And so it begins. With the primary election weeks away, outside conservative interests started throwing cash at the 2024 race for the citywide city council seat. Big business won all but one seat on the council in 2023 because they outspent the labor lobby five fold. If labor wants more representatives in City Hall, then they may not want to take such a hands-off approach this go-round.
Washington Realtors Political Action Committee (WRPAC) spent $60,000 on advertising to promote incumbent Tanya Woo, according to a July 16 Public Disclosure Commission filing. Of the $60,000, WRPAC spent $16,000 on video ads delivered via streaming services, $6,500 on other online video advertising, $4,000 on display ads like banners on websites, and another $5,000 to “retarget” those display ads, presumably to maximize their reach and efficacy.
Somebody tell Tanya Woo’s that ballots haven’t even dropped yet. Understand how she might be confused since she didn’t bother to vote in city elections until 2021. #seaelex https://t.co/ttnrgR4ekH pic.twitter.com/aQVAfBEvvj
— Heather Weiner (@hlweiner) July 17, 2024
WRPAC calls itself one of the largest PACs in Washington that funds and endorses both Democratic and Republican candidates who support policy that favors the real estate industry. I asked WRPAC which policies they want to see enacted on the city level, but they did not respond.
You might think that a realtor PAC would support the candidate who would maximize housing production, but at the same time, realtors profit from the sale of housing, so the higher the cost of housing the better. Moreover, the PAC mostly represents brokers and agents who sell single-family houses, so density isn’t really their thing. All of that means they may pick the candidate who is most likely to defend exclusionary zoning and limit supply, which keeps housing expensive. The National Association of Realtors, a different PAC with the same interest, backed Council Members Joy Hollingsworth, Bob Kettle, Maritza Rivera, and Woo in their 2023 campaigns against much stronger pro-density candidates.
“Realtors earn commissions on the sales of homes; they profit from the broken status quo in Seattle that produces ever-rising housing costs,” said Suresh Chanmugam, organizer at Tech 4 Housing, which endorsed Woo’s competitor, Alexis Mercedes Rinck. “They are worried that [Rinck] will enact policies that will make Seattle more affordable, such as reforming our racist land use laws, funding Social Housing with progressive revenue, and protecting renters against price gouging.”
When asked about what WRPAC’s support says about her campaign, Woo reminded The Stranger that Independent expenditure committees are separate from the candidate’s campaign and they cannot coordinate.
Woo reiterated her efforts to preserve the Chinatown International District.
“I have also been, and continue, to fight gentrification and displacement in a neighborhood that is known as one of the nation’s most endangered neighborhoods,” Woo said in an email. “Those racist land use policies yes, I have been affected by them.”
She said she’s currently working on legislation that she said “will not only build more housing but build affordable housing citywide.”
Regardless of what WRPAC’s support says about Woo or Rinck, money is money. And money matters. Last year, the better-funded council campaign won in every race except for one. Importantly, that one exception was Woo’s race. She outraised her opponent between her campaign and outside spending, but she still lost.
Just because Woo is a loser does not mean the left shouldn’t take her seriously. She lost by a few hundred votes in the most progressive district in the city. She may have an easier time appealing to the whole city, which seems on average more conservative in odd years than District 2 voters. That’s especially the case now that she has name recognition as the consolation-prize council member.
So far, Fuse Votes has spent $183 on Rinck. Fuse Votes takes the total cost of their labor for their voter guide, about $35,000, and divides it among the candidates featured in it. Labor did not spend nearly as much in 2023 as they did to secure a progressive majority in 2019. Now, their coalition is paying for it. Instead of fighting for new pro-worker policies, they’re busy running defense for the gig worker minimum wage. Meanwhile, rollbacks to the terms of the Fight for $15 minimum wage and other issues workers care about are on the horizon.
Rinck has racked up labor endorsements, but it’s unclear what their PAC strategy will be.
Tanya Woo owes a great deal of gratitude to The Stranger and CM Morales, who have elevated her to a level of political prominence that usually takes years to achieve.
A vote for Woo was not a vote for “conservatism” or “big business”. It was a protest against the complete incompetence of CM Morales in handling issues in her district. She confuses the role of Council Member with that of activist, and because of that her district suffers.
I challenge anyone who thinks Morales is concerned about her district to go to the intersection of 12th Ave S and S Jackson and observe the disgraceful human condition there, which is probably the bleakest intersection in the county. A real leader would be relentlessly on the city to help both those poor souls, and the small minority-owned businesses that are attempting to do commerce there.
@1 Ma’am this story is about a citywide seat. District 2 already chose their representative and it’s Morales. Woo only owes gratitude to her fellow corporatists on the new (unimproved) Council who chose to elevate her to a level of political prominence that usually takes electoral victory to achieve.
thirteen12 dear, perhaps a careful review of my post is in order? I was not commenting on the citywide seat. I was commenting on how Woo’s sudden rise to prominence (which allows her to run for a citywide seat) has a lot to do with both The Stranger’s general hysteria and CM Morales complete incompetence when it comes to tending to her constituents.
@3 she’s running for a citywide seat solely because she was appointed to the seat by the Council, most of whom–like her–were backed by business interests but–unlike her–actually managed to win. Had she not been elevated by her fellow corporatists she’d be an afterthought like Pete Hanning. I understood your comment it’s just not accurate.
“Realtor PAC Spends $60,000 on Council Member Tanya Woo’s Campaign”
“When asked about what WRPAC’s support says about her campaign, Woo reminded The Stranger that Independent expenditure committees are separate from the candidate’s campaign and they cannot coordinate.”
So, the headline is totally wrong, but instead of correcting this basic error, the Stranger lets it stand, even after Woo herself was kind enough to correct it for them. If the Stranger had intended to justify Woo’s decision to skip the Stranger’s recent candidate forum, they could hardly have done better than this.
Don’t worry; no doubt the rest of the article will prove more acc—
“…a realtor PAC would support the candidate who would maximize housing production,”
Selling more units does not imply making more money, because the per-unit margin can vary. Raising the number of units available for purchase could drive down each individual unit’s price.
“…realtors profit from the sale of housing, so the higher the cost of housing the better.”
Higher prices do not automatically imply higher profits; the margin determines per-unit profit.
@2: You’re not giving any credit at all to former CM Mosqueda, whose quitting in the middle of her term required the Council to choose a replacement.
“Had she not been elevated by her fellow corporatists she’d be an afterthought like Pete Hanning. I understood your comment it’s just not accurate.”
No, I don’t think you understood my comment, thirteen12 dear. You’re too focused on your grudge against the
Seattle City Council. The point is that if we had a competent council person in Morales district, there’d be no Tanay Woo to elevate.
You do get a blue star for completely and consistently ignoring my examples of the lack of any civic leadership from MC Morales.
Oh dear. That should be CM Morales, not MC Morales.
Mrs. Vel-DuRay regrets the error.
Catalina Vel-DuRay nailed it:
“A vote for Woo was not a vote for “conservatism” or “big business”. It was a protest against the complete incompetence of CM Morales in handling issues in her district. She confuses the role of Council Member with that of activist, and because of that her district suffers.”
Catalina, you should write for The Stranger or the Seattle Times. You ability to wade through the noise and get to the heart of the story is unmatched. And, you do it in a cogent, intelligent way. Bravo!
As always, Catalina Vel-DuRay says it better than I could have. You’re worth ten Hannah Kriegs, and maybe another ten Ashley Nerbovigs.
@9 There is no more Ashley Nerbovig. The Stranger memory holed her, along with their shouting about school closures being Fear-mongering” and their endorsement of the folks now happily closing schools.
It’s nice to see The Stranger step up and be totally transparent in their operations, taking ownership of their mistakes.
@6 would you say that likewise Morales herself only rose to prominence because Harrell was an incompetent CM?
@4: “Had she not been elevated by her fellow corporatists she’d be an afterthought like Pete Hanning.”
Oh, please. A candidate who’d never previously run for office almost defeated 1) an incumbent 2) who had more money. That alone ensured Woo notoriety she could parlay into another chance, if circumstances permitted.
Circumstances wasted no time in roaring to Woo’s favor, in the form of 1) CM Mosqueda quitting, 2) leaving an opening with a Council who’d just been refreshed by the voters, to act against the status quo which CMs Morales and Mosqueda represented. So the Council picked someone who’d literally opposed CM Morales in the most recent election.
@12 ok and in 2015, in her first run for office, Morales lost to Harrell by an almost identical percentage. So I’ll ask you too: did Morales likewise only rise to prominence because Harrell was incompetent? Seems like a situation where logically either both or neither be true.
@13: “Seems like a situation where logically either both or neither be true.”
Well, obviously, because every election in the entire history of a District can only be about one and only one topic, forever and ever, and evermore, and also, too.
(This is the best you can do? Really? FAIL)
@1 I used to go to the corner of 12thS and S Jackson all the time before Szechuan Kitchen closed early in the pandemic and disgraceful human conditions existed there a long time ago (way before Morales took district 2). What do you expect her to do? take the homeless in her home or are you suggesting she isn’t addressing homelessness issues on the council?
When was the last time you were at 12th and Jackson averagebob dear? I walk or drive through it (mostly drive these days, because those people are nuts) and it is exponentially worse than it ever was – and I have lived on Beacon Hill since 1999, and pass through there everyday. About a year ago I was working with an electrician and saw someone remove a meter and strip the copper out of the socket in broad daylight, while the building was still energized.
I expect her to be a leader, and lobby for more police and social worker presence there (as Tanya Woo has done). Also, I would like the city to be more transparent with all of the fires that have been happening in the valley. Another building went up just the other night.
@15: What, you expect an elected leader for a District to care about the businesses which provide goods, services, and jobs to the citizens of that District? You expect a public official to do anything about a public-health disaster which has been festering for her entire term of office? You expect her to care that homeless persons die of overdoses there? Do you expect her to care in the slightest about whatever happened to the hundreds of millions of dollars the city has spent to prevent such horrible deaths? What’s wrong with you, Catalina?!?
How dare anyone suggest that Tanya Woo had any kind of legitimate gripe with her Council Member!
Catalina is the best!
@14 no, obviously a candidate losing (but not by much!) only means the incumbent was “incompetent” when you and Catalina don’t like the incumbent. Impeccable logic I concede the point
@16 I drive by about once a month these days and I haven’t noticed that it was significantly worse than before or at many other locations South of downtown (a distributed Hooverville – Thank you Reagan and other “small government” demagogues). Admittedly I do not get out of my car at that location, as I used to.
@17 It’s just amazing how much insight you claim to have on the evolution of the local situation from 3000 miles away.
As noted earlier, I voted for Morales in her election several years ago. This time around, I voted for Woo. It was not a protest vote, but because, like Catalina, I walk through the CID, and felt the decay of that neighborhood was a more pressing concern.
Selecting one candidate does not mean you automatically dislike the other.
@20: “It’s just amazing how much insight you claim to have on the evolution of the local situation from 3000 miles away.”
I used to live in Seattle, bike-commuting through the CID daily, and I do believe I recently read somewhere that “disgraceful human conditions existed there a long time ago (way before Morales took district 2),” so I assume that relying on my memory works for this situation.
@16 @20 I took a detour this morning when i went to the ID and in fact do agree with you that matters appear to have taken a turn for the worse on the block between King and Jackson on 12th, although I am not sure it is unique in Seattle. Not unlike what I have seen in places in SF and LA during my stays there over the years. We do know that homelessness has increased in recent years although we cannot exclude a further concentration/displacement of the unhoused population.
@22 Back to twisting words I see. The exchange is about conditions now, as they compare to the relatively recent past. Just relying on memory is obviously not going to work despite your claim to the contrary
@23: If the situation hasn’t changed since I last experienced it, then my memory should suffice. As it now appears that purported lack of change was based upon a statement which was worthless, I’ll just agree with what Mrs. Vel-DuRay wrote @1, etc.
I apologize for my use of a worthless source of information.
1 – nailed it.
I live in D2 and have been blown away by CM Morales’ lack of responsiveness over the years – particularly when it comes to basic quality of life issues for the vast majority of her constituents but those in the ID in particular.
It was very disappointing to see that she squeaked by in the last election but to be honest there is a ton of voter apathy in D2.
Thank for your acknowledging the change, averagebob dear. As you might know, my work takes me to every corner of not only Seattle but also Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, and much of the south end (north of Southcenter). There is nothing comparable to what is going on there – at least not in any right-of-way, there might be similar situations in the greenbelt east of I-5. 152nd St in Burien was pretty bad for awhile, but it seems to have gotten cleaned up.
The scale of the Little Saigon problem starts at the north end of the Jose Rizal bridge to Main St on the north, I-5 on the west, Boren/Rainier on the east, but 12th and Jackson is the epicenter. I think there must be dealers who are preying on the people who frequent the shelter at the corner of King and 12th