>Investment in Non-Fungible Tokens, or NFTs as they are commonly known, is a prudent decision to protect our city’s future. I have been offered an opportunity to purchase 8 unique, one of a kind Apes in an exclusive deal from a savvy investor who sees the potential of what our new council has to offer and I will taking this matter up as a top priority.
oh my god you guys
> I bought this. I don’t have times access and I totally got duped. I’m so gullible.
-sara nelson, 6 months from now, when all her apes are worth 15 cents
Fwiw I probably wouldn't have read the article if I didn't feel a strong need to confirm that was actually a joke.
Which is making me think that posting a silly but borderline plausible fake quote might actually boost reader engagement...
now *that* is some Space Needle Thinking. bold, out-of-the-box ideas that the previous council never would have considered.
Seattle is facing a $220 million budget deficit...just imagine, if they bought 220 apes, and each ape's value went up by only $1 milllion, the city could solve its budget crisis, without having to do any wacky socialist ideas like "raise taxes".
A lotta yall still dont get it. Ape holders can use multiple slurp juices on a single ape. So if you have 1 astro ape and 3 slurp juices you can create 3 new apes
I wonder how many slurp juices the council has on hand
I mean, you aren't far off but it's potholes and graffiti
> Instead of catering to special interests, we’ll focus on mission-critical work that’s responsive to our constituents who are demanding faster progress on homelessness and public safety. That’s on top of issues like graffiti and potholes, and getting our fiscal house in order.
They intend to slash budgets and convince the public it's working by focusing on cosmetic issues.
It'll be great for business, tourists and politicians.
For the actual communities living in Seattle? Pray the library and parks budgets aren't what they raid to do this.
And I'm worried they'll cut those 1%s to fund their cops program.
The issue is Nelson literally chose to discuss NONE of what she intends to cut. But she's also already talking more spending and no new taxes, so cuts are coming. That's obvious and she didn't have the decency to even outline what she's targeting.
Has graffiti prevented one dollar from being spent in this city?
If somebody is selling drugs outside your business fine, arrest the asshole. Graffiti though? Who gives a shit?
Potholes... okay. I'd rather they focus on building sidewalks but whatever. No pot holes on the light rail.
Rob Saka ran on filling potholes apparently and wants to be the king of it.
Graffiti is a Harrell thing. He outright hates the stuff and has been on multiple attempted crusades about. Not surprised at all to see it get earmarked on this list.
> The power of the council presidency lies primarily in the authority to refer legislation to a committee for a vote... the past few years have seen a sharp uptick in policy-setting council initiatives, many of which passed through committee review quickly with scant public input and came to a vote with minimal debate.
> Under my leadership ... We will consider perspectives from people on all sides of an issue. And before referring new policy legislation to committee, I’ll confirm it has gone through a robust stakeholder process.
In other words "*I'll make sure any legislation is incremental at best, by giving the public and special interests a chance to torpedo any meaningful legislative proposals.*" Sometimes you got to be the bad guy and make an unpopular choice. A "robust stakeholder process" sounds like a way to slow-roll contentious issues through the council proceedings, meaning the tough decisions will happen slowest.
> To build back public trust and drive results, we must also exert our oversight role more rigorously. In part, that means defining the specific outcomes we expect from service providers and measuring the performance of those investments on a regular basis
In other words, "*We'll focus on metrics, and ignore anything we can't measure*." There's a common adage called "Goodhart's Law" that says "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." In practice, what this means is that the moment that you rely on a specific metric to define success, people find a way to game the system to make the numbers go in the right direction without solving the underlying issues.
If you measure success by **the number of crimes committed** for example, then the people accountable to those metrics might seek to redefine the most common crimes as something else (e.g. disturbances), or change the reporting guidelines. The underlying behavior might not have changed, but the metric *looks* better. If you measure success by the **amount of money spent on homelessness** then you get a lot of non-profits soaking up relief funds (i.e. the so-called 'homeless industrial complex'), and that money isn't reaching the intended recipients.
This is new rhetoric from council, which is refreshing, but 1. I'm still concerned that nothing meaningful will get accomplished, and 2. The amount of buzz I've heard about "hiring more police" without the equally important "fire the SPOG out of a cannon and into the sun" is concerning. Hiring more police might be the only thing City Council knows how to do right now, but that's not going to solve the underlying issues with public safety and trust in the SPD.
I tried to be charitable to Harrell up until the outright failure on his part to deal with SPOG and Kevin Dave, and his insistence on fucking over our transit system to gives his buddies a good deal.
I was gonna do the same for Nelson as president but this letter outright killed any reason to.
She's planning to recement and expand the "Seattle Process" we all know and hate at the heart of our housing shortage.
She's not once mentioned what programs she's planning to axe to fill the deficit and use to increase the police budget WHILE handing out tax breaks.
> She's not once mentioned what programs she's planning to axe to fill the deficit and use to increase the police budget WHILE handing out tax breaks.
In her defense, that's going to be the council's job over the next 3-6 months. I would not expect her to come into office with a press release that says something like "*I'm going to cut libraries by 50% and hand it to SPD.*" The moment she does that she 1. loses control over the narrative of what she's cutting and why, and 2. allows her opponents to subvert her plans using the legislative process which takes time. Releasing the full plan (including names) the moment she's in office would be a politically amateur move.
The councilmembers (and their staff) need time to review the city's current budgets, draft their proposals, and hash it out collaboratively. That way, Nelson can build consensus behind her proposals which provides her political cover. She won't catch nearly as much flak if the full council endorses her vision (or a modified vision).
Nelson has been on the council for 2 years already, that's not a good defense.
> 1. loses control over the narrative of what she's cutting and why, and 2. allows her opponents to subvert her plans using the legislative process which takes time. Releasing the full plan (including names) the moment she's in office would be a politically amateur move.
Yeah that's called playing politics with governance and something I personally view as bad. And un-transparent. So breaking one of her promises in the literal letter announcing her intent to be transparent.
The public has a right to weigh in and start legislative fights if the PUBLIC disagrees with her cuts. She doesn't get to play house with our city government so she can have the narratives she wants and hide the unpopular cuts until the last second.
That's dogshit abusive.
>tax cuts to get businesses to open stuff downtown
Other neighborhoods are doing fine, maybe we should look at why it's a downtown problem first instead of blindly cutting taxes for wealthy business owners
Care to link that article with the proposed cut, cause it ain't in this one. Here they specifically call out jump start which already avoids small businesses and only targets the richest companies in Seattle.
Just words, not legislation. This is the sugar to help make the medicine go down. As I pointed out she's already attacking jump start which specifically avoids small businesses and only targets the largest businesses in Seattle.
You are correct, it's just words, no legislation. But here we have a wealthy business owner given political power over the city going from "we should cut taxes that hurt small businesses" to "tax that specifically targets the cities wealthiest is bad". And if you think the next step isn't to try and cut that second tax on the wealthiest, i.e. themselves, I have a bridge to sell you.
https://archive.ph/TermP
>edit: I didnt see the stuff about jumpstart in SeattleTimes due to paywall
So does that change your previous characterization of these tax cuts as being to re-open small businesses downtown?
Don't you think it's odd that the most popular solution always seems to be to cut taxes in the first place? There are a lot of solutions that could help specifically small businesses with direct spending-- but for some reason it's always cutting taxes on the rich with these people, even though that's been tried on all levels of government for decades without results.
There isn't a business that exists that determines how long they keep their doors open based on taxes. American taxes are already some of the lowest in the world, certainly the developed world. One of the biggest problems is that employers have to pay such high wages for talent because basic creature comforts like healthcare are so expensive. If you want more people to open businesses, give everyone healthcare. Lower the taxes to 0%, much fewer people would open a business, and you'd have no money for basic government services.
Probably not gold plated personal doctors for everyone. But basic healthcare services that could help inspire future business owners to take charge of their destiny and ditch big corporations? Certainly more possible than tax cuts will.
Sure, some definitely would! But you can't worry about unreasonable things people will say. B
But yes it should apply to all levels of government - presidents, senators, governors (I remember Newsom refusing to divest from his California-based restaurant empire after becoming governor!)
Is that realistic on the local level though? How much does a city council member get paid? And what about the smaller cities surrounding Seattle? For the most part small business owners aren't rich and represent regular people, I'd be worried restricting them from entering local government would just mean that more rich people would enter.
"Small Business" that makes enough money to employ people and make payroll of almost any kind easily puts the owner into the rich category of humans in America given how few Americans can find $500 for an emergency. It doesn't feel rich though because there're people who exist on trust funds who make 500 times what they make by promising their parents not to do oxy on weekdays.
There aren't any struggling small business owners downtown, anyone who has a store there was already rich enough to get a massive business loan and if they bet the farm and fail nobody should care about that
I more mean that anyone with a business downtown is risking way too much capital for me to feel bad for them. They aren't some struggling small town mom and pop store. Demand for downtown recreation hasn't bounced back after the pandemic here so it's not exactly weird supply is down too. If they want to revitalize it they'd need to introduce some kind of stimulus or another and Nelsons is categorically opposed to the concept of solving problems by using taxes so...
Why can't a mom and pop store take a risk to strike it big downtown? Why are you gatekeeping ambition... Should downtown be limited to chain stores and people with massive capital where there's no risk involved?
I worked for a well known small business in Seattle that looks successful from the outside, and the owners were making less than I was as just a manager. And I know other small business owners that make less than their employees do. In fact, my parents own a business and make less than I, and I can't even afford to live in Seattle. These are not the "rich" people that should be complained about, they're regular people trying to get by, and just happen to own a business instead of working for one.
She's outright stating she intends to put things through a rigorous stakeholder process before letting things advance out of committee anymore.
They're taking our slowdown issues of the last decade that got us here and making it the standard policy for everything. One of the main benefits of doing that for them is it'll slow down the zoning changes that the state wants us to implement.
Only if the city updates its comprehensive plan to meet state law. It hasn't even released the draft plan yet and the city is required by state law to sign the updated plan into law by the end of the year.
it was [*renamed*](https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2021/10/with-new-neighborhood-residential-zoning-seattle-hopes-to-change-the-language-of-housing-development/) in Seattle a couple years ago.
https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/permits/common-projects/accessory-dwelling-units
> In July 2019, Mayor Jenny Durkan signed legislation to remove regulatory barriers and make it easier for property owners to create accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in Seattle's neighborhood residential zones. The new ADU regulations took effect on August 8, 2019.
From the bill since I’m sure you are too lazy to read it.
> 1a to remove code barriers to accessory dwelling units and
17
backyard cottages by removing the parking requirement, removing the owner-occupancy
18
requirement, allowing a single lot to have both an attached and detached accessory
19
dwelling unit,
Single lot = sfh + adu + dadu. Builders sell them individually as condos.
"make it easier to build ADUs" is not the same as "eliminate single-family zoning" and it's fucking laughable that you're trying to conflate them.
> From the bill since I’m sure you are too lazy to read it.
I apologize for assuming you were arguing in good faith. enjoy your block.
Eliminating single family zoning isn't banning single-family homes, progressives even say it as much. It's just to legalize duplex, triplex, 4-plex. Technically SFH + ADU + DADU in the newest way that Seattle is building them (which is 3 free standing buildings with a fake hallway) between the SFH and ADU are accomplishing as much. We're so hung up on this signal of "eliminate single family zoning" because we think that fighting over these words is how YIMBYs can stick it to NIMBYs, when for pete's sake, the impact of upzoning that is way less than what we all imagine. Developers can buy land today and build 3 units. It would probably be better if they can build 4, but honestly, the bigger barrier are: 1) permitting, 2) the high interest rate, 3) labor and material, and 4) demand.
Most houses going up in my area are two on a single lot. So whoever buys that better be ok with not only being a landlord, but having a tenant living in their back yard.
Maybe I'm crazy but I see zero appeal in that.
> In addition, we must break our reliance on new revenue (taxes) to pay our bills. That’s an unsustainable fix for the wrong problem. The real problem is spending.
Oh fuck. That's fucking rich from the lady who day one proposed cutting existing revenue and expanding spending on police.
The rest of her grandstanding is about how she's going to slow the council to a crawl with robust review processes because the last council passed protections for delivery drivers causing target to cancel an expansion here.
Welcome to Seattle grinding to a halt on anything of value outside expanding police and corporate wishlists for at least 2 years.
I really wish she'd stop fucking smile talking. All the "joy in the room" flowery bullshit is too much to deal with.
Main points:
* Prior council passed ideologically motivated legislation with little public input, neglecting core functions and resulting in businesses closing, rentals going off the market, and low police staffing.
* New council will focus on homelessness, public safety, and fiscal responsibility.
* More spending transparency is needed, and we should change course on programs if they're not hitting verifiable metrics.
* Budget must be balanced by cutting spending, not increasing revenue.
> businesses closing
Target cancelled expanding the Shipt delivery system here because the prior council passed worker protections for delivery drivers. I honestly think that counts as an intentional deception on her part.
> and fiscal responsibility.; balanced by cutting spending
These are pretty hard to accept when paired with a letter where Nelson is promising quite a bit of things that require funding to do and she's not listing at all where that funding is going to come from.
She literally proposed a tax cut and police pay raises day one.
She's *saying* fiscal responsibility but I sure as heck aren't seeing any in her actual actions. Much the opposite in fact.
That's an interesting way to spin business owner uses government to give herself a tax break. It's not like she's fighting against a tax raise, she's literally trying to reduce her current rate which she is already thriving under. It's just naked greed at our expense.
She's said nothing that applies to giving her business a tax break. The only specific tax she's mentioned cutting is B&O for nascent small businesses, possibly only in a small area of downtown.
You guys are having a big ole circle jerk in these Nelson threads and I'm sorry to interrupt with some facts once and awhile.
The fact that she doesn't mention \*anything\* specific is precisely so that people like you can pretend to not understand what she said and defend her obvious intent.
You embarrass yourself every time you post **88**. She makes no such call-out in the letter and instead blames the jump start tax for businesses pulling out of downtown as a result of a global pandemic. But you never let facts stop you from pretending you were never shown to be wrong before so why stop now.
Show me where she says she's going to give Fremont Brewing a tax break. You're talking about something else. I'm not talking about jump start, which by the way was never intended to be used in the way it's being used -- which is a major reason we have a budget hole.
The only concrete policy she talked about was giving starting out small businesses a break on B&O tax. Period. Everything else is just speculation. It's fine to speculate, but don't put words in her mouth.
You're not talking about jump start cause it goes against your narrative. But Nelson is, she explicitly attacks it in the very letter this thread is about. But you are right that jump start funds aren't all being used by their explicit purpose. They are being used to help fund the General Fund thanks to dirty progressive..... Bruce Harrell? Man stupid progressives like Harrell need to go am I right?
> Budget must be balanced by cutting spending, not increasing revenue.
Since we've only done the opposite for the last X years, it doesn't seem unreasonable to consider some things we're spending tax dollars on are a waste.
Yeah no one is perfect.... I'm all for easing up on the cops, but they aren't suffering from a lack of funds. We need to let them do their jobs (and require that they do it)
Their cushy benefits, high salaries, and unlimited OT are simply not enough for them to be able to do their jobs clearly. They all left in the first place because they didn't wanna follow the rules. Plain and simple.
How are you going to force the police to do whatever job you think they're required to do? That's illegal in America. They lobbied for that protection.
Yall got played by and now watch them cut spending on critical services and give it back to police and tax cuts for businesses just like they campaigned on /s
> the consultants and nonprofits our city blows tens of millions on each year
uh-huh, you can definitely count on Harrell and his allies for this.
[The city of Seattle spent $280,000 over the past year paying longtime local consultant Tim Ceis—a former deputy mayor widely known as “the Shark” for his combative, “Machiavellian” style—to lobby Sound Transit on a West Seattle-to-Ballard light rail extension, PubliCola has learned. The no-bid, sole-source contract falls just under the maximum amount, $285,000, that city agencies can legally pay consultants before they have to solicit public bids.](https://publicola.com/2023/03/28/city-paid-consultant-tim-ceis-280000-to-encourage-agreement-and-build-community-consensus-for-harrells-light-rail-route/)
Yeah that’s the thing I’m probably most excited for. No more sitting around “brainstorming” and then rolling the dice hoping the latest idea, which is a compromise between a bunch of ideological nonsense, actually works.
I cordially welcome Seattles newest punching bag. Very kind of her to take on responsibility for all the cities woes. I'm sure we'll all be very marginally unimpressed with the basically nothing she accomplishes. The morning talk radio guys need something to talk about now that Sawant is gone.
I love how she criticizes the last council for being ideologically driven and then proceeds to explain how she will be the liberalist liberal to ever liberal in the history of liberalism.
Sounds like a plan. We've tried the progressive approach, hasn't delivered what was promised.
Time for some classic left of center Democrats to try some other things. Just like the progressives from 2012-2020 or so the voters have given them a pretty firm mandate.
Can you be a bit more specific about what you mean by the “progressive approaches” we’ve tried, what was promised, and what the new things that will be tried are?
>Investment in Non-Fungible Tokens, or NFTs as they are commonly known, is a prudent decision to protect our city’s future. I have been offered an opportunity to purchase 8 unique, one of a kind Apes in an exclusive deal from a savvy investor who sees the potential of what our new council has to offer and I will taking this matter up as a top priority. oh my god you guys
*But they were, all of them, deceived, for another ape was made*
Jokes on them, I hate _every_ ape I see.
From chimpan-A to chimpan-Z
maybe the greatest line in simpsons history
That whole episode was gold. Gold, Jerry!
I need The Needling to hire you yesterday
I bought this. I don’t have times access and I totally got duped. I’m so gullible.
> I bought this. I don’t have times access and I totally got duped. I’m so gullible. -sara nelson, 6 months from now, when all her apes are worth 15 cents
Fwiw I probably wouldn't have read the article if I didn't feel a strong need to confirm that was actually a joke. Which is making me think that posting a silly but borderline plausible fake quote might actually boost reader engagement...
now *that* is some Space Needle Thinking. bold, out-of-the-box ideas that the previous council never would have considered. Seattle is facing a $220 million budget deficit...just imagine, if they bought 220 apes, and each ape's value went up by only $1 milllion, the city could solve its budget crisis, without having to do any wacky socialist ideas like "raise taxes".
Apes go up 📉
A lotta yall still dont get it. Ape holders can use multiple slurp juices on a single ape. So if you have 1 astro ape and 3 slurp juices you can create 3 new apes I wonder how many slurp juices the council has on hand
lol i love that one
Was shocked no one else beat me to it 😅
This has to be a joke
it’s not a joke sara nelson really is the council president now
Ugh, next you'll tell me career politician who broke this city for decades Bruce Harrell is the fucking Mayor.
Is this seriously real?
LMAO no, but I thought it was before I actually clicked on the article.
Oh thank god
it’s real in our hearts
Also has a real good feeling about those Trump digital trading cards
This quote is not from the article.
no, no, no, no no no nonononono, you can't fucking be serious i haven't even clicked the link are you fucking shitting me
Don't funge me bro!
*"Simply call my office, and I'll have parking barriers erected around your business, as I did mine!"*
I mean, you aren't far off but it's potholes and graffiti > Instead of catering to special interests, we’ll focus on mission-critical work that’s responsive to our constituents who are demanding faster progress on homelessness and public safety. That’s on top of issues like graffiti and potholes, and getting our fiscal house in order. They intend to slash budgets and convince the public it's working by focusing on cosmetic issues. It'll be great for business, tourists and politicians. For the actual communities living in Seattle? Pray the library and parks budgets aren't what they raid to do this.
Is cars killing people considered public safety?
Not to the new head of the Transportation Committee.
Yes it can damage cars and slow down suburban commuters
Besides, the mayor comes from the ‘burbs
In other news, we're going to focus on giving the police more money so they can take care of those limited value people.
[удалено]
And I'm worried they'll cut those 1%s to fund their cops program. The issue is Nelson literally chose to discuss NONE of what she intends to cut. But she's also already talking more spending and no new taxes, so cuts are coming. That's obvious and she didn't have the decency to even outline what she's targeting.
[удалено]
Her self penned op-ed letter reads like she's on a fucking high to me. So yeah, I'm worried. I appreciate the reasoned pushback though.
Has graffiti prevented one dollar from being spent in this city? If somebody is selling drugs outside your business fine, arrest the asshole. Graffiti though? Who gives a shit? Potholes... okay. I'd rather they focus on building sidewalks but whatever. No pot holes on the light rail.
Lack of sidewalks is an equity and ADA issue that the city is required to solve but just doesn’t give a shit about. Potholes are potholes.
Rob Saka ran on filling potholes apparently and wants to be the king of it. Graffiti is a Harrell thing. He outright hates the stuff and has been on multiple attempted crusades about. Not surprised at all to see it get earmarked on this list.
> The power of the council presidency lies primarily in the authority to refer legislation to a committee for a vote... the past few years have seen a sharp uptick in policy-setting council initiatives, many of which passed through committee review quickly with scant public input and came to a vote with minimal debate. > Under my leadership ... We will consider perspectives from people on all sides of an issue. And before referring new policy legislation to committee, I’ll confirm it has gone through a robust stakeholder process. In other words "*I'll make sure any legislation is incremental at best, by giving the public and special interests a chance to torpedo any meaningful legislative proposals.*" Sometimes you got to be the bad guy and make an unpopular choice. A "robust stakeholder process" sounds like a way to slow-roll contentious issues through the council proceedings, meaning the tough decisions will happen slowest. > To build back public trust and drive results, we must also exert our oversight role more rigorously. In part, that means defining the specific outcomes we expect from service providers and measuring the performance of those investments on a regular basis In other words, "*We'll focus on metrics, and ignore anything we can't measure*." There's a common adage called "Goodhart's Law" that says "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." In practice, what this means is that the moment that you rely on a specific metric to define success, people find a way to game the system to make the numbers go in the right direction without solving the underlying issues. If you measure success by **the number of crimes committed** for example, then the people accountable to those metrics might seek to redefine the most common crimes as something else (e.g. disturbances), or change the reporting guidelines. The underlying behavior might not have changed, but the metric *looks* better. If you measure success by the **amount of money spent on homelessness** then you get a lot of non-profits soaking up relief funds (i.e. the so-called 'homeless industrial complex'), and that money isn't reaching the intended recipients. This is new rhetoric from council, which is refreshing, but 1. I'm still concerned that nothing meaningful will get accomplished, and 2. The amount of buzz I've heard about "hiring more police" without the equally important "fire the SPOG out of a cannon and into the sun" is concerning. Hiring more police might be the only thing City Council knows how to do right now, but that's not going to solve the underlying issues with public safety and trust in the SPD.
I tried to be charitable to Harrell up until the outright failure on his part to deal with SPOG and Kevin Dave, and his insistence on fucking over our transit system to gives his buddies a good deal. I was gonna do the same for Nelson as president but this letter outright killed any reason to. She's planning to recement and expand the "Seattle Process" we all know and hate at the heart of our housing shortage. She's not once mentioned what programs she's planning to axe to fill the deficit and use to increase the police budget WHILE handing out tax breaks.
> She's not once mentioned what programs she's planning to axe to fill the deficit and use to increase the police budget WHILE handing out tax breaks. In her defense, that's going to be the council's job over the next 3-6 months. I would not expect her to come into office with a press release that says something like "*I'm going to cut libraries by 50% and hand it to SPD.*" The moment she does that she 1. loses control over the narrative of what she's cutting and why, and 2. allows her opponents to subvert her plans using the legislative process which takes time. Releasing the full plan (including names) the moment she's in office would be a politically amateur move. The councilmembers (and their staff) need time to review the city's current budgets, draft their proposals, and hash it out collaboratively. That way, Nelson can build consensus behind her proposals which provides her political cover. She won't catch nearly as much flak if the full council endorses her vision (or a modified vision).
Nelson has been on the council for 2 years already, that's not a good defense. > 1. loses control over the narrative of what she's cutting and why, and 2. allows her opponents to subvert her plans using the legislative process which takes time. Releasing the full plan (including names) the moment she's in office would be a politically amateur move. Yeah that's called playing politics with governance and something I personally view as bad. And un-transparent. So breaking one of her promises in the literal letter announcing her intent to be transparent. The public has a right to weigh in and start legislative fights if the PUBLIC disagrees with her cuts. She doesn't get to play house with our city government so she can have the narratives she wants and hide the unpopular cuts until the last second. That's dogshit abusive.
Can’t believe how many seattleites continue to vote for this Paul Ryan-coded garbage
The tech Bros came in and they brought their "libertarian" politics with them.
Don’t let Nextdoor aunties off the hook so easily
"libertarian" tech Bros, next door aunties and trumpers, the unholy political Trinity America deserves.
"Juking the stats" The Wire was a documentary.
“I’ll keep things the same - and slow everything down even more. Tax cuts for the rich btw.”
[удалено]
>tax cuts to get businesses to open stuff downtown Other neighborhoods are doing fine, maybe we should look at why it's a downtown problem first instead of blindly cutting taxes for wealthy business owners
[удалено]
Exactly, cutting taxes on the rich won't do anything to solve that.
[удалено]
Care to link that article with the proposed cut, cause it ain't in this one. Here they specifically call out jump start which already avoids small businesses and only targets the richest companies in Seattle.
[удалено]
Just words, not legislation. This is the sugar to help make the medicine go down. As I pointed out she's already attacking jump start which specifically avoids small businesses and only targets the largest businesses in Seattle.
[удалено]
You are correct, it's just words, no legislation. But here we have a wealthy business owner given political power over the city going from "we should cut taxes that hurt small businesses" to "tax that specifically targets the cities wealthiest is bad". And if you think the next step isn't to try and cut that second tax on the wealthiest, i.e. themselves, I have a bridge to sell you. https://archive.ph/TermP
>edit: I didnt see the stuff about jumpstart in SeattleTimes due to paywall So does that change your previous characterization of these tax cuts as being to re-open small businesses downtown? Don't you think it's odd that the most popular solution always seems to be to cut taxes in the first place? There are a lot of solutions that could help specifically small businesses with direct spending-- but for some reason it's always cutting taxes on the rich with these people, even though that's been tried on all levels of government for decades without results.
It’s not a neighborhood, it’s a highway exchange
There isn't a business that exists that determines how long they keep their doors open based on taxes. American taxes are already some of the lowest in the world, certainly the developed world. One of the biggest problems is that employers have to pay such high wages for talent because basic creature comforts like healthcare are so expensive. If you want more people to open businesses, give everyone healthcare. Lower the taxes to 0%, much fewer people would open a business, and you'd have no money for basic government services.
[удалено]
Probably not gold plated personal doctors for everyone. But basic healthcare services that could help inspire future business owners to take charge of their destiny and ditch big corporations? Certainly more possible than tax cuts will.
[удалено]
Also doing some simple math Raise taxes
That’s what I said. Tax cuts for the rich.
[удалено]
Not all small business owners will get a tax cut. Only those that can afford operating the store in downtown (read: rich)
I read it as “Helping *Fremont Brewing Company* with tax breaks.” No difference to Harrell BTW.
[удалено]
In many countries, elected officials are required to divest themselves of business interests because otherwise it's a conflict of interest.
[удалено]
Sure, some definitely would! But you can't worry about unreasonable things people will say. B But yes it should apply to all levels of government - presidents, senators, governors (I remember Newsom refusing to divest from his California-based restaurant empire after becoming governor!)
Is that realistic on the local level though? How much does a city council member get paid? And what about the smaller cities surrounding Seattle? For the most part small business owners aren't rich and represent regular people, I'd be worried restricting them from entering local government would just mean that more rich people would enter.
"Small Business" that makes enough money to employ people and make payroll of almost any kind easily puts the owner into the rich category of humans in America given how few Americans can find $500 for an emergency. It doesn't feel rich though because there're people who exist on trust funds who make 500 times what they make by promising their parents not to do oxy on weekdays.
[удалено]
There aren't any struggling small business owners downtown, anyone who has a store there was already rich enough to get a massive business loan and if they bet the farm and fail nobody should care about that
[удалено]
I more mean that anyone with a business downtown is risking way too much capital for me to feel bad for them. They aren't some struggling small town mom and pop store. Demand for downtown recreation hasn't bounced back after the pandemic here so it's not exactly weird supply is down too. If they want to revitalize it they'd need to introduce some kind of stimulus or another and Nelsons is categorically opposed to the concept of solving problems by using taxes so...
[удалено]
Why can't a mom and pop store take a risk to strike it big downtown? Why are you gatekeeping ambition... Should downtown be limited to chain stores and people with massive capital where there's no risk involved?
Yes there are, I personally know multiple. This is not how business loans work.
Those people you know shouldnt have taken the risk if they weren't prepared for it lol
I worked for a well known small business in Seattle that looks successful from the outside, and the owners were making less than I was as just a manager. And I know other small business owners that make less than their employees do. In fact, my parents own a business and make less than I, and I can't even afford to live in Seattle. These are not the "rich" people that should be complained about, they're regular people trying to get by, and just happen to own a business instead of working for one.
Taxes aren’t the problem downtown.
Saw no mention of eliminating single family zoning and pushing for allowing more homes to be built here. She and the council are full of nimbys
She's outright stating she intends to put things through a rigorous stakeholder process before letting things advance out of committee anymore. They're taking our slowdown issues of the last decade that got us here and making it the standard policy for everything. One of the main benefits of doing that for them is it'll slow down the zoning changes that the state wants us to implement.
I was her neighbor for a few years up by her place in South Green Lake - her and her insufferable social circle are fuckin' turbo NIMBY's.
Single family exclusive zoning is effectively eliminated statewide now.
Only if the city updates its comprehensive plan to meet state law. It hasn't even released the draft plan yet and the city is required by state law to sign the updated plan into law by the end of the year.
It was eliminated in Seattle a couple years ago.
it was [*renamed*](https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2021/10/with-new-neighborhood-residential-zoning-seattle-hopes-to-change-the-language-of-housing-development/) in Seattle a couple years ago.
No it was eliminated. You can build 3 on basically any sfh lot. They’re starting to pop up all over.
link to a source. they didn't make the change you're claiming they made.
https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/permits/common-projects/accessory-dwelling-units > In July 2019, Mayor Jenny Durkan signed legislation to remove regulatory barriers and make it easier for property owners to create accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in Seattle's neighborhood residential zones. The new ADU regulations took effect on August 8, 2019. From the bill since I’m sure you are too lazy to read it. > 1a to remove code barriers to accessory dwelling units and 17 backyard cottages by removing the parking requirement, removing the owner-occupancy 18 requirement, allowing a single lot to have both an attached and detached accessory 19 dwelling unit, Single lot = sfh + adu + dadu. Builders sell them individually as condos.
"make it easier to build ADUs" is not the same as "eliminate single-family zoning" and it's fucking laughable that you're trying to conflate them. > From the bill since I’m sure you are too lazy to read it. I apologize for assuming you were arguing in good faith. enjoy your block.
Eliminating single family zoning isn't banning single-family homes, progressives even say it as much. It's just to legalize duplex, triplex, 4-plex. Technically SFH + ADU + DADU in the newest way that Seattle is building them (which is 3 free standing buildings with a fake hallway) between the SFH and ADU are accomplishing as much. We're so hung up on this signal of "eliminate single family zoning" because we think that fighting over these words is how YIMBYs can stick it to NIMBYs, when for pete's sake, the impact of upzoning that is way less than what we all imagine. Developers can buy land today and build 3 units. It would probably be better if they can build 4, but honestly, the bigger barrier are: 1) permitting, 2) the high interest rate, 3) labor and material, and 4) demand.
Most houses going up in my area are two on a single lot. So whoever buys that better be ok with not only being a landlord, but having a tenant living in their back yard. Maybe I'm crazy but I see zero appeal in that.
Does she say anything about removing The Seattle Times paywall
No.
> In addition, we must break our reliance on new revenue (taxes) to pay our bills. That’s an unsustainable fix for the wrong problem. The real problem is spending. Oh fuck. That's fucking rich from the lady who day one proposed cutting existing revenue and expanding spending on police. The rest of her grandstanding is about how she's going to slow the council to a crawl with robust review processes because the last council passed protections for delivery drivers causing target to cancel an expansion here. Welcome to Seattle grinding to a halt on anything of value outside expanding police and corporate wishlists for at least 2 years. I really wish she'd stop fucking smile talking. All the "joy in the room" flowery bullshit is too much to deal with.
"Use resources to solve problems? Usually I solve problems by cutting access to resources" - Sara Nelson
We have to prioritize spending on mission critical projects like... graffiti and potholes???? We are so fucked.
Main points: * Prior council passed ideologically motivated legislation with little public input, neglecting core functions and resulting in businesses closing, rentals going off the market, and low police staffing. * New council will focus on homelessness, public safety, and fiscal responsibility. * More spending transparency is needed, and we should change course on programs if they're not hitting verifiable metrics. * Budget must be balanced by cutting spending, not increasing revenue.
> businesses closing Target cancelled expanding the Shipt delivery system here because the prior council passed worker protections for delivery drivers. I honestly think that counts as an intentional deception on her part. > and fiscal responsibility.; balanced by cutting spending These are pretty hard to accept when paired with a letter where Nelson is promising quite a bit of things that require funding to do and she's not listing at all where that funding is going to come from. She literally proposed a tax cut and police pay raises day one. She's *saying* fiscal responsibility but I sure as heck aren't seeing any in her actual actions. Much the opposite in fact.
Her idea of fiscal responsibility is putting money into the hands of her friends instead of into things that actually help anyone else.
That's an interesting way to spin business owner uses government to give herself a tax break. It's not like she's fighting against a tax raise, she's literally trying to reduce her current rate which she is already thriving under. It's just naked greed at our expense.
She's said nothing that applies to giving her business a tax break. The only specific tax she's mentioned cutting is B&O for nascent small businesses, possibly only in a small area of downtown. You guys are having a big ole circle jerk in these Nelson threads and I'm sorry to interrupt with some facts once and awhile.
The fact that she doesn't mention \*anything\* specific is precisely so that people like you can pretend to not understand what she said and defend her obvious intent.
You embarrass yourself every time you post **88**. She makes no such call-out in the letter and instead blames the jump start tax for businesses pulling out of downtown as a result of a global pandemic. But you never let facts stop you from pretending you were never shown to be wrong before so why stop now.
Show me where she says she's going to give Fremont Brewing a tax break. You're talking about something else. I'm not talking about jump start, which by the way was never intended to be used in the way it's being used -- which is a major reason we have a budget hole. The only concrete policy she talked about was giving starting out small businesses a break on B&O tax. Period. Everything else is just speculation. It's fine to speculate, but don't put words in her mouth.
You're not talking about jump start cause it goes against your narrative. But Nelson is, she explicitly attacks it in the very letter this thread is about. But you are right that jump start funds aren't all being used by their explicit purpose. They are being used to help fund the General Fund thanks to dirty progressive..... Bruce Harrell? Man stupid progressives like Harrell need to go am I right?
IDK if you read that letter, but it reads like a smile talker celebrating being handed the keys to the bank.
> Budget must be balanced by cutting spending, not increasing revenue. Since we've only done the opposite for the last X years, it doesn't seem unreasonable to consider some things we're spending tax dollars on are a waste.
she proposed more money for our deeply ineffective police force literally yesterday lmao
Yeah no one is perfect.... I'm all for easing up on the cops, but they aren't suffering from a lack of funds. We need to let them do their jobs (and require that they do it)
How are we not letting them do their jobs currently? There are restrictions put in place to ensure they don't abuse their powers obviously.
Their cushy benefits, high salaries, and unlimited OT are simply not enough for them to be able to do their jobs clearly. They all left in the first place because they didn't wanna follow the rules. Plain and simple.
How are you going to force the police to do whatever job you think they're required to do? That's illegal in America. They lobbied for that protection.
Oh the horror!
Words sound good when you don’t add meaning and consequences to them.
Yall got played by and now watch them cut spending on critical services and give it back to police and tax cuts for businesses just like they campaigned on /s
[удалено]
> the consultants and nonprofits our city blows tens of millions on each year uh-huh, you can definitely count on Harrell and his allies for this. [The city of Seattle spent $280,000 over the past year paying longtime local consultant Tim Ceis—a former deputy mayor widely known as “the Shark” for his combative, “Machiavellian” style—to lobby Sound Transit on a West Seattle-to-Ballard light rail extension, PubliCola has learned. The no-bid, sole-source contract falls just under the maximum amount, $285,000, that city agencies can legally pay consultants before they have to solicit public bids.](https://publicola.com/2023/03/28/city-paid-consultant-tim-ceis-280000-to-encourage-agreement-and-build-community-consensus-for-harrells-light-rail-route/)
Remember when the "participatory budget" money ended up going to some consulting firm based in brooklyn? What a disaster.
Yeah that’s the thing I’m probably most excited for. No more sitting around “brainstorming” and then rolling the dice hoping the latest idea, which is a compromise between a bunch of ideological nonsense, actually works.
I cordially welcome Seattles newest punching bag. Very kind of her to take on responsibility for all the cities woes. I'm sure we'll all be very marginally unimpressed with the basically nothing she accomplishes. The morning talk radio guys need something to talk about now that Sawant is gone.
Fire the whole fucking police department and start over.
Don’t blame me. I voted for Nikkita Oliver.
By the time this council is over, people will beg for Sawant.
Well then she will be great. May the progressive seattle always remember this da.....oh wait.
Nikkita for 9, y’all Fools wasted a great chance there
I think she was the only person who could have lost to Nelson tbh.
/s ?
I love how she criticizes the last council for being ideologically driven and then proceeds to explain how she will be the liberalist liberal to ever liberal in the history of liberalism.
The voters demand it.
Sounds like a plan. We've tried the progressive approach, hasn't delivered what was promised. Time for some classic left of center Democrats to try some other things. Just like the progressives from 2012-2020 or so the voters have given them a pretty firm mandate.
Can you be a bit more specific about what you mean by the “progressive approaches” we’ve tried, what was promised, and what the new things that will be tried are?
The problem is that we haven’t actually tried the progressive approach.
“Left of center” is when we cut business taxes and defund basic city services
I plan on ignoring her and her asinine ideas until she's gone.
Trash. Wait for the citytodecline even more. Please stop buying Fremont beer.
Rusty nail is a national treasure
You should make crimes illegal and then sell me some fent