The Snohomish County Council voted 5-0 Wednesday to adopt four ordinances focused on increasing the available supply of housing and addressing housing affordability challenges. The suite of ordinances — introduced by Councilmember Nate Nehring — are the result of efforts initiated by the “Opening Doors to Home Ownership” housing panel held by the council’s Planning and Community Development Committee.
“The lack of available housing is a major driver of the cost of housing and the challenge many families face in affording a home,” Nehring said. “Home ownership is critical for economic mobility and security. These ordinances will help increase the supply of housing and put home ownership within reach for more of our families, friends, and neighbors.”
The four ordinances address various county-level regulations that reduce the amount of housing that can be built on parcels within unincorporated Snohomish County. A brief description of each ordinance and links to more information can be found below. All four of Nehring’s ordinances received positive recommendations from the Snohomish County Planning Commission and County Executive Dave Somers.
The first change, Ordinance 24-058, amends county regulations related to lot size averaging. The ordinance reduces minimum lot widths in urban zones utilizing lot size averaging, simplifies open space requirements and eliminates unnecessary provisions that conflict with the health code. The ordinance and staff report can be found at this link.
The second proposal, Ordinance 24-059, creates more flexibility within parking regulations. These changes will allow more cottage-like parking arrangements within single family developments and increase the number of units that can feasibly be built in these developments. The ordinance and staff report can be found at this link.
The third piece of legislation, Ordinance 24-060, reduces minimum lot size requirements in the county’s low density multiple residential zone and multiple residential zone. Within these zones, homes can be a combination of detached homes on small lots, townhomes and apartments. Reducing minimum lot sizes will allow for more of these parcels to be developed more efficiently. The ordinance and staff report can be found at this link.
The final ordinance adopted Wednesday was Ordinance 24-061. This code change creates more flexibility for the subdivision of duplexes and creates consistency within the regulations with other similar housing types. The ordinance and staff report can be found at this link.
Now that the county council has passed these ordinances, they will go to the county executive for his consideration.
Snohomish County Council: I disagree thatt home ownership is key to economic stability and growth. Employment and manageable inflation are the foundations of economic growth and stability. Decreased lot sizes, increased density without corresponding improvements in infrastructure such as sewage, roads, adequate parking to accommodate the increased vehicles do not add to economic stability but contribute to frustration, transportation ineffiiciency and utility cost.
Great points Michelle. Let alone that the Tax Assessor (and other government entities) will also (happily) increase taxes as the properties’ values go up because of those measures.
So, the government should introspect and look at itself before pulling knee-jerk “solutions” that do nothing to improve the region’s quality of life, quite the contrary. My property taxes have been going up like crazy year after year, even when my house’s value does not go up (or even down). There’s always some lame excuse when I call the tax assessor office about it.
Mario – I think you’ve raised important concerns here. Regarding your property tax increases: they’re largely driven by the skyrocketing demand for land in the Seattle area over the past decade. While the value of your home (and other improvements) will naturally decline over time compared to newer builds, residential land – the other significant component of your property’s taxable value – remains exceptionally scarce. As a result, increasing demand is pushing prices up. After all, they’re not making any more of it (though Seattle’s history with filling the Duwamish River tideflats is a notable exception!). Expect prices to continue rising in the foreseeable future – the Bay area or LA are, IMO, reasonable comparisons for the near future of real property pricing in the Seattle area if our regulatory approach continues.
High aggregate demand to live in Seattle reflects how great of a place this is. With more purposeful regulatory adjustments, we could see a more efficient response: more homes being built on the same amount of land. This makes land a smaller portion of the overall cost of new homes, providing more affordable options for future homeowners (like many in my generation) and cheaper local options for those facing big bills today. Price signals are essential for widespread economic health – we just have to acknowledge what they tell us and respond appropriately.
Hello Mackey,
The main purpose of the taxes we pay is for the maintenance and improvement of the regions we live in. At present, WA State has the worst roads in the country, it is the most corrupt State in the country, and the ones responsible for managing the tax money only keep coming up with new taxes to fleece the taxpayers even more. So, we are taxed to death and have absolutely nothing in return.
This speech about demand driving taxes prices up only shows that our taxes keep being squandered in self-interest projects by the ones who should be working on how to improve the population’s quality of life. We keep paying more and barely get anything for that money.
Examples are those legislation and codes that drive population density up (only benefiting developers their politician minion’s pockets). They not only will do nothing to improve the pricing but will also drive new expenses (=new taxes) and issues, as the Goodmans and several others have been pointing out for a long time. It is not difficult to see, based on how roads are very poorly maintained, that all other infrastructure will follow the same destiny under the management of the gangs pushing for higher density.
I guess that I’m missing something. The article states that Mr Nehring says, “Home ownership is critical for economic mobility and stability.” I believe the Goodmans are disagreeing with something Mr Nehring did not say. Economic mobility and security, economic stability and growth, employment and manageable inflation are all terms that could use more details for explanation. Improved infrastructure that supports greater population density is something that I can understand.
I appreciate your views on this. You are totally correct that the money levied by taxation should be used for maintenance and improvement of regional infrastructure. I also agree with you that we could get more bang for our collective buck, although I disagree that corruption/”gangs”, while real, are the primary source of inefficiency – I think it’s mostly just slow political coalitions with a lot of inertia selecting low-impact projects, a lack of state capacity to self-manage/deliver infrastructure projects, and a regulatory environment misaligned with efficiency. I find comparative investigations of public transit capital project costs in the US vs. the rest of the world (https://transitcosts.com/) and case studies of municipal infrastructure financing (https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growth-ponzi-scheme-md2020) to be very clarifying in understanding why basic public infrastructure costs more in the US than it probably needs to.
My “speech” (was your original comment not the interest of having a dialogue about these topics?) was just intended to clarify that the assessor doesn’t “happily” increase taxes – their valuation is just a statistical measure of the relationship between supply and demand for land to live on. The changes you see are far, far, far more a reflection of that relationship than a matter of any opinion or choice by the assessor. (The practice is pretty fascinating: see https://www.gameofrent.com/content/can-land-be-accurately-assessed for a quasi-technical overview, and some ideas for improvement.)
I referred to “speech” as the typical canned response that tries to justify the brazen property taxes, which are no more than “legalized robbery”. If the government at least provided decent services and honestly tried to make the taxpayers’ lives better, the public wouldn’t be so outraged.
Note that property taxes tax based on arbitrary speculation, not the actual gains. The tax assessor (yes, happily) increases the taxes even though the owner isn’t making any profit on it. Even the IRS does not tax stocks gains until the owner sells them and realizes the profit. Yet, WA State’s government taxes as if the owner was selling it, and taxes again (in the form of a sales tax) when the owner actually sells it. And does nothing in return (WA’s corruption rank suggests where the money goes). Only lame excuses and threats trying to impose more taxes. This just to mention property taxes. We can go on.
Furthermore, gang = “a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends”. Considering how the government comes up with new taxes and even figures out ways to bring back taxes that were legally stricken down, saying they are gangsters is being very polite. That includes increasing taxes through “increased density legislation” and puts them in the gangster definition.
Specifically on property taxation, which was the original object of concern here: my point was that property valuation assessment is not “arbitrary”, as you suggested (although a case could be made wrt the taxes levied on property, which are designed and implemented by humans.) Assessment is primarily a statistical process that is driven by records of the real prices that real people pay for real homes, and the land underneath them, in our area; these details are used as a frame of reference for the valuation of similar properties. I linked you an article with lots of resources about current practices + testimonials from practitioners about directions for improvements in accuracy; I would encourage you to check it out for a much more detailed procedural description that I am able to provide here.
I hear you about lots of taxes. You might be a fan of Georgism, a longstanding economic movement to replace literally all other taxes (i.e. on income/trade/purchases, which can be unfair, inefficient, and relatively arbitrary) with a single tax on land (not improvements, just land): yes, just one tax! The arguments are pretty compelling & high-stakes: as one advocate puts it, “[w]hen land is wasted and squandered, we get sky-high rents, oppressed workers, ruined businesses, depleted natural resources, and an impoverished society.” Check out more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism or an interesting book, http://www.landisabigdeal.com/
Hello Mackey, thanks for the article on Georgism, first I heard of it. I read the Wikipedia article but wasn’t fully convinced by it because it seems to open a Pandora Box to the state owning the land (like in UK – the crown, and China – the party) and the population only the buildings on top, having to “pay a rent” to the government for owning the building there. That was my impression on a first pass.
WA gets a substantial property tax increase every year and charges a sales tax when the property is sold (arbitrary and based on land value speculation). Meaning that the owners must pay a hypothetical “tax on profits” to the government based on the land valuation (speculation), even if they do not sell the land, thus do not make any profit. So, retirees on fixed income are driven out of their properties because their values go up and the government happily increases the taxes, while their income does not. Also drives rents up.
Two reasonable examples that come to mind: in GA landowners get Homestead Taxing and a discount on their primary residence and in CA the property tax is based on the price paid by the owner and frozen until the property is sold again. Chances of this in WA (the most corrupt state)?
I totally agree with the Goodmans. If you can’t afford to live there, you can’t live there. Think Woodway and Medina. Why does Edmonds think it has to convert to socialism? Businesses are thriving here because people drive here and spend money from other locations. No need for more density housing.
Hi Peter: in my reading, each of the 5 actions described in this article is a minor repeal of a regulation currently facing enterprises involved with the design and construction of homes in unincorporated Snohomish County (not Edmonds.) A market – in this case, for homes – is, to my knowledge, the most neutral tool our society has for determining if there is a “need” for more homes here. Prices are high right now, so producers have a strong incentive to bring more homes to market; the stated intent of this regulation is to allow private enterprise more flexibility (albeit a very minor degree) in responding to this price signal. Is your argument that greater government intervention – as opposed to repeals limiting the scope of regulation – would constitute a more capitalistic approach here?
It would seem to me that when you are old enough and solvent enough to find a home it is your generations issue to find a way to make even more money if you plan to live in an affluent area ON the Puget Sound or anywhere on the water whether it be lakes or Oceans. That property and properties near those amenities. Amenities that don’t grow back don’t increase it is all that we have in our world. Sure, would be nice if everyone could live where they choose, where they grew up, where their families live but honestly, it’s just not reality. Now if you have land or a big farm you can then build lots of structures, but few have that in this area anyway. Probably more up North and East for that type of thing but ya know it’s the cities of 40 K that are being subjected to these state laws mandates whatever. But hey if ya live in an HOA its golden. THAT to me is BS too. Probably have known for a long time what could happen and some somehow got to prepare for it. Is life Fair I don’t know. Is it supposed to be fair? I don’t know that either. Either or whatever all of this mandated taking of trees, air, wildlife, privacy is disgusting 2me.
“High aggregate demand to live in Seattle reflects how great of a place this is. With more purposeful regulatory adjustments, we could see a more efficient response: more homes being built on the same amount of land.”
It is axiomatic that quality goes down as quantity increases, so it’s not going to be a great place to live much longer–some would say we are already way past that tipping point. Take a drive out to rural Snohomish County sometime–like Granite Falls–to see what ugly, dense developments look like. Note the miles long traffic jams on Highways 2, 522, 9, and others. Is this what we want? There is no way public transportation is going to take up the slack, in spite of what the county’s comprehensive plan seems to suggest. It just saddens me to see the Puget Sound region become another LA, with sprawl from the Sound to the Cascades. Increasing density in urban areas is no solution either. How many goldfish can you cram into a single bowl before their lives become unsustainable? The problem is growth and overpopulation. Alas, our elected leaders and developers refuse to acknowledge this and therefore do nothing to try to address it. Quite the opposite.
Vince, to your point about the elected leaders who run our government, the US Census says we have approximately 337 million people. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) thinks there are 342 million of us. There may be a legitimate reason for the difference, but I don’t know what it is.
More important to this Edmonds News article and your viewpoint regarding it, the CBO estimates that there will be 383 million people on the USA by 2054. Where will those additional 40 million live?
Let’s examine your axiomatic statement: quality goes down as quantity increases. The population in the USA in 1924, 100 years ago, was about 114 million. Are we worse off now with about 233 million more people? The answer is not axiomatic. Nor is it axiomatic that Edmonds will be a worse place in the future with more, of whatever.
Quality of life in the Puget Sound region has gone down in the last, say, 20 years in different metrics: traffic; overcrowded recreation areas with environmental impacts, specifically degradation of Wilderness areas with more illegal fire pits, human waste, trampling of fragile meadows, crowded camping, noise, increasing scarcity of camping sites, etc.; reduction of tree cover, with resulting heat island effects; loss of wildlife habitat, with continued decline in populations of endangered species like the Northern Spotted Owl, Southern Resident Orcas, native Chinook Salmon runs; the acoustic terrain in the form of much more airplane noise. I could go on. Can you or someone please tell me what a sustainable maximum population is for this or any finite environment? And shouldn’t we keep in mind that Quality of Life pertains to that of other species as well?
Mike and Vince, it strikes me that a lot of what you guys are arguing about as to quality of life is pretty subjective in nature. If you are a person like myself who lived in Edmonds 50 years ago and loved the outdoors, fishing Salmon on Puget Sound, digging all the clams you could ever use on any minus tide, catching blue rockfish at night where the underwater park is now, diving into the ferry’s prop wash pretending you were that guy on Sea Hunt the t.v. show on hot summer days, and cutting firewood on the beach with your Dad in the winter, Edmonds now days is not the quality of life it used to be. Conversely if you are a modern person who grew up with computers, virtual worlds to play in, and enjoy the idea of living in a huge house on a real small lot or an apt./condo with four to fifty other residences right on top of you, modern Edmonds looks pretty swell in comparison to the old joint. Add in lots of entertainment and arts activities and this probably looks like paradise to folks like Mackey. Things change and time marches on, but Vince is totally right about one thing – real problem is just too damn many people trying to live in too little space
Clint – I grew up outdoors. I threw out my back stacking firewood this weekend!
I believe that Edmonds has a responsibility to grow via densification for pretty much the same objection you’ve identified here: when cities grow via sprawl, they push out into the boonies and inhibit ecological function. 2005 UW study of the Seattle area: from 1974-1998, “interior forest habitat in wildland areas decreased by 41%. Single-family housing was the primary cause of land conversion […] low-density housing in rural and wildland areas constituted 72% of total land developed within the study area”. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169204604000271) I don’t want to see another 41% lost in my lifetime. Can you blame me? Thanks to the GMA, it won’t happen, but important to reflect on the actual outcomes of our current policies (the economic costs of sprawl notwithstanding!)
Growth (a consequence of property rights) is downright American; it’s also American to have differing views about how it should happen. “Too many people in too little space” is subjective, as Michael pointed out. I’ve spent time in many denser cities that were greener, quieter, and safer than Seattle. Form-wise, new homes here are off-putting because they’re shaped by regulations that focus growth in full-block buildings on highways: I get why you don’t like them (same). Organic growth (i.e., downtown) could be smaller-scale, spread-out, if we allowed it. Choices!
No, Vince, I cannot tell you “what a sustainable maximum population is for this or any finite environment”. I suspect the indigenous people of the 1800s living inside the present border of our country had an answer. I believe my grandparents who arrived here from Europe in the early 1900s had a different answer. If I was forced to give a response, I am fairly confident it would be different from theirs and yours. Like those who were beaten onto reservations, like those who had to migrate to survive, we have to get along with each other and our natural world the best that we can.
The subjectivity of quality of life is what I meant to point out when I took issue with Vince’s writing about axioms. Clint, you have stated it even better than I. The “real problem is just too damn many people trying to live in too little space” is a very subjective statement. It is one that I would disagree with. I feel it is more of an issue pertaining to people not liking others with whom they must share a community. Heck, supposedly Cain murdered Abel when there were very few people around! But then this is where we can respectively choose to disagree.
Yes, I reckon about 150 years ago around here–earlier elsewhere–the indigenous people began to see their quality of life go down, slowly at first, then dramatically. I’ve acknowledged this argument myself in other forums where I argued (futilely) against growth. But ultimately it is specious for a couple reasons. It encourages inertia: growth happens, always has, nothing we can or should do to stop it. Secondly, it represents a principle I don’t have a name for, but is perhaps a first cousin of The Tragedy of the Commons. Let’s call it the Newcomer Paradox. People moving into a new place from one that was “worse” don’t notice the degradation of the place they just moved into. In comparison, it still seems a wonderful or at least better place than the one they left. And this must continue up until enough people agree that the quality of life of a place has diminished to the point it is no longer attractive, even though this is of course a somewhat–but not entirely–subjective matter. So we must first ruin a place in order to save it. As they say, if you find yourself in a hole, first stop digging. Instead, those who stand to profit and benefit from more growth are just handing out more shovels.
I beg to disagree about the “quality of life” is subjective statement. There are several metrics that we can use to predict that degradation will ensue following higher densities, several already discussed in other threads. Among them:
1) Calhoun’s experiment, published even in government sources and a warning. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636191/
2) Environmental carry capacity. Nature has its own way of controlling sustainability and we see it today by how many countries (including the US) are experiencing population growth decrease, some even already direct decrease.
3) Rural areas tend to be more fertile and have higher birth rates than urban. https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2018-10-17/as-fertility-rates-fall-across-us-gap-widens-between-rural-and-urban-counties
4) The “Village Effect” Susan Pinker shows how interaction degrades as city population increases.
5) Heat islands. Bigger denser urban areas are hotter.
I can keep going, but this should demonstrate (for who is interested in reasoning) that bigger cities = lower quality of life. Crime is higher, degeneracy and other human maladies seem to proliferate more in large urban environments, which attract the usual predators. Therefore, with so much information, it’s flabbergasting that some still force this into small cities that have been doing fine. It’s as if they are part of those predator groups and want to expand their reach (actually some already made very clear what they really are).
Read and inform yourselves. Don’t simply take it at face value.
It’s always about just too damn many people trying to live in too little space. That’s why Europeans came to North America; labeled the indigenous people savages and stole their land. More people than the land could support is why Hitler declared the master race and killed Jews to steal their property for “Good” Germans who just deserved the land. The same thing is going on in Israel right now. This has, unfortunately been the history of the human race.
Not so fast there, Mario, the article you reference about the Calhoun Effect, a study on laboratory rats artificially forced to live close together, said, “Increased density might be inevitable but human beings are capable of coping with crowding.” In fact there are those living in NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and West Seattle or Ballard of our fair State of Washington who are glad to cope with the greater density of population than say Marysville, WA. Not saying there is anything wrong with Marysville.
All these places have their issues, problems one can say. Having been to all of them, and having lived in some of the most densely populated places on the planet (Jakarta, Indonesia; Singapore, London; Bogota, Colombia), I can say that I enjoyed them despite their issues.
By saying the main reason for our ills is too many people, one could easily end up in the same place as Hitler and his followers: extermination of those we dislike to make room for ones we like. By saying God gave us a piece of property, we can easily slip into justifying the removal of those we say do not belong there.
Michael, I intentionally picked that article about Calhoun’s experiment because of several remarks. One is the one you pointed. However, it also points to the fact that the experiment is very relevant to human behavior. All the examples you listed show cities that have much higher crime rate, pollution, environmental issues, disease, corruption, etc. (long list) a lot worse than smaller towns. If you enjoyed living there, don’t try to bring those issues to a place that has been free of them so far. Not everyone enjoys those types of environment.
Or are you trying to say that your rights are more important? You mentioned Hitler, but the behavior of the ones pushing for more density (and the type of environment you enjoy) are not behaving any way much different than him and his followers. Not different than the Europeans who migrated to America and literally exterminated the natives because they felt they had the right to establish their own way here. Are those pushing high density also eliminate present Edmonds?
History is full of individuals who believe their rights supersede the rights of the ones they do not agree with and we all know how it ends.
So, life in a really civilized society is based on the principle that the rights of a group end where the rights of the other group starts.
Look, Mario. I like research that tests hypotheses and is interpreted in relation to the hypothesis in question. I take issue with using it on something for which it was not designed.
I am not supporting crowding or increased density of people. I was disputing your claim that quality decreases as quantity increases is axiomatic. Since you were stating this in the context of an article on housing, I am claiming from my own experience and of those millions who live in densely populated areas that your statement is not axiomatic, but as Clint also said, it is subjective.
I like very much living in Edmonds just as it is. There are about 8.1 billion people now living in the world. That population will continue to grow more slowly, but still grow. So like it says in the Calhoun experiment, I plan to cope and not react like a rat.
Dear Michael, I am the one who claimed it is axiomatic that quality decreases as quantity increases. You may be able to cope and not react like a rat, but other species cannot so easily. But we are talking about people, so I’ll focus on that. Having spent a lot of time in Bangkok, and also having visited Hong Kong, Tokyo, Karachi, Manila, Dhaka, Delhi, Mexico City, New York, Ho Chi Minh City, and Los Angeles, I can say, no thanks. Yes, that’s my opinion. No need to remind me that Snohomish County is no Bangkok Metropolitan area, thanks. I think I made pretty clear in my original post that by objective standards quality of life has gone down in many ways in the Puget Sound region due to population growth, unless it can be seen as pleasurable or even tolerable to be spending longer and longer stuck in traffic, to be unable to secure a camping spot, to have to make reservations to drive into Mt. Rainier National Park, to watch tree cover diminish, to find no parking at trailheads, and so on. And on.
I apologize Vince and Mario for mixing up your contributions to MENS in my comments. Perhaps we could at some point get together and exchange our experiences. For example I always enjoyed going to Hong Kong: the Star Ferry between Hong Kong and Kowloon and the bus ride to Stanley Bay. That was before the Chinese government changed the way it governed the territory. I have friends who enjoy living in Bangkok and Los Angeles, others who loved their time in Karachi, Manila, & Tokyo. Now I live in Edmonds and I enjoy it very much. I intend to do my part to prove that quality of life here going down as the quantity of people increases is not axiomatic.
Hello Michael and Vince, just saw the replies. You guys are fast!
Michael, your explanation is a bit confusing, since you talk about “subjective” and use your own personal opinion about large cities “and that you like them”. That’s pure anecdotal evidence and cannot be more subjective, isn’t it? Opposite to you, I loathe them. My wife and I chose Edmonds for what it is presently, not a filthy Seattle/Ballard look alike.
In my initial reply, I listed several sources, all based in scientific data which can demonstrate them without human bias. Calhoun’s experiment still holds true to this day and some of its conclusions do indeed apply to humans. One of them the reduced birthrate in highly populated areas.
We can go on and on about higher stress levels (not everyone is like Michael, who likes big cities) and other high-density areas issues, such as crime rates, pollution, etc. My point is that Edmonds is literally being forced by politicians using lies, deception, and mafia-style strong-arm tactics (I hope there’s a special hell for those individuals), without any concern for the local population’s wishes and worries. Many of the older population will be forced out when taxes go up, as usual, and the politicians and their gang members (e.g. developers) pocket the benefits while Edmonds becomes another filthy place. It’s sickening.
Yes, Mario, I replied quickly when I realized that I confused yours and Vince’s MENS contributions. There should be no confusion about my point of view: the inverse relationship between quantity and quality as they relate to the population of a place is not axiomatic. I maintain that the relationship is subjective. In other words when the number of people increases it is not certain that the quality of life in that place will decrease.
In one regard there is not much room for further dialogue among us since I take issue with the terms you use to describe people who take on the difficult tasks of legislating, executing and judging the laws that guide our society according to our Constitution. Of course there are exceptions. Right now I believe our county and city governments are making good- faith efforts to deal with the need for housing.
That said, I would enjoy sharing with you and Vince our variety of experiences living in other parts of the world. Clearly we do have in common a love for living in Edmonds.
Michael, do you have any (reputable and credible) studies showing that living in places like New York, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Chicago, Seattle, etc. increased the population’s quality of life as their numbers soared? Use studies showing actual metrics, not subjective values or anecdotes like “I like populated cities”. All the ones I listed before back my stance.
About politicians and “good intentions”, I would need massive overdoses of suspension of disbelief to see them doing “good faith efforts”, when from the federal to the municipal level they show very dubious actions from encouraging and funding the invasion of dozens of millions of unvetted illegals, strong-arm cities into doing their self-serving biddings (e.g. forcing high density developments), leading Edmonds into near bankruptcy as Mike Nelson and his gang did (I recognize Mike Rosen’s well-intended efforts to salvage the situation). The road to hell is paved with good intentions comes to mind.
What I do not understand is why individuals who love those high-density places have to move to small peaceful towns and turn them into the filthy cesspools they came from. If they are so good, why not staying there?
You are fast as well, Mario. The level of your anger reflected in terms like filthy cesspools and gangs leads me to suspect that we can’t communicate positively in this setting. Please believe me when I say that I appreciate your sincerity in wanting the best for our community. To point out a way you might be more convincing, what kind of cesspools are not filthy? Mr Nelson won the popular vote for mayor. He served as such during a very difficult time for the city, state and country. Criticism of him is fair. He had an administration, not a gang. In other words, tone down the hyperbole.
Why I enjoyed the big cities in which I lived and why I came to live in Edmonds would take more words than I am allowed in MENS.
Cheers
Michael, I gave you five concrete and measurable sources backing my opinion on large cities/high density and explained them using our limited space. I’m sure you can also do it, for the sake of the other readers. 🙂
As far as Mr. Nelson. A person is measured by what she does, not what she says (let alone “being elected”). Yeah, that would send all politicians to hell. Nevertheless, Mr. Nelson’s actions during his tenure speak for themselves.