Hey, SECB, it's not that I "don't like you" personally. It's that you falsely represent me. "Bill Bradburd is a condescending, obstructionist NIMBY creep who resents newcomers and wants to "put a tarp on" neighborhoods like Capitol Hill that he thinks are growing too fast. That's not how living in a city works, Bill."

Let's parse this:

I'll cop to condescending. Particularly when talking to certain journalists that have a narrow understanding of land use policy and simply believe that if we build more it will make housing cheaper, or that density in and of itself is the sole marker of success. Let me ask you this (in a condescending tone): "what is the density of Capitol Hill?, and what would you like it to be?, and over what time period?". Because this is what leads to planning for transit infrastructure, schools, etc. And will help assess how much displacement your growth will cause. I prefer to talk in specifics (unlike my opponent who only talks policy in platitudes).

I'll cop to obstructionist. I helped stop a 2,800 parking space big box mall in Little Saigon that had no housing. Bad urbanism, eh? I also helped keep corporate logos off our downtown skyline. Perhaps our corporate overlords thought that obstructionist. And a list of other ill-conceived policies. Let us all know which of these you favored and perhaps I'll apologize.

In my neighborhood I have publicly supported (and/or worked to establish) two Nickelsville encampments, an undocumented day laborer center, a homeless rest stop, and a mental health crisis facility (3 doors down from my house). Hardly NIMBY.

You'll have to check in with my 8 year old to compare notes on whether I am a creep. She says I am sometimes, usually around things like stealing her Halloween candy.

I hardly resent newcomers. The household density in my neighborhood has doubled since I've been here. How many newcomers have moved into Dan's neighborhood? You're regurgitating some pretty heavy Valdez talking points here.

"Wants to "put a tarp on" neighborhoods like Capitol Hill that he thinks are growing too fast". Well, some good research here, lifting a quote from a summary of an interview with The Urbanist. Perhaps context would be good. What I was describing was that for some neighborhoods like Ballard and Capitol Hill, where growth is 3 and 4 times projected growth through 2024, we should consider the impacts to these communities - are transit systems working, do we have adequate amenities to support that population, etc. And is the community dealing well with all that change. Jane Jacobs (who never mentions "vibrant") talks about the fabric of the community. I was suggesting that after all of that growth, "putting a tarp on the neighborhood" (using things like raised linkage fees to steer development elsewhere) to allow new businesses to establish, transportation patterns to work out, and for community to build (rather than bash or hate) would be good for it, AND that we should be channeling growth into other neighborhoods that are underdeveloped anyway (like the south end light rail station areas). It's an urban planning concept of identifying areas of stability and areas of change (he said condescendingly) to help focus investments and plan for growth. We have done a poor job of balancing growth and we have had negative impact on some neighborhoods. Its not the "growing too fast" that's the problem. I don't give a hoot about how fast it happens -- unless a by-product is displacement, stratospheric rents and cost of living, congestion, inadequate transit, and aggression amongst neighbors and so on. Since that seems to be happening, I say let's slow down and figure out how to mitigate these. There are plenty of other places to develop in the city.

"That's not how living in a city works, Bill." - I've lived in big cities my whole life (Chicago, NY, Philly, San Francisco). Probably more years than the SECB has combined. Stop being so fucking condescending.

Oh. And stop by and I'll buy you a drink or 3. November 4 is a new day...

Always great to see a candidate getting mad as hell about an internet blog in the comments section the day before the election! I'm glad you're spending your time posting 1000 word screeds here because I'd rather you spend your time doing that than getting-out-the-vote for the 15% of voters who supported you in the primary

@1 tl;dr

Sounds like a hard night for transit users. Maybe Sawant after class and then Maddox if I catch the 16

O'Brien's is at Peddlers? I was pretty sure I saw a giant Weatbrook sign propped up against their roof.

Ugh. Uuuuuugh. Of course Bagshaw is partying with Burgess. Please, please, please, someone on the left challenge her in the 7th next time! I would really like to be able to vote for someone other than her or a write-in protest vote.

I wrote in Mike McGinn (even though I'm pretty sure he doesn't live in the 7th), but I could have just as easily voted for "A sufficient quantity of dirt to fill that hole under downtown".

I'm sure the candidate in the photo is a fine guy and all, but I'd be just as happy to party with the fellow he's side-hugging, thank you so very much.

@5: McGinn lives in O'Brien's district, thanks to bullshit gerrymandering by Faye Garneau's district elections pawns.

@6 - Zach is definitely a treat to party with!

@7 - How about some campaign donations to get him an apartment downtown? There's plenty of time before the next city council elections to get him a place, maybe in my building.

I love how everyone wants to have Seattle more "affordable". And I really enjoy the fact not a single candidate has defined what "affordable" should be in real dollars.

Talk about blowing smoke up a bunch of liberal-wannabe's butholes!!

@4 Yep, unless that little room on the east side of the building is separate from Peddler. Weird.

I hope that means O'Brien is confident enough that he's partying there as a big "fuck you" to whoever put up that sign, and that he's right to be so. I guess I'll head down there in a few hours to see.