a lawsuit against his company? That seems like a pretty obvious acknowledgement on their part of just how much power THEY ascribe to the Tenants Union, and Grant's presumed influence over them.
10
Tim Ceis, the lobbyist mentioned in the article, was Deputy Mayor under Greg Nickels. Further proof of the developer/city government connection.
11
According to the Seattle Times, Grant was meeting with campaign volunteers at the Beacon Hill Coffee Shop where Allen approached him on Saturday. So presumably, it wouldn't have been that difficult for Allen to figure out on his own that he might be able to see Grant face to face if he went to that location at that time. Doesn't sound like any sort of cloak and dagger stuff to me.
12
Oh for God's sake. Just sell that stupid lot off at fair market value and let whoever can afford to build something there do it. They're probably more worried about the view from the Mayor's office than anything else.
13
Oh for God's sake. Just sell that stupid lot off at fair market value, and let whoever can afford to build something there. The hand-wringers at City Hall are probably more concerned about the view from the Mayor's office across the street than anything else.
14
Oh dear. Sorry for the double comment.
15
@14
You never talk too much, Ms. Exotic.
Even when it is almost pure repetition.
16
'In response to the allegations, the mayor announced today that he wants the city to cut ties with the developer in question as soon as possible.

"I am extremely disappointed by these questionable actions," Mayor Ed Murray said today.'

Why, Is he holding out for more money?
17
"And when someone without legal standing files a lawsuit that stops a huge project,,,"

If that someone didn't have legal standing, the lawsuit would have been dismissed. It wasn't.
18
@17 I guess that's why he's Matt the Engineer and not Matt the Lawyer.
19
@17/18 It was dismissed. Because the Tenant Union didn't have standing. They're appealing.