Oh no... Hannah... are you upset? Poor Hannah.

This "story" will be a great one for you clip file when you are invariably trying to get another job in journalism. I'm sure any prospective employers will be impressed with your professional and mature writing style.

@1 Also, the Seattle Times is still a professional journalistic outfit that stays within the lines of journalism. The Stranger has become an openly ideological hack factory that doesn't even try to report facts when they get in the way of the agenda. There is still radio silence over the accusations against Gitenstein and other Stranger-opposed candidates about "fear-mongering" over school closures, while their endorsed candidates are now doing school closures without any "hard-hitting" coverage as one example. This article is by the "Hannah" performance art collective, who is the worst offender here for hack jobs.

Of course, anyone to the right of Che would skip out on the SECB weasel fest. Not for fear of "scrutiny" but for the same reason anyone to the left of Mussolini would skip out of the John Birch Society endorsement board. It's a waste of time to bother.

"Her cowardice reflects a larger trend with the new Seattle City Council. They routinely ignore media requests, spread falsehoods about dissenting colleagues, belittle the communities they betray, and, in extreme cases, call for the arrest of people who dare disagree with them too loudly."

I'm pretty sure those we're all hallmarks of the previous council as well (except maybe for the arrest part since they wanted to abolish the SPD). The only difference is TS and their cohorts are the ones being ignored.

'With just hours notice, Council Appointee Tanya Woo rejected our invitation to The Stranger Election Control Board (SECB) endorsement meeting...'

'On May 20, The Stranger asked, “Any update?” The campaign manager said, “Looks like we might have a conflict with that date...will check with Tanya and, if so, suggest some alternatives.”'

So, the "just hours notice" at the top somehow became, "we first got wind of this more than a month ago," well before the end of the post.

More of how the Stranger both absolutely did, and most certainly did not, see this coming:

'To which he replied, “Hi Hannah from The Stranger, the interview is on her schedule.”

'Any reasonable person would read that as accepting our invite.'

No, anyone who has ever worked in a serious job, with lots of co-workers and outside contacts, would read that as a possible double- (or triple-) booking. Especially after having been told THE PREVIOUS MONTH that "we might have a conflict with that date".

Even with full editorial control over their narrative, the Stranger cannot keep its story straight. Little wonder CM Woo didn't bother trying to humor them any further.

Looks like Tanya likes to play games. Chickenshit ones too.

She was imposed on the people of Seattle by being appointed and does not have the common decency to defend her platform to those who may disagree with her.

The usual right wing status quo lovers have to attack a popular newspaper for the rest of Seattle. They just have no shame but a lot of arrogance.

What does Tanya have to offer Seattle other than the usual betrayal of our vulnerable peoples? NOTHING.

@7: “… and does not have the common decency to defend her platform to those who may disagree with her.”

The fact you write that without getting the irony considering the last crop of Council members says more about you than anyone.

I'll just quietly murmur that the reason Tanya Woo is on the scene in the first place is because Tammy Morales is such a incompetent representative for her district.

Poor Han-Han and SECB. There was a time when declining an editorial endorsement interview with The Stranger would have been a death knell for a candidate. It just shows how irrelevant this rag has become. The only value a Stranger endorsement has for me now is to know who NOT to vote for.

Note for the future, Hannah: no one owes you their time just because you're "media," even politicians.

@11 someone needs to tell her district I guess because they reelected her

They re-elected her by only about 400 votes, thirteen12 dear. 50.7% to Woo's 49.1%. In the previous election, she had gotten 60% of the vote. There were fewer people voting in the latest election as well.

The Stranger reporters are like 8th grade really cruel mean girls. They've bullied Tanya Woo for months. Serious bullying.

Why on earth would Tanya go over to the bully's house?!

@14 in the immortal words of Vin Diesel "winning's winning." In any event the real reason Woo is on the scene is because so many Seattle people hate the poor but don't want to admit it, so by giving them the opportunity to oppose a new shelter as "anti-Asian" Woo instantly became a local hero.

Nice try, thirteen12 dear. It's always fun to feel morally superior, isn't it?

The real reason Tanya Woo made the splash she did is because Morales cares more about promoting her social issues than she does about her district.

From her webpage......

"My priority as a Councilmember is to amplify the voices of our racial, climate and economic justice coalitions. Ours is one of the most demographically distinct districts in Seattle. Because of this I am committed to authentic community engagement that centers racial equity to address issues related to displacement, public health, food security and access, and shifting toward an inclusive economy that works for everyone. "

That's all well and good. I support all of that. But when you don't take care of the bread-and-butter issues of your district, like her complete indifference to the arson spree that happened along Rainier Avenue, people are going to look for an alternative.

We pay taxes for a reason, and we expect our representatives to act accordingly.

@17 there were more than two candidates in the D2 race. If Woo was only popular because Morales is so bad then why didn't the third candidate get any traction? The simple fact is Woo made her name by opposing the SoDo shelter. Sorry you're unhappy with your district rep but the majority of your neighbors disagree (broadly speaking I mean, if you live in one of the wealthy waterfront areas of the district your immediate neighbors overwhelmingly also preferred the corporatist candidate).

@19: “The simple fact is Woo made her name by opposing the SoDo shelter.”

Specifically, that King County had falsely claimed to have done community outreach before choosing to place the shelter at a corner of the CID. As Woo described, in reality, this ‘outreach’ was limited to a few heads of local organizations, which already not opposed placement of the shelter.

Mrs. Vel-DuRay’s comments fit exactly with Woo’s point: CM Morales showed no interest in the actual concerns of District 2’s voters.

@20 are you trying to argue that alleged failures or misrepresentations by King County can somehow be imputed to Seattle City CM Morales?

You don't think Dow reached out to obvious ally Tammy to discuss the shelter's placement in her district? And what do you think she and Dow said during those discussions? Maybe offered her hearty support despite concerns in the Asian community that it would further upset the tenuous hold that community has on their long-time homes and businesses? Promised to stay out of the way? Impute that in your green eyeball, darling.

@21: No, I’m noting CM Morales expressed no interest in a local governmental decision which would have directly and negatively impacted many citizens of District 2. So citizens of District 2 voted for someone who did care, and voted in numbers almost sufficient to replace Morales on the Council.

Your stated inability to understand this connection, delivered whilst you loudly lecture everyone on how democracy is supposed to work, really amps up your amusement value. (Please keep up the good work, not that you seem to have much of a choice…)

@23 "someone who did care" about blocking the shelter, which was my original point.

Glad we can all agree that Woo opposing the shelter was what ingratiated her to a minority of D2 voters primarily residing in the wealthy lakefront parts of the district. The only question then is whether Seward Park homeowners were very upset that CID community groups weren't adequately consulted about it, or they just pretended to be because "defending the Asian community" is a more politically acceptable stance in this town than opposing tax dollars being spent to help the homeless period.

Woo also represents the CID business owners, who have been plagued with the homeless and violence in the International District. Not to mention the very recent arson along Jackson Street, and of course the weekly shootings in that neighborhood. (For the record, I voted for Morales 4 years ago, so I don’t disregard her.) But the problems along Rainier Ave and the CID are of particular concern.

“ If Woo was only popular because Morales is so bad then why didn't the third candidate get any traction?”

Tell me that you don’t understand politics (let alone District 3) without saying it. Well done!

@26 District 2* go home Catalina you're drunk

With some very easy sleuthing, one will find that thirteen12 is an account owned by a person associated with The Stranger. I wonder if The Stranger will examine their policies on allowing staff to have alias user accounts and make posts on their message board. Its a grey area but does not seem like a practice that is aligned with ethical journalism conduct.

@24: "Glad we can all agree that Woo opposing the shelter was what ingratiated her to a minority of D2 voters primarily residing in the wealthy lakefront parts of the district."

Well, no. Woo came to prominence by describing how local government had ignored the concerns of voters in the CID, after local government had pretended to care about such concerns. No one here has posted a precinct map of the vote in the most recent D2 general election, so no one can agree on a vote distribution no one has presented. (Please feel free to post a link to such a map.)

@29 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Seattle_City_Council_election#District_2

@30: Thanks for the map. It clearly shows Woo won a majority of votes in the CID west of I-90, and she and Morales each won multiple precincts along Lake Washington. You'll need a bit more than that for your claim Woo's voters were "primarily residing in the wealthy lakefront parts of the district." That's not a lot of land upon which to house over half of her voters.

@28: At this point, I'd be surprised by finding only one sockpuppet account here. Repeated election cycles show Seattle's voters have now aligned with the commenters here, instead of with the writers. The temptation to try to even that score must be tremendous, especially with the bitter pill of Woo making it onto the Council over the Stranger's furious opposition.

@31 do your own homework then

https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/elections/maps/2024/scc-maps/seattle-district-2.pdf

https://data.kingcounty.gov/Voting-Elections/November-2023-General-Election-Final-Precinct-Resu/wbb4-8cse/data

@32: No one else is ever obligated to find evidence for your claims. Do your own self-appointed work.

@33 listen dummy I gave you a link to a site containing the precinct data. You don't have to "find" any evidence you just have to click through and look at it. But feel free to remain ignorant if you so choose.

@34: Do your own math. (Even if math is hard for you.)

Oh my, I've gotten Our Dear thirteen12 vexed at me.

Sorry for the confusion on the district numbers. Mrs Vel-DuRay regrets the error, but is that really the best comeback you have? I know how bitter a pill it is when someone's catechism is challenged, but one must learn how to roll with the punches.

Morales doesn't understand that a council seat is not a place to advocate for one's pet programs, especially to the detriment of the people of her district. She neglected her people, and almost lost her seat. Being on the council is not like being a writer for The Stranger. It's actual work.

@28 How dare you accuse The Stranger of ethical journalism!

@36 "almost." Unlike for example Pete Holmes, who was so actually unpopular that not only was he not reelected he got beat in the primary by two fringe candidates. Which is what happens to actually unpopular candidates.

@38: Pete Holmes refused to do his job for years, so of course the voters deprived him of it.

Under your logic, CM Lorena Gonzalez was a smashing success as Council President, because she wasn’t defeated in the Mayoral primary election, but in the general election. (Never mind that she lost by double-digits, effectively ending her political career.)

Look, cry all you want, but the Stranger’s well-funded incumbent nearly lost to a political newcomer. That’s gotta hurt, especially after said defeated challenger was subsequently elected to sit on the Council anyway. (That was a hint of something beyond District 2 affecting events, but you’d apparently rather spend your time demanding to know exactly who’d dared to have the unmitigated gall to vote whilst living east of Lake Washington Boulevard, or whatever.)

@39 "the Stranger’s well-funded incumbent nearly lost to a political newcomer. That’s gotta hurt"

First off it doesn't hurt at all because, again, she won. Secondly Woo was better funded than Morales because the business class backed her, and almost certainly not because they're very concerned about CID community being adequately consulted.

"First off it doesn't hurt at all because, again, she won."

Well, I guess you showed us, didn't you thirteen12 dear? You're rubber, and we're glue.

I think it's perfectly wonderful that The Stranger is hiring middle-school interns, but you'd think they'd screen for talent....

@40
Maybe business owners do care about the citizens in the CID. That’s conjecture you or I can speculate on. But there were businesses along Jackson St and Rainier Ave S that I used to go to, but have been closed. The arsons and closings of businesses in District 2 are facts.
Apartment housing is going up like crazy along Rainier Ave. How many walk-in businesses will open up in that stretch is anyone’s guess.

@41 you seem way more upset than this conversation warrants so I can only assume you felt personally attacked by my reference to people pretending to "support the Asian community" when really they just don't want to do anything at all to help the homeless or working poor. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Anyway I'd love to engage further but mom said I have to finish my social studies homework before dinner.

I really regret voting for council districts. I thought it might bring better representation to the neighborhoods, but all it has done is given us self-important activists with pet causes and petulant fans.

How do we go back to citywide seats?

@44 or just move to Queen Anne, where a candidate who has legitimately nothing going for them can DEFEAT an actually unpopular incumbent by a couple hundred votes

Thank you for that non-sequiter, thirteen12 dear. Are you paid by the word?

@40: “…Woo was better funded than Morales…”

Not according to your link @30, she wasn’t. There, it shows Morales raised $93,750.00, against Woo’s $93,729.54.

Now, do you see why I require you to do your own math, not just refer to a web site and call it good? (Answer: probably not.)

Woo is SICKENING. She got rejected by voters in my district and then magically appeared on the city council anyway. She’s dishonest, misleading, in the pocket of developers, and doesn’t even vote. DISGUSTING.

@48: CM Mosqueda quit, halfway through her term. She represented the at-large District 8. Per the City Charter, the Council chose a temporary replacement. There was nothing “magical” about it. Who better for them to choose, than someone whom voters themselves had already almost chosen for a Council seat?

@49 Andrew Lewis lost by fewer votes wouldn't that make him a better choice by your logic?

@47 Wikipedia's numbers aren't updated, but if you follow their source links you can find the campaigns' filings which show Woo was better funded.

Woo: https://web6.seattle.gov/ethics/filings/popfiling.aspx?prguid=DEAD6086-C912-4854-A3F1-338B88FB4BE9

Morales: https://web6.seattle.gov/ethics/filings/popfiling.aspx?prguid=FD49485E-E267-4A4C-942F-4C0AFAA5337D

I misremembered, it was Ron Davis who lost by fewer votes than Woo not Lewis

@50: Sure, they could have considered Lewis as well. Or any number of other persons. My point holds, there was nothing “magical” or suspect about choosing Woo.

“…show Woo was better funded.”

That information is also out of date. The figures from the state Public Disclosure Commission show $206,194.24 for Morales’ campaign, $196,174.79 for Woo’s campaign.

(https://www.pdc.wa.gov/political-disclosure-reporting-data/browse-search-data/candidates/689138)

(https://www.pdc.wa.gov/political-disclosure-reporting-data/browse-search-data/candidates/689216)

You’ve already decided Woo is A Bad Person. Maybe someday you’ll find, or fabricate, evidence to support your belief. It’s just not going so well for you on your first few tries, but in fairness, you’ve had only months in which to prepare. You’ll get there eventually, no doubt. Chin up!

@52 those numbers include donations subsequent to the election

@53: If so, the funds received after the end of Morales’ campaign were used to pay loans and debts incurred during the campaign, as shown by the zero balances listed for those items, along with the balance (also zero) with which the campaign started. Therefore, her campaign was better funded than was Woo’s campaign, the exact polar opposite of what you claimed @40.

(Funds donated for political campaigns can’t be spent on just anything. Go ask one D. J. Trump. 34 times.)

@54 "if so?" The dates of contributions, and the dates and purposes of expenditures, are listed on that very site. You're wrong, not that I'd ever expect you to realize or admit it.

Tanya Woo for President!
She’s not senile, and she’s not a fascist! What more do you want?