ELECTION 2021: City Council candidates in West Seattle on Monday

The only West Seattle forum scheduled for the only two City Council seats on the general-election ballot is this Monday, and you’re invited to watch in person or online. The Westside Interfaith Network and the League of Women Voters Seattle-King County are presenting the forum for citywide Positions 8 and 9 on Monday night at Our Lady of Guadalupe‘s Walmesley Center (35th/Myrtle). For Position 8, the candidates are incumbent Teresa Mosqueda (a West Seattle resident) and engineer Ken Wilson; for Position 9, there’s no incumbent because Lorena González is running instead for mayor; the candidates are brewery owner Sara Nelson and community organizer/artist/lawyer Nikkita Oliver. You can suggest topics to the organizers via this survey. If you’re going in person (masks required), doors open at 6:30 Monday; the forum (and livestream), moderated by West Seattle journalist Brian Callanan, starts at 7 pm.

Mark Schletty October 16, 2021 (5:44 pm)

Please help save our city and vote for Wilson and Nelson. And, while I’m at it, vote for Harrell and Davison too.

James October 16, 2021 (11:14 pm)

I am voting NTK and Lorena because Harrell is a candidate for the rich and Davidson is fairly classist/racist in her last debate. Oliver is a no-brainer over Nelson too.
M October 16, 2021 (11:31 pm)

No.
Tax Payer October 17, 2021 (6:01 am)

Yes!
ST October 17, 2021 (7:25 am)

100% YES
Rosey October 17, 2021 (4:23 pm)

Lol absolutely no
Stuck in West Seattle October 18, 2021 (12:10 pm)

I voted for all four. I also hope District 3 does their part and removes Kshama…
Simon October 18, 2021 (6:49 pm)

I think we can arrive at more sensible City policy without electing a vocal proponent of subversion of democracy, racism, xenophobia and, arguably fascism (Davison). We can also arrive at more sensible policy without electing someone that mentions race equity only when talking about economic development (Nelson). We have pretty extreme and ineffectual leadership now but the alternative need not be ineffectual, Trump hugging, and inept.

Jeepney October 16, 2021 (6:40 pm)

Please vote with your head and not with your heart.

Change is good October 16, 2021 (8:52 pm)

I think it’s hard to vote for unknowns. But in this case I think it’s harder to vote for incumbents and the status quo.

1994 October 16, 2021 (9:03 pm)

Save our single family residence zoning——- vote for Bruce Harrell —-because M Lorena Gonzalez says she wants it should disappear.

Derek October 17, 2021 (12:56 am)

Awful take. I’ll be voting the opposite of you. Seattle needs DENSITY. Less cars and more apartments and public transit. Period. We’re a big boy city now.
- AMD October 17, 2021 (4:19 am)
  
  Amen, Derek. There are plenty of suburbs for people who don’t like density. Density is better for the environment, better for local businesses, better for cities in general. Why anyone would move to a city and then constantly complain it’s too much like a city is beyond me.
- Steve October 17, 2021 (7:25 am)
  
  A couple years ago Adam Gopnik summed my thoughts up perfectly (below). Why bother to live in Seattle if what’s local is destroyed anyway? The Central District has been bulldozed, Ballard is unrecognizable… These new developments don’t make the surrounding businesses more local or more affordable (quite the opposite!). A lot of us are stuck here as long as we have to make a living, but it’s depressing.
  
  “It is not location alone that makes such neighborhoods attractive but what is local about the location, its particular spell of kinds and purposes and incomes. Change zoning laws that prevent multifamily housing in single-family precincts in Seattle, and you may have served the many, but only by breaking down the reasons that the many want to be there in the first place. If people thought that the new buildings going up in cities would be appealing to live in, they would not protest new building in advance. If we knew how to make new buildings better, we would accept new buildings more.“
  - Pessoa October 17, 2021 (11:13 am)
    
    Reasonable people make reasonable accommodations for each other. Restricting living choices for others because one wants to live in an unchanging glass snowball scene, frozen in time, strikes me as uncharitable. Frankly, its never as appealing as some might believe it is.
- GC October 17, 2021 (9:13 am)
  
  And I will be voting opposite of you Derek! If this is a big boy city I don’t want anything to do with it!
- 1994 October 17, 2021 (5:25 pm)
  
  Why encourage people to move to the suburbs when they may well be employed in the city? If you want less traffic you need to have a diversity of housing options. I choose to live in the city because this is near where my job is, I enjoy my single family neighborhood, and there are tens of thousands of others who also enjoy living in a single family home. Many people don’t want to live in tight quarters – a la density.
  - Kevin on Delridge October 18, 2021 (1:15 pm)
    
    Keep in mind, removing single family zoning does not stop you from keeping or building a single family home.
    - 1994 October 18, 2021 (9:37 pm)
      
      Ok, but say your next door neighbor sells their single family home and without the single family zone you may have multiple new dwellings next door and more new neighbors than you ever expected….single family zoning is needed to maintain options for those who don’t want to reside in tight quarters. Gonzalez and Oliver pose it as a luxury thing – single family homes are not luxuries. With their rationale anyone who dwells inside a fixed housing structure is living in luxury.
Al October 17, 2021 (9:49 am)

I agree!

Hammer in hand October 17, 2021 (5:41 am)

Everyone one of the incumbents needs to go!I have spent the last five days in New York City it a truly big city. We have yet to see a single tent. City parks in and around the 9/11 memorial are spotless!! The police are plentiful and some are armed with big AK 47 type guns I was apprehensive about going to New York because of safety I can tel you I feel safer in downtown New York City then I do in Seattle. Seattle has turned into a sh&t hole. The clean up of Seattle begins with the clean up of Call Hall. Let the brooms start sweeping!!

AMD October 17, 2021 (2:08 pm)

New York considers shelter a human right. It’s in their constitution. The city was required to build thousands of shelter beds for their homeless population, and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars a year putting the homeless up in hotels when they run out of shelter beds because that’s the law. By all means, if you want legislation here that REQUIRES the city to build enough emergency housing that no one has to sleep on the street, I’m 100% there with you. But if you think New York just doesn’t have homeless people to begin with because you don’t see them, you are DEAD WRONG.
- Hammer in hand October 18, 2021 (1:23 pm)
  
  Seattle enables on the street drug use by providing syringes and very loose prosecution what do you expect??? You want to get high in seattle? Buy on the street corner, stop by health services on the other corner shoot up in plain daylight and nothing will bill seen as illegal. It is often encourage Seattle is a Sh&t hole. Every park in the lower Manhattan was clean and safe for all had lunch in many of them. Human right for housing sure work with the likes of Microsoft, Amazon. Goggle don’t just continue to steal for the Golden Geese if we do the freeze will likely find another roost, Have a plan!! Not just a extended hand, thank goodness fir Nordstrom in the core of Seattle that store is now more than the anchor… is the entire ship. Want change? The power is in your Vote don’t waste it
Jort October 18, 2021 (12:54 pm)

The City of New York — not the state, the city, has an income tax, and spends actual taxpayer money on actual housing. This city can’t even allow a duplex to be built without consulting every citizen within 50 miles about their “feelings” about the duplex.
- Hammer in Hand October 18, 2021 (1:35 pm)
  
  By the wayHas soo many modes of transportation including Cars! Boat taxi bus Uber In the down town areas. They leave it to individual choices.not mandated by charge if to drive in the city You want to sit in traffic in your car? So be itSeattle is so far behind, Brooms on vote day

Chris K October 17, 2021 (6:09 am)

Gonzalez, NTK, Mosqueda and Oliver for the win.

KD October 18, 2021 (2:31 pm)

And then watch your city burn.

Pessoa October 17, 2021 (8:59 am)

People want the wealth accumulation that comes with being a tech hub but they want someone else to pick up the tab for the costs. Harrell is the face of this segment of voters, often natives who think they can their cake and eat it too.

Al October 17, 2021 (9:48 am)

LG will continue to ruin this city. She has no plan except more of the same. I hope Bruce can stand up to our ridiculous city council. They are stealing the soul of this once great city.

Kevin on Delridge October 18, 2021 (1:16 pm)

Can you describe this soul you speak of? I see this sentiment often, but rarely does it include specifics about what is being “stolen.”

Pessoa October 17, 2021 (3:59 pm)

Lets cut through the silly romantic nostalgia about Seattle. Like any city, whether it was great or not probably depended a great deal on your individual socio-economic situation.

RIPSEATTLE October 18, 2021 (9:19 am)

Downtown Seattle is not a place anyone wants to hang out. South Lake Union is shiny and only for a certain segment of the population and it’s dead at night. West Seattle is a beacon of community in the bleakness of a dying city. Look at Wallingford, Ballard, Greenwood, CD, etc. You cannot draw “talent” to a city and then kick them out when they marry/have kids. Just because people need room for the kids to have a bedroom and backyard does not mean that the parents are NIMBYs or don’t enjoy nightlife/culture – families should not be forced out of the city – where they grew up and work!! That’s not diversity. Don’t be fooled that this density push is just for the greater good. It’s a subsidized land grab by developers and they are going full-speed ahead during the pandemic. Less eyes on what is being lost. (Respond to and comment on development public notices if you get them!!) Pushing families to the outer burbs (and taking over rural areas – hence SPRAWL) makes everything worse. And the homes they are throwing up out there – city lots in the country – pack in the profits! It’s not working for anyone. Let’s not continue this manic push for density without keeping zones for single family housing and installing REAL affordable housing for all sorts of people and families – how about the land housing deserted malls and empty business parks? Those were all the rage during the last hysteria. Anyone remember the 90’s? How much farm land did we pave over? WS is a great place to live, I hope we don’t ruin it like the rest of my hometown. This phase will have to burn itself out too but instead of empty strip malls we’ll be left with 1-bedroom commuter neighborhoods. The battle over SFH zoning vs “Density” is keeping us distracted and fighting each other. Best to keep a close eye on the money trail for what gets built in our neighborhood, while we are still a community.

Kevin on Delridge October 18, 2021 (1:56 pm)

Do you have substantiation for your claim that this is a “subsidized land grab by developers?” Owners still have a say. If you want to keep or heck even build a new single family home on your land, guess what? You can still do that!

Let me state that again. Removing exclusive Single Family zones does not mean that Single Family homes are banned. It simply means that there will no longer be places where the only thing you can build is Single Family homes (which is the vast majority of the city).

This notion that the only options are Single Family and Mid-to-high rise buildings is ludicrous and is a direct result of this pearl clutching by those who want to protect their “quiet single family communities.” Let me explain.

As you know, land is at a premium. Since up-zoning has been limited, developers simply don’t have a choice but to build dense apartment buildings given the high investment in that land. It is simply unrealistic to expect a developer to build something more modest given the numbers.

Now, imagine we had the ability to build a du/tri/quad-plex or a cottage court across the city. Might that change what we’re building in our “dense” areas? The answer is yes. Since this is a transition and since developers could go wild, I do feel there should be additional policy that is more explicit around what can be built as we lift the current zoning restrictions. I have made that known to each candidate as well.

The city has been changing the way it has BECAUSE of this Single Family housing pearl clutch and it will continue to do so unless we make changes. If you’d like to read more here is a good site that talks about the types of housing in between this false dichotomy.
https://missingmiddlehousing.com/

Sorry, comment time is over.