You know what also saves Teresa from a "pro-business" label? Accepting zero dollars from corporations. Just because she doesn't divisively trumpet it at every opportunity as a central campaign plank doesn't mean her grassroots aren't legit.

http://web6.seattle.gov/ethics/elections…

Teresa's also received $128K to date in Democracy Vouchers to Jon's $150K so this narrative of "populist vs. Big Labor" is bogus. It's just one candidate has a broad base encompassing both grassroots *and* organized labor. http://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher/…

You know, I'd prefer Jon Grant - we need somebody focused on housing more than labor (though we also need somebody keeping tabs on labor) - but, I wouldn't mind Mosqueda. In the primaries, she was my second choice.

Can both camps keep it clean and fight over the issues this year? I really liked how the Jayapal/Walkinshaw battle happened last year until Brady had to start some last minute mudslinging. I know mudslinging is traditional, but it was a nice campaign for such a long time.

Just curious. Does every Seattle City Council member need to represent a "group?" It's why I voted for Sara Nelson. The "group" she sort of represents, or at least comes from, is that of being a small business owner. Considering that for all the things our liberal city wants to spend money on, perhaps we should have a voice on the council that at least understands the needs of businesses. You know, employers of people other than those who work for government agencies.

I decided not to spend my Democracy Vouchers until the general election, and now it will be easy. I'll just give them all to Mosqueda. Not only is she a solid candidate for the council, but Grant is an idiot. He fails to grasp the fact that the primary cause of the current Seattle housing crisis is that way more people want to live here than there are places to live. The city prevents property owners from adding places to live in various ways. They restrict the number of apartments per fl… and add density limits and parking mandates… on low rise apartments. Of course the worst set of limits involve the single family zones. Grant doesn't mention them at all -- ignoring roughly 2/3 of the private land in the city.

Without a doubt there will be people who can't afford to live in the city, even if they built more apartments. There always have been. But unless we allow more people to build more places, the middle class gets priced out, which means levies paying for lower class housing become ever more expensive. The result is a lottery system, where only a handful of cheap places exist, and the vast majority of the population pays way too much.