Sorry if I'm not impressed with any of this. All of this sounds like pandering all right -- pandering to folks who think that the only way to solve this problem is with more regulations, all in the name of sounding more "progressive". This will only help a handful of people, while most have to put with up sky high rents (similar to what happens when rent control is implemented). There are alternatives, like the ones mentioned here: http://daily.sightline.org/blog_series/l…. This would enable thousands of new units where most of the land is -- in areas zoned for single family housing.

If we want to do something about high rent in this city -- if we really think rent is too damn high, then maybe we should consider recommendations made by the book with the same title: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-…. Many of these recommendations would mean that neighborhoods would change. People would move into neighborhoods, sharing houses or living next to them. It might be a bit harder to find a parking spot.

I suppose it is just a lot easier to blame landlords and developers.

If you "protect" renters you'll just end up with even more haves and have-nots.

The only way to be fair, is to make more Seattle.

Grant is a one-issue candidate.

Seattle has many needs right now, and the last thing that we need is someone on the council that does not have the range of experiences that makes for a good choice of candidate. Sure, we all want better rent controls, but now that Burgess has done this, is it relevant any longer what Grant has to say?

And, maybe it's time for The Stranger to look deeper into issues? Effectively writing off Roderick as "rocker" shows that someone at The Stranger does not know enough about this candidate. We need thinkers on the council, not just single-issue ideologues.

Cute headline. Since when was raising a mere $2,500 in one month - as your hero Jonathan Grant accomplished - considered gaining traction? Grant won't even make it out of the primary.

Yes, I know, like President Obama, you are not a president only to black men’s needs. But we’re dying out here and you won’t set us free in the Emerald City with our hearts, minds, and pride.

This letter is about racial and gender discriminations against dark-skinned “gaijin or 外人” applicants in senior housing. Urban myth dictates that the city’s ratio of senior African-American men does not fulfill their percentages as residents of Seattle Senior Housing Program. Black veterans like myself, are specifically not counted among the bureaucratic and demographic choices for living in pre-ordained senior housing units.

As shared frustrations find truth among senior black housing applicants, the belief that expurgates are guided to segregate mature blacks as “अछूतों or untouchables” for senior housing placement has become legion. This divisive rumor (supported by U.S. Department of Justice hearsay) also applies to tax-exempt status beneficiaries of non-profit senior-housing edifices. And to top it off, Seattle’s urban developers are renowned for having a finite selection process that does not favor African-American seniors. Black fixed-income-housing applicants are not easily welcomed in new dwellings comprised of monochromatic residents. Is this civil rights misinformation from malcontents or can you disavow this knowledge?

Not one to believe in “步行 or hakgwai” discrimination, I researched federal guidelines regarding the use of federal funds for public housing. It seems that client placement by cultural demonization should not play a role in homogenous selections. A further review by the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), along with the Northwest Fair Housing Alliance, shows a pattern of discrimination where fair housing complaints have increased. Can we agree that government sponsored segregation is worse then gentrification and economic transformations? There are multiple agendas at play that camouflages unorganized racist intentions. Harassment and intimidating selections of African-American residents in public housing is not uncommon according to the Fair Housing Act. Is this incomprehensible or inconceivable in “liberal” Seattle?

My optimistic wife and I are eager to believe that we have chosen a diversely occupied senior building in the pedestrian-friendly Capitol Hill community. Should we be confident that our eventually heterogeneous selection would be without cultural bias? A personal examination and review of public records determines a disproportionate little number of African-Americans lives in senior housing located in redlined neighborhoods.

Many black clients are under the false impression that city housing counselors are idiosyncratic and that excluding marrón oscuro “mayates” is a market driven policy akin to redlining. Do senior housing building managers advocate representing the unique diversity of the city through their responsibilities? Does a clients housing selection given based on individual choice or is the client selected by race, ethnicity, gender, or religion? Diversity gives residents a wonderful opportunity to define, witness and participate, in the rituals, meals, and virtues that unite Seattle. It does not give bureaucratic totalitarians an opportunity to extend their Neanderthal values and intolerable morals to this Vietnam Veteran. Democracy without guidance leads to greed, racism and deception. Democracy without guidance does not build village communities.

Are senior African-American applicants to senior housing urged to stay content with their second-class status until social progress naturally takes its course over next century? Diversity inspires the human spirit and invigorates civic goodness. Please consider using your authority to eliminate sexism apartheid against African-American men.

In conclusion to the aforementioned conversation, African-Americans already experience horrendous stereotyping from homegrown crackers, we do not need to import redneck attitudes from other cultures.

Ice Bear approves. We need more Pander Bears.