The most elite members of Seattle’s political press corps hard at work covering primary night.
So I’m mostly out of the the electoral politics coverage business (praise the lord), but I couldn’t let yesterday’s primary results pass without a few quick and triumphal comments. Don’t know how one could spin it any other way, but it was a really big night for Kshama Sawant and the people and issues she represents. And it had to be a disappointment for her establishment opponents.
August primaries are typically low turnout affairs, with older more conservative voters disproportionately represented in the electorate. And yet Sawant still managed to capture 49.9 percent of the vote in a four-way race, and likely a few more points than that once the late ballots are tallied. That bodes awfully damn well for her with the much larger, younger, more left-leaning November electorate.
To be honest, these results were so far at the far high-end of my expectations that I broke into celebratory expletives when the ballots dropped. Of course, there’s still a lot of work that remains to be done; it’s still likely to be the most expensive city council race in Seattle history (by far), and that money buys you something. But Sawant and her campaign have once again demonstrated the effectiveness of grassroots organizing in local elections as well as the power of bluntly lefty message.
(And yes, I take more than a little pleasure watching the Trotskyists beat back an assault from the chamber-funded political establishment.)
As for the rest of the races, everybody I voted for or donated money to appears to have gotten through to the general election. And they weren’t all sure things to make the top two.
In the 4th district, kajillion-term incumbent Jean Godden looks to be coming in third behind Rob Johnson and Michael Maddux. It’s a shame she couldn’t retire more gracefully, but that was as much her choice as the voters’. And for the at-large position 8, tenants rights activist Jonathan Grant beat the better funded and better known John Roderick for the right to challenge council president Tim Burgess in the general. Building on what I wrote yesterday, Grant’s win along with Sawant’s robust results suggest that the affordable housing debate is resonating strongly with average voters.
Also, lifelong elections professional Julie Wise kicked ass against two politicians in the race for King County Director of Elections. So I’ve got no complaints from last night’s results. It was a happy primary election night for me.
So establishment candidates did not do well in the primary for Seattle School Board.
Incumbent Marty McLaren (the only incumbent seeking re-election) was way behind front-runner, Leslie Harris. (Harris garnering the majority of endorsements – including a double from both the Times and The Stranger) plus McLaren’s lack of realization that nice+”I listen” isn’t a campaign strategy may have been her undoing. The early count is Harris 46% and McLaren 39%.
In the other race, Lauren McGuire, the establishment candidate, was only 300 votes ahead of Jill Geary. McGuire got the Times’ endorsement while Geary got The Stranger. It’s McGuire at 47.79% versus Geary at 45.11%.
It will be interesting in both races when they have to try to reach voters throughout the city. That’s also when you will see the races for the other two school district spots (District 1 to the far north and District 3 which is Green Lake, Phinney, Greenwoodish) come into play.
The majority of the Board – 4 out of 7 – is up for election.
But never count out the incumbent.
I agree. District 4 is now interesting because a lot of groups that endorsed early did so assuming the choices were going to be Johnson and Godden. Now a true progressive Michael Maddux is a very real option and should really start to pick up momentum.
District 1 between Lisa and Shannon will be really interesting, but that was a lot of I.E money for Braddock that didn’t even give her a 1 percent lead and you’d have to think the November general will favor Lisa.
1 and 4 are going to be interesting. Braddock, Downtown Rob Johnson and Pamela Banks all got the big money from the conservative groups, there’s a very real chance none of them make it onto council and district elections follows through on its promise to allow an even playing field despite all the Republican money pouring in for Banks, Braddock and Downtown Rob Johnson.
Taking into account that the November electorate differs somewhat from primary voters, I’ll predict that both Sawant and Burgess will be reelected. Godden, 83, isn’t the dynamic force on the council (was she ever?) voters are looking for to deal with our rapidly evolving city, and whether or not she makes it into the general election, she’s been sent into retirement.
I have mixed feelings about Sawant. The historically stodgy city council needs a shaker. She’s bringing life to a somnolent body. I don’t care that she’s a Trotskyite, because she’s not a council majority by herself, and can’t legislate anything without the support of several other council members. The $15 minimum wage is a useful piece of legislation, and it wouldn’t have happened without her.
Housing is a different problem. Newbies are coming to Seattle for jobs, including high-paying tech jobs, and unless enough new housing is built to accommodate them, Seattle housing will turn into a game of musical chairs, in which some people of lesser means inevitably will get displaced by those with more means. Rent control can’t and won’t affect either of these outcomes, because regulating rents doesn’t alleviate the underlying housing shortage.
Housing supply and affordability, while interrelated, are two distinct problems and issues. You can’t get away from the limited supply (and high cost) of land, or building costs, through legislation and policymaking. It’s much easier (within limits) to address housing affordability on the income side (e.g., by mandating higher wages) than on the pricing side (e.g., by mandating lower rents), because there’s no magic wand anyone can wave to lower costs. There are certain things you can do with policy, for example by increasing density, that could make more housing units available given the available land; and those things should be done. You can perhaps have some limited impact on affordability by providing housing subsidies with public funds, but those resources are limited and far short of the need. In the final analysis, employers will have to pay workers enough to be able to live here, and if they don’t, those workers will leave the area and those jobs will go unfilled.
It’s not difficult for Sawant to tap into the high level of frustration, especially among younger voters, with Seattle’s housing crisis. (And Seattle DOES have a housing crisis. So does the nation as a whole, but it’s exacerbated here.) It’ll be much harder for her, or any other politician, to deliver real solutions. We can’t build a fence around Seattle to keep the migrants out. We can’t dictate lower land and construction costs. We can’t keep migrants coming here for high-paying tech jobs from waging bidding wars for apartments, condos, and homes. You maybe can prevent landlords from raising rents or converting apartments to condos by legislating against those things, but you’re still going to end up with more people seeking housing than the city can provide, and you’ll still have people who are left standing when the music stops.
I don’t claim to have a societal solution. I do have a nifty personal solution to my personal housing problem that works very well for me, but doesn’t solve the problem for anyone else. I don’t have a rent problem, because I own my digs. I don’t have an affordability problem, because I bought my burrow 25 years ago and paid it off, so my only housing expenses now are taxes, utilities, and insurance, which amount to roughly half of what Seattle renters are currently paying for a 1-bedroom apartment if they can find one. This is great for me, and my reward for foresight and wise financial management, but it’s useless for anyone else.
This morning’s Seattle Times has an anecdotal story about a guy who left Michigan for a Seattle job, and ended up buying a Queen Anne house 1/2 the size of his Michigan digs and 3 times as expensive. That’s the reality of living and working in Seattle for new arrivals or young people starting out. Once upon a time, I was in those shoes. Housing was dauntingly expensive then, too. There was no silver-bullet solution then, either. I couldn’t go to my state employer and demand higher pay because it was hard to live in Seattle on a public salary. (Well, I could, but I wouldn’t have gotten anywhere.) The only practical suggestion I can make is do what I did: Pay up, stay put, and pay it off. Think 30 years ahead. Someday you won’t be able to work anymore, and when that day comes, you’d damn well better have achieved the immunity from soaring housing costs that outright ownership confers if you want to spend your old age in this city.
Seattle has another issue that’s gotten submerged amidst all the talk about wages and housing: Traffic. In addition to congestion and potholes (i.e., the poor condition of many city streets), people dependent on cars have to cope with the City of Seattle’s deliberate hostility to cars, which makes driving to in-city destinations more difficult and expensive. That’s the biggest reason why I haven’t attended a single Drinking Liberally at the new location. I don’t go into the city anymore, except for medical appointments, business reasons, or meetings. I never go downtown for shopping or recreation anymore. It’s just too much hassle. I don’t have a solution for this problem, either. I shop in my neighborhood or online, drive as little as possible, use public transportation when I can; but I still need a car for some things, and with the city intentionally making life miserable for car drivers, my solution is to avoid the city as much as I can.
I took your advice and made the “Wise” choice for election director. I’m happy to see old buddy Mike Maddox do well.
I know I’m not the sharpest tack, but it seems to me we need to focus on the state senate, which has nearly half it’s senators up for election next year. Progressive changes there could move the state forward in big ways.
@6 Don’t forget the state house. Losing it is not out of the question.
It is frustrating that we don’t got better candidate recruitment from the caucus leadership, and yet party outsiders who largely support the Democratic agenda are often greeted with suspicion, if not downright hostility.
“And yes, I take more than a little pleasure watching the Trotskyists beat back an assault from the chamber-funded political establishment.”
That about sums up freaky deaky Seattle, and its transformation into San Fransicko-lite.
(Oh and if thats Seattle’s “elite” press corp…thats just sad.)