@1 Yikes! Editing error. Corrected and thanks.

She's just not marginalized enough to the fringe left. I think she's going to be a great mayor, which is why I voted for her. The left has thoroughly lost it's mind, especially her win Seattle. There's nothing productive about their messaging, it's nothing but complaining, with ZERO work to make things change. It's pathetic.

"Winning 56 percent of the vote, Durkan begins her first term with a mandate..."

Ugh. Every politician everywhere starts their first term overstating their mandate, and then has to back down when the reality of difficult governance sets in.

There were two candidates. One of them was going to get more than 50% of the vote. 56% is actually kind of weak. If that was a bond measure, which requires 60%, it would have failed. It could just be that she was considered the lesser of two evils. If you get north of 60%, feel free to claim some sort of groundswell, but otherwise tread carefully...

Pretty boring interview. There are much worse things than that.

What's done is done. Hopefully Seattle Progressives will continue to hold her feet to the fire. I personally intend to write her office an email a week about Net Neutrality and Community Broadband, at least until I get a response.... Nothing but silence so far.

How can you ask Mayor Durkan about sexual misconduct without asking about her accepted endorsement from Ed Murray and his financial backers that won her the election? He's the liberal Roy Moore.

With regard to quality of writing and editorial thinking the Seattle Stranger has been in decline for some time. I appears that the downward movement is accelerating with the employment of people like Steven Hsieh.

"Can you tell us a little bit about your dog, Gumbo? Will he be allowed into City Hall?

Gumbo is a piebald dachshund. He is very sweet at home but very protective. Like many dachshunds, he does not view himself as small—and is ready to take on even a mastiff. Unfortunately, city rules allow only service animals in City Hall. Maybe we should revisit that—animals can have a civilizing effect!"

Heh. As if City Hall doesn't already allow yap dog "protesters" to enter.

Seattle inconsiderate conformity, thy name is "Dog Mom".

Then again, Seattle like their pet pedos (cough Murray cough) and their pet felon junkie hobos, so why not allow everybody's yap dog into City Hall? Gone to the dogs? Indeed.

@1 and @4, there was a 37% voter turnout statewide, the lowest they say since the 1930's. Oddly enough, that was around the birth of journalism as we know it today. King County had a 43% turnout, she won 56% of that voting population. Boil that down, it's 122,442 votes for Durkan out of 1,279,345 possible votes. That leaves over a million people who didn't vote at all. If my math is correct that means less than 10% of our voting population elected Mayor Durkan.

@8, I think Steven Hsieh is doing a fine job. Since they abandoned Oliver I'm worried about their direction. They seem to be hitting way far left so often to the point it appears unconstitutional. To make up for it they keep writing these soft everyday updates that wouldn't be out of place from the far far right wing at mynorthwest.com. I would like to see them do some heavy hitting investigative journalism, I believe that's up to Mr. Savage.

@10 “If my math is correct that means less than 10% of our voting population elected Mayor Durkan.”

Your math is not correct.

56% of those who voted did so for Durkan. Total actual voters are 43% of registered voters. Therefore, roughly 56% * 43% = 24% of registered Seattle voters voted for Durkan and roughly 44% * 43% = 19% of registered Seattle voters voted for Moon.

@11 thanks for letting me know. I certainly don't want to get it wrong now or in the future, and I am no math whiz. I triple checked my thoughts before posting from the official state results here

https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/2017….

It says there are 1,279,345 registered King County voters. Durkan only received 122,442 votes from the registered voters. To the average citizen wouldn't that add up to less than 10% of the amount of registered voters?

To clarify, not all registered voters voted for Mayor. According to the official state website there were only 217,693 cast votes for Seattle Mayor. That's 17% of the voting population. The 43% overall voter turnout wouldn't apply in the mayors race because 43% didn't vote in the mayors race. Only 17% bothered to vote for Mayor, which if I'm correct 56% * 17% = less than 10% of the registered voters.

Again, check here.

https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/2017…

Does someone have a link to learn how to hyperlink on a Mac? I cannot figure it out. Someone showed me control+K but I think it only works in word or on a pc.

@10. I your calculations are correct, A whole hell of a lot of people didn't vote. Don't vote, don't get a say, simple as that.

Every politician everywhere starts their first term overstating their mandate...

The reporter used the word "mandate"; Mayor Durkan did not use the word, nor did she suggest she believes she has a mandate. She explicitly mentioned reaching out to Council members, implying she intends to govern by consensus.

56% is actually kind of weak.

It's 12.5% more than Moon received. A double-digit margin of victory is actually pretty solid.

(By what margin did you believe Moon would win?)

I personally intend to write her office an email a week...

So, you weren't personally intending to do anything useful, then?

(I've heard there's this thing called the inter-whatever, by which you can contact lots of folks who agree with you and join with them to do things. But you don't seem to know anything about that.)

How can you ask Mayor Durkan about sexual misconduct without asking about her accepted endorsement from Ed Murray and his financial backers that won her the election?

Yes, we should examine how Ed Murray's endorsement and support helped Mayor Durkan trounce her well-funded opponent by double-digit margins. Maybe we'll get some insight into why Ed Murray's endorsement was not a political kiss of death. We may actually discover Seattle's citizens had some careful skepticism about the accusations against then-Mayor Murray, and did not believe the unverifiable tales told by unreliable sources. We may learn they ignored Seattle's idiotic chattering political class and the idiotic things they chatter, viz:

He's the liberal Roy Moore.

Roy Moore's accusers will be surprised to learn a majority of them are middle-aged male felons.

Speaking of whom:

...(cough Murray cough)...

It sounds as if unguardedly swallowing the emissions of male convicts has given you a disease of some kind. You should get yourself tested.

@12: Your numbers are still wrong:

It says there are 1,279,345 registered King County voters. Durkan only received 122,442 votes from the registered voters. To the average citizen wouldn't that add up to less than 10% of the amount of registered voters?

You do understand that King County has a much larger population than Seattle, right? Please tell us you do.

Look, most of the commenters here want to minimize Mayor Durkan's victory. You do too. But first getting the numbers right and then drawing conclusions from them makes you look a lot less silly then starting with the conclusion and making the numbers fit. Trust me on this.

@14 I'm not sure what your point is.

You're stating that King County has a larger population than Seattle. I am not trying to minimize Durkin's win by no means. I have no agenda other than learning. I am a Journalism student and have studied law & ethics and when people throw out numbers I fact check them. I checked the numbers and less than 10% of the registered voters bothered to vote for Mayor. I also called the SOS office and they confirmed only King County residents can vote for the Seattle mayor race.

The sooner we acknowledge that statistic the sooner we can identify what isn't working and find better solutions. Until then people claiming that the Mayor's office was won with 56% of the voting population are using a false portrayal of the facts and are only fueling Trump's strategies.

My conclusion is that people aren't engaging in the political process. And for the record I have a green card. I find American Politics fascinating. People hold all of the power yet do nothing out of apathy. Then there are people like yourself, who attempt at being rude and condescending with some knowledge. That might work most of the time, but it only fills my tank with the notion that you are inept at basic social interactions and ignorant to the point of harm.

If you have any further thoughts here's the number to the Secretary of State. They are courteous and helpful.

https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/Contact…

Whoops I need to correct my statement I got ahead of myself. There was a 17% voter overall turnout for the Mayor race and Durkan won with less than 10%.

@15 Why are you calculating Durkan’s vote % using the number of registered voters in King County, instead of more-simply using the number of registered voters in Seattle?

There was a 17% voter overall turnout for the Mayor race and Durkan won with less than 10%.

Seattle has 435,007 registered voters, of whom 217,693 voted for either Durkan or Moon. Therefore, turnout was 50% in Seattle (higher than in King County as a whole). Durkan got 28% of the registered voters in Seattle, and Moon got 21%.

Until then people claiming that the Mayor's office was won with 56% of the voting population...

... are exactly correct. Duran received 56% of the votes cast in Seattle -- by definition, Seattle's "voting population".

...inept at basic social interactions and ignorant to the point of harm.

Thanks for playing.

@ 15 & 18 turns out I'm a dork. I called the SOS office asking if only king county voters can vote for mayor. I should have asked if king county voters can vote for mayor. I've never seen a ballot, I thought since the powers in Seattle seem to pass legislature that taxes its county residents there might be more of a two way communication between the voters and Seattle. I didn't know that Seattle voters are outnumbered by king county voters 2:1. If they ever decide to split and create a new county it would be double the size of Seattle.

Game over.

#18: Tensor, your candidate won. We all know that(her margin would likely have been significantly smaller if Moon's campaign hadn't been based almost entirely on her own donations rather than on the creation of an actual volunteer base and ground game for that base to carry out). Why, when your candidate won, are you sounding so vindictive? It's not as though no one had any right to run against Durkan, or that it was an affront to her dignity that over 43% of those who did vote voted against her.

Durkan's in. She's got her chance. What's the point of continuing to be in attack mode regarding her opponents and in particular regarding the "activist left"? What did the "activist left" ever support that was so intolerable? There HAS to be someone standing with tenants against slumlords. There HAD to be an increase in the local minimum wage. There was good reason to oppose the insanely expensive proposal for a massive new concrete correctional palace, an absurd proposal when Seattle's crime rate is basically static and the last quarter of a century taught all of us that mass incarceration does nothing to reduce crime-that it may, in fact, increase it.

And there had to be people organizing against the sweeps in the homeless camps because the sweeps are barbaric(they don't even give people time to collect their belongings before the sweeps occur-they simply destroy the last possessions the homeless have and in so doing destroy what little chance many of them have for survival).

We saw what happened when things were done your way in a large city-the Koch/Giuliani era in NYC, when there was all out war against the poor and against people of color and the answer to every municipal problem was a nightstick cracking somebody's skull or everybody in black and latinx neighborhoods being frisked by the cops simply because they were black or latinx and happened to be in those neighborhoods. By the time Bill DiBlasio, a decent human being with strong progressive values and the courage to carry most of them through, was finally elected, NYC had been reduced to being a city run solely for billionaires, a city of dreary conformist soullessness. Why on Earth would you want to inflict all of that on Seattle?

The homeless aren't the problem. the system that creates homelessness is the problem.

...her margin would likely have been significantly smaller if Moon's campaign hadn't been based almost entirely on her own donations rather than on the creation of an actual volunteer base and ground game for that base to carry out...

Of *course* she would have won by much, much more, if only, if only, if only... you people just never give up, do you? There's always another excuse for why Seattle's diverse, liberal, well-educated, well-traveled electorate rejects your great ideas, isn't there? The problem is never with your ideas, it just cannot be. A well-funded candidate pushing your ideas lost a low-turnout election by double-digit margins, and all you can do is sit here and try to find ways to minimize that harsh fact.

Do you know who actively and repeatedly sabotaged Moon's efforts to create "an actual volunteer base and ground game..."? Nikkita Oliver, that's who. You must be so very, very proud of your former candidates, demonstrating how best to work together for the common good of our city.

Why are we rejecting your ideas? How can that possibly be?

... there had to be people organizing against the sweeps in the homeless camps because the sweeps are barbaric(they don't even give people time to collect their belongings before the sweeps occur-they simply destroy the last possessions the homeless have and in so doing destroy what little chance many of them have for survival).

Yes, Ivy, you talk a very good game. Chanting three-word slogans at City Hall, then going home to your comfy, warm beds to bask in your smug glow of moral superiority just feels great, doesn't it? Too bad your fellow human beings are still suffering in the cold, dark rain, atop heroin syringes and actual shit in a camp full of chopped-up bicycles. (Notice Ivy's self-proclaimed compassion never actually extends to the law-abiding citizens who had once used those bicycles to commute to work and feed their families? Why is that, Ivy?)

Where you got the idea I opposed the minimum wage increase (in fact, a search of my comments here would have quickly revealed I strongly support higher minimum wages) or that I ever even used the term "activist left" are questions only you can answer.

I'm all on board for solving our city's problems. Let me know when you get down off your high horse to become part of our solutions. Right now, you're part of the problem.

Mandatory Voting would change a LOT of federal, state, and local electional results . . . . --- https://www.fairvote.org

What does "getting down off your high horse" even mean? It's not as if there are any problems in Seattle that can be solved by letting the cops break heads, or by settling for less-than-halfway measures.

Also, Kshama has won two terms on the city council(the first in a citywide race)and there are several other people on the council and in the legislature from Seattle districts that are close to her on the issues. The ideas of the Left are popular. I'm guessing you're just mad because the don't give the rich special deference...and since the rich aren't involved in doing anything progressive in Seattle-other than on a handful of boutique "lifestyle liberal" issues on which they aren't asked to give up anything, why SHOULD the rich be given special deference? They only do what they are forced to do from below.

And nobody is saying not to do anything to help people In the camps, it's just that we all know that nothing punitive or judgmental CAN help them. The Left has proposed a lot of things to help the homeless. It's just that they don't join you in hating the homeless.

BTW, it's not Nikkita's fault that Moon didn't have a ground game from the moment she declared. It wasn't an option for Nikkita to endorse Moon at the start instead of running-Moon was never intrinsically superior to Nikkita as a candidate and would not have embraced the things Nikkita, and more importantly her party, supports.

Your candidate won. That means you have no reason to be taunting people about the campaign anymore.

BTW...who the fuck is "Ivy"?

What does "getting down off your high horse" even mean?

In your case? Let's start with your not lazily making ignorant assumptions about your fellow citizens, then presumptuously lecturing us on the basis of your abject ignorance.

Kshama has won two terms on the city council(the first in a citywide race)...

Yes, I'm well aware of her election record, especially since I voted for her in that citywide election. Why did you bring this up? Of what possible relevance does it have to Mayor Durkan's solid victories over two candidates you favored?

Why did you bring up the minimum wage? Even a moment's research at this site would have shown you I have strongly advocated high minimum wages. Why do you believe I'm some kind of plutocratic enabler? Because I noted how woefully ignorant Nikkita Oliver was of the city whose mayor she asked us voters to make her? Why do you assume I hate the homeless? Do you know what I would do if I really hated the homeless? I would consign them to filthy, disease-ridden, crime-infested camps -- just like the "Stop the Sweeps" crowd is trying to do. Do you know why the sweeps are popular? Because no one needs a Master's degree in sociology, social work, or city history to know that illegal encampments are not any step on any path out of homelessness.

When I wrote of Nikkita Oliver sabotaging Cary Moon's chances, I was referring to examples such as this:

Writing off both Moon and Durkan as white supremacists hurts Moon more than Durkan.

Moon did everything she could to appeal to voters who were inspired by Oliver, and Oliver relentlessly used dog-whistle language about racism to tell those voters not to vote for Moon. Again, you must have been so proud, watching Oliver torpedo Moon's candidacy.

Your candidate won.

Well, four years ago that was true of Murray, and yet he left office without even the slightest presence of due process or democracy. So maybe I'm a little sensitive towards attempts to de-legitimatize a new mayor.

I wasn't actually trying to de-legitimize her...she won...all I was doing was challenging the narrative that this result somehow meant Seattle had collectively shouted "fuck YOU, Left!"

As to Murray-his situation has nothing whatsoever in common with Durkan-even without the formality of a trial-which would have dragged on for years and done nothing but poison everything in the city-t's pretty obvious that he's guilty...you wouldn't find THAT many people suddenly deciding to make false accusations. What message would it have sent to dismissively say "innocent until proven guilty", have the entire structure in Seattle effectively take the side of a predator against his victims, and achieve nothing in doing so but giving some right-wing demagogue the chance to steal the mayor's race on "traditional values" demagogy. Once the accusations started, there was no chance of Murray ever being re-elected, and due-process purism in THIS case would simply have guaranteed that no one who's victim was a public figure in Seattle would ever take the risk of pressing charges.

I'm gobsmacked that you seem to think that Murray was a victim. Please tell me you don't think there could still have been a case for re-electing the man.

I brought up the minimum wage because it's one of the main issues people attack the Left for championing-a lot of "mainstream liberal" types still want $15/hr rolled back or watered down to a wage hike too trivial to matter. It sounded like the sort of thing you would be dismissive about, given your generally sneering tone about leftists and your smug remarks about who is and is not a "grown-up". If you're fine with $15, fine.

I am still kind of puzzled as to why, as a Durkan supporter, you'd seemingly be bearing a grudge about how NIkkita treated Moon. It sounds as though you still think NIkkita shouldn't even have run but should simply have thrown her all-out support to Moon at the outset. Given that her relationship to Moon helped your candidate, shouldn't you actually be grateful to Nikkita for her approach? Your vehemence on that sounds as though you think Nikkita should simply have deferred to Moon and withdrawn from the race the moment Moon declared. Also, it sounds as though you think it was somehow Nikkita's fault that Moon didn't have a volunteer base. In what universe could Nikkita be held responsible for Moon's decision to run a campaign based almost solely on her capacity to self-finance? And in what universe was Moon simply entitled from the start to the votes of NIkkita's supporters?

Moon lost because Moon never had it together as a candidate. That's on Moon and nobody else but Moon.

And again...who the fuck is "Ivy"?

...all I was doing was challenging the narrative that this result somehow meant Seattle had collectively shouted "fuck YOU, Left!"

What narrative is that? Mayor Durkan is an openly gay former activist who has sued the police for mistreatment of minority citizens. In almost any other city in America, she would have had no chance of getting elected; here, she's pretty mainstream. I voted for her with the intent she actually *do* all of the things Murray merely talked about. For example, providing our homeless persons with real paths to escaping their hellish lives is just one of the many things we need do as a city; Murray talked a big game on that, but did little beyond sweeping some illegal encampments.

"...even without the formality of a trial..."

No one has ever made an accusation against Murray under oath in a court of law. Two of his accusers each had the chance to do so, and each declined.

(And a trial is not a "formality," it's the only true method for obtaining justice humans have ever devised. That you could so flippantly declare someone's guilt whilst simultaneously admitting he'll never see justice really says more about you than you probably want the rest of your fellow citizens to know.)

...you wouldn't find THAT many people suddenly deciding to make false accusations.

First, five persons is not "THAT many," not when considering Murray was an elected official for decades, and the most successful gay politician in Washington State's history; such a career will make lots of enemies. Second, at least three of his five accusers had well-documented ties to local anti-gay activists; do you believe that was a complete coincidence? Third, at least one of his accusers, Jeff Simpson, had first accused Murray (and another former foster parent) decades ago of molesting him; no criminal charges ever came of the investigations into either parent. (Simpson later lied about his accusations, falsely claiming he'd only ever accused Murray.) Fourth, criminals with histories of fraud are exactly the population most likely to make false reports of rape; at least three of Murray's accusers have felony convictions for crimes of deceit. Fifth, the negative and false stereotype of the gay man as sexual predator is still very much with us today; the accusations all fit this stereotype. Sixth, we're to believe a serial sexual predator just suddenly stopped offending one day, never to offend again for decades in public view? Nothing about the accusations against Murray would have stood up in court, which is why the "formality" of a trial never happened.

The citizens of Seattle largely ignored the accusations against Murray. The City Council never even began motions to impeach Murray, because there was no public support for such an action. Jenny Durkan accepted Murray's endorsement and assistance, and won comfortably. The unverifiable tales told by unreliable sources were never a factor in the election to replace Murray. It was a scandal manufactured for consumption by Seattle's idiotic chattering political class, who gullibly swallowed it whole; if the vast majority of citizens held any opinions of it, our resentment against removing an official we'd elected without our consent may have been the main force propelling Mayor Durkan into office. (Electing the second openly gay mayor in a row immediately after the first one was slimed for being gay certainly had a "f.u." vibe to it, did it not?)

Once the accusations started, there was no chance of Murray ever being re-elected,

(This from someone who just supported two losing mayoral candidates in a row.) We elected Murray's hand-picked successor pretty easily, did we not? Why was his endorsement helpful to Durkan's candidacy, instead of fatal to it? And again, you seem pretty cozy with the idea of accusations alone ending someone's career, with no trial of any kind. ("...due-process purism...") We pursue vigilante "justice" at our peril.

...have the entire structure in Seattle effectively take the side of a predator against his victims...

Unless Murray never actually assaulted anyone. Then his accusers are the predators, and he is the victim. Are you comfortable with ganging up on a victim?

...ever take the risk of pressing charges.

Um, his accusers declined their opportunities to make their accusations in a civil courtroom, and the statute of limitations had long since expired on any criminal case, so there was no way of "pressing charges."

(Also, has anyone ever thought about what false accusations of rape would do to future victims of real rapes? After all, it seems obvious the vast majority of citizens didn't take these accusations seriously.)

I'm gobsmacked that you seem to think that Murray was a victim.

So, if criminals accuse you of having attacked them decades ago, offering no proof and carefully avoiding making their accusations against you in court, will you will quit your job, abandon your career, all because persons convicted of felonious deceit seek to blame you for their sorry lots in life? It's a serious question.

Please tell me you don't think there could still have been a case for re-electing the man.

(Again, you are hardly any authority on who can get elected Mayor of Seattle.) Whether he was guilty of any of the accusations and whether he should have been re-elected are two entirely different questions, and we'll never know the answer to either. Since the long-ago crimes of which he was accused have nothing to do with his (lackluster) performance in office, these two questions should not even be considered together.

...a lot of "mainstream liberal" types still want $15/hr rolled back or watered down to a wage hike too trivial to matter.

Well, I've seen no efforts to reduce the minimum wage, and the only reason Seattle has a minimum wage below $15/hour is because politicians like Murray and Sawant got involved; having voted in Seattle's elections for over twenty-five years, I'm confident we would have passed a *real* $15 Now! wage all by ourselves, years ago.

It sounded like the sort of thing you would be dismissive about,

Whereas a glance at my comments, right here at this site, would have immediately shown you otherwise. But you didn't care enough to do even that. Why did you groundlessly attack someone who is willing to work with you on at least one issue you care about? Do you believe that's a path to realizing your goals for making ours a better city? You supported candidates in our recent mayoral elections, so you do seem to care about what happens here. Why operate on the basis of false and negative assumptions about your fellow citizens?

"Ivy R. Nightscales" is a nym of this commenter, who posts (oftentimes off-topic) about homeless sweeps, using language very similar to what you used in your comment, above. In Ivy's world, there are no criminals in the illegal encampments, and homelessness is entirely the fault of capitalism, not untreated mental illness or drug addiction.

For the record, I'd never heard of "Ivy" before your referenced her in this thread and am an entirely different person. Whatever you might think of me, I would never post here under more than one identity.

As to "groundless attacks", how else could you describe your collective denunciations of, apparently, everyone to the left of your comfort level? And your arrogant implication that only people who aren't part of the left qualify as "grown-ups"?

Or, for you matter, your implication that the Left has never offered proposals to deal with the problems? Kshama has offered proposals, so has Nikkita. They simply happen to be proposals you don't support.

Also, the Left isn't against taking real steps to help the homeless. It's just that sweeps aren't a step that has that effect. It should be possible to pick up the actual criminals in the camps without simply driving EVERYBODY away-and simply clearing out the camps, at a time when there are nowhere near-enough non-camp places for the homeless to sleep, is collective punishment, perhaps even collective persecution, causing increased suffering among ALL those in the camps for the crimes of some. It's not as though the non-criminal in the camps could stop the criminal, and it's not as though any poor people in history have ever been lifted out of any form of poverty by sanctimonious, judgmental "tough love" paternalism.

@31: Please provide quotes and links to the instances where I have done what you have described; I cannot respond to undefined accusations.

It's just that sweeps aren't a step that has that effect.

Sweeps don't improve our current situation; they stop it from getting worse. We're just lucky we're not dealing with a hepatitis outbreak like that which is taxing the public health system in California. Hopefully, Mayor Durkan will order every illegal encampment swept, every time, before we also have a public-health crisis exacerbating our homeless problem. Even talking as if illegal encampments are tolerable shows a shocking disregard for the basic human health of everyone in Seattle. Such talk is part of the problem, not part of any solution.

I am still kind of puzzled as to why, as a Durkan supporter, you'd seemingly be bearing a grudge about how NIkkita treated Moon.

Why was I not happy with Oliver's frivolous accusations of racism against other candidates? Was that a serious question?

It sounds as though you still think NIkkita shouldn't even have run but should simply have thrown her all-out support to Moon at the outset.

If I didn't want Moon to win, why would I have wanted her to obtain additional support from anyone, at any time? That makes no sense.

Given that her relationship to Moon helped your candidate, shouldn't you actually be grateful to Nikkita for her approach?

Why do I oppose false claims of racism in our civic dialog? Was that a serious question?

Your vehemence on that sounds as though you think Nikkita should simply have deferred to Moon and withdrawn from the race the moment Moon declared.

Ha, ha, ha. It was Oliver who claimed Moon and Durkan were racists for becoming mayoral candidates after Oliver had. (See the link I already provided.)

And in what universe was Moon simply entitled from the start to the votes of NIkkita's supporters?

She wasn't. One of the tests of leadership -- a test Oliver has now publicly failed -- is understanding that life often consists of an unpleasant decision to choose between unpalatable options. A test of political leadership in a democracy -- a more specific test, which Oliver has also now failed -- is the willingness and ability to sell a constituency on the need to make such an unpleasant decision.

Like it or not (and I don't, but I was on the losing side of that one) we have a top-two mayoral election system. Once voters had eliminated the other 19 candidates, the choice was Moon or Durkan. If Oliver really and truly believed that Moon was the better choice, then as a would-be leader, she had the responsibility to sell that choice to anyone who had wanted to vote for her in the general election.

I've read that Oliver was an inspirational candidate, one who received many votes from first-time or infrequent voters. If that is true, then working to keep such voters engaged in our civic dialog and in our democracy was another test of political leadership that Oliver failed. That her failures of leadership happened to help produce an outcome I wanted this time was merely a happy coincidence for me. An inspirational candidate who truly cares and is willing to make the hard choices could be a huge asset to our city -- and beyond. Perhaps Nikkita Oliver will someday be that candidate. The choice is hers.

...not as though any poor people in history have ever been lifted out of any form of poverty by sanctimonious, judgmental "tough love" paternalism.

So, in ten thousand years of recorded history, we can't find even one example of such a thing working? And if someone bothers to find the examples and provide them to you, you'll admit you were just slinging contrarian bullshit, right? Sure you will.

I've given plenty of money to the Missions over the years. My reward? People sitting in the Second Ave. protected bike lane, usually smoking, when I'm trying to commute to work the eco-friendly way. (Occasionally they do no-look dashes in front of my bike.) Seattle's taxpayers have spent tens of millions of dollars annually on homeless issues. Our reward? The problem goes from bad to worse, and adding insult to injury, folks like you, Ivy, and Council Member O'Brien tell us we just have to live with filthy, crime-ridden encampments spreading Hepatitis A.

Either suggest a viable path out of this, or keep quiet. Telling us we just have to keep paying to reduce our quality of life does not work any more.

OK...here's a viable path
1) Massive construction of low-cost or no-cost housing-it's always going to be a better investment to spend the money on housing people than on relying on the cops to keep "rolling the bums out of town", in the words of the Utah Phillips song. I don't like camps anymore than you do, but they exist because there's no place else at all for those people to live, and just getting rid of the camps leaves the homeless with no place to go at all.

2) Move further from law enforcement approaches to the drug problem and focus on what worked before the Right cut the funds for it-drug treatment centers. People were getting off of drugs when those centers were widely distributed...drug use started going up again when they were shut down and the bullshit "Just Say No" mindset took hold("Just Say No" was an idea so ridiculous and out of touch that it could only be introduced on a 1980's sitcom starring Gary Coleman).

3) Do what was supposed to be done and actually open neighborhood treatment centers for people with mental health issues. Whatever the NIMBYs thought would happen if those had been opened instead of being blocked, we are massively worse off on a social level because they weren't. And massive round-ups followed by mass institutionalization are not an option-there's no way to round-up THAT many people with mental issues even if sending them back to the Cuckoo's Nest(s) was a defensible option.

4)Active support by Mayor Durkan AND every other urban political leader in Washington state and all other places where homelessness exists for a national homelessness strategy. You are right to say that Seattle can't deal with this on its own...but it can't lead to any national change for the better for Seattle and other cities to decide to cease addressing it on any other level but that of sending in the damn cops.

That's a start.

If the approach Gavin Newsom and Rudy Giuliani used to these problems had worked(and it sounds like that's the approach you favor), there'd be no more homelessness in San Francisco or New York.