Earlier this week the Port of Seattle Commission officially approved the airport minimum wage proposal I first wrote about here:

Minimum total compensation would start at 13.72 an hour in 2015, with a minimum cash wage of $11.22, and rise to $15.50 an hour in 2017, with a minimum cash wage of $13. In addition, airport workers would be guaranteed a minimum of 1 hour of paid leave for every 40 hours worked.

It only covers about 3,500 workers with access to restricted areas, and it’s certainly not as good as the $15 minimum wage approved last November by City of SeaTac voters (and still wending its way through the courts). But my guess is that had Alaska Airlines and its contractors agreed to something like this a year ago, there never would have been a $15 minimum wage initiative in SeaTac, and thus there likely wouldn’t have been a $15 minimum wage in Seattle. So thank you, Alaska Airlines, for the unintended consequences of your anti-labor intransigence!

Whatever. The Washington State Supreme Court has heard oral arguments, and should decide by the end of the year whether Sea-Tac Airport is exempt from the City of SeaTac’s voter approved $15 minimum wage ordinance. If the court rules in favor of the City of SeaTac, then all Sea-Tac Airport workers will immediate start earning a minimum of $15 an hour, and probably receive backpay to January 1. If the court rules in favor of Alaska and the other plaintiffs, well then I suppose the Port Commission’s new minimum wage (after years of claiming it lacked the legal authority to set a minimum wage) is better than a kick in the teeth, and a political victory in itself.

The Seattle Times editorial board has just declared the entire Seattle City Council, Mayor Ed Murray, his five immediate predecessors, and the more than 70 civic organizations that have endorsed Proposition 1, to be a bunch of dirty stinking liars:

PROPONENTS of Proposition 1 are misleading voters when they claim approval of a Seattle Park District on the Aug. 5 ballot is the only way to save city parks. The measure represents a significant change in governance and a tax increase.

Omigod… pot, meet kettle! As I’ve written before, there’s absolutely no governance change. The mayor still proposes the parks budget, the city council still amends and approves it, and the city Parks Department still administers the funds. There is a tax increase, I’ll give the editors that. But that’s the whole fucking point: more (and more stable) money for parks!

Former Superintendent Ken Bounds recently told KUOW’s The Record, “If this fails, there is no funding.”

Once again the Seattle Times is banking on its readers being even lazier than its editorial writers. But if you actually bother to listen to the entire 14-minute interview, you’ll find that the editors’ seven-word summary of Bounds’ comments were taken entirely out of context:

“This is really about the future of the parks, and what we are going to do to renew our commitment. You’re not voting for a park district or a levy, you’re voting for a park district which has funding for the parks. If this fails, there is no funding.  So this is about voting for parks or saying ‘Oh, maybe some day in the future something else will happen.’ That’s not good enough for the citizens, and that’s not good enough for the parks system.”

So reading that quote in context, tell me, who’s really misleading voters here, Ken Bounds or the Seattle Times?

Furthermore, if you want to talk about misleading, in the very same interview Prop 1 opponent Don Harper resorts to his campaign’s usual bullshit scare tactics again, warning that a Park District could spend its money on whatever it wants. “Are we doing this because we want to build a $300 million waterfront park?” Harper asks KUOW listeners. “Are we going to build a new basketball arena?” Before the Seattle Times‘ own editorial board, opponents even warned that a Park District might build an airstrip atop Cal Anderson Park! Yet I don’t see the editors castigating Harper for attempting to mislead voters.

This all-or-nothing approach is troublesome because an alternate funding measure could indeed make the ballot as early as next February.

You know, so the paper would have an opportunity to torpedo the levy in a low-turnout special election, by aggressively endorsing against it the way it opposed the previous two parks levies.

If voters approve Proposition 1, new taxes would not even be collected until 2016. According to the city’s proposed six-year spending plan, the Parks and Recreation Department would get through the next year by borrowing about $10 million.

Um, what is it that the editors don’t get about the word “borrowing.” That $10 million would ultimately be paid back to the city’s general fund. But if Prop 1 fails, there’s no Park District to borrow that money, and there’s no new revenue available to pay it back. So it’s not like that $10 million is available for parks win or lose without cutting $10 million from some other crucial city service.

After that, the Seattle Park District — headed by City Council members — would have the authority to tax up to 75 cents per $1,000 of assessed value on property owners without voter input, a massive increase from the expiring levy of about 19 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. Council members say they will only collect 33 cents per $1,000 value initially.

Council members don’t just “say”—they passed a goddamn ordinance! Thirty-three cents per $1,000 value per year, through the first six years, a significant but not “massive” increase. That’s what the council passed, and that’s what the mayor signed into law. Or are the editors accusing Mayor Murray and the city council of being a bunch of dirty stinking liars?

Investment is important.

We just don’t want to pay for it.

Leaky community center roofs and dirty pools must get fixed, but not enough of Proposition 1 funds — only about 58 percent — would be spent on repairing a maintenance backlog that has ballooned to nearly $270 million. Instead of taking care of current assets, about a quarter of the new park district’s first-year revenue would be spent on expansion and development.

Really, Seattle Times? Back in 2000, when you opposed that year’s parks levy, you complained that elected officials “should pare it down, take out maintenance dollars, use tax revenues in flush times for some land acquisition.” Could you actually be more transparently hypocritical? But, you know, thanks for illustrating one of the big problems with relying on parks levies to fund our parks: they tend to be geared toward appealing to voters rather than the unsexy day to day business of routine maintenance. That’s how we accumulated this $270 million maintenance backlog in the first place.

(Also, not that the editors care about facts, but their figures aren’t exactly true. Much of that so-called “expansion and development” money is spent developing 14 land-banked sites acquired through previous parks levies, as well as restoring previously cut services at parks and community centers.)

Before attempting to replace a parks levy that voters approve every few years with a vastly different funding mechanism that gives the City Council control over a new fund worth tens of millions, the parks system should first undergo an independent, comprehensive audit. Such a review has never been done before, but it would help prioritize projects and tell voters exactly how their money is being spent.

As I’ve previously explained, that’s just not true—the parks department is subject to routine financial and accountability audits, not to mention the supervision of voters, who easily approved parks levies in 2000 and 2008 (again, over the Seattle Times’ strenuous objections). Further, the accompanying ordinance includes new money for more extensive performance audits—money that won’t exist if Prop 1 doesn’t pass. Plus, the ordinance calls for a citizens advisory committee to help shape spending priorities for the next six-year budget. So there’s arguably more accountability with the park district than there is without.

Voters should remember that once a district is formed and the council takes the reins, it can only be dissolved by its members — a highly unlikely scenario.

Because as its elected members just proved with their remarkably swift action on a historic $15 minimum wage, they are totally unresponsive to popular pressure from voters, or something.

Seattle voters are accustomed to having a robust voice on how their dollars are spent. They should not be bamboozled into thinking Proposition 1 is the sole solution for fixing parks.

Again, the editors are accusing six mayors, nine city council members, and more than 70 civic organizations of being bamboozlers. Think of it as the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” school of editorial writing.

But more to the point, yes Prop 1 is the only reasonable, stable, longterm solution to fixing our parks, because it is our only opportunity to provide an adequate and stable longterm funding source within the context of our I-747-constrained budgets.

One of the myths of the anti-Park District campaign is that we are somehow taking away from voters their historic role in directly managing parks: “Levies have been working well for us for decades,” Harper told KUOW listeners. But that’s not true. Throughout most of Seattle’s history we’ve primarily paid for parks out of our general fund. Indeed, we’ve only recently grown reliant on parks levies thanks to I-747′s absurd 1 percent cap on regular levy growth, which has sapped hundreds of millions of dollars from city coffers over the past decade—as much as $186 million in 2015 alone!

And so the city has finally turned to the Metropolitan Park District’s untapped taxing authority—an authority granted to Seattle a century ago, and one currently used by 16 other Washington municipalities without the atrocities of which opponents fabulously warn—simply to restore some of the regular levy taxing authority eroded away by I-747. In practice, it is little more than an accounting maneuver that allows the council to pass through this unused taxing authority for the benefit of city parks. Nothing more.

Yes, if Prop 1 fails, the city could eventually go back to voters with another parks levy. And like previous parks levies it would likely be loaded with goodies to appeal to the affluent neighborhoods filled with the affluent voters who reliably vote, rather than the unsexy deferred maintenance spending that always seems to be deferred. And like previous parks levies, it would consume precious levy capacity needed for other crucial services like universal preschool, roads, and transit. But what a parks levy can never provide is the adequate and stable funding source necessary to give Seattle the sort of parks, recreation, and community center system it wants and deserves.

Don’t let the Seattle Times mislead you. Vote “Yes” on Prop 1.

- This carmageddon will be different.

- Most law-enforcement bodies have discretion over what they test, and many shelve kits if a victim seems untrustworthy or a suspect has already been identified, according to the National Institute of Justice, a research arm of the Department of Justice. Police also give priority to cases in which the suspect is a stranger and the victim is visibly injured. Yet perhaps eight in ten rapes take place between people who at least vaguely know each other, and most lack signs of violence. Acquaintance rapists are often chronic offenders, says David Lisak, a clinical psychologist. [h/t]

- Well done Standing Against Foreclosure and Eviction and Mayor Murray.

- After you’ve lost everyone who’s disgusted with the child abuse and hate, this is what’s left, and they’re running the place.

- Spokane people, any of you going to miss the Parkade Plaza Fountain?

- I don’t think the GOP have really thought through the Halbig case.

- Jonah Goldberg is a horrible person, but he’s a horrible person in a specific way that has allowed a lot of people to make fun of him over the years.

King County Elections released its absolute final signature verification results today, and of the 18,929 signatures Forward Seattle submitted, only 14,818 were determined to be valid, far short of the 16,510 necessary to qualify for the ballot. KCE validated an additional 455 signatures (out of 568 submitted) from a separate $15 referendum, but since the combined total still falls well short of the threshold, there’s no need to go through the legal wrangling necessary to determine whether they can be combined.

Of course, this result had been a foregone conclusion for more than a week. Of more interest is that KCE subtracted 100 signatures from the final total as legally “withdrawn.” I’m not sure I’ve ever seen this before. Kudos to Working Washington for setting new precedent in the battle against blatantly dishonest signature drives.

The glaring irony in the minimum wage debate is that it’s not inflation or rising labor costs that threaten corporate profits, but rather, stagnant consumer demand:

McDonald’s Corp. said its profit slipped in the second quarter as sales in the U.S. continued to flag.

The world’s biggest hamburger chain has been struggling to boost sales in its flagship market amid intensifying competition, changing eating habits and the persistent financial struggles of its lower-income customers.

In the U.S., sales at established locations fell 1.5 percent for the period fewer customers came into its restaurants. The company, based in Oak Brook, Illinois, hasn’t managed to raise the figure since October.

Real median wages declined 11 percent between 2002 and 2012, leaving low and middle income consumers with little discretionary income. Not even enough to spend on luxuries like McDonald’s.

It is lagging consumer demand that is holding back the US economy, and lagging demand is a direct result of lagging wages. Perhaps that’s why the 13 states that raised their minimum wage on January 1, are the 13 states with the fastest job growth since?

There’s actual video of hipster oligarch Dave Meinert getting shoved by a silver-haired Parks District opponent at a pro-Parks District press conference:

“I’ve never been at a press conference like that ever,” said Wells. “That was angrier than any of the minimum-wage stuff,” Meinert concurs.

They’re not always obedient, but I don’t think $15 Now and Socialist Alternative get enough credit for how civil they’ve always been. Never a hint of violence or unrest. Extremely well disciplined. Very peaceful.

Yet some of these anti-Parks Districts folk… what a bunch of assholes.

You know those targets left outside the League of Women Voters offices? It’s all an elaborate ruse, claims professional gun-nut Alan Gottlieb!

“Experienced gun owners have questioned whether or not this was actually the work of anyone even slightly familiar with firearms,” Gottlieb said, intimating the incident may have been a publicity stunt. “Rather, it seems more likely to be a stunt perpetrated by proponents of 594 seeking attention. It’s the kind of juvenile prank that only anti-gun elitists would find credible.

Right. It’s exactly the kinda juvenile stunt we’ve come to expect from the League of Women Voters! That, and delicious home-baked strudel.

Gottlieb, a convicted felon, has made a fortune from his Bellevue-based gun “advocacy” groups. So it’ll be kinda sweet to see I-594 passed in his own backyard.

… Because then I could rest comfortably knowing that these assholes would eventually burn in Hell:

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the government could not subsidize premiums for people in three dozen states that use the federal insurance exchange, a ruling that could upend President Obama’s health care law.

The 2-to-1 ruling could cut off financial assistance for more than 4.5 million people who were found eligible for subsidized insurance in the federal exchange, or marketplace.

… The lawsuit was filed by several people, supported by conservative and libertarian organizations, in states that use the federal exchange: Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. They objected to being required to buy insurance, even with subsidies to help defray the cost.

I’m sure the plaintiffs are patting themselves on the back right now in celebration of their big victory over Obamunism. But seriously, if this decision is upheld (and my sense is that it won’t be), how many of those 4.5 million Americans will suffer and/or die because their affordable health insurance was yanked away? If there really is a just and vengeful God, he’ll see this lawsuit for what it really is: attempted murder.

Unless you happen to be meeting with President Obama, please join us tonight for an evening of politics over a pint at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally. The ballots are out, so bring along your questions about and opinions of the candidates.

We meet tonight, and every Tuesday evening at the Roanoke Park Place Tavern, 2409 10th Ave E, Seattle. The starting time is 8:00 pm, but some folks show up before that for dinner.

Can’t make it to Seattle? Check out another Washington state DL over the next week. They’re everywhere! The Tri-Cities chapter also meets this and every Tuesday night. On Wednesday, the Bellingham and Burien chapters meet. And on Thursday, the Woodinville chapter meets.

With 203 chapters of Living Liberally, including eighteen in Washington state, three in Oregon and three in Idaho, chances are excellent there’s a chapter meeting somewhere near you.

Goddamn freedom-trampling money-wasting big guvmint!

As of this morning, some 3,100 firefighters were battling six major wildfires in Washington, while more than 4,800 were fighting 13 fires in Oregon.

More than 1,600 were at the Carlton Complex fire, up about 200 from Sunday.

A couple years ago when I ran the numbers for The Stranger, Okanogan County got back $1.84 in state spending for every tax dollar it sent to Olympia, while King County got back only 62 cents on the dollar. Which is fine. They sure do need our help to fight what is now the largest wildfire in state history. I just wish they had a more realistic understanding of who carries who, instead of constantly blaming Seattle liberals for all their woes.

Up is down! Black is white! Keynes is Friedman! It’s like we’re living in economic Bizzaro World!

First, there’s this:

Maybe a higher minimum wage isn’t so bad for job growth after all.

The 13 U.S. states that raised their minimum wages at the beginning of this year are adding jobs at a faster pace than those that did not, providing some counter-intuitive fuel to the debate over what impact a higher minimum has on hiring trends.

And now, there’s this:

The big takeaway: There is a clear connection between economic inequality and low-tax, low-cost state business climates (or, more accurately, business climate indexes based on those factors). As they put it: “The same tax and cost related indexes that are associated with higher economic growth are also associated with increases in inequality.”

Omigod, it’s like everything the supply-siders have been telling us for the past 40 years is wrong! A higher minimum wage does not decrease economic growth, and a rising tide does not raise all boats!

Who’da thunk?

- Are you surviving I-90mageddon, and should I care if you aren’t?

- I can’t imagine a Bible Museum in DC would do well. Who in their right mind would skip the Smithsonian for the ridiculous interpretations of Jesus building?

- I still don’t know enough about him, but good luck to Larry Nyland.

- Everyone is biking across the Freemont Bridge.

- Nice new cart!

Last week’s contest was won by Seventy2002, who has won all three street view contests so far. It was Newark, NJ.

This week’s contest is a random location somewhere in the state of Illinois, good luck!

Leviticus 19:34
The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

Discuss.

In recent years I’ve heard complaints from credible representatives of credible advocacy groups—even elected officials—that they’ve had little luck getting a guest column into the Seattle Times on important issues of the day. Union leaders and educators particularly feel shut out.

It wasn’t always this way. Back before the demise of the P-I, under Jim Vesely’s rule, the editorial page used to at least make an effort to give equal space to opposing views, even those they strongly disagreed with. But current editorial page editor Kate Riley makes little more than a token show of it. Instead, what progressive community leaders usually hear back is sorry, space is tight, there’s a lot of demand, and so the editors have to be very, very selective.

Okay. Maybe. But then how do they explain making room for this rambling guest column blaming our epidemic of mass shootings on the growing scourge of atheism?

Regardless of where our country went wrong, we now have a problem. Many Americans do not believe in an afterlife and divine judgment. Thus, homicide is attractive for revenge and the expression of emotional pain, and suicide is attractive for escape.

First of all, I don’t have the data at my fingertips, but I’m pretty confident that access to rational empiricism is much less strongly correlated with homicide and suicide than access to, you know, a gun. Further, the writer’s whole premise is unsupported by the facts. According to the religion and spirituality website Patheos, most US mass murderers are Christian (though in fact, the most overwhelming common denominator is that they are male). And then there’s the whole thorny history of our species routinely torturing and slaughtering each other in the name of one True God or another. But to be clear, it’s the gun that makes acting on murderous impulses so damn easy and efficient.

And second of all, could you be more bigoted and offensive?

Really. Had she written that “many Americans do not believe in Jesus Christ as their savior,” or had she pointed the finger at Judaism or Islam as belief systems that make homicide “attractive for revenge and the expression of emotional pain” (see, Gaza), the editors would have dismissed her column as the intolerant ramblings of an unrepentant bigot. But paint atheism as the “problem”—and by association, the millions of non-believing Americans like me who identify ourselves as such—well that’s the sort of important civil discourse deserving of rare column inches on the Seattle Times op/ed page! Apparently, non-belief is the only belief system that’s a permissible target of religious hate speech in our state’s paper of record.

I mean, fuck! The same op/ed page that blasts Gilbert and Sullivan as racism beyond the pale of a polite and inclusive society, gives voice to a religious bigot smearing nonbelievers with secular blood libel? It makes me so angry I could shoot somebody!

But I won’t. Because it would be wrong. And not because the Bible forbids it, or because I fear divine retribution in this life or the next, but because I was raised to be in touch with my own empathy and altruism, two traits that are as intrinsic to human nature as violence and revenge. As Rabbi Hillel famously said, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.” But one does not need to actually believe in the supernatural window-dressing of the Golden Rule to embrace it as the indispensable glue of a just and functional society.

Nevertheless, if like this author (and apparently, the editorial page editor of the Seattle Times), you are a self-satisfied narrow-minded religious bigot who insists that there can be no morality without God, have no fear: I won’t shoot you. Because I have no gun. And thus I have no means of acting upon the homicidal culture of revenge with which you impugn those of us who merely reject the notion of the supernatural. Something to think about if you’re truly interested in protecting your fellow man from senseless violence.