Burgess also supported what's commonly referred to as the Scofflaw Ordinance, whose supposed purpose was to force Seattle residents who ignored parking fines to pay up or get booted, but whose unfortunate (but possibly not in Burgess's opinion) result has been to deprive vehicle residents of their only homes.
"vehicle residents" - oh give me a break. you park illegally, you get fined, you pay - that's life, even for the poor poor innocent car campers.
Just like the Soviet Union, a new leader every week. Well...until it collapsed
it looks like he's in a well lite strip club
Congratulations to our new mayor!
@6. Totally just got a lap dance.
Should we congratulate the guy, or offer him condolences?
"move X forward" needs to be banished from our language, few things are more vacuous
Appointing Burgess makes good sense, given his experience and about-to-retire status. I wish him the very best.
I'm a-okay with Burgess. Good luck to him.

Weird that this article badges all the political actors with the precise month they demanded Murray's head on a pike. Since she was first to act and be right, I guess Danni Askini deserves the mayoralty.
The establishment continues its strangle-hold.
"The establishment continues its strangle-hold."
Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it. By labeling those that feel different than you as "the establishment" you certainly paint them with a brush of disdain. But I've always considered Burgess to be the only council member that comes close to my feelings. It seems like the council is in a race to the left. In this rush to represent all voices in the city, I'd kind of like mine to be represented, too. Signed, a socially liberal, fiscal conservative
@17 He's literally no different than Murray or Durkan. If you want more corporate welfare that's what you'll get. Personally, I'd like to see improvements for the rest of us. Improvements like better infrastructure, fewer homeless, and greater housing density.
I think it's really convenient to throw Durkan into the same bucket at Murray. Just because he endorsed her, doesn't mean that she agrees with or would act the same as him on issues like homelessness. And it's a great tool to label a stance on things as corporate welfare. I believe that it's better to have businesses want to be here—because then we have employment. This allows us to tax the companies and their employees to pay for the infrastructure we need. I was here when Boeing laid off a huge portion of the workforce. It was not a good time, believe me. That's why I'm happy Amazon is looking to diversify their headquarters. They are already too big a proportion of our base. So we need the diversity of employment. See, I'm not all "Corpporaty."
#18: He'll only have the job 'til Durkan or Moon is sworn in.
@19 Have you seen or read any indications that Durkan won't continue the same failing policies? I believe she supports sweeps. No one disagrees that companies are great for employment and taxes, but how does that balance out when we subsidize those companies with billions of our tax dollars? My dad retired from Boeing this month and he said he's glad neither of his sons worked there. All of this is beside the point though. Murray was Tim's lackey and Durkan is cut from the same cloth. Seattle's deep-pocketed Democrats want Durkan because they want to stay on top, as the establishment.
@21 You may be right. Perhaps I'm a Kool-Aid drinker. For some reason I have a glimmer of hope that Ms. Durkan is a wee bit different. She hasn't held elected office before. Perhaps she will approach things differently than Murray. And different isn't always better. I was encouraged when I heard her say that spending more money and increasing taxes isn't necessarily the only option. I agree that things aren't working as well as they could or should. I hope a leader will come forward that doesn't immediately believe that we need to spend more money. Just spend it more wisely. And of course this is judged through everyone's lens as to each of our own priorities. I still remember last fall when the two separate studies came out, funded by the city, saying that we were spending enough on the homeless situation, we just needed to spend it in the right ways. Then in the Spring, Murray and Hanauer came out with a new tax to add another $50 million dollars. Irresponsible. I hope that either Jenny or Cary will be responsible stewards of our resources and provide leadership. But of course where we are hoping to be led varies wisely. Nice chatting with you.
With all due respect to those who first called on Ed Murray to resign, I believe most people in Seattle--political elite and everyday folks alike--felt deeply conflicted about the situation. On the one hand, few if any wanted to rationalize away child molestation--Ed Murray's or anyone else's. On the other hand, it seemed credible Murray's political enemies might launch a campaign against him via such accusations. As Murray was never convicted of child molestation, most Seattle citizens wanted to give him a chance to defend himself. Many wanted Murray to resign but felt uneasy about forcing him to resign. I don't think Jenny Durkan, Bruce Harrell, Tim Burgess, or Sally Bagshaw looked the other way. It was a vexed case: many felt Murray probably committed some serious violations, yet there was no clear-cut proof of this, and claiming the accusations were part of a smear campaign seemed at least credible. Then came news of the Oregon case manager's recommendation against Murray being allowed to ever again have foster care. And then came the Times' interview with the fifth accuser, Mr. Dyer. It finally seemed too much to believe the accusations were mere fabrications. Murray had to go. But I don't think Durkan, Harrell, Burgess, Bagshaw, Norm Rice, Charles Royer, and "the establishment" simply enabled for Murray. This was a very difficult case for them, and for almost everyone in this city. People were trying to be fair to both Murray and to his accusers. His political friends wanted to honor both Murray's service and the pain Murray's accusers feel, but it is difficult to definitively establish the merit of these sorts of accusations. Again, I think most hoped Murray would resign--but given the absence of actual court cases and convictions, most felt uneasy about forcing him to resign. The interview with Mr. Dyer was the straw that broke the camel's back, and Durkan et al renounced their allegiance to Murray. I don't believe a corrupt Democratic Party establishment enabled Murray's abuse or minimized the damage he caused; I do believe Murray's friends felt his years of service suggested he at least be given a chance to stay in office and argue his case. I can't blame them for that. But after the Dyer interview, it would have been shameful to defend Murray. He absolutely had to go.
"Askini also called on the city to create a commission on gender based violence."

"Askini also called on the city to add another line to her resume for her next run for public office." FTFY
#24: Because gender-based violence isn't a thing in Seattle?
Weird that this article badges all the political actors with the precise month they demanded Murray's head on a pike.

Um, ginning up demands for Murray's head on a pike was the entire point of The Stranger's relentless smearing of Murray. The recitation of the political actors' obedience was a reminder The Stranger remembers who did its bidding and when.

Because gender-based violence isn't a thing in Seattle?

Because creating a while new slate of official positions so that Danny Askini can have more publicity will create more problems than it could ever possibly solve.
whatever. it's musical chairs in Seattle politics. No one cares anymore.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.