Comments

1

"A directive from the City in their budget gave the KCRHA $1.9 million to create spaces for 25 vehicles."

Jesus Chris, that's 76,000 per RV.

That would cover nearly 4 years rent for 25 single bedroom apartments at the median market rate. https://www.seattlepi.com/realestate/article/seattle-is-14-most-expensive-city-to-rent-in-us-16491835.php

That could purchase the materials for 422 tiny houses. https://lihi.org/tiny-houses/#:~:text=The%20cost%20of%20materials%20for,email%20tinyhouses%40lihi.org.

2

There’s also the matter of fucking Trump fucking getting away with it yet a-fucking-gain: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/nyregion/trump-investigation-felony-resignation-pomerantz.html

3

Mask madness indeed.

4

@1 like...at that point just make a deal with the person, we will buy you a new trailer if you leave king county for cheaper pastures.
seems better for everyone, idk.

can't wait to see what spot in unincorporated south seattle they have undoubtedly setup for this, because why not? unincorporated king county are already poor and have hardly any representation in government. zahilay? please, mans probably playing elden ring on dual rtx3090s right now.

5

@1 - yeah, insane.

6

@1 Perhaps, but RV dwellers still need a legal place to be. We can easily do both if we just have the political will to insist that the most fortunate among us start paying their fair share.

@2 I was optimistic all last year that Trump was facing certain legal or financial doom in the wake of Jan. 6, but I no longer think he's going to be meaningfully held to account for anything, ever. Prosecutors and regulators at every level are clearly terrified of his violent multi-million member personality cult, the likes of which this country has never seen. Even the Mafia at its height of influence was less intimidating. Get ready for another presidential run, this time with his minions in key swing-state election oversight positions.

7

@2 Well what do you expect?

Like all Progressive Prosecutors Alvin Bragg, campaigned on stopping the DA's office from prosecuting crimes.

Looks like he meant it.

When you vote for someone on the side of criminals don't be surprised when criminals walk free.

8

"If you lectured a woman for 45+ minutes at Madison Park Beach about her small dog being off-leash on July 29, please email me. This weird, aggressive behavior made a profound impact on me"

Maybe the length is a bit much, but I don't find it weird or aggressive to let an off-leasher know they are being a dick. If more people did this in Seattle instead of the typical mumbling under their breath, giving stink eyes, and complaining on the internet, the number of off-leashers would probably decrease.

9

@7, what a stupid take. Just bone-dumb. I know you have this big beef about crime in Seattle, but if it’s led you down this moronic road, you might rethink your priorities.

9

@6 Nah it's all on Bragg. If he prosecuted Trump for fraud, he'd have to prosecute others for the same crime. And he clearly doesn't want to prosecute anyone for anything.

Be careful what you wish for.

10

@9

Okay. Then why did newly elected progressive DA Alvin Bragg pull the plug on the prosecution of Donald J. Trump?

It was solely Bragg's decision to not pursue prosecution of Trump. You explain it.

11

@1:

Considering current land values $1.9 mm seems like a bargain for enough space in the city to park 25 vehicles each nearly the size of a Metro bus.

12

@4 Good question, and as a White Center resident, I was asking myself the same thing.

I noticed a while back the COVID quarantine site off 112th between 1st and 4th was recently cleared, that's my bet. This is the one I am talking about: https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/elected/executive/constantine/initiatives/isolation-quarantine-assessment-recovery-shelter/fact-sheets/white-center/White_Center_IQR_Fact_Sheet_DCHS.ashx?la=en

I assume the county just scrapped all the housing units it had on that site. That would be par for the course in the regional homelessness response: demolish county-owned dwellings for 31 persons to clear the way to spend over $1 million on a gravel lot for 25 RVs.

13

@6 can you please define “fair share”. That is constantly used on these pages yet have never seen anyone specify when you have reached this magic threshold.

14

I'm curious as to what these RV lots will consist of. Full hookups (electric, water, sewer). For that price, I certainly hope so.

As for the Seattle-adjacent parts of unincorporated South King County (White Center and Skyway) and their lack of political clout, that fault lies largely with them.

Skyway has rejected Renton, and they don't have the tax base to become their own town, so they are going to be absorbed into Seattle. White Center rejected Burien, and they are in the same boat.

As Mother Vel-DuRay used to say, they need to either shit or get off the pot.

15

Send the RVs to Texas or Idaho. Get them out of town.

16

@15 I'd be happy just sending them to Aberdeen and Astoria. Hell that's where most of them came from anyway.

17

@13 Personally, at the federal level I'd start by repealing the Reagan tax cuts, thus returning the top marginal rate to at least the roughly 70 percent that prevailed from Kennedy to Carter (still lower than the 90+ percent under Eisenhower) and tax unearned income (i.e., capital gains) at least as much as wages, perhaps more. At the state level, adopt the recommendations of the Economic Opportunity Institute for a progressive state income tax along with a concentrated wealth tax (I'll defer to their numbers). My point in response to @1 is that if we were a rational society we would determine the true extent of our needs FIRST, and then set tax rates accordingly rather than the reverse. The never-ending back-and-forth of "if we do that, we can't do this other thing" gets more tiresome every day.

19

@17: The peoples' money is not an infinite supply, so there will always be a need for prioritization. "If we do that, we can't do that" is assessing the needs vs. the wishes, the must haves vs. the nice-to-haves.

20

yep, @17
Rational Tax Policy's
always a Tough Sell to
the easily-fooled. this Count-
ry Screams for a damn good Ed-
Ucation -- FOR ALL. but if the Rich
already get one, why should they worry
about we, the Peonage? say that Reminds
me: how do they Taste? (not Really dying to know).

not yet anyways

21

@17 what @19 said. You can't set the needs first because the needs are essentially unlimited. You can always find another program to fund. You listed a few policy positions you'd prefer but didn't answer the main question. What is a "fair share"?

@20 please enlighten us on "rational" tax policy and define "fair share" in your own weird way.

22

sure:
see FDR

23

S·O·L·I·D·A·R·I·T·Y

24

I'm guessing that if someone lectured an off-leash dog walker for 45+ minutes nine months ago (!) they probably aren't going to remember that particular incident because it likely isn't the only one.

25

So according to miss bobble-head it’s ok to remove/destroy the cities tree canopy as long as it’s done in a way that she deems ok? Alrighty then…

26

@22: Deficit spending (which can be a good thing) and tax policy on generated revenue are two different things.

27

@22 so basically you are in favor of a wealth cap since the top tax rate back in 1944 reached 94% on income over $200K ($2.5M) in today's dollars. That's great in theory but there are numerous economic papers why that not only won't work in reality (people cheat) but why its ultimately bad for the economy as a whole (suppresses innovation, productivity etc). So the idea of "fair share" really is just a dogwhistle for punishing wealthy people which of course is why whenever I read about people or companies not paying their fair share I roll my eyes.

28

"Okay, okay, Seattle has TRIED to do RV safe lots in the past..."

Yes, after then-Mayor Murray first declared a Homelessness Crisis. The idea was to give locals, who had been priced out of their homes and were now living in RVs, a chance to get back into stable, permanent housing. That last part somehow never happened*, and faced with the enormous, ongoing cost of what was intended as a temporary situation, Seattle discontinued the program.

We can only wonder what might happen this time.

*Because, then as now, the homeless were mostly recent arrivals, not displaced locals.

29

@19 Our resources are not infinite, no. But they're incredibly vast. There are residents of this state whose personal worth exceeds the entire state budget (just as individuals, mind you, let alone their businesses). In what conceivably rational universe is it OK for one person to amass that kind of wealth while the rest of us quibble over parking spaces vs. shacks for the homeless? We impoverish ourselves needlessly in deference to an ideological mindset that is destroying the planet the vain pursuit of infinite personal gain. Restoring a sharply progressive tax regime won't fix this by itself, but we can't do much without it.

@21 OK, let's try approaching this from a different angle. Rhetorically asking what would be a "fair share" seems to me a patently absurd question in a state where the bottom income quintile pays five times as much tax as a percentage of their income as the top quintile (by some estimates more than that, 17% to 3%), making ours the most inequitable tax system in the entire country. How about we at least bring that disparity up to the level of a flat tax, for starters? OK by you? (I'm guessing not.)

31

@2 schmacky and @6 CKathes: Jesus wept. Orange Turd and its Death Cult MUST be held criminally accountable, or those of us with the ability to vote wisely can all kiss our asses goodbye while what's left of the Earth is senselessly destroyed for wont of the last increasingly worthless U.S. dollar. I blame the GOP and social media. We outnumber these ~ 75 million shitwipes!


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
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.