Search Results for: ’

If there’s anything that pisses me off more than lying in politics, it’s a political lie that is easily refuted by math. Take, for example, this whopper from a recent No on Park District campaign mailer:

“Your property taxes would increase by 20%!” Omigod, that’s awful! If my $4,448 property tax bill were to increase by 20 percent, it would cost me an additional $890! That’s outrageous!

But it’s also bullshit.

In fact, if Proposition 1 passes, my property tax bill would only increase by about 60 bucks. That’s because the current Parks Levy of $0.19 per $1,000 of assessed value would bump up to $0.33, a $0.14 increase. And $0.14 is only 1.36 percent of the total $10.29168 per $1,000 of assessed value property tax that most Seattle homeowners are paying in 2014.

That’s a 1.34 percent increase, not the absurd 20 percent that parks opponents preposterously claim.

And even if the mayor and the city council are evil bastards who are just totally fucking with us—as the parks opponents seem to imply—and they immediately levy the full $0.75 per $1,000 the RCW allows, your property taxes would still only increase by 5.4 percent. That’s not nothing, but it’s still far short of that bullshit 20 percent claim.

So how do these lying liars justify their lying lie?

Carol Fisher, vice chair for Our Parks Forever, said the group based its numbers on Seattle’s levy cap of $3.60 per $1,000 assessed value. The park district would, in essence, add a maximum of 75 cents to this cap, she explained, which is how the group calculated the 20 percent increase.

Except that’s not what their mailer says. “Your property taxes would increase by 20%!” the lying liars claim in big bold print. But it won’t. Because that’s just a big bold lie.

So if they’re lying about something as easily refuted as math, how can you trust any of the other assertions they make? (Hint: you can’t.)

It may sound wonky, but this is potentially big, big news:

McDonald’s Corp. says it has been notified by a labor regulator that it can be named as a “joint employer” for workers in its franchise-owned restaurants.

The decision by the National Labor Relations Board was being closely watched because it could potentially expose McDonald’s to liability for the working conditions in its franchisees’ stores.

This is, of course, the issue at the heart of the International Franchise Association’s hilarious lawsuit against Seattle’s new $15 minimum wage ordinance. The IFA alleges that Seattle’s minimum wage law (and other proposed laws like it) would illegally discriminate against franchisees. Franchisees are small businesses, the IFA argues, totally independent from the corporate brand, and thus should be treated just like any other small business.

But apparently, the NLRB disagrees.

Barring a dangerously radical Supreme Court ruling overturning a century of legal precedent, the IFA never had much chance of prevailing in court; the NLRB’s decision only makes it harder. But if it holds, the NLRB’s decision could have a much more far reaching impact. Labor organizers have long argued that franchisers like McDonald’s should be held accountable for the low wages and poor working conditions at their franchisees’ stores, because corporate HQ exerts so much operational control. An official designation of McDonald’s and other franchisers as “joint employers” could open the door to new legal and labor organizing strategies.

You can always count on the National Rifle Association to raise the level of discourse… to sheer nuttery! For example, at a July 23 “No on 594” event in Silverdale, WA, NRA spokesman Brian Judy is caught on audio comparing universal gun background checks to Nazi Germany*, before ridiculing Jews like I-594 backer Nick Hanauer for being anti-gun.

“These people,” an exasperated Judy exclaims about anti-gun Jews. Really:

“About 2 weeks ago, Nick Hanauer, the billionaire, contributor to 594, wrote an article in Politico.com. Go home and search Politico.com and Nick Hanauer. He wrote this article, its called “The Pitchforks are Coming . . . for Us Plutocrats.“ So it was an article, it was a letter to all his fellow rich people. And he was saying that the middle class was shrinking, us haves are a smaller and smaller group of people, and soon enough the have-nots, they’re not going to take it anymore and they’re going to come after us plutocrats with pitchforks. And I’m convinced, I saw the article and there’s the answer to my question.

Why does a small group of billionaires want to register handguns? ‘Cause I know where they want to go. I’ve watched these people for 30 years, they want to ban ’em, but they have to register them first so they know where to get them. And these billionaire plutocrats want to get rid of handguns so when things do go loose that the people only have pitchforks to come after them. [Unintelligible] and they have the guns. And then at the end of this article, I mean it’s staggering to me, because at the end of the article Hanauer talks about his family, and they’re from Germany. They had a pillow manufacturer in Germany. And in one of the last paragraphs he talks about his family being run out of Germany by the Nazis. It’s like [slapping noise; laughter]. How stupid can they – you know? Now he’s funding, he’s put half a million dollars, toward this policy, the same policy that led to his family getting run out or Germany by the Nazis. You know, it’s staggering to me, it’s just, you can’t make this stuff up. That these people, its like any Jewish people I meet who are anti-gun, I think, “are you serious? Do you not remember what happened?” And why did that happen? Because they registered guns and then they took them. And now you’re supporting gun con – you come to this country and you support gun control? Why did you have to flee to this country in the first place? Hello! Is anybody home here? It’s just – I don’t know.

Yeah, yeah, maybe they don’t know. So, but it’s really sad the level of understanding some people have of history and, like they say, if you don’t understand history, you’re doomed to repeat it. And here’s this billionaire, this arrogant, elitist, progressive billionaire who’s, you know, running around Seattle getting all his fellow billionaires to pony up to push this thing.”

Uh-huh.

First, it’s interesting to note that the biggest laugh Judy gets is when he talks about Hanauer’s family being “run out of Germany by the Nazis.” Ha-ha! Because that’s always funny.

I’ll be here all week; try the veal!

Second, to dismiss Judy’s comments as merely clumsy or insensitive, you’d have to ignore the contortions he went through to weave Hanauer’s Jewishness into the narrative. So who is backing I-594? Wealthy Jews, Judy warns the room! Now that’s an anti-semitic dog whistle if I’ve heard one.

Talk about repeating history.

* And FYI, this Nazi gun control myth the NRA loves to repeat? It’s total bullshit. Just in case you had any doubt.

Ed Murray’s office just announced the death of former Seattle Mayor Paul Schell:

It is with great sadness that Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announces the passing of Seattle’s 50th mayor, Paul Schell, who served from 1998-2002. Schell died this morning surrounded by family and friends at Swedish Hospital. He was 76 years old.

Schell will be remembered as one of the great city builders of the Pacific Northwest. As a citizen activist, lawyer, director of community development, port commissioner, dean of architecture and mayor he directly shaped the civic infrastructure of Seattle for more than 40 years.

Schell’s greatest professional accomplishment has been the infrastructure that he built and influenced. The first Libraries for All campaign was a brainchild of Schell’s, establishing and building a new downtown library and rebuilding branches throughout the city. He led the effort to fund Seattle’s first parks levy, rebuild the opera house and was instrumental in building the Olympic Sculpture Park, Seattle’s City Hall and Justice Center.

Don’t believe I ever met Schell, whose tenure ended before I got involved in local politics. But the libraries are really nice. That alone is an honor-worthy legacy in itself.

Thom and Jimmy Dore: Media consolidation.

Stephen: True Blood horror show and Obamacare ruling from D.C. Circuit.

David Pakman: Oregon and Alaska to vote on pot legalization this fall.

Richard Fowler: How the Koch brothers brainwash students.

Bill Maher asks Neil DeGrasse Tyson why Republicans don’t really like him.

Pap and Karen Evans: The House Science Committee’s War on Science:

Young Turks: HBO show mocks Ted Cruz and Texas Republicans.

Gov. OOPS!

• Ann Telnaes: Rick Perry’s gunfight at the O.K. Corral.
• Sam Seder: Rick Perry sending 1,000 National Guardsmen to U.S. border to do nothing.
• Alex Wagner: Rick Perry militarizes a refugee situation.
• Ed: All hat and no cattle.
• Mark Fiore: Rick Perry’s “Operation Strong Candidate”.
• Thom: Is Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) guilty of child abuse?
• Pap and Howard NationsRick Perry’s border control blunder.

Supreme Court: No gurrlz allowed.

Obama: 24 years of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Matt Binder: The difference between Obama’s response to MH17 and Reagan’s handling of KAL007.

Jon: Murdoch’s offer and a Kickstarter to buy CNN.

Pap and David Hersh: Nullification and Republican Obstructionism.

Thom: The Good, The Bad, and They Very, Very Ugly.

David Pakman: States the increased minimum wage gained more jobs:

Prof. Biden on infrastructure.

Mental Floss: 27 unbelievable local traditions.

Ed: Nutbagger Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is doubling down on being a BIRFER.

ObamaCare in Jeopardy?

• Young Turks: Judicial roller coaster ride on ObamaCare
• WAPO: ObamaCare subsidies explained in one minute.
• Alex Wagner: Two bombshell rulings
• David Pakman: Court decision a potential setback for ObamaCare

Stephen: Nate Silver in a galaxy far, far away….

White House: West Wing Week.

Honest Political Ads: National Security:

Young Turks: Nutcase felon Dinesh D’Souza throws tantrum, cries he’s ‘not a crybaby’.

Thom: Rise of the American Taliban.

Jon: Fareed Zakaria hits McCain for claiming Obama destroyed the world.

Mary Poppins quits (for a living wage).

Pootie-Poot:

• WaPo: Late Night Jokes, Putin edition.
• Psychosupermom: How do you solve a problem like Putin?
• Sam Seder: FAUX News’ “interesting” theory about Obama and Putin.

Thom and Pap: Why does Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) support child abuse?

Ed with Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA-7): Oily Russia.

David Pakman: Ted Nugent gets a bit racist over his cancellation.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

Were you looking for some rambling thoughts on the PSRC’s Evaluation of Regional Impacts for the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point? No? Well, you’re here, so you might as well continue.

First we should have a discussion of the study itself:

What this could mean is that the negative impacts of the coal traffic on the region’s commerce could outweigh any benefit from jobs at the terminal itself.

Earlier predictions had already increased expected wait times by 30 minutes to 2 hours and 45 minutes in the region, without the coal, by 2035.

If the terminal is built, rail gates could be closed from 38 minutes to 85 minutes longer than previously predicted on the BNSF Railway line that runs along the I-5 corridors by 2035, this most recent study said.

The study identified 101 rail crossings in the Puget Sound area, 77 of them in cities and towns.

That adds up to quite a lot of time. The study talks about mitigating impacts, but notes that they are expensive. I’d hope first and foremost that BNSF pay for mitigation.. If that doesn’t happen, I would hope it would be done either by the state or by the areas that are most benefiting from the terminal jobs.

The main impacts the study mentions are the traffic and potential land value decreases near the rail. The Environmental Impact Statement should deal with dust and noise more than this study, but I would like to highlight this from the summary:

Environmental Justice Considerations. The potential for impacts to be disproportionately felt by populations that are minority or low income was a criteria used to select at-grade crossings for analysis in the study. An examination of these populations by census tract showed that low income and minority populations in Kent and Seattle would have the highest disproportionate impacts from train operations. Low income and minority populations in Everett, Auburn, Algona, Pacific and Fife could also be impacted by additional trains travelling [sic] to and from the proposed terminal.

Finally, for those interested after the derailment yesterday, the study talks about oil trains, a bit but it isn’t the focus. We won’t have that until October. And obviously, this study won’t deal with that derailment specifically.

Seattle Times editorial columnist Thanh Tan raises the issue of “good governance” in regards to Proposition 1:

The Seattle Times opposes Prop 1, and published an editorial Wednesday arguing it is not the only option to save parks. The League of Women Voters of Seattle-King County urge a ‘no’ vote because its members take issue with Prop. 1′s proposed governance model, which replaces the current parks levy with a new taxing district overseen by the Seattle City Council.

The Municipal League of King County recently came out with a ‘yes’ recommendation, though it noted that “as a matter of good governance, parks operations should be funded through the City’s General Fund. The Municipal League believes a YES vote is the best practical measure available for addressing parks funding shortfalls, but is concerned that approving this measure will result in a continued practice of reducing allocations for essential city services from the General Fund.”

And I agree 100 percent! As a matter of good governance, parks operations should be funded through municipal general funds. As should libraries. And basic road maintenance. And affordable housing. And universal preschool. And veteran and human services. And the new juvenile detention center. And so forth.

The problem is, thanks to I-747’s arbitrary and absurd 1 percent annual cap on revenue growth from existing construction, our general fund revenues simply can’t grow commensurate with our needs. As a 2012 report from the Seattle Parks Foundation clearly explains:

Initiative 747 reduced the allowable annual increase in the property tax from 6 percent to 1 percent per year, well below the rate of inflation. Another ballot measure, Initiative 776, restricts counties from collecting vehicle license fees. It should be noted that the voters of Seattle voted against both measures by substantial margins, but they passed statewide and therefore apply in Seattle. As a result of Initiative 747 alone, the City of Seattle’s property tax collections in 2010 are at least $60 million less than if the measure had not passed. The impact of the loss is compounded each year the limits remain in place, so annual losses increase by approximately $15 million per year, meaning that the estimated loss for 2011 will be at least $75 million. This estimate assumes the City Council would have limited the tax increase to the rate of inflation in the City’s labor costs (3.5 percent to 4.5 percent annually, which includes the cost of health care). If one assumes the City Council would have increased property tax to the statutory limit of 6 percent per year, the 2011 loss would be $126 million.

That’s not pro-Park District propaganda. That’s math. And that’s the reason why the city has been forced to increasingly rely on levy “lid lifts” to fund basic services like libraries and parks—not as a matter of good governance but as a matter of last resort.

So the “good governance” argument is bullshit, not because it’s wrong, but because we simply no longer have that option. Tim Eyman (and the feckless cowards in Olympia who reinstated I-747 after the courts tossed it out) have deliberately taken that option away.

The fact is, like the state (if to a lesser extent), Seattle has a structural revenue deficit. The cost of maintaining government services at a constant level largely tracks economic growth, yet our tax system does not. Regular property tax levy growth is bizarrely capped at 1 percent. Year after year, sales tax revenue shrinks as a portion of the overall economy as the sale of goods becomes an ever smaller piece of the economic pie. Yet there are statutory limits on the extent to which we can use special levies to make up the shortfall. A municipal park district would get around that, by allowing the council to pass through to the parks department otherwise untapped taxing authority.

So again, arguing that good governance would dictate that parks be funded through the general fund is like arguing that good environmental stewardship would dictate that we save the carrier pigeon from extinction. Absolutely true. But too damn late.

We need a Metropolitan Park District because that is the taxing authority we have. Vote “Yes” on Prop 1.

All that other stuff aside, I just have to take a moment to express how much I hate the use of the Nobody’s Happy Scale in defense of political compromise:

[Courtney] Gregoire said the Port understands there is a court case pending, but hopes the court recognizes the Port of Seattle is unique and has a unique authority of the airport and stands by the Ports decision saying she thinks it is a good solution.

“You know you are probably in a good place when some people are saying you didn’t go far enough, and others that say we went too far,” she said.

Because… why? Why exactly is that ever a good place?

Look, I’m enough of a pragmatist to understand that compromise is often necessary, because in politics, compromise is often the only way to get shit done. And maybe that applies here. But this is a metric that confuses the means for the end, inherently elevating compromise as the primary measure of political success. And that’s just fundamentally stupid. Literally slicing the baby in half is an equitable compromise that makes nobody happy, whereas awarding the whole baby to one contesting mother or the other is sure to leave one party totally aggrieved. You tell me, which is the better place?

Furthermore, Gregoire’s use of the Nobody’s Happy Scale is typical in that it is cited without reference to context or proportion. But to say that some people think you “went too far” while others think you “didn’t go far enough”—without ever acknowledging the relative number of people on either side (let alone the credibility of their arguments)—echoes the logic of climate change deniers who routinely cite a handful of scientists in refutation of tens of thousands!

And this isn’t just a semantic nit I’m picking. Rather, it is central to the way the language of political discourse serves to disempower the majority. For in truth, the Sea-Tac minimum wage debate pits just a handful of profitable businesses against thousands of low-wage airport workers—a dozen or so “too fars” versus about 6,000 “not far enoughs.” So, intentional or not, how is Gregoire’s math much different from this?

“If you have the 1 percent saying, ‘Tax the 99 percent,’ and the 99 percent saying, ‘Tax the 1 percent,’ you have a standstill.”
— former WA State Senator Joseph Zarelli (R-Ridgefield), 12/2/2011

Of course, what Gregoire is really attempting to accomplish with this offhand appeal to the Nobody’s Happy Scale, is to establish a claim of neutrality. If nobody’s happy, she is arguing, then you can’t accuse the commissioners of taking sides. But unfortunately, that’s not supported by the facts on the ground.

For if the commissioners were truly neutral, after years of denying they even had the legal authority to impose a minimum wage at the airport, then they would have stayed the hell out of Alaska Airlines’ lawsuit instead of joining it! In fact, given Gregoire’s statement that she hopes the court “recognizes… and stands by the Port’s decision,” it is not unreasonable to view the commissioner’s belated actions with a fair degree of cynicism.

Which is a shame. Because while I question the commissioners’ judgment as well as the language they inartfully chose to defend it, I don’t question their motives. Buried in the supporting documents is the compelling data-driven argument that low wages lead to high turnover which leads to greater security risks at the airport. I wish Gregoire had taken the opportunity to drive that point home as a justification for raising airport wages. And if the other side of the commission’s compromise was equally data-driven, I wish they would have clearly presented those arguments too.

Instead, what we got was the Nobody’s Happy Scale, a compromise for the sake of compromise platitude that can’t help but perpetuate the same profound imbalance of power between labor (the many) and capital (the few) that the SeaTac $15 minimum wage initiative was necessary to address.

– Yay for private charity, boo for thinking it can replace public safety net programs.

– Now, we can have a discussion about noblesse oblige, but the fundamental thing here is that McCain really doesn’t have a problem with the noblesse, it’s just that he thinks there should be no oblige.

– Can we acknowledge that we don’t know what the fuck we’re doing with the death penalty at this point?

– As she points out, regretfully, there’s a big gap between male and female artists. The stats are grim: Although 60 percent of arts graduates are women, galleries display only about 25 percent of women’s work nationally. Seattle’s record at 39 percent is somewhat better. Less than 4 percent of museum collections are credited to women artists.

– Conservatives trying to evaluate the goals of the ACA are like elephants trying to play a toy piano.

– I’m not really excited about this year’s Capitol Hill Block Party because I’m fully 1000 years old, but if you go, here’s hoping you have a good time.

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.

… 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.

The Weekly has the news that Alison Holcomb is considering a challenge to Kshama Sawant for City Council in 2015. If it happens, this is really the type of race that Seattle can take pride in: Two giants with amazing history of activism and with real accomplishments to their names vying for a City Council seat.

That said, I’m a bit worried about some of Holcomb’s rhetoric:

Holcomb, a resident of Capitol Hill, said Sawant is not an effective messenger for the cause of economic inequality, finding alternatives to the city’s regressive tax system, “and our inability to fund education.” She added, “You don’t effect change without a broad coalition, and her rhetoric is all about ‘you are a capitalist pig,’ no matter what the size of your business.”

I guess the $15 minimum wage having passed is a fairly clear indication that she has effected change in the first year governing. It’s a bit of a worry that Holcomb is running to the right on this issue. Maybe there isn’t too much of to the left when you’re running against an honest to goodness socialist, but saying she’s wrong on the minimum wage because she thinks it ought to apply to workers in small businesses is a troubling start to the campaign.

– Are you pumped about the August primary?

– Women in the Workplace: Kaffeeklatsch

– Even if it isn’t surprising, it’s rather dispiriting that the Senate can’t muster 60 votes for the Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act.

– I really like Bell Street Park, although the fact that cars are allowed to drive through it is super frustrating.

– I enjoyed reading about star clusters