We elect people to vote on laws.

People own stock. They own housing, They rent housing. They buy stuff. It is not possible for them to have a financial interest in the legislation they vote on.

To the extent they recuse themselves, it needs to be a very narrow benefit, that applies to them, and very few others. (E.g. A contract rezone they own, or a very few partners own, and the elected official, or a family member is one of them).

Letting them off the hook for taking votes because they have some financial interest in something has been a poor policy.

The Stranger, and other outlets, can tell us about how the legislator on the Council or other body stands to gain or lose on a bill, and voters can factor that in at the next election.

Speaking of bias, how about Labor Unions that have taken over our government. People like Tammy Morales who does nothing except work for Labor Unions.

Which explains why we have twenty-four Human Resource in city government. Like city light human resources officer whose salary is $400k for that one worthless city employee. More than the police chief. It is past time to flush these lazy, overpaid, and worthless city employees.

I trust Hannah would agree that no council member who is a renter or has a family member who rents their home should be allowed to vote on any landlord/tenant legislation? And, of course, if you have a gig worker in your family, you should be disqualified from voting on legislation affecting gig work?

No? Are conflicts of interest only for those who The Stranger dislikes?

@1 is absolutely correct.