Washington state megathread

[KingSweden]

Cathy getting tapped for Interior will create some interesting jockeying in Spokane. I picked the wrong time to move back to seattle apparently

Who do you think will run for the seat? Michael Baumgartner is a State Senator from Spokane and he ran for US Senate four years ago and is pretty young. He seems like someone with ambition, but is he a little too far right? He got crushed in the western part of the state, but did well in WA-05, so he'd probably have the name rec.

Baumgardner would be the GOP's best, though former Rep Kevin Parker was thought of as the heir for a long time before he unexpectedly retired. Parker was VERY impressive - a real leader, pragmatic, and he spoke with my wife's social work class. She had nothing but good things to say. He'd be impossible for a Democrat to beat.

Baumgardner is very polarizing and he's an odd fit for a very CoC district with a college town, but he's "old Spokane." (Went to Gonzaga Prep HS, tied in with the families that really run the place, close with Mayor Condon). For someone as right wing as him he's a surprisingly effective legislator and was a real leader in getting the new medical school in Spokane and has a great relationship with the 3rd LD's Democrats in both Houses. He'd be formidable.

Really, the big move here would be possibly targeting his Senate seat if he wins the promotion. I imagine he has right of first refusal after being the sacrificial lamb against Cantwell. His Senate district (I lived there and voted against him in '14 while voting for Parker and Holy) is winnable without him in the seat.

[KingSweden]

Ugh, I hope not. I'm no big fan of McMorris-Rodgers, but she was always competent. I don't like Baumgartner. If he doesn't run, does Parker?

Pakootas again for the Ds?

Cathy is very competent, and very well liked in district. Good constituent services and good on issues that matter to the area (in particular hydro). Parker would be an upgrade in many ways, but I doubt he runs, especially if Baumgartner does. Sadly. Baumgartner is a hack

Pakootas needs to stay away. One of the three from LD3 could be competitive. Billig wouldn't have to give up his seat.

[KingSweden]

Sounds like City Council President Ben Stuckart is in. This is not good for Democrats, he's a polarizing figure in Spokane. Widely thought of as the next Mayor.

A candidate I forgot who would be formidable: Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich. GOP, like all countywide officers, but he's smart and competent, and has been on the leading edge of fighting militia types in the local area. He would have my support out of all Republican candidates here

[KingSweden]

Should add: highly unlikely Nethercutt runs again. Very nice man - only politician I've ever met - but he's out of the game

[KingSweden]

How did I know who wrote this bill before I even read the story?

Matt Shea is insane, news at 11

[KingSweden]

Has it been confirmed that Baumgardner is taking a job in DC? I know Dansel is gone (big surprise) but was this just a rumor?

[KingSweden]

Eastern WA had its coldest January in nearly 40 years. It sucks over here.

That's what I've been hearing from my sister in law. Glad I moved back to Seattle!

[KingSweden]

Honestly, what he does is just for power. By becoming that decisive vote, he's been able to have way more influence since, what 2010, than if he was some D-caucusing member.

Though that's going to end in 2018, I think. With both better than 50% odds of picking up Hill's vacant seat and Miloscia's. Does Sheldon switch parties?

No reason to be in the "Majority Coalition Caucus" if it doesn't get you a majority. Letting a complete traitor back into the caucus might make some Democrats wince, but there's probably no other Democrat who can both primary Sheldon and hold the seat.

I agree that the State Senate is definitely Lean D at this point. D's have almost no vulnerable LD's up for grabs this cycle, and Republicans have to defend the 45th and the 30th, and maybe even the 6th, 26th, or 47th if Democrats get serious.

Has it been confirmed that Baumgardner is taking a job in DC? I know Dansel is gone (big surprise) but was this just a rumor?

Has a temporary EPA transition job, which might develop into a full-time position. Same with Erickson.

Erickson, asshole that he is, is currently annoying his Republican colleagues by splitting time between his EPA job and his legislative duties. And with a tied Senate, votes are often being put on hold until Erickson flies back from DC.

Is Ben curious to hear an analysis on House and Senate  races in 18 from you

[KingSweden]

Honestly, what he does is just for power. By becoming that decisive vote, he's been able to have way more influence since, what 2010, than if he was some D-caucusing member.

Though that's going to end in 2018, I think. With both better than 50% odds of picking up Hill's vacant seat and Miloscia's. Does Sheldon switch parties?

No reason to be in the "Majority Coalition Caucus" if it doesn't get you a majority. Letting a complete traitor back into the caucus might make some Democrats wince, but there's probably no other Democrat who can both primary Sheldon and hold the seat.

I agree that the State Senate is definitely Lean D at this point. D's have almost no vulnerable LD's up for grabs this cycle, and Republicans have to defend the 45th and the 30th, and maybe even the 6th, 26th, or 47th if Democrats get serious.

Has it been confirmed that Baumgardner is taking a job in DC? I know Dansel is gone (big surprise) but was this just a rumor?

Has a temporary EPA transition job, which might develop into a full-time position. Same with Erickson.

Erickson, asshole that he is, is currently annoying his Republican colleagues by splitting time between his EPA job and his legislative duties. And with a tied Senate, votes are often being put on hold until Erickson flies back from DC.

Is Ben curious to hear an analysis on House and Senate  races in 18 from you

Federal or State House/Senate races?

State. I don't think anyone outside of Reichert is vulnerable... yet

[KingSweden]

I think your analysis holds true, I love it. I'm thinking D+2 in the Senate right now, inclusive of the special in the 45th (which is my district right now, but I dunno if I'll be there in November or not)

[KingSweden]

Bold Prediction: Bob Ferguson will be Washington's next governor.

Still think Dow is likelier, IMO. Ferguson would clear the field if, say, Cantwell or Murray ever hung it up

[KingSweden]

Bold Prediction: Bob Ferguson will be Washington's next governor.

Still think Dow is likelier, IMO. Ferguson would clear the field if, say, Cantwell or Murray ever hung it up

I agree. But I also really want to see Dow elected, so I may be biased.

There's also Derek Kilmer who I think will end up in the Senate eventually.

Probably Kilmer or DelBene gets the next open Senate seat.

I'd prefer Kilmer just from an age standpoint, can build seniority. I imagine Murray/Cantwell want to be replaced by women, but maybe I'm just projecting. DelBene is pretty unexciting (though a solid Rep. I believe I'm in her district)

[KingSweden]

Deputy King County Prosecutor and community activist Manka Dhingra (D) is the first person to declare for the SD-45 special election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Her husband is a former Microsoft exec and currently works for SpaceX.

That's a great get. Can self fund, voters love prosecutors, and she's Indian (I assume?) in a district that is as Indian as it gets on the West Coast.

I was expecting Freeman, but I'd vote for this lady if I'm still in the 45th this fall

[KingSweden]

Strong has impressive credentials - where does she fall on the Sawant Spectrum? Getting rid of Burgess and further empowering that grandstanding loon is the last thing Seattle needs.

I wouldn't lump O'Btien all the way in with Sawant and her enforcers supporters, he's super progressive but overall a solid legislator who works with stakeholders. Better than Nick Licata at least

[KingSweden]

Strong has impressive credentials - where does she fall on the Sawant Spectrum? Getting rid of Burgess and further empowering that grandstanding loon is the last thing Seattle needs.

I wouldn't lump O'Btien all the way in with Sawant and her enforcers supporters, he's super progressive but overall a solid legislator who works with stakeholders. Better than Nick Licata at least

If I had to take a stab at partisan leaning:

Center ---> Left

Mosqueda ---> Strong ---> Grant ---> Secrest

Center here meaning very liberal everywhere else

Thanks for the info, though. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out and what Strong's views re: density are

[KingSweden]

So, it looks like Seattle is getting a new left-wing populist party: the Seattle People's Party. They're nominating attorney and activist Nikkita Oliver to run against Ed Murray for Mayor.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/activist-nikkita-oliver-to-run-against-mayor-ed-murray/

http://seattlepeoplesparty.com/

Have to imagine they'll just cut into any candidates SA runs, no?

Anyhow, they're DOA. Murray is safe

[KingSweden]

So, it looks like Seattle is getting a new left-wing populist party: the Seattle People's Party. They're nominating attorney and activist Nikkita Oliver to run against Ed Murray for Mayor.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/activist-nikkita-oliver-to-run-against-mayor-ed-murray/

http://seattlepeoplesparty.com/

Hmmm.... might need to ping my sibling on this one, since she is right down the road from Rainier Beach in South Seattle, and has been working three jobs for Seattle Indivisible over the past few months throughout the City and Metro, and living up there for about 15 years now.

Still even if she plays well in South Seattle and the U-District, not convinced that she'll be able to take down a fairly popular Mayor in North and West Seattle precincts....

I don't know. I think Murray's weaker than he looks. Pretty much every neighborhood has seen a big increase in homeless populations. Homelessness is now probably the number one issue in many seemingly strong Murray neighborhoods like Ballard and Queen Anne. While each has it's own proposed solutions to the problem (usually based on income/wealth), pretty much thinks the buck stops at Murray. It'll depend a lot on who makes it to the general, and it doesn't look like any of the candidates so far are particularly formidable, but I can see someone taking down Murray if they play all their cards right.

Sawant and her crew coddling the homeless has more to do with that than Murray, though. You are right, however, that the buck stops with the Mayor, and people always blame the executive first

[KingSweden]

I'm curious, KS, what you think should be done about the homeless problem. I've seen you state your distaste for Sawant's policies on the issue numerous times but I don't think you've ever offered up your alternative.

(Not meant to be a b**chy "Well then what do you suggest?!?!" question, genuinely curious)

Of course! I didn't take it that way, don't worry.

I really think Sawant's attitude is more of the problem than her policies, per se. The phalanx of supporters who show up and disrupt council meetings and tried to prevent the dissolution of the Jungle are case in point. I think it's counterproductive to pretend that homelessness is not a problem and that vagrants should just be allowed to stay.

Seattle is a generous, progressive city, yet I feel (and I've only admittedly come back to the area recently) that the conversation swirls less around what we can DO for the truly destitute and more around how it's oppression to make them move. That's why I was glad Nicole Macri was elected to the state leg - she actually has worked with homeless advocacy and help groups and knows the issue. We need more voices like hers, not "it's a human right to camp out in a park!" rhetoric.

The only political issue I'm genuinely passionate about is anti-Nimbyism. I hate NIMBYs. Especially NIMBYs who are ostensibly liberal and couch their rhetoric in "evil developers." "If it weren't just for those evil developers, housing costs wouldn't go up so much!" This is nonsense, and economically illiterate. People who take this stance only exacerbate the crisis in housing affordability we have now in the city. Richard Conlin was really good on this issue. As far as I've seen, the woman who defeated him has tended to skew on the "evil capitalists!!1!" side.

I admire Sawant's advocacy for the minimum wage, I genuinely do, even though I have skepticism over $15 in places outside of Seattle. But I generally don't find her rhetorical... "flourishes" helpful or particularly insightful. But bluntly, I think she talks a big game and has no clue what she's talking about. I think she's economically illiterate. Also, she ran against Conlin over the Sonics but when push came to shove voted against the street vacation. So she's a flip-flopping liar, too.

[KingSweden]

(continued)

As for what I would do to help solve homelessness, I think expanding the amount of housing drastically would help. An upzone, maybe not in the entire city, but in most of it. Seattle is too suburban in character for such a large metropolis. But of course, we can't do that, because "evil developers!"

Utah has a program where they basically put homeless people in apartment housing, for free. Better they have somewhere safe to stay than sleep in parks or under bridges. If there were, say, more microhousing, there could be places to help place vagrants during transitional periods. It would of course take a few years for all of this housing to come online, so it's not a perfect solution. Seattle is innovative, though, that I truly believe. Cleaning up the infamous "Seattle process" is step one. Everyone and their grandma doesn't need to have their opinion heard four times with an extra study for good measure.

[KingSweden]

Definitely agree with you on the hatred of NIMBY's. Nimby's in the suburban areas of the city who fight against apartment buildings being built in their neighborhood being the #1 offender.

Nimbyism brings together the worst people from all ends of the political spectrum.

[KingSweden]

Definitely agree with you on the hatred of NIMBY's. Nimby's in the suburban areas of the city who fight against apartment buildings being built in their neighborhood being the #1 offender.

Nimbyism brings together the worst people from all ends of the political spectrum.

"But I want to know who my neighbors are" - Someone who should be living somewhere else.

I mean, I'd like to know my neighbors, but that doesn't mean I get to pick and choose my neighbors.

[KingSweden]

(continued)

As for what I would do to help solve homelessness, I think expanding the amount of housing drastically would help. An upzone, maybe not in the entire city, but in most of it. Seattle is too suburban in character for such a large metropolis. But of course, we can't do that, because "evil developers!"

Utah has a program where they basically put homeless people in apartment housing, for free. Better they have somewhere safe to stay than sleep in parks or under bridges. If there were, say, more microhousing, there could be places to help place vagrants during transitional periods. It would of course take a few years for all of this housing to come online, so it's not a perfect solution. Seattle is innovative, though, that I truly believe. Cleaning up the infamous "Seattle process" is step one. Everyone and their grandma doesn't need to have their opinion heard four times with an extra study for good measure.

I agree with this exactly. I think one of the biggest economic problems in Seattle is that, while there should logically be a small number of expensive housing options, more for middle income, and lots for low-income, there's a huge drop-off when you go below $2,000/month. I mean, places definitely exist, but demand is so high, and most are in middle class neighborhoods like Wallingford, rather than low-income neighborhoods. One solution to this is to just raise the minimum wage, although there's only so much that can be done in that realm. The other theoretical solution, which King Sweden articulated is to just build thousands and thousands of houses and apartments to push supply up and prices down, so maybe those $2,000/month places might lower their prices. Of course, housing prices rarely actually go down except for during a recession, so there also needs to be a comprehensive subsidy program.

Now, there's also the issue of those who don't want to be moved into an apartment if it comes with strings attached, such as a curfew or drug testing. And I am also of the belief that people have a right to be homeless if they so choose, and you cannot forcibly relocate law-abiding people to a new home against their will. But, I think if we can get prices down low enough to help those who want to buy/rent on their own with a subsidy, and get those who have drug problems the option of going to rehab for free, in conjunction with cracking down on the definitely not-homeless drug dealers operating out of RVs, the number that remain will only be a tiny portion of what we see today, or even what we saw five years ago or so.

Is homelessness by choice a big thing? I have to imagine most homeless are in their position due to various hardships, not because they want to be. I don't know much about it though.

[KingSweden]

(continued)

As for what I would do to help solve homelessness, I think expanding the amount of housing drastically would help. An upzone, maybe not in the entire city, but in most of it. Seattle is too suburban in character for such a large metropolis. But of course, we can't do that, because "evil developers!"

Utah has a program where they basically put homeless people in apartment housing, for free. Better they have somewhere safe to stay than sleep in parks or under bridges. If there were, say, more microhousing, there could be places to help place vagrants during transitional periods. It would of course take a few years for all of this housing to come online, so it's not a perfect solution. Seattle is innovative, though, that I truly believe. Cleaning up the infamous "Seattle process" is step one. Everyone and their grandma doesn't need to have their opinion heard four times with an extra study for good measure.

I agree with this exactly. I think one of the biggest economic problems in Seattle is that, while there should logically be a small number of expensive housing options, more for middle income, and lots for low-income, there's a huge drop-off when you go below $2,000/month. I mean, places definitely exist, but demand is so high, and most are in middle class neighborhoods like Wallingford, rather than low-income neighborhoods. One solution to this is to just raise the minimum wage, although there's only so much that can be done in that realm. The other theoretical solution, which King Sweden articulated is to just build thousands and thousands of houses and apartments to push supply up and prices down, so maybe those $2,000/month places might lower their prices. Of course, housing prices rarely actually go down except for during a recession, so there also needs to be a comprehensive subsidy program.

Now, there's also the issue of those who don't want to be moved into an apartment if it comes with strings attached, such as a curfew or drug testing. And I am also of the belief that people have a right to be homeless if they so choose, and you cannot forcibly relocate law-abiding people to a new home against their will. But, I think if we can get prices down low enough to help those who want to buy/rent on their own with a subsidy, and get those who have drug problems the option of going to rehab for free, in conjunction with cracking down on the definitely not-homeless drug dealers operating out of RVs, the number that remain will only be a tiny portion of what we see today, or even what we saw five years ago or so.

Is homelessness by choice a big thing? I have to imagine most homeless are in their position due to various hardships, not because they want to be. I don't know much about it though.

[/b]

Thank you King Sweden!!!

I am currently homeless, along with my wife (Thankfully no children in our current family unit).

This is definitely NOT a choice.....   

The vast majority of the Homeless population in America, are individuals such as myself that lost both jobs and housing at the relatively same time, and next thing you know you have run out of options....

Simply put, the cost of housing is virtually impossible in most major Metro areas of the West Coast for those living, even for those of us living on maximum unemployment benefits.

Imagine the situation for those clearing only $300-350 / Week in Unemployment Insurance in expensive Metro areas such as Seattle/Portland/San Francisco....

No job= almost 0% chance of getting into an apartment, even quite possibly if you have a cosigner that will cover the move-in deposits, etc....

Additionally, once you have been out of work for awhile, usually you get a dramatic collapse in your credit rating, which can preclude housing opportunities, since now you "are considered a risk"....

So what happens when you are out of work and your unemployment benefits start running down and you still haven't got a job?

You have been living in cheap hotels, crashing with friends and family, and drifting from town to town hoping that something will come through, and yet there is no hope.

For individuals without family support networks, those with major mental illness issues, those with substance abuse issues, this problem is even more pronounced.

My Wife of ten years was homeless with five children living in a campground outside of Golden, Colorado (Coors Country) leaving a physically abusive relationship from her Ex-Husband for 4-5 months.

She became a political activist against the HUD policies and the political structure of the city of Denver in the late '80s/early '90s.

Sure, there are plenty of problems with "The Jungle", but I am yet to be convinced of the merits of the Mayor's position.... there are a ton of means of addressing issues such as the lack of affordable housing, and providing immediate housing that don't involve slashing the tents of the homeless, banning individuals camping in cars, etc....

Ultimately this is a Federal Problem, since cities alone can't cover the costs.... I am extremely skeptical that we will see any help on this under the current administration, let alone any other administration over the past 40+ years...

There are various solutions that cities can potentially provide, but these are all ultimately band-aids patching over massive injuries....

http://www.oregonlive.com/hg/index.ssf/2014/11/tiny_houses_for_homeless.html

I'm really sorry you're going through that

[KingSweden]

Seattle mayors can get vulnerable quickly and suddenly.

Greg Nickels wasn't vulnerable until he was, and McGinn came out of nowhere. McGinn was toxic for a long time, but he wasn't as bad a Mayor as his reputation suggests. It still took a big time establishment player like Murray to take him out - it's unlikely anybody else from that field could have had the advantage in a runoff.

And that's the thing - Murray's coalition is broad but thin, but it turns out. With a runoff, I'm not sure who keeps him beneath 50+1 in November, and I don't know what that winning anti-Murray coalition looks like.

But like I said, Mike With the Bike came out of nowhere in '09 with basically a single issue campaign

[KingSweden]

Nickels had definitely worn out his welcome by 09 and the Sonics fiasco was still a fresh wound

McGinn staking his Mayoralty on killing the tunnel sapped his capital, so it wasn't that silly. That was his big issue and he lost, by a lot, in the 2011 vote. He was dead man walking after that. It didn't help that he was famously abrasive to boot. I actually saw McGinn speak once... not a great orator.

Ironically he would probably have handled the current housing situation better than Murray. He seemed to get how important density was and had the modest support of lefty NIMBY rag The Stranger, which gave him wiggle room. Strangely, for how centrist I am, I actually wish McGinn was still mayor. He got the policy aspects right but never got the manager/PR bit right. Once he was "McSchwinn" he never really recovered in the public eye