I guess I’ve heard this argument for decades: The rich should just be writing blank checks for city governments. I disagreed even when I was more “bleeding heart” and lived in Seattle and all my friends hated Paul Allen and said he should be fully funding a new rail line with his Microsoft bucks. I was just happy he made this:

The EMP Museum, which all my friends hated, and I though was great. As the Seattle Stranger wrote: “Dear Seattle, Why Do You Hate EMP?”

People hate the rich, I get that. They’re already taxed. Individual wealth, like Bezos’ moolah, isn’t a factor here. This was about throwing good money after bad with a $500 a “head” tax for big companies, and citywide it was other businesses (not just Amazon) and citizens that said, “Hell no.” They don’t feel like full partners, and they definitely don’t trust this city council — and neither do I — in solving problems, which as I said in my article would only come from some “tough love” and acknowledging the problem is drug and mental health related, not merely a “housing shortage.”

These aren’t permanent solutions, but residents think they are:

I mentioned in my article about how 100 citizens have been arresteed 3,500 times in total, and are still on the street. Crosscut, a liberal outlet, writes a story on homeless arrests, and glosses over the fact that their own data shows that homeless people in Seattle (1% of the city) are 10–15 times more likely to be arrested for violent assault than the other 99% of the city. These are the problems fed up people see almost daily (report from this past week):

105 times! The solutions posed by the Seattle City Council would not address this problem, because they willfully ignore the problem.

From that Washington Post article, which said the people sided with Amazon:

“It’s immensely disappointing,” said Seattle City Council member Mike O’Brien (D), who voted for the tax before voting for its repeal. “[But] it has become more and more clear that the people of Seattle seem to agree with Amazon — and at least part of the narrative they and the Chamber of Commerce have been putting out.”

As I wrote in the article:

There’s only one “correct” way to speak about these issues, and it’s the politically correct way. Which typically revolves around finger-pointing at corporations like Amazon — a tactic mimicked recently in New York City — and ignoring any hard solutions that could benefit citizenry.

That issue regarding Amazon being booted from NYC (see article below which I linked to above) I’ve argued ad nauseum with friends and acquaintances about, and I’m firm: AOC does NOT speak for a majority of people of color in her district, Democrats in her city, and people in her state. Yet head-in-the-sand liberals who already agree with her thinks democracy and “the people” won. No they didn’t.

Speaking of democracy. The City Council’s days, I believe (and hope), are numbered. I have very liberal — but sensible — friends in Seattle who feel the same.

“Forty-six percent of the respondents said the council is on the wrong track, compared with 40 percent who said it was on the right track. Similarly, 52 percent said they disapproved of the council’s performance, while 43 percent said they approved. Just 40 percent said they trusted the council.”

And I get its corporations coming against them, but it’s also the will of the people behind it.

Slowly, Seattleites’ minds changed. Internal polls by pro-tax groups supporting showed that although 69 percent of people approved of unions, and that many had a low regard for corporations, around 55 percent of people wanted the head tax repealed, according to a person involved in the discussions who was not authorized to speak publicly. A year ago, a poll had found that 66 percent of Seattle residents supported a tax on the highest earners.

Writer. Researcher. Designer. Human seeking better outcomes. Also searching for relevant facts and logical arguments above expedient or politial narratives.

Writer. Researcher. Designer. Human seeking better outcomes. Also searching for relevant facts and logical arguments above expedient or politial narratives.