Disqus - Latest Comments for NoSpin

Re: Showbox blowback: Judge rejects protections for music venue

NoSpin — Sat, 22 Jun 2019 12:08:58 -0000

I don't think the City of Seattle should do anything as dubious as buying the Showbox building - especially when there's an affordable housing crisis - but I do think private citizens who think the Showbox is so special should form a non-profit backed by a kickstarter campaign to buy it. Let *them* put *their money* where their mouths are.

Re: Labor Groups Divided on Endorsements for Mayor

NoSpin — Sat, 15 Jul 2017 12:01:47 -0000

"Rolf told PubliCola he thinks she has a proven track record of uniting constituents on a number of difficult issues like police accountability, civil rights, and cybersecurity."

Track record of uniting constituents???

She's never held elected office - what 'constituents' has she ever united?

The SEIU-775 endorsement of Durkan is completely in line with their track record of treating elections like horse races and hedging their bets: they think she's going to end up being mayor (and they're almost certainly right...) so they're supporting her, never mind that virtually every other candidate has the interest of workers closer to their hearts (Durkan's work as a paid legal advisor for 775 notwithstanding).

They do this all the time: Clinton over Sanders, and even Republican Andy Hill over Democratic challenger Matt Isenhower for the state senate.

Re: Is Sea-Tac too good for Ivar’s now?

NoSpin — Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:00:19 -0000

I don't think Ivar's corporate opposition to the $15 minimum wage in Sea-Tac was a factor in this. The Port opposed it as well, so they're on the same page as far as wages are concerned.

I'll agree, however, that I have a bit less sympathy for Ivar's because of their opposition to the $15 minimum wage. They opposed the 'little guy/gal' workers, and now they're complaining that they're getting beat up as the 'little guy' restaurant? Boo Hoo.

Re: We pay taxes for better police training, but it’s not being spent

NoSpin — Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:35:29 -0000

Why don't they just make the advanced 40-hour training a requirement of employment for officers at the time of hire? Wouldn't that avoid the excuse of "unpredictable scheduling?"

Law enforcement is much more talking to people than using force, yet the training priorities seem to emphasize the opposite. There's no way in hell a law enforcement agency would hire a cop without firearms training; why should they be able to hire someone who doesn't have the comprehensive training necessary to avoid using a firearm?

The very fact that some training is mandatory and another is optional demonstrates where law enforcement priorities lay.

Re: Why doesn’t Seattle manage the money it already has?

NoSpin — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 21:05:03 -0000

"So somehow, through magical thinking, we are going to overturn 80 years of State Supreme Court rulings."

It's not "80 years of Supreme Court rulings," it's an 80-year old Supreme Court ruling. Big difference. Times change, courts change, and precedent becomes outdated.

Re: Why doesn’t Seattle manage the money it already has?

NoSpin — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 16:55:47 -0000

It is interesting that the author chose to compare current city budget numbers to 2010 - after the city had cut spending due to the Great Recession. Republicans in the Legislature do the same thing: they cherry-pick numbers so they can say 'oh my god our budget is x-times bigger than it was y-years ago' while conveniently leaving out any context.

Re: Why doesn’t Seattle manage the money it already has?

NoSpin — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 14:06:41 -0000

"Why doesn't Seattle manage the money it already has?"

Because most of the taxes Seattleites pay - sales tax, property tax - ends up going to the state, which redistributes it to fund public services in the welfare counties of eastern, rural WA.

If a majority of Seattleites want to tax themselves more, why should non-Seattleites care?

The Seattle City Council is doing exactly what Seattle citizens want - and if they're not, they won't get re-elected. That's exactly how representative government is supposed to work.

Re: Why doesn’t Seattle manage the money it already has?

NoSpin — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:40:35 -0000

" If you are packing more people into the same urban footprint wouldn't that make for greater efficiency in delivery of some services?? Power, sewer, transit, etc."

No - exactly the opposite.

Let's say the sewer system in a single-family neighborhood was built a half-century ago or more. Now, with increasing density, many of those single-family homes are being replaced with apartment buildings, condos, and aPodments that house many more people on the same footprint. And all those extra people flush toilets, run faucets, and take showers - placing an exponential demand on a sewer system designed for far fewer people a half centurty ago. Upgrading that old sewer system in an already built-up urban environment is incredibly expensive - far more than building a brand new sewer system in a new suburban or rural development, since you have to work aroud other existing infrastructure, close congested streets, etc.

The same is true of delivering human services. The local DMV office (or DSHS office, or whatever) may have been built decades ago with the expectation of serving x number of people over a given area. The area they serve is still the same number of square miles, but with increasing density there are now many more people expecting services. But that decades old DMV office is still the same size, and can accomodate only the same number of staff it was designed for. A new, bigger office is more expensive to build because the pressure of development has driven up land costs, as well as the cost of local construction labor.

And never mind that many of the services that governments deliver (particularly healthcare, but also education) have costs that start off pretty high becasue they require a highly educated workforce, and that the cost of many of those services increases at a rate that outpaces general inflation, regardless of whether they're being delivered in the public or private sector (again, healthcare).

Re: Seattle’s highest paid employee wants a bonus

NoSpin — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:03:53 -0000

So his organization isn't running well enough for his subordinates to deserve a bonus, but he somehow thinks HE's doing so well that he scores 5-out-of-5 in 36 different performance categories?

Not only does he not deserve a bonus, he should be fired for being delusional.

Re: KeyArena fight: It's just the 2nd inning

NoSpin — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 18:51:21 -0000

Yes, and like the ancient Romans our current civic leaders are more eager to provide us with 'bread and circuses' than genuine solutions to more serious problems.

Re: WA’s Mainstream Republicans hope to survive Tweeter-in-Chief

NoSpin — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 13:18:59 -0000

Several observations:

1) Aside from old-timers like Dan Evans and Slade Gorton, who were the so-called 'mainstream Republicans' that attended this conferance? Were any of them sitting Republican legislators?

2) Republicans picking up another state-wide elected office - Treasurer - is not a sign that Republicans have "ongoing strength against blue headwinds" but rather a byproduct of our top-two primary system. In that races top-two primary there were only two Rs splitting the conservative vote but three Ds spiltting the progressive vote, leaving voters with a choice between the two Republicans on the final November ballot.

3) I'm very sure that Republicans are eager to market Jinyoung Englund as a 'mainstream Republican' in the special election for a state senate seat in the 45th LD, but she's anything but moderate. As noted in the article she's a former GOP aide to U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers and does not espouse the kind of "pragmatic, moderate, embracing of refugees and environmental stewardship" values that the article attributes to “Dan Evans Republicans."

Re: Why can’t Seattle and the rest of WA just get along?

NoSpin — Mon, 15 May 2017 14:01:53 -0000

Yes, because if the Bay Area is known for anything it's a lack of restaurants.

Yes, there's churn in the restaurant industry - alway has been, always will be.

But the 'higher minimum wage is gonig to destroy the restaurant industry' meme is reminiscent of the doom-and-gloom predictions when smoking bans went into effect. According to neysayers it was supposted to be virtually impossible to run profitable bar unless people could enjoy a smoke with their drink. Decades later, there are just as many bars as before.

Darwinism applies just as much to business as it does to the evolution of species.

Re: Has Trump doomed the WA GOP to irrelevance?

NoSpin — Mon, 15 May 2017 12:58:31 -0000

"This strategy [Republicans recruiting moderates to run for suburban legislative seats] has earned us [Republicans] the majority in the state Senate for the past four years."

Um, no.

Republicans currently control the state Senate without actually holding a majority of the seats because a conservative rural Democrat caucuses with them.

And four years ago the Republicans gained control of the state Senate when another Democrat was part of their so-called "Majority Coalition Caucus."

Yes, recruiting somewaht moderate candidates to run in suburban legislative districts has contributed to Republican control of the state Seante - in combination with duplicitous and disingenuous behavior. That's not the same thing as 'earning a majority.'

Re: Why can’t Seattle and the rest of WA just get along?

NoSpin — Mon, 15 May 2017 10:11:53 -0000

Rural WA has more people per capita on some form of public assistance than Seattle - plus higher unemployment, greater opioid use, and lower life expectancy. Seattle is a net contributor to the state coffers; it's the rural WA communities that 'drain resources' and would be in a world of trouble if they had to 'live within their means.'

Re: State Rep. Farrell, a transportation leader, joins mayor’s race

NoSpin — Fri, 12 May 2017 18:21:57 -0000

What other "peer metro area" has the kinds of taxing restrictions that we do yet manages to do a better job funding transit?

Every transit advocate I know wishes that we had the ability to tax pregressively to fund not only transit but everything else as well.

We don't have "unique, and uniquely abusive, regressive taxing for transit" per se - we have uniquely regressive taxing, period.

And what's your alternate solution?

Pass a progressive tax to fund transit? Good luck with that. Sincerely. I'd love to see that happen.

Re: Dave Reichert would consider FBI job

NoSpin — Thu, 11 May 2017 18:45:54 -0000

Right now I bet he'd consider any government job that doesn't require him to answer to constituents or voters!

This seems like a long-shot, though. NPR just ran a segment that included a long list of potential appointees, and Reichert wasn't among them.

Re: Tax reform will get more scrutiny than Trumpcare, Reichert says

NoSpin — Wed, 10 May 2017 16:05:50 -0000

"Tax reform will get more scrutiny than Trumpcare, Reichert says"

That's because Republicans care more about their money than our healthcare.

Re: Bob Hasegawa is running for Seattle mayor

NoSpin — Mon, 08 May 2017 22:59:27 -0000

"If we are to tax more, everyone who pays Federal Taxes should be stuck with any city tax."

So you're fine with a city or state Capital Gains Tax, based on the same criteria and exemptions as the Federal tax?

Re: Why Seattle will never be a walkable city

NoSpin — Fri, 05 May 2017 12:55:31 -0000

Net new infrastructure IS needed in the city to support any new development.

Our existing infrastructure is already inadequate for the existing population - hence the traffic. Allowing new development without enhancing supporting infrastructure simply adds to the burden.

The most classic example is new housing development - particulary without a requirement for on-site parking.

The rationale put forward is that these new residences will house people who don't need cars bacause they'll be living in a so-called "urban village" or along a so-called "transit corridor."

The reality is that the "urban village" has broken sidewalks - if it has sidewalks at all - and poor pedestrian access across major arterials; the "transit corridor" has buses that are reliably unreliable - late and/or at capacity more often than not. So those new residents discover that they do indeed need a car, but since they live in a new development that was built under the bogus guideline that 'no parking is necessary' they end up storing their private property (a car) on public land (a roadway) and inhibiting the flow of already terrible traffic.

New development should include parking and pay development fees to account for their additional burden to our already inadequate infrastructure.

Re: Why Seattle will never be a walkable city

NoSpin — Thu, 04 May 2017 12:08:36 -0000

You forgot to include mention of SDOTs downright incompetence!

Last summer SDOT shut down an intersection in my neighborhood to retrofit ADA compliant access at the corners. They spent the better part of a week fixing three of the four corners, and left the fourth unchanged. Someday they'll waste valuable crew time to come out and fix that fourth curb. Someday. Or not. Who knows? SDOT probably has records indicating they did a cracker-jack job on that corner, and is thus ignoring neighborhood complaints about that one bad curb.

And how much money does SDOT waste on superflous traffic signals? It seems like every intersection has two overhead lights for one lane, or three signals for two lanes.

Check out this image of westbound Roanoke at Boyleston, for example.There are two westbound lanes: the right lane must go straight - no turns allowed - while the left lane must turn left. Pretty simple to signalize - and yet SDOT somehow feels compelled to complicate it with excess signals that do nothing but confuse drivers. Three signals for two lanes? That middle signal is not only superflous, but actualy gives drivers in the left lane the false impression that they can go straight.

https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

This intersection is a few hundred yards from an I-5 exit, and is on one of the few overpasses that allows east/west access across I-5, making it a pretty busy intersection. And yet it's a regular cluster-f*#k every day - primarily because one or two drivers get confused by SDOTs incompetent job of providing proper signalization.

Re: Why Seattle will never be a walkable city

NoSpin — Thu, 04 May 2017 11:46:26 -0000

It would help if SPD would reprioritize some of their officers away from 'speed enforcement' and onto basic 'traffic enforcement' - like ticketing drivers who do 'rolling stops' or 'block the box.' I see speedtraps on places like Aurora all the time, while traffic is gridlocked on surface streets because drivers enter an intersection on a 'stale yellow' light and end up blocking cross-traffic or pedestrians. If a highway like SR-99 is wide-open enough that drivers can speed, God-bless - let them get where they're going and focus on clearing up traffic so the rest of us can get through a crosswalk without risking our lives.

Re: Amazon unaware of biased job recruitment

NoSpin — Wed, 03 May 2017 20:47:29 -0000

While I'm sure large companies with lots of job openings have legitimate reasons for outsourceing their recruiting, it certaily seems like they're more than willing to take advantage of the 'plausible deniability' that's available to them in situations like this.

Re: Has Seattle finally figured out redevelopment?

NoSpin — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:44:32 -0000

Indeed. Junk is Junk - whehter it's crap-quality construction in the form of a condo complex or an apartment building. It's the exact same developers out to make a quick buck, thanks in part to a compliant local governent eager for development at any cost, that are building hives that will get torn down in a generation. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Re: Legislature: What, us worry about finishing on time?

NoSpin — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:45:42 -0000

And when that same governor vetoes law-enforcement or economic development legislation, you'd turn around and criticize him for being 'soft on crime' or 'weak on jobs.'

It is the Legislatures responsibility to negotiate and pass a budget, not the Governors.

Re: Washington’s GOP has some lessons for Trump

NoSpin — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:10:28 -0000

"Republicans won control of the federal government because Barack Obama, in 2010 and 2014, and Hillary Clinton in 2016 were even less popular than they were."

No, they won because of radical gerrymandering of congressional districts and voter suppression.

And it's hard to argue that Republicans were more popular than Clinton in 2016 when she got nearly three million more votes than Trump. Yes, Trump was 'elected' - but on a technicality, not by popular mandate.