Mayor Greg Nickels has stated repeatedly that his proposal to increase regulations on nightlife is actually meant to help clubs. By holding clubs to certain standards, Nickels has argued, the proposal will improve the overall business climate for clubs that follow the rules.

But a briefing paper produced by mayoral staffer Regina LaBelle (and obtained through a public-records request) reveals that if the mayor's ordinance was in effect, a huge number of existing clubs could have been shut down for violations in 2005 and 2006. Of 81 specific establishments the city identified as "very likely" to fall under nightlife regulations, more than half had two or more liquor-code violations for "allowing or engaging in criminal or disorderly conduct"—the threshold for suspending a nightlife license for 30 days. (Other violations that would fall under the new rules were also common.) Extrapolating out to the 200 to 300 clubs expected to fall under the new rules, that means that a majority of clubs in Seattle could, theoretically, be shut down under the mayor's proposal. The city's rejoinder has been that officials aren't required to yank the license of a club that violates the rules, and that the first few violations only lead to suspension. But the fact remains that the new nightlife license would give the city a tool to suspend clubs' licenses with very little provocation—and suspension, for small businesses with little financial breathing room, is as good as pulling the license entirely. Moreover, giving the city discretion to shut down clubs could open the door to discriminatory treatment of clubs the city (or neighborhood residents) want to see closed down.

Council Member Richard McIver isn't exactly adored by low-income-housing advocates, but he's allied himself with them on at least one issue: the proposed Goodwill development on South Dearborn Street and Rainier Avenue South, which would include a big-box Target, more than 2,000 parking spaces, and only a relative handful of low-income housing units. Last week, McIver proposed a resolution that could prevent the property from being rezoned as "mixed use" in the future—a prerequisite for the Goodwill development. In a letter to council urban planning committee chair Peter Steinbrueck, McIver said he did not want the council to rezone the Dearborn site until the city had completed its industrial lands study and Livable South Downtown plan later this summer.

Steinbrueck has spent the past three budget cycles fighting to save the city's crossing-guard program. (The city should fund crossing guards, he says, because the streets belong to the city, not the school district.) With funding from the city's Families and Education Levy running out (the levy paid for crossing guards for just two years) the school district is once again lobbying the council to fund the $500,000 annual program, which used to be funded by the city budget. "We're supposed to be the pedestrian-safety city council, and we cut the one program directly associated with pedestrian safety for school-age kids," Steinbrueck says. "What does that say about us?"