Goldy

Because guns make you safer:

VENICE, Fla. (AP) – Sarasota County Sheriff’s deputies say a 3-year-old boy shot his 1-year-old sister in the face as the two were in a car in the parking lot of a daycare.

A news release said the incident happened at 4:30 Friday afternoon in Venice, a small city south of Sarasota on Florida’s Gulf Coast.

The girl was flown to All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg with non-life threatening injuries and is expected to recover.

Officials say the children were left alone in a car while their mother was talking to people in the parking lot. A report said the boy picked up a handgun in the car and fired it, striking his sister. Only one shot was fired.

Deputies said that no criminal charges were expected Friday.

No doubt the mother feels awful about what happened, but we’re never going to curb reckless gun ownership until we start prosecuting it, just like we do with drunk driving. Were her daughter injured in accident during a DUI, the mother would have been prosecuted. She should be prosecuted for this too.

Defending Mayor Ed Murray’s crusade to rein in the scourge of electioneering, his spokesperson says that his proposed ordinance is merely intended to remove “confusion” over what political activity is or is not prohibited:

When asked about the bill’s connection to Sawant, a spokesman for the mayor said, “There seems to be some confusion over whether or not political activity related to official events organized by city staff is currently prohibited.”

“There certainly won’t be any confusion after this new language is adopted,” added the spokesman, Jason Kelly.

Uh-huh. Except, here’s the new language that’s being proposed:

No elected official, nor the official’s agent, shall engage in campaign activities at, or adjacent to, any official city public event that is organized by that elected official or any employee of the official’s office. The campaign activities may not occur during the event or at any time that attendees of the public event are present.

The glaring problem with this language is that it defines neither “official’s agent” nor “campaign activities”—and neither does section 2.04.300 of the municipal code that it amends. (Or “adjacent to,” for that matter.) Who exactly qualifies under the law as an “agent” of an elected official? I dunno. What exactly is a “campaign activity?” Beats me. If a Sawant supporter, on her own initiative were to pass out a Sawant campaign flyer on the steps of City Hall at a Sawant organized public forum, would that make Sawant legally liable for her actions? I guess that’s up to the courts to decide.

So much for removing any confusion.

Essentially, this ordinance bars Council member Sawant and her office from organizing any “official city public event” by attempting to make her legally liable for any action taken by one of her “agents” (whatever that means). And it pretty much only applies to Sawant, because she’s the only elected official who can claim any sort of meaningful grassroots support—a base that is at times unruly, undisciplined, and not under anybody’s direct control. Because grassroots!

I mean, seriously, if Sally Bagshaw were to organize a forum, do you really think she’d have to worry about overly-enthusiastic supporters showing up and violating section 2.04.300? I don’t think so.

Only Sawant needs to worry about involuntarily violating this ordinance because only Sawant has a large base of supporters enthusiastic enough to actually show up.

I’m not an attorney, but both the vagueness and broadness of this ordinance strikes me as unenforceable… though that doesn’t mean they can’t create a legal nightmare for Sawant in the process of trying. At the very least, this ordinance would produce an endless parade of bogus ethics complaints. At the very worst, it could ultimately prompt a legal challenge seeking to overturn Sawant’s reelection under section 2.04.500:

If the court finds that the violation of any provision of this chapter by any candidate or political committee probably affected the outcome of any election, the result of the election may be held void and a special election held within 60 days of such finding.

Unintended consequences? Maybe not.*

---

* Full disclosure: I enthusiastically  support Sawant. I mean, like duh-uh.

A couple weeks ago, an overflow crowd packed into city hall for a public forum on Seattle’s growing affordable housing crisis, hosted by city council members Kshama Sawant and Nick Licata. It was a loud, emotional, and politically charged event that clearly demonstrated to Mayor Ed Murray the need for bold and decisive action:

SEATTLE (May 12, 2015) – Mayor Ed Murray and Councilmember Tom Rasmussen proposed legislation today that would strengthen election and ethics rules. The legislation amends existing law to explicitly prohibit campaign activities at, or adjacent to, official City sponsored events.

“City Hall should be – and is – a forum for ideas and civic conversation, but taxpayer-funded events should never supplement or support outside campaign activities,” said Mayor Murray. “We need to ensure public resources are not being used for political purposes. Electioneering and fundraising have no place at, or during, City-sponsored events.”

Jesus. Could Ed and his allies on the council tie their undies any tighter in a knot?

To be clear, there was nothing unethical about that affordable housing forum. What some of Sawant’s colleagues are really upset about is that she has once again latched onto an issue that is turning out to be one of the most dominant issues in the 2015 campaign. But she didn’t do that through illegal electioneering. She did that by being in touch with actual working people.

I really wish my friends in the Democratic establishment would focus more on solving the problems that Sawant is attacking instead of focusing on attacking Sawant.

One of the stoopidest, stoopidest things local voters have done over the 11 years I’ve been covering local politics is to make the King County Elections Director an elected office. This is a position that demands a professional who knows how run elections, not a politician who knows how to run for them. And while it is putatively a nonpartisan office, we all know that’s bullshit.

The last person we want running King County Elections is a director with a political agenda, allegiance, or ambition.

Fortunately, disaster was averted back in February of 2009 when the appointed director, Sherril Huff, won a special election against a six-person field that included the likes of Pam Roach and David Irons Jr. (Irons actually came in second!) And the reason why you’ve heard so little in the press about Huff ever since is that she has done such a damn fine job. Which is why it worries me to read the press release that Huff is retiring:

King County Elections Director Sherril Huff will not seek re-election as King County Elections Director.  She had planned to run for a second full, four year term but will now retire for personal and health considerations.  Huff, who has held the position since 2009, issued the following statement:

“It is with some sadness that I made this decision.  I love my job, my team of dedicated professionals, and the work we do to ensure transparent, efficient elections for the 1.1 million voters in our state’s largest County. I was looking forward to continuing this service, but after consulting with family, friends and colleagues, I am making the right decision to step down after this year.

I’m particularly proud of the advancements we have made in ballot tracking, improving technologies to speed counting and processing, and improving accessibility through vote by mail, drop boxes, multi-language voting materials, and other efforts to increase participation.

I know I am leaving the office in a strong position as a state and national leader, and will enjoy the remaining months in office.”

Huff deserves a ton of credit for restoring confidence in the office in the wake of the controversial 2004 election. So my hope is that Huff has a qualified deputy in the office who the political establishment rally behind awfully damn quick before politics and personal ambition have a chance to corrupt this race. I don’t want a political ally—I want an elections professional. And so should you.

Much to the Republicans’ dismay, Washington is a “voter intent” state; but there is still plenty of room for an elections director to suppress the vote in subtle and nuanced ways. We could tighten up on the signature verification standards, leaving thousands more “challenged” ballots out of the count. We could pull back on our multilingual voter outreach efforts, reducing turnout in immigrant communities. We could scale back on the number of drop boxes in communities of color and on college campuses. In the wake of several elections in which the late ballots broke hard to the left, our new elections director could support the Seattle Times’ incessant call for moving the ballot deadline from postmarked by Election Day to received by Election Day.

There is plenty of opportunity for mischief. Or, the new director could follow in Huff’s methodical footsteps by focusing on improving and speeding the elections process.

Low profile races like this tend to fly far under the radar—voter turnout for the 2009 special election in which Huff first won office was only 22 percent. But considering that fair and impartial elections are the heart of our democracy, in the long run this could end up being one of the most important races on the November ballot.

Darryl just called to remind me that today is the 11th anniversary of my very first post to HA:

[T]o those upstanding members of the political and media establishment who insist I cannot possibly expect to maintain my credibility as an activist while producing an irreverent and outrageous blog, the Goldy half of me respectfully says: “fuck you.”

Yeah, it’s been a weird 11 years. But rereading that post, I’m proud that I’ve always managed to remain true to myself.

Anyway, thanks for reading me all these years. That’s all any writer can ask for in life: readers.

Genesis 27:11
And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man.

Discuss.

Deuteronomy 12:15-16
However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God that he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the deer. Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.

Discuss.

So, my day job hasn’t changed, but after six months of working for Nick Hanauer I finally have something official to print on a business card: I am a Senior Fellow at Civic Ventures, a public policy incubator. (And if you’re wondering what makes me “senior,” it’s that I’m the only fellow old enough to qualify for AARP.)

Anyway, in addition to the new name, we also have a new blog—Civic Skunkworks—to which I proudly posted today the blog’s first fisking:

Tim Worstall not only has a byline at Forbes and a fellowship at the impressive-sounding Adam Smith Institute, he also spells “labour” with that fancy extra “u,” so he must be a smart guy who knows an awful lot about economics, right? But then you read his actual words and, well, not so much…

Watch Worstall plot a demand curve from a single data point, and then watch me tear him a new one. Enjoy!

Councilmember Sally Bagshaw just doesn’t get it:

Bagshaw said: “More than frustrated, I am sad about how Sawant is acting. I perceive her as intentionally creating class differences for her own gain, whereas we could be shaking everyone’s hands and working together to solve this problem… “

Sigh. So, the thing is, to accuse Kshama Sawant of “creating class differences” is to fail to acknowledge that class differences already exist. And I think that helps explain Bagshaw’s failure to connect with working-class voters.

Also, while Sawant is certainly attempting to create class consciousness (and she may even be attempting to exploit it), none of this is for Sawant’s personal gain. She’s a true believer in the midst of a class struggle. Simple as that. Read your Marx and you’ll gain a lot of insight into what motivates Sawant.

But to attribute it to ego or self-interest is to misread Sawant entirely.

As for Bagshaw, I don’t question her intentions. Every conversation we’ve had has been pleasant and polite. I think we mostly get each other. But then, that is because Bagshaw and I largely hail from the same class. The overflow crowd at the affordable housing forum last week, not so much.

Personally, I struggle to overcome my own class prejudices and preconceptions, not always successfully. Empathy can be a poor substitute for experience. But one thing I know for sure is that these class differences—and the anger and frustration they are generating—are very, very real.

Hey look over there!

Seattle City Councilmember Sally Bagshaw says a town-hall meeting hosted by Councilmember Kshama Sawant at City Hall last week was really a “political rally designed to inflame emotions and get one council member re-elected.”

Um, with all due respect, Sally, that is total bullshit. And it is also a truly unfortunate and unnecessary distraction from the growing crisis over Seattle’s lack of affordable housing.

To be clear, I was at that town-hall meeting. I was the second public speaker on the agenda. And I spoke totally about policy. Not politics, policy. There wasn’t anything political in anything I said. Pure policy wonkery. Period.

Councilmember Sawant had invited me to speak so that I could present my proposal to tap into city and county bonding capacity to build affordable housing. In fact, she did more than just invite me. She and her staff twisted my arm to take an hour out from a really crushing schedule last week—to speak about policy! And a policy that has nothing directly to do with Sawant’s pet project of pushing for some sort of legal rent control.

It was, by the way, the exact same policy pitch that I personally made to Bagshaw just two days earlier at the 43rd LD Democrats’ straw poll. Was our one-on-one conversation a “political rally” too, Sally?

Sawant’s council colleagues would do better for themselves and their city by directly addressing housing affordability rather than attempting to distract from the issue by launching bullshit ethics complaints.

Job 3:2
He said:

Discuss.

Okay, so it’s not exactly statistically meaningful or predictive, but socialist city council member Kshama Sawant kicked ass last night at the 43rd Legislative District Democrats’ annual straw poll, winning 145 votes, more than twice the 70 votes of second-place finisher, Urban League president Pamela Banks. Former Equal Rights Washington director Rod Hearne came in third with 59 votes, followed by Morgan Beach with 52.

There’s been more than a little wishful thinking on the part of some establishment Dems that Sawant is on shaky ground with rank and file Democratic voters, but you wouldn’t know it from her reception last night. Sawant was surrounded by well-wishers all night long, while her challengers had to put a little effort into their mingling. If their bylaws didn’t prevent the 43rd Dems from endorsing a non-Democrat, I’m pretty sure she’d easily win the LD’s endorsement.

The fact is that few Democratic politicians speak to the values of the party’s progressive base as directly as Sawant does. So it shouldn’t really be a surprise that so many Dems are willing to overlook her socialist label.

Deuteronomy 28:22
The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.

Discuss.

Rents at newer luxury “Class A” apartment buildings in Seattle are rising at twice the rate of rents at older “Class C” buildings, despite having twice the vacancy rate. Which which is weird because…

The data seem to defy the law of supply and demand. I asked Cain about it; he believes it has something to do with the different types of ownership models at luxury apartment buildings compared with the older ones.

Premium Class A properties are typically owned by institutional investors and managed by a national property-management company.

In contrast, Class C properties are usually owned by people with a connection to Seattle — either a family (though that’s become a lot less common in recent years) or a small group of local investors.

“Also, these owners seem to hold the properties longer,” Cain says, “and as a result, they have lower debt coverage ratios.” The less debt they have to service, the less pressure to push rents to the maximum.

In other words, many of these landlords aren’t jacking up rents to whatever the market will bear. It’s a refreshing change from the all-too-common stories of brutal rent hikes forcing tenants to relocate.

Except, of course, it’s not weird. Because there is no “law” of supply and demand. Supply and demand is a useful construct for describing, in general, how markets tend to work. But it’s not a law. People—and thus the markets they create—are a lot more complicated than any three-word phrase can describe. So no, merely adding more supply is not the only (or even an adequate) solution to Seattle’s growing affordability crisis.

I’m not saying we don’t need to add more housing units. Of course we do. Massively. But the market alone will not solve this crisis because the form of ownership matters.