Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle

[NOVA Green]

So, it looks like Seattle is getting a new left-wing populist party: the Seattle People's Party. They're nominating attorney and activist Nikkita Oliver to run against Ed Murray for Mayor.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/activist-nikkita-oliver-to-run-against-mayor-ed-murray/

http://seattlepeoplesparty.com/

Hmmm.... might need to ping my sibling on this one, since she is right down the road from Rainier Beach in South Seattle, and has been working three jobs for Seattle Indivisible over the past few months throughout the City and Metro, and living up there for about 15 years now.

Still even if she plays well in South Seattle and the U-District, not convinced that she'll be able to take down a fairly popular Mayor in North and West Seattle precincts....

I don't know. I think Murray's weaker than he looks. Pretty much every neighborhood has seen a big increase in homeless populations. Homelessness is now probably the number one issue in many seemingly strong Murray neighborhoods like Ballard and Queen Anne. While each has it's own proposed solutions to the problem (usually based on income/wealth), pretty much thinks the buck stops at Murray. It'll depend a lot on who makes it to the general, and it doesn't look like any of the candidates so far are particularly formidable, but I can see someone taking down Murray if they play all their cards right.

So spent about 30 minutes talking with my Sister tonight.... she had to get off the phone to light the candles for Shabbat, so I was not able to talk with her as long I would have liked.

FWIW: Her opinion is that Nikkita is a long-shot, but not unfeasible running against Murray. These sympathies currently run strong in the grass-roots activist groups that she is heavily involved in, especially in South Seattle (Local neighborhood associations & Indivisible chapters).

Homelessness is increasingly becoming a major issue with Seattle politics. Like most other major West Coast cities since the Obama Recovery following the Great Recession (Seattle, Portland, Bay Area, & San Diego), as well as medium sized cities such as Tacoma, Vancouver, Salem, Eugene, Sacramento)...

Arguably homelessness is the major issue in Seattle and Portland these days in municipal politics....

My Sister was one of many observers when the mayor cleared "The Jungle"... despite various promises from Murray over the past few years to provide "alternative housing" for these residents. She went there at 5:30 in the morning to bear witness to the clearing of the camps, that just recently happened. They were not allowed access. They had a National Lawyers Guild observer as part of the team, who was not allowed access.

She said she has seen video footage recorded of the Seattle Police Department slashing the tents of the homeless, and throwing away the limited personal possessions of the local residents, despite the Mayor stating that the sprawling individual tents and community tent areas would be cleared with dignity and respect, with no items of value being needlessly destroyed.

This definitively occurred when "The Jungle" was cleared. Additionally, she told me that local residents for months had been appealing to the City for assistance to resolve issues impacting the community, and that half of the City Council supported many of the resident's recommendations, but that the Mayor was opposed....  Regardless, didn't have as much time to talk on this as I would have liked.

For anyone not familiar with "The Jungle" (And most of y'all on this thread likely are, being how it's all about Washington State), here are a few links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle_(Seattle)

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/inside-the-grim-world-of-the-jungle-the-caves-sleeping-in-shifts-and-eyeball-eating-rats/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAPp3DXc6n0

Obviously, homelessness is only one of many issues in Seattle politics, but hell we are talking about a City that is actually significantly to the Left of San Francisco these days....

We'll see how this rolls down the line, but Nikkita should do fairly well in South Seattle regardless, and is getting a ton of local progressive activist buzz up there in an extremely activist City.

[KingSweden]

I'm curious, KS, what you think should be done about the homeless problem. I've seen you state your distaste for Sawant's policies on the issue numerous times but I don't think you've ever offered up your alternative.

(Not meant to be a b**chy "Well then what do you suggest?!?!" question, genuinely curious)

Of course! I didn't take it that way, don't worry.

I really think Sawant's attitude is more of the problem than her policies, per se. The phalanx of supporters who show up and disrupt council meetings and tried to prevent the dissolution of the Jungle are case in point. I think it's counterproductive to pretend that homelessness is not a problem and that vagrants should just be allowed to stay.

Seattle is a generous, progressive city, yet I feel (and I've only admittedly come back to the area recently) that the conversation swirls less around what we can DO for the truly destitute and more around how it's oppression to make them move. That's why I was glad Nicole Macri was elected to the state leg - she actually has worked with homeless advocacy and help groups and knows the issue. We need more voices like hers, not "it's a human right to camp out in a park!" rhetoric.

The only political issue I'm genuinely passionate about is anti-Nimbyism. I hate NIMBYs. Especially NIMBYs who are ostensibly liberal and couch their rhetoric in "evil developers." "If it weren't just for those evil developers, housing costs wouldn't go up so much!" This is nonsense, and economically illiterate. People who take this stance only exacerbate the crisis in housing affordability we have now in the city. Richard Conlin was really good on this issue. As far as I've seen, the woman who defeated him has tended to skew on the "evil capitalists!!1!" side.

I admire Sawant's advocacy for the minimum wage, I genuinely do, even though I have skepticism over $15 in places outside of Seattle. But I generally don't find her rhetorical... "flourishes" helpful or particularly insightful. But bluntly, I think she talks a big game and has no clue what she's talking about. I think she's economically illiterate. Also, she ran against Conlin over the Sonics but when push came to shove voted against the street vacation. So she's a flip-flopping liar, too.

[KingSweden]

(continued)

As for what I would do to help solve homelessness, I think expanding the amount of housing drastically would help. An upzone, maybe not in the entire city, but in most of it. Seattle is too suburban in character for such a large metropolis. But of course, we can't do that, because "evil developers!"

Utah has a program where they basically put homeless people in apartment housing, for free. Better they have somewhere safe to stay than sleep in parks or under bridges. If there were, say, more microhousing, there could be places to help place vagrants during transitional periods. It would of course take a few years for all of this housing to come online, so it's not a perfect solution. Seattle is innovative, though, that I truly believe. Cleaning up the infamous "Seattle process" is step one. Everyone and their grandma doesn't need to have their opinion heard four times with an extra study for good measure.

[publicunofficial]

Definitely agree with you on the hatred of NIMBY's. Nimby's in the suburban areas of the city who fight against apartment buildings being built in their neighborhood being the #1 offender.

[KingSweden]

Definitely agree with you on the hatred of NIMBY's. Nimby's in the suburban areas of the city who fight against apartment buildings being built in their neighborhood being the #1 offender.

Nimbyism brings together the worst people from all ends of the political spectrum.

[publicunofficial]

Definitely agree with you on the hatred of NIMBY's. Nimby's in the suburban areas of the city who fight against apartment buildings being built in their neighborhood being the #1 offender.

Nimbyism brings together the worst people from all ends of the political spectrum.

"But I want to know who my neighbors are" - Someone who should be living somewhere else.

[KingSweden]

Definitely agree with you on the hatred of NIMBY's. Nimby's in the suburban areas of the city who fight against apartment buildings being built in their neighborhood being the #1 offender.

Nimbyism brings together the worst people from all ends of the political spectrum.

"But I want to know who my neighbors are" - Someone who should be living somewhere else.

I mean, I'd like to know my neighbors, but that doesn't mean I get to pick and choose my neighbors.

[Crumpets]

(continued)

As for what I would do to help solve homelessness, I think expanding the amount of housing drastically would help. An upzone, maybe not in the entire city, but in most of it. Seattle is too suburban in character for such a large metropolis. But of course, we can't do that, because "evil developers!"

Utah has a program where they basically put homeless people in apartment housing, for free. Better they have somewhere safe to stay than sleep in parks or under bridges. If there were, say, more microhousing, there could be places to help place vagrants during transitional periods. It would of course take a few years for all of this housing to come online, so it's not a perfect solution. Seattle is innovative, though, that I truly believe. Cleaning up the infamous "Seattle process" is step one. Everyone and their grandma doesn't need to have their opinion heard four times with an extra study for good measure.

I agree with this exactly. I think one of the biggest economic problems in Seattle is that, while there should logically be a small number of expensive housing options, more for middle income, and lots for low-income, there's a huge drop-off when you go below $2,000/month. I mean, places definitely exist, but demand is so high, and most are in middle class neighborhoods like Wallingford, rather than low-income neighborhoods. One solution to this is to just raise the minimum wage, although there's only so much that can be done in that realm. The other theoretical solution, which King Sweden articulated is to just build thousands and thousands of houses and apartments to push supply up and prices down, so maybe those $2,000/month places might lower their prices. Of course, housing prices rarely actually go down except for during a recession, so there also needs to be a comprehensive subsidy program.

Now, there's also the issue of those who don't want to be moved into an apartment if it comes with strings attached, such as a curfew or drug testing. And I am also of the belief that people have a right to be homeless if they so choose, and you cannot forcibly relocate law-abiding people to a new home against their will. But, I think if we can get prices down low enough to help those who want to buy/rent on their own with a subsidy, and get those who have drug problems the option of going to rehab for free, in conjunction with cracking down on the definitely not-homeless drug dealers operating out of RVs, the number that remain will only be a tiny portion of what we see today, or even what we saw five years ago or so.

[KingSweden]

(continued)

As for what I would do to help solve homelessness, I think expanding the amount of housing drastically would help. An upzone, maybe not in the entire city, but in most of it. Seattle is too suburban in character for such a large metropolis. But of course, we can't do that, because "evil developers!"

Utah has a program where they basically put homeless people in apartment housing, for free. Better they have somewhere safe to stay than sleep in parks or under bridges. If there were, say, more microhousing, there could be places to help place vagrants during transitional periods. It would of course take a few years for all of this housing to come online, so it's not a perfect solution. Seattle is innovative, though, that I truly believe. Cleaning up the infamous "Seattle process" is step one. Everyone and their grandma doesn't need to have their opinion heard four times with an extra study for good measure.

I agree with this exactly. I think one of the biggest economic problems in Seattle is that, while there should logically be a small number of expensive housing options, more for middle income, and lots for low-income, there's a huge drop-off when you go below $2,000/month. I mean, places definitely exist, but demand is so high, and most are in middle class neighborhoods like Wallingford, rather than low-income neighborhoods. One solution to this is to just raise the minimum wage, although there's only so much that can be done in that realm. The other theoretical solution, which King Sweden articulated is to just build thousands and thousands of houses and apartments to push supply up and prices down, so maybe those $2,000/month places might lower their prices. Of course, housing prices rarely actually go down except for during a recession, so there also needs to be a comprehensive subsidy program.

Now, there's also the issue of those who don't want to be moved into an apartment if it comes with strings attached, such as a curfew or drug testing. And I am also of the belief that people have a right to be homeless if they so choose, and you cannot forcibly relocate law-abiding people to a new home against their will. But, I think if we can get prices down low enough to help those who want to buy/rent on their own with a subsidy, and get those who have drug problems the option of going to rehab for free, in conjunction with cracking down on the definitely not-homeless drug dealers operating out of RVs, the number that remain will only be a tiny portion of what we see today, or even what we saw five years ago or so.

Is homelessness by choice a big thing? I have to imagine most homeless are in their position due to various hardships, not because they want to be. I don't know much about it though.

[RI]

One solution to this is to just raise the minimum wage, although there's only so much that can be done in that realm.

Raising the minimum wage won't help much at all on this front and may actually make it worse through increasing demand.

[Shadows]

One solution to this is to just raise the minimum wage, although there's only so much that can be done in that realm.

Raising the minimum wage won't help much at all on this front and may actually make it worse through increasing demand.

Yea then technically you have to further increase the supply to create a situation with low producer surplus. But the deal is not having a higher minimum wage will probably be worse since you won't have disposable income. You may massively increase supply & prices may come down a bit but it still wouldn't probably be anywhere within your income range to get a home.

I think there is only so much you can do to decrease the prices, there is a ceiling beyond which you have to go towards taxpayer funded subsidy. It is always better to have a higher wage which is going to help.

The Dems in WA is full of New Democrats with Conservative Republicans (Look at the Caucus Representations through the years). I am certainly not saying the Sawant is the perfect politician but sometimes you need a disruptor & an abashed progressive activist when your politicians tend to lose touch with the progressive base. It is certainly not ideal if half of the elected members is Sawant like, but she genuinely believes in her cause & there should ideally be people like her involved in the democratic process.

[NOVA Green]

(continued)

As for what I would do to help solve homelessness, I think expanding the amount of housing drastically would help. An upzone, maybe not in the entire city, but in most of it. Seattle is too suburban in character for such a large metropolis. But of course, we can't do that, because "evil developers!"

Utah has a program where they basically put homeless people in apartment housing, for free. Better they have somewhere safe to stay than sleep in parks or under bridges. If there were, say, more microhousing, there could be places to help place vagrants during transitional periods. It would of course take a few years for all of this housing to come online, so it's not a perfect solution. Seattle is innovative, though, that I truly believe. Cleaning up the infamous "Seattle process" is step one. Everyone and their grandma doesn't need to have their opinion heard four times with an extra study for good measure.

I agree with this exactly. I think one of the biggest economic problems in Seattle is that, while there should logically be a small number of expensive housing options, more for middle income, and lots for low-income, there's a huge drop-off when you go below $2,000/month. I mean, places definitely exist, but demand is so high, and most are in middle class neighborhoods like Wallingford, rather than low-income neighborhoods. One solution to this is to just raise the minimum wage, although there's only so much that can be done in that realm. The other theoretical solution, which King Sweden articulated is to just build thousands and thousands of houses and apartments to push supply up and prices down, so maybe those $2,000/month places might lower their prices. Of course, housing prices rarely actually go down except for during a recession, so there also needs to be a comprehensive subsidy program.

Now, there's also the issue of those who don't want to be moved into an apartment if it comes with strings attached, such as a curfew or drug testing. And I am also of the belief that people have a right to be homeless if they so choose, and you cannot forcibly relocate law-abiding people to a new home against their will. But, I think if we can get prices down low enough to help those who want to buy/rent on their own with a subsidy, and get those who have drug problems the option of going to rehab for free, in conjunction with cracking down on the definitely not-homeless drug dealers operating out of RVs, the number that remain will only be a tiny portion of what we see today, or even what we saw five years ago or so.

Is homelessness by choice a big thing? I have to imagine most homeless are in their position due to various hardships, not because they want to be. I don't know much about it though.

[/b]

Thank you King Sweden!!!

I am currently homeless, along with my wife (Thankfully no children in our current family unit).

This is definitely NOT a choice.....   

The vast majority of the Homeless population in America, are individuals such as myself that lost both jobs and housing at the relatively same time, and next thing you know you have run out of options....

Simply put, the cost of housing is virtually impossible in most major Metro areas of the West Coast for those living, even for those of us living on maximum unemployment benefits.

Imagine the situation for those clearing only $300-350 / Week in Unemployment Insurance in expensive Metro areas such as Seattle/Portland/San Francisco....

No job= almost 0% chance of getting into an apartment, even quite possibly if you have a cosigner that will cover the move-in deposits, etc....

Additionally, once you have been out of work for awhile, usually you get a dramatic collapse in your credit rating, which can preclude housing opportunities, since now you "are considered a risk"....

So what happens when you are out of work and your unemployment benefits start running down and you still haven't got a job?

You have been living in cheap hotels, crashing with friends and family, and drifting from town to town hoping that something will come through, and yet there is no hope.

For individuals without family support networks, those with major mental illness issues, those with substance abuse issues, this problem is even more pronounced.

My Wife of ten years was homeless with five children living in a campground outside of Golden, Colorado (Coors Country) leaving a physically abusive relationship from her Ex-Husband for 4-5 months.

She became a political activist against the HUD policies and the political structure of the city of Denver in the late '80s/early '90s.

Sure, there are plenty of problems with "The Jungle", but I am yet to be convinced of the merits of the Mayor's position.... there are a ton of means of addressing issues such as the lack of affordable housing, and providing immediate housing that don't involve slashing the tents of the homeless, banning individuals camping in cars, etc....

Ultimately this is a Federal Problem, since cities alone can't cover the costs.... I am extremely skeptical that we will see any help on this under the current administration, let alone any other administration over the past 40+ years...

There are various solutions that cities can potentially provide, but these are all ultimately band-aids patching over massive injuries....

http://www.oregonlive.com/hg/index.ssf/2014/11/tiny_houses_for_homeless.html

[KingSweden]

(continued)

As for what I would do to help solve homelessness, I think expanding the amount of housing drastically would help. An upzone, maybe not in the entire city, but in most of it. Seattle is too suburban in character for such a large metropolis. But of course, we can't do that, because "evil developers!"

Utah has a program where they basically put homeless people in apartment housing, for free. Better they have somewhere safe to stay than sleep in parks or under bridges. If there were, say, more microhousing, there could be places to help place vagrants during transitional periods. It would of course take a few years for all of this housing to come online, so it's not a perfect solution. Seattle is innovative, though, that I truly believe. Cleaning up the infamous "Seattle process" is step one. Everyone and their grandma doesn't need to have their opinion heard four times with an extra study for good measure.

I agree with this exactly. I think one of the biggest economic problems in Seattle is that, while there should logically be a small number of expensive housing options, more for middle income, and lots for low-income, there's a huge drop-off when you go below $2,000/month. I mean, places definitely exist, but demand is so high, and most are in middle class neighborhoods like Wallingford, rather than low-income neighborhoods. One solution to this is to just raise the minimum wage, although there's only so much that can be done in that realm. The other theoretical solution, which King Sweden articulated is to just build thousands and thousands of houses and apartments to push supply up and prices down, so maybe those $2,000/month places might lower their prices. Of course, housing prices rarely actually go down except for during a recession, so there also needs to be a comprehensive subsidy program.

Now, there's also the issue of those who don't want to be moved into an apartment if it comes with strings attached, such as a curfew or drug testing. And I am also of the belief that people have a right to be homeless if they so choose, and you cannot forcibly relocate law-abiding people to a new home against their will. But, I think if we can get prices down low enough to help those who want to buy/rent on their own with a subsidy, and get those who have drug problems the option of going to rehab for free, in conjunction with cracking down on the definitely not-homeless drug dealers operating out of RVs, the number that remain will only be a tiny portion of what we see today, or even what we saw five years ago or so.

Is homelessness by choice a big thing? I have to imagine most homeless are in their position due to various hardships, not because they want to be. I don't know much about it though.

[/b]

Thank you King Sweden!!!

I am currently homeless, along with my wife (Thankfully no children in our current family unit).

This is definitely NOT a choice.....   

The vast majority of the Homeless population in America, are individuals such as myself that lost both jobs and housing at the relatively same time, and next thing you know you have run out of options....

Simply put, the cost of housing is virtually impossible in most major Metro areas of the West Coast for those living, even for those of us living on maximum unemployment benefits.

Imagine the situation for those clearing only $300-350 / Week in Unemployment Insurance in expensive Metro areas such as Seattle/Portland/San Francisco....

No job= almost 0% chance of getting into an apartment, even quite possibly if you have a cosigner that will cover the move-in deposits, etc....

Additionally, once you have been out of work for awhile, usually you get a dramatic collapse in your credit rating, which can preclude housing opportunities, since now you "are considered a risk"....

So what happens when you are out of work and your unemployment benefits start running down and you still haven't got a job?

You have been living in cheap hotels, crashing with friends and family, and drifting from town to town hoping that something will come through, and yet there is no hope.

For individuals without family support networks, those with major mental illness issues, those with substance abuse issues, this problem is even more pronounced.

My Wife of ten years was homeless with five children living in a campground outside of Golden, Colorado (Coors Country) leaving a physically abusive relationship from her Ex-Husband for 4-5 months.

She became a political activist against the HUD policies and the political structure of the city of Denver in the late '80s/early '90s.

Sure, there are plenty of problems with "The Jungle", but I am yet to be convinced of the merits of the Mayor's position.... there are a ton of means of addressing issues such as the lack of affordable housing, and providing immediate housing that don't involve slashing the tents of the homeless, banning individuals camping in cars, etc....

Ultimately this is a Federal Problem, since cities alone can't cover the costs.... I am extremely skeptical that we will see any help on this under the current administration, let alone any other administration over the past 40+ years...

There are various solutions that cities can potentially provide, but these are all ultimately band-aids patching over massive injuries....

http://www.oregonlive.com/hg/index.ssf/2014/11/tiny_houses_for_homeless.html

I'm really sorry you're going through that

[NOVA Green]

Thanks KS!!!

Wasn't in any way shape or form trying to jack the thread.

Aside from my individual situation, which will likely soon be resolved (Fingers crossed), there is a much larger problem regarding the lack of access to affordable housing in the larger cities of the West Coast, combined with a lack of local level resources to seriously address an issue which in many ways should actually fall more under resourcing and programs at the Federal Level (HUD) combined with State level programs to address the issue.

What inevitably happens in cities like Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco, as well as many others, is that  local issues of homelessness become politicized, even though the overwhelming majority of Mayors and City Council members, etc are extremely vocal on such items, there simply aren't the local mechanisms and funding to be able to address one of the major causes, which is the effective 1.5x increase following the "Economic Recovery".

No idea how this will play out at all in the upcoming Mayoral elections in Seattle, but this issue was definitely a big deal in the Portland Mayoral and City Council Elections in the 2016 GE, so definitely something to watch as a policy item that could impact the perception of an extremely Liberal Democratic Mayor in an extremely Progressive Democratic City.

(Sits down and goes back to "lurk" mode)

Y'all are great, in fact some of my favorite posters on the Forum and total experts and gurus on all aspects of Washington State politics! I rarely comment on this subthread for that very reason---

What I do believe is she will do quite well in South Seattle and possibly West Seattle, but not so sure about elsewhere in the City, or the potential to create a majority coalition against a fairly popular Mayor.

[KingSweden]

Seattle mayors can get vulnerable quickly and suddenly.

Greg Nickels wasn't vulnerable until he was, and McGinn came out of nowhere. McGinn was toxic for a long time, but he wasn't as bad a Mayor as his reputation suggests. It still took a big time establishment player like Murray to take him out - it's unlikely anybody else from that field could have had the advantage in a runoff.

And that's the thing - Murray's coalition is broad but thin, but it turns out. With a runoff, I'm not sure who keeps him beneath 50+1 in November, and I don't know what that winning anti-Murray coalition looks like.

But like I said, Mike With the Bike came out of nowhere in '09 with basically a single issue campaign

[Seattle]

Agreed. As of now, there aren't any candidates that can take him out, but that doesn't mean that wont change. I don't think Oliver will be that person, but who knows. Seattle's thrown out it's last 2 incumbent mayors over issues that in retrospect, were pretty silly and less serious than homelessness and housing affordability.

[KingSweden]

Nickels had definitely worn out his welcome by 09 and the Sonics fiasco was still a fresh wound

McGinn staking his Mayoralty on killing the tunnel sapped his capital, so it wasn't that silly. That was his big issue and he lost, by a lot, in the 2011 vote. He was dead man walking after that. It didn't help that he was famously abrasive to boot. I actually saw McGinn speak once... not a great orator.

Ironically he would probably have handled the current housing situation better than Murray. He seemed to get how important density was and had the modest support of lefty NIMBY rag The Stranger, which gave him wiggle room. Strangely, for how centrist I am, I actually wish McGinn was still mayor. He got the policy aspects right but never got the manager/PR bit right. Once he was "McSchwinn" he never really recovered in the public eye

[RI]

Apparently the Brits over at The Guardian wrote a piece about how Spokane sucks and has no hope but Gonzaga basketball. The Spokesman Review ripped them a new one.

[KingSweden]

Apparently the Brits over at The Guardian wrote a piece about how Spokane sucks and has no hope but Gonzaga basketball. The Spokesman Review ripped them a new one.

The Inlander went off on them too. It was a terrible article, made worse by the fact that the author is a Spokane native who graduated LC as recently as 2010!! Should know better!

BTW, speaking of GU - pro-tip don't pick them to go anywhere near the Final four in your bracket. They will screw you somehow. Always have always will

[KingSweden]

Our long Spokanite nightmare is over... the Guardian's editors issued an apology for the GU article!

[Zioneer]

This has probably been asked before, but why is it still '15 and not '17?

Also I really wish I knew more about Washingtonian politics since I was born there.

[KingSweden]

This has probably been asked before, but why is it still '15 and not '17?

Also I really wish I knew more about Washingtonian politics since I was born there.

We need a good pithy name for '17...

My fave was still in '13: "Mike McGinn is a GMO"

[Seattle]

The '13 continually cracked me up.

'17 could be something related to car tabs in honor of the Republican anti-transit crusade against Sound Transit and Seattle.

Or perhaps something about our future governor, Dow Constantine, and his immaculate hair.

[KingSweden]

The '13 continually cracked me up.

'17 could be something related to car tabs in honor of the Republican anti-transit crusade against Sound Transit and Seattle.

Or perhaps something about our future governor, Dow Constantine, and his immaculate hair.

The new car tab prices are wayyyyy higher than I expected, to be fair. I helped my Texas-bred coworker find out who her legislators were so she could write complaints haha

Dow is immaculate, but I think a thread title about his perfection needs to wait until 2020

[publicunofficial]

Washington '17: Trans Rights and Transit Fights