Surely you mean "as the UNvaccinated are hogging hospital beds everywhere?"
Nothing bad with getting a weak jobs report. It taps the brake on inflation and wall street loves that.
Charles, I guess its ok for the 47K people in the state workers union to sue the governor or for the ferry workers to strike this weekend over the mandate? Why just single out the police who had their religious exemptions denied?
I'd ask what Lorena Gonzaeles' plan is for the homeless but we already know that's it's just more of the same. She'll make some vague promises about taxing the rich and reversing racist zoning but we all know she's full of shit and will just continue to use the homeless as a convenient political foil. Hopefully the voters see through that.
I like Lorena González--she's the best candidate overall and potentially transformative for our city. I voted for her in the primary and will vote for her again in November.
This presents a quandary though: Since I genuinely like her, do I really want her to win the race for Seattle's Next Ex-Mayor, then endure the Worst Job in Seattle and be run out of office in four years after Olympic-levels of bitching from the rich, who're always the Real Victims?
Harrell is the ultimate status quo candidate that will protect the rich from ever paying their fair share of taxes thus ensuring that nothing ever gets accomplished by Seattle-processing the fee-fees of spoiled, narcissistic personality disordered, whiny white Boomers until they're all in the grave. If they could take the city with them, they would. His time in office will be a failure right from the start, however he'll be burdened with all the blame as well. Choices, choices.
@1 And I think it's also "UNvaccinated employees who catch the virus will not be paid for their quarantine time,"
@5: Mayors have no influence over tax policy except city sales taxes and the rich pay those at every point of sale.
@4 -- The main reason there are so many homeless in Seattle is because of the high cost of housing. The main reason housing is so expensive is our outdated zoning rules. González is on record as saying she wants to change them, and it is quite possible she will.
"Sweep them into Houses" is a nice soundbite.
In case Harrell hasn't noticed, there are long waiting lists to get in to the Subsidized Housing that exists in Seattle, and bringing more units online takes years. If you can find the funding.
It will probably get him elected though.
@4 Mmm, yes, can't have anyone using the homeless as a convenient political foil, can we?
Most union collective bargaining agreements have "no strike" clauses, which disallow striking while the contract term is in-effect. So, the best the ferry workers could do is to stage some sort of "sick out", which would be terribly ironic.
And the state employees aren't suing to STOP a mandatory vaccination policy, but rather to be given the opportunity bargain the terms and conditions under which such a policy will be implemented.
Viruses don't "survive" by killing their hosts, that is completely backwards, but that's neither here nor there. It absolutely matters how many people are vaccinated, even if the vaccines are not 100% effective, because more vaccinated people means fewer people infected, fewer infected people crowding our hospitals, fewer people with an active infection churning out billions of potential new variants, etc. Even if covid becomes globally endemic, vaccines are the only way we can have some semblance of normalcy.
"Troopers can expect to see their religious exemption request denied in the coming days..."
The requested 'religious exemption' makes them incapable of doing their jobs. If you are incapable of doing a job, you do not keep the job.
Religious exemptions are only made when such 'reasonable accommodations' do not interfere with the normal course of doing ones duty.
6 Hospitals who allow non-vaccinated staff to work there actually put themselves at serious financial risk of liability for doing so. Not to mention the moral and ethical problems which never seem to concern any ersatz 'conservatives'.
12 - The study of good viruses is most fascinating, but not much info and quite mysterious.
Which religions forbid vaccinations? On my list I've got christian scientists and....? I think that's it. Almost seems like organized religions would prefer their followers to stay alive.
If you're going to claim "religious exemption" you should have to show a note from a priest or whatever. Fuck off with this nonsense already.
"actually getting covid" will likely make you very sick, give you lasting health complications, infect others who will also get very sick with lasting health complications, and turn your body into a highly contagious viral mutation factory. It may also kill you. These are all terrible outcomes you should try to avoid.
Alternatively, the worst case scenario is that you will need to get on a "vaccination treadmill" where you get inoculated a couple times a year. That's it. That's the downside.
Just incredible that people are still stupid enough to think these are at minimum comparable scenarios, let alone that the one that might kill you is preferable. Needless to say my faith in our species has really taken a hit in the last 18 months.
Also, just fyi, africans weren't losing their eyesight to covid
@5 how are you defining a "fair-share" of taxes? And how are you defining "rich-people"?
Everyone pays sales tax in this state, so if "rich" people are able to buy more useless stuff, they pay more in taxes. That seems fair.
And if "rich" people own homes, they pay property tax, about 1% of assessed value each year. Presumably 'rich' people own homes at a higher rate, and presumably at a higher assessed value, so they are paying more of the tax burden there.
And if "rich" people drive cars in this city, they pay tax when they buy gas, and they pay tax when they register their vehicle every year. Presumably "rich" people have cars that have a higher value, so they are paying more of the tax burden there.
Now when it comes to services the city provides, all the tax payers contribute towards those services. Presumably "rich" people don't consume those services, or at least consume them at a much lower rate. However, they are paying for them, so they are bearing more of the tax burden than "non-rich" people.
So outside of thinking of taxes in some socialist construct, I fail to see how "rich" people aren't paying their fair share when in actuality, "rich" people contribute the most tax dollars vs "non" rich people and arguably get less of the benefits.
also also lol
Some random guy says drs should prescribe a drug if they like turns into 'dr tokyo, president of medicine in japan, says everyone should take parasite drugs now'
@5 I'm sorry to tell you but Gonzeles is the status quo candidate. Demonize business and home owners as some evil blight on this city, complain they don't pay their "fair share" while never defining what that even means or how she plans to take it from them and meanwhile let the homeless continue to carry on in misery while destroying the surroundings of wherever they set up camp and increasing crime. A Gonzales administration will be filled with zero accountability for service providers, a lack of transparency of taxpayer funds (e.g. The Black Brilliance fiasco), and hostility to anyone who doesn't toe her line (e.g. refusal to engage with the Downtown Business administration or engage with reporters who aren't friendly to her campaign). On the plus side she'll be completely aligned with the. Mosqueda-Sawant-Oliver led council so we'll see plenty of new taxes and equity projects that do little to actually change anything.
@8 Nope, not even close. The reason there is so many homeless is an out of control addiction crisis that many times devolves into mental health issues and an overly permissive city government that is content to let them wreak havoc on themselves and the rest of society until they can build their utopian dream of equity. You only need read the Times article from a couple weeks ago to know that just housing these people isn't going to alleviate the problem and there is no way Seattle has the resources to actually help all these lost souls. You can't solve a problem until you admit there is a problem and continually pretending Amazon forced all these people to lose their homes and jump on the crank train is just gaslighting the rest of us so the city can try to extract even more money from the Amazon gravy train to pay their buddies.
@11 Comte, what do you the unions are actually going to bargain for? It will be about timelines AND exemptions either through negative testing or some other form. There is no way the unions are going to allows the gov to fire people who aren't vaxxed without putting up a fight.
@24 is exactly right. Our tax scheme is regressive as fuck. Until we get an income tax it will continue to shaft the poor.
@24 This has nothing to do with an individuals "fair share" of the tax burden. All your analysis points out is that there are more bottom earners than top earners. Which is true, but not a valid way to come up with tax policy. On an individual basis, a top earner pays more tax dollars than a bottom earner. Under the current system, that is fair.
No argument on this end that an income tax is needed in Washington. But it is untrue to say that high earners don't pay their "fair share".
It would be more honest for the socialists to say they want top earners to pay a higher tax rate because for some reason they considered that to be fair, but I don't see how that is fair. It would be more fair to simply cut spending rather than argue that one group of the population should pay more of what they make so that another group of the population can benefit. That isn't fair. It may be moral, but it isn't fair.
@24: Hence a state income tax alleviates the burden on property tax payers in Oregon?
@30 Nope, there's still high property tax at least on newer construction. It's complicated. However, income tax alleviates the sales tax burden as there isn't one.
Grew up in NY state - which has an income tax. Someone help me understand how NY is so much ahead of the curve in solving similar problems - due to the magic bullet of state income tax.
Lots of medications have formulations for animals and humans but the primary criticism of this bizarre fixation on ivermectin is that it is a treatment for parasites. PARASITES. Covid is a virus, not a parasite. Still with me?
People are being ridiculed for ingesting "horse paste" because they are circumventing the medical system and all practical medical advise and taking a drug formulatioln that is made for horses because their doctor -- HUMAN doctor, for humans -- refuses to prescribe it to them. Even if we call ivermectin "a prescription anti-parasitic" instead of "horse paste" it doesn't change the fundamental stupidity of the people taking it.
Yes people who were infected produced antibodies against the infection. Are you just discovering how the immune system works, or..? Vaccines do the same thing, without the added baggage of maybe killing you.
"Fauci stressed that the majority of breakthrough cases involving the delta variant saw "minimal symptoms or no symptoms at all." Who cares what their viral load is, the point is that vaccinated people still need to observe mask and distancing interventions because they can still transmit the virus despite their not experiencing symptoms.
Signing in just to report @17’s dumb and wildly misinformed comment
One of our line guys already quit over the vaccine requirement. I don't know where he thinks he's going to go. Every utility is requiring it.
Headline: "Mu COVID Variant, Which Scientists Fear is Resistant to Vaccines, Detected in 39 Countries"
Lede: "A new coronavirus strain has been declared a variant of interest by the World Health Organization (WHO) with mutations that may be resistant to vaccines."
From the article: "Although the global prevalence of the Mu variant has declined and is "currently below 0.1 percent" the prevalence in Colombia (39 percent) and Ecuador (13 percent) has "consistently increased," the report reads."
I don't know if the problem here is scientific illiteracy or just plain illiteracy. I understand that the media can be bad at communicating scientific information, and their current business model values clicks over accuracy, but if you take the time to read this article, it tells you scientists added another strain to the 'variants of interest' because it is increasing in prevalence in a couple countries (but declining globally), and they don't know much else about it beyond that.
If you've been evicted due to COVID - which does happen A LOT - you won't be able to get into that housing you're sweeping them into.
Cold. Hard. Reality.
37 I am sure the fellow anti-vaxers and probably Trump himself will give that martyr the support that all martyrs need.
@40: Calm down prof. The nuances of politics and science, facts, truths, or otherwise discussed here regarding COVID-19 are not misinforming or causing damage to anyone. You are a just a bloviating control freak.
Here and in your personal life.
Topic change ... Is anyone else getting the advertisement selling the $219K Ford Bronco? Holy shit, that used to be a classic shit banger car for Eastern WA. I know it's been updated, but that's insane. If you click on the site, they go as high as $325K for a 1975 Bronco. I used to think people driving G-Class Mercedes were the ultimate douche bags ...wWell, that may have changed.
@25 -- There is a proven connection between the cost of housing and homelessness:
Do you have a counter study to back up your bullshit claims? Of course not. Fuck, get a clue.
@8 -- You are as stupid as @25. Once again I have to get a study that proves the obvious: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/hier1948.pdf, https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/california-needs-to-build-more-apartments/. This effects the cost of social housing as well: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/LIHTC_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf. Meanwhile, there are plenty of cities across the globe that are far more affordable simply because they allow more apartments to be built: https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-way-to-affordable-housing/.
You are essentially arguing that the best way to reduce housing costs is to dramatically limit supply -- in other words, stick with what we have been doing. Only allow apartments in a very small part of the city, in hopes that will be adequate. Then wonder why new apartments are so expensive. Fuck -- I really have to spell it out to you. The reason new apartments are so expensive is because there are so few. The reason there are so few is because in almost of Seattle, you can't build them. Even on an empty or subdivided lot, all they can build are houses. For example, on this empty lot, they built three houses like this: https://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/12051-20th-Ave-NE-98125/home/171917350. This was a 25,000 square foot lot -- enough for a 25 unit, 3 story apartment (and a nice play area). But instead they divided it up into three lots -- as small as legally allowed -- each one being huge. They then built what made sense to build, given the relatively low construction costs and enormous lots: mansions. This is what you want, apparently. More of the same, not more apartments. Then you'll wonder why they are so expensive.
Previous comment should reference @28.
@5 and @28 -- An analogy: Imagine that in order to make a new smart phone (anywhere in the world), you needed a special permit. Only a small number of permits existed, and they were in the hands of people who bought phones years ago. Only about 1,000 smartphones were allowed to be built every year.
What would happen? All new phones would be ridiculously expensive even if they were just a little bit better than average (since they are new). Only rich people would own new phones. Used phones would go way up in value. At the low end, there would be people who want a phone, but simply can't afford them. The owners of the permits would pass on their wealth to their heirs.
That is the market we are in with housing. The only major difference is that the problem is regional, not global. Demand for housing grew very quickly, but our outdated, racist zoning policies couldn't keep up. Oh, the rules don't specifically limit housing by race (anymore) but the fact that they did means that people of color have been systematically excluded from the housing market. The limited opportunity for new construction further limits those opportunities, as confirmed in a recent study. Here is an article summarizing the results: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattles-longstanding-urban-village-strategy-for-growth-needs-reworking-new-report-says/
To quote the article: The analysis recommends that the city change its zoning laws to allow more housing types in areas outside the urban villages that are now reserved for single-family homes.
@45 Ross, but you're wrong on this one. Seattle zoning changes are not going to house the homeless. Think NYC.
Also, everyone advocating for zoning changes aren't considering the infrastructure costs of upgrading sewage, water, power to address the increased utilization of these utilities. Not to mention mass transit.
Also, not everyone wants Seattle to change into multifamily neighborhoods. That's just as legitimate as those who want across the board multifamily zoning. One side will eventually win, and it's the latter. But you can't blame people for wanting to live in single-family houses and be in a neighborhood of them. For a lot of people, that's part of the American Dream. Policy wonks too often forget that.
Seattle has a homeless problem because it's a big city that is relatively accommodating to homeless people. Lots of the homeless have come here from other places.
This can't be stated enough: until homeless advocates stop conflating the circumstances of the unhoused under the same umbrella, we can't even have a meaningful conversation about this issue. Putting the primary focus on housing is ass-backwards.
@49 exactly right
@45 sure there is a link between housing insecurity and cost however you don’t need a study to know putting mentally compromised people with addictions in an apt isn’t going to solve their issues and in many cases they will wind up back out on the street again.
Lets expound upon your smart phone example. Let’s say you gave anyone who wanted one a permit. The cost of building a smart phone is $500 and they normally retail for $800. The problem is the less fortunate can only pay $350. No one will build a smart phone to sell it at a loss so now the gov will have to step in and subsidize the rest using taxpayer funds. People in neighboring counties see this and go wait I’ve been using rotary dial cause that is all I can afford. I’ll just move to seattle and get me a sweet sweet smart phone deal.
Beyond that they produce a smartphone 2 because it’s the most basic model. Many people have a smartphone 8 already and really like it. Too bad the gov says. We need to make sure everyone has the same shitty phone in the name of equity. Don’t worry though we’ll also raise your taxes to pay for everyone else’s phone while giving you a crappier product.
Do you begin to see why this will never work and why urbanism is a fools paradise that will only lead to poverty and misery? The fact is not everyone can afford to live in Seattle and no amount of building will fix that.
@52 ASG, the funny thing about your comment is I have no idea whether you're being sarcastic or not.
You'd have to be a real a-hole not to want every human being to have food, clothing and shelter. The question is how do you get there.
@53: The point of @52 is the same as @49. Seattle's homelessness crisis is driven far more by Substance Abuse Disorder than by rising rents. Seattle can build all of the subsidized housing it wants without getting many homeless persons off the street, because rising rents are not what put the homeless out on the street in the first place. The only a-holes here are the ones who continue to insist that, despite all of the evidence, providing housing alone will solve the problem.
(I'm all in favor of Seattle greatly expanding supply of below-market-rate housing. I'm just reiterating that doing so will leave most of Seattle's current homeless population right where they are.)
@54 tensor, yeah, uh, I'm @49. @52 is not the same point as @49.
ASG is an asshat (based on their comment history). I'm an empathetic person who understands the complexities of the current problem of homelessness, and how we got here, and of coming up with solutions that actually make progress.
Homelessness is not a moral failing. I would be all for giving money and housing to everyone for free, but that's not realistic. And I think TS and homeless advocates do a disservice to their cause treating it as realistic.
@55: Uh, yeah, I did see your nym on @49. @52 is a sarcastic version of the same point as you made in the last two paragraphs @49. (Like @50, I agree completely with everything you wrote @49.) Seattle's City Council and The Stranger have relentlessly ignored how much Substance Abuse Disorder drives homelessness. Their errant focus on housing sets homeless policy (and many or most of the homeless themselves) up to fail.
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.
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134