What a dumb and loosely cobbled together article. I certainly support the recall Sawant campaign, have given money, and I am a progressive liberal (perhaps not liberal enough for Seattle) gay man.


Just because its not what the Stranger likes doesn't make it conservative.


As Seattle continues to gentrify, it's politics will drift right.


Funding homelessness services and consternation with stunts like opening up City Hall to protesters during a pandemic are Trumpy right wing things now? Careful, folks might extrapolate that government dysfunction is a left wing thing.


Nathalie's supposition that the Recall effort and the charter amendment are correlated is correct however her reasoning as to why is completely wrong. The common trait those two movements share is a populace completely fed up with the idealogical, divisive, toxic, dishonest and ineffective manner in which the council currently operates. If it's not Sawant and Gonzales casting dispersion at "big business, it's Herbold telling us the reason SPD is losing officers has nothing to do with the way the council handled the protests and defund movement over the last year. This council has shown and continues to demonstrate it it more interested in letting the activist community dictate their agenda rather than doing what is best for the city and its residents. Now citizens are taking matters into their own hands by attempting to recall Sawant and override the council to force them to take action on homelessness. I don't know if either action will succeed but I do know if the council continues to be tone deaf to a majority of voters this won't be the last time a direct action is put to voters.


@5: “CiTiZeNs are taking matters into their own hands” if by “citizens” you mean former cop council member Tim Burgess, failed council candidate Egan Orion, and the crap chute of corporate landlords, Super PAC managers, and revolving-door ghouls listed in the article. Sometimes it’s hard to tell, though, if these trolls actually read the article or if they are- just like the paid canvassers, umpteen mailer designers, local Tv News and talk radio, and the Seattle Times - a bunch of Mercenary propagandists set loose like a plague upon the Slog


Sawant broke the law. She's a criminal. She need to go.

Separately her record is terrible, and I cannot understand why Democrats or Progressive support her:

-Homelessness has increased 40%
-Murders hit the highest levels in a Quarter Century--affecting BIPOC communities the most
-Soda taxes hit the poor with a $1Coke at McDonalds costing $1.41 with tax--41% tax on thristy poor people?
-Shootings are skyrocketing
-Sawant voted to increase electrical utility rates 30%
-Sawant voted to increase water rates 20%
-Sawant's policies have pushed housing providers to increase tenant qualification--pushing average renters to find housing outside of Seattle

She needs to be Recalled.

For real change, and to help DECREASE HOMELESSNESS please donate to:

Join the People's Movement to Recall Sawant. Founded by a member of the #LGBTQI AND #BIPOC communities.

Thank you!


@6 is that you Calvin? the desperation of the Sawant campaign to paint this as some right wing conspiracy is comical. The curtain has been pulled back though and we can all see the right wing boogey man is nothing but a made up concoction of our socialist wizard. I'm afraid she will need to run on her record this time which is probably scary for her and her acolytes. It will be adventure though as like other denizens of Oz she has no courage, no brain and definitely no heart.


Sawant is looking increasingly desperate to hold onto power.

But, it's failed. Homelessness has increased, Shootings are skyrocketing, Murders have hit all-time records.

Nathalie and The Stranger are scratching to twist the Recall Sawant campaign into some right-wing conspiracy--but the Recall Sawant donations call from Seattle District 3 in which 99% of the people are Democrats and Progressives.

Sawant has failed Seattle and Failed District 3. She needs to go.


And, Nathalie: You are a really great reporter. I'm not sure why you'd lower your credibility and journalistic reputation by writing such crap.

You could have a much bigger career in journalism. Don't limit yourself by writing garbage.


Seems like a pretty loose association. Of course you will have political overlap. The movement to legalize weed was supported by Libertarians. These are folks who typically vote right wing, but don't believe we should arrest people for smoking weed. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

A mandate to deal with homelessness is just that -- a mandate. The fact that it is unfunded simply means that the city would be forced to deal with the problem. If that means cutting the police budget to pay for it, so be it. Fundamentally, it is no different than the ACA, which will force the city to build lots of curb cuts so that people in wheel chairs can cross the street. It will cost the city a bunch of money (that they would rather spend on other things) but that's life in the big city.

The idea that this is the current city council's fault is ridiculous. The biggest cause of homelessness is increased housing prices. The biggest cause of increased housing prices is exclusionary zoning. Former members like Burgess are just as responsible for the lack of action on that front as the current council. More so, really. González wants to change the zoning and can probably get the council to go along (with Pedersen the lone holdout). That wouldn't have been the case with the old council.

As for Sawant, I don't like her, but think it is ridiculous to think that her transgressions reached the level of a recall. The only way she can be beat is if someone on the left runs against her. That will be tough unless we have second choice voting. In a typical election, someone from the right (another Pedersen) will likely get a lot of support (especially financial) in the primary, while Sawant will as well. They will split the vote, and voters will have no choice but hold their nose and vote for the demagogue (Sawant).


I'm a little confused on the equivalencies @7 and @9 are making. Are you saying that Sawant and her policy goals/council votes are directly responsible to increases in homelessness, shootings, and murders? Not the huge need in housing stock in the region and pandemic-related causes like mass unemployment and financial insecurity? Seems to be a stretch.


The Recall Sawant brigade reminds me a lot of those anti-monorail NIMBY's from the 1990's: we'd vote in favor of the plan, they'd scream "do over!", we vote in favor of the plan again, they'd scream "another do over!", we'd vote in favor AGAIN, they'd scream "ANOTHER DO OVER!", and when they FINALLY got a vote to go their way, suddenly it was "NO MORE DO OVERS!!!"


I consider myself a socialist and I have also donated money to the Recall Sawant campaign. She is a self-promoting, self-important, power hungry, Trump on the Left. I see little difference in her behavior and his. When you only make enemies, sometimes they pull together.


In Socialist circles, this type of journalist is known as "the useful idiot." You've been duped! That's all.


"I'm a Socialist, but..."

It's been pretty well established over the years that just about any statement beginning this way generally means the speaker is not really the thing they say they are.


I guess, with the exception that monorails are a notoriously bad infrastructure idea. Initial cost, complex maintenance, vendor lock-in for every component of the system.


The reactive-left has NO realistic plan to provide housing, mental health treatment, and restore our public places. They just want to delay while making the perfect the enemy of the good. That's because it's not about policy or helping people for the far-left, it's about the performance of building your lefty cred with your friends.

So some moderates and businesses donated to it. Who cares. Do we want to build 2,000 units every year and actually put a dent in homelessness, or do we want to continue with the status quo?


@11, No, the biggest cause of homelessness is drug addiction. The idea that high housing costs have lead people to live in a tent by a roadside or in a park is ridiculous. Sane people deal with expensive housing by lowering costs where they can (taking public transportation, cutting Comcast, meals out.....) maybe sharing with roomates or moving to a less expensive apartment or neighborhood. By your reasoning New York and San Francisco should have 50% of their population in tents. Homelessness in Seattle was an emergency years ago before COVID with some of the lowest unemployment rate recorded. Yes, there are people who are not addicts who became homeless but those I have known do everything they can to get out of it and do not stay homeless long. Until drug addiction is addressed as a problem the homeless situation will not be solved. Unending excuses and compassion without any personal responsibility has been a complete failure. Acceptance and enabling does not help the addict nor those living here The idea of progressive taxation to provide free housing for everyone doing drugs and not working is not something people support outside of a small percentage of the far left and will futher add to the rapidly rising costs for those who can least afford it. Most people who have experienced drug addiction do not support current enabling policies but find their lived experiences predictably denounced by ideologues and activist's who's rigid views offer no or few real life examples of success. The city council has done nothing meaningful to address or even name the problem correctly. Regardless of all meaningless talk of progressive values, reimagining/envisioning type campaign slogans without realistic plans, many see a city devolving for average citizens....perhaps new posters represent this dissatisfaction. Anyway, it offers the usual gang of 5 a few new targets (other than Raindrop) to disparage as morons for noncompliance of group think here!


@13 -- the monorail was and remains a complete debacle. It was an enormous waste of time and money. Opponents of it were completely vindicated. Arguing that opponents of Sawant are equivalent to opponents of the monorail is an absolutely hilarious self-own.


I'm sorry, but the city council hasn't done shit for anybody. The city is a dumpster fire. They like to talk and bloviate about stuff that will never happen. They tell us they will defund the police and come up with some magic plan that will cure the 30,000 year old problem of crime. Sawant is the Trump of Seattle. Didn't she try to recall the mayor first?


I don't know about these characters listed in the article and whether or not they are actually Trumpers or right wingers or Republicans or what...but I don't think it's a good proxy for understanding or explaining the sentiment behind the Recall Sawant campaign. As someone who lives in her district (but outside of Cap Hill), I look around and see that a LOT of people who don't consider themselves remotely right wing, and don't think of themselves as particularly "pro business", absolutely despise Sawant and are supporting the recall campaign. It would be more interesting to try and understand why that is.


23, Trump is an existential threat to our Republic. Sawant is the left wing version of him with less power. She has said multiple times, she works for her stupid little party. She does not ever have to think logically about anything because it's all predetermined ideology. No compromise.
You sound like somebody who if born in a different place in a different environment you would be a Trumpist so you wouldn't have to hurt your little brain with thinking.


@11: "The biggest cause of homelessness is increased housing prices."

In addition to what @20 said, here are some actual facts about our homeless population, told by the homeless themselves:

Only 11% said a rental increase was part of the reason they became homeless. A majority arrived in Seattle already homeless. A majority reported using drugs. "The highest percent (71%) of respondents reported that they could afford a monthly rent of less than five hundred dollars, followed by 24% who reported they could afford between $500 and $1,000 monthly."


Putting that last sentence in context, this data was collected in late 2016. By that time, the last $500/month apartment rental had been gone for twenty years, and the last less-than-$1000/month apartment rental had been gone for several years. Rising rents didn't drive most of this population out into the street; Seattle's homeless population hadn't been able to afford living here for quite some time, if ever.

If you want to look at why Seattle has such a large and intractable housing problem, try looking at opiate and meth' addiction.


I love objective journalism that doesn't kowtow to ideological interests.

Too bad that doesn't exist anymore.


Sawant popped up in Seattle around 2010. I remember thinking "all this person wants is power".

I wasn't wrong. Sawant doesn't care about anything except herself. That should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. Turns out most "progressive" Seattleites would rather indulge in the same type of personality cult that they find so reprehensive when the object of adulation is conservative.

This paper used to be good. Now it's filled with a bunch of people who could very well live up to it's namesake. You are all a bunch of Meursaults. Itching and screaming to turn yourselves into Raskolnikovs.


@32: I've read The Stranger since the first edition. Over those decades, I've rarely missed an edition, and I've ready plenty of opinions with which I disagreed -- sometimes, rather strongly. That is not the issue here.

Over the last five years, The Stranger has lost the best political reporters it ever had, and adopted willful blindness toward major political topics in Seattle. First, it talks endlessly about homelessness without ever mentioning addiction or mental illness, when everyone who had ever had the slightest interaction with any homeless persons in Seattle knows addiction, at least, is a major driver of homelessness. Second, it eagerly supports a blatant cult of personality around CM Sawant -- she's the senior member of our City Council, but just try to quote a single criticism of her by any headline poster here, anytime in the last five years. Third, the character assassination of then-Mayor Murray was obviously a right-wing "ratf*ck," staged by an anti-gay lawyer from out of town -- yet The Stranger fully supported it, declining to ask even the most obvious of questions about who was behind it. Murray was the most successful advocate of LGBTQ+ civil rights in the entire history of Washington State: everything from statewide employment protections through marriage equality was directly the result of his long, hard efforts. Yet The Stranger, published in the state's primary LGBTQ+ neighborhood by a staff consisting mostly of prominent LGBTQ+ persons, eagerly participated in Murray's political character assassination.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; no one is entitled to their own facts. It is on that last point alone that I have a problem with The Stranger.


Let's hope that one more thing Compassion Seattle and Recall Sawant have in common is enough signatures to get on the ballot! :-D

@34: I wrote nothing about how the "reports" were boring, nor anything about their style. My concern was entirely with the chronic dearth of facts to support the opinions in the "reports."

'What makes you think having the "best political reporters" still on staff means there wouldn't have been "willful blindness" now?'

Because good reporters ask good questions. For the three examples given, such good questions could include, "Why do bloody needles surround so many homeless encampments," "Why did CM Sawant suddenly reverse her policy on the Showbox parcel," and "Why didn't The Stranger get angry at Jeff Simpson for his blatant lying to them about Ed Murray?" (That last one is especially puzzling, as one might think they should have indignation sufficient to ask.) But if management puts propaganda above fact, the good reporters will leave.

"This has always been to the left of the regular Democrat."

Yes, and once had lots of well-researched articles I enjoyed reading. Well, it was fun while it lasted.

"Are you saying all the allegations are false?"

Having myself never swallowed emissions from male convicts, I found no "allegations" beyond a long-running feud in Murray's extended family, and that had no bearing on his performance as Mayor. The Stranger's extensive blathering didn't help at all in explaining why anyone should care about any of it.


This Independence Day, Thank a Protester


@34: " are having a problem with something that you are free to stop dealing with at any time."

Is there some inescapable force in the universe which requires you to come here, assign imaginary voting records to other commenters, and, upon that basis alone, call them "scumbags"?


Sawant should run for mayor.

This whole "recall Sawant" effort is a right-wing canard promulgated by green-orange howler-monkey Trumpists with their limited analytical skills and diminutive manhood.

Sawant has really good leadership and intellectual chops.

Marting Selig can go shove his dick in a 240V outlet and screw himself.

It is time for a true-blue socialist to take the Seattle leadership reigns.


@38: "Sawant should run for mayor."

Here's hoping the voters of District 3 will soon free up her calendar!

'This whole "recall Sawant" effort is a right-wing canard promulgated by green-orange howler-monkey Trumpists with their limited analytical skills and diminutive manhood.'

You definitely want to keep District 3's voters focused on the threat outside interests have in meddling in our local politics. In fact, you should make the amount of financial support coming in from outside the District your main theme. Hammer on this constantly, throughout the recall effort. Demand that the side with more outside money should lose. Trust me on this.

"Sawant has really good leadership and intellectual chops."

The Showbox is saved!!1! The EHT is ending homelessness, even as we speak! We spit on Paul Allen's grave! Onward, comrades, to victory!!!!


How about this? We actually build the 2000 units that Compassion Seattle demands. Then we build more. We figure out how to adequately provide services to Seattle’s homeless population. And we figure out how to have no-barriers shelters without destroying neighborhoods. That should include addiction treatment for everyone who even remotely wants it. BUT we put the rest of the state/country on notice that we will not be taking in people from all over who want to be supported by Seattle taxpayers. If you can’t prove you were here before the new housing system was enacted, you are not eligible. Period. Announcing that we’re willing to indefinitely support anyone who migrated here will only result in a vastly increased number of people coming here that will overwhelm whatever we try to do.

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.