When Edmonds councilmembers claim their draft Comp Plan, soon to be approved, includes “affordable housing,” are they lying or just ignorant?
The state defines “affordable housing” as the renter paying no more than 1/3 of their income on rent. See Definitions 1. here.
The State Department of Commerce (DOC) 12-1-24 newsletter in a new report on the “housing landscape” states: “Nearly half of renter households pay more than 30% of income on housing costs.”
Despite that the DOC required all income levels be reflected in the new housing bills, none of the bills includes “affordable housing” per the RCW definition. At our legislators’ town hall on March 18, 2023, Strom Peterson was quoted: “we’ve never claimed that HB 1110 will make housing more affordable.”
All of the housing built via the mandated housing bills will be market rate. The draft Comp Plan only includes reference to 0-80% adjusted median income (AMI) and no reference to those of “Extremely low income” i.e.: 0-30% AMI. Responsibility for providing “affordable housing” is left to nonprofits. But here’s a fun fact: Even the nonprofit Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) isn’t required to ensure renters pay no more than 30% of their income on rent. Unless a renter qualifies for Section 8 (a federal program) they’re lucky if their rent is slightly below market rate.
HASCO pays no property taxes and council increased Edmonds sales tax to allocate to HASCO toward future property purchases.
Another fun fact: Multi-family tax exemption (MFTE) buildings also use 80%-115% AMI, with no requirement to provide “affordable housing” per the RCWs. The 12 years of tax exemption granted the Henbart Westgate MFTE on all apartments for slightly reduced rent to 20% of renters, shifts the taxes Henbart doesn’t pay to “non-exempt” taxpayers.
Housing bills imposed statewide by our legislators are about increasing property taxes. They’re about giving free rein to developers to build without protecting our critical aquifer recharge areas and other critical areas. Except for Councilmember Dotsch, council is pushing forward with adopting the draft Comp Plan, dismissing public input. Council is giving height bonuses to developers who build “green” or provide a few below-market rate homes in the mix. How can council justify this? Why do any councilmembers believe that developers need incentives to build in Edmonds?
Council ignored Councilmember Dotsch’s proposal to focus development on 99 where our infrastructure can support it. They ignored John Zipper’s proposal of ADUs/DADUs as a third draft Comp Plan option. They have ignored Joe Scordino and the Edmonds Environmental Council’s plea to protect our environmental assets and attend to our aging infrastructure.
Whether councilmembers are lying or ignorant, the result is the same. The Comp Plan as written will benefit developers, realtors and others who profit from development. It will dramatically increase taxpayers’ burden through increased property taxes, cost to upgrade aging infrastructure and costs of lawsuits, which will inevitably be filed by developers intent upon building on or near critical areas.
Council’s motto: Feed Developers. Starve Taxpayers.
And, as always, those Edmonds residents who have the fewest resources to fall back on will suffer the most.
— By Joan Bloom
Edmonds City Councilmember 2012-2015
I too seriously doubt that the goal of affordable housing in Edmonds is attainable. Land value is going to rule. I don’t see how we can get around market driven pricing.
This reminds me a lot of the reality of recycling, where most of what we recycle is thrown away.
In some cases it is even worse than just being thrown away, since a lot of extra gas, buildings, and additional pollutants are required just to create the illusion for people that their consumption habits are not as detrimental as they actually are.
As you correctly pointed out, the council decided not to focus on 99 where the infrastructure supported the most affordable housing, and instead went with a plan that would instead likely reduce the overall amount of affordable housing through increased taxes (and the increased rent prices that go with that).
Do you have suggestions for a workable, fair solution?
Joan, thank you for your excellent review of the facts. I would like to add some comments from the Seattle Times
regarding the State take over of local zoning. The first article pointed out that the only ones to benefit from the increased density would be the builders, developers and construction trades. The result definitely wouldn’t be a significant increase in low income housing. Another article reviewed how Ballard’s move to higher density led to increased homelessness. People renting rooms in small individual dwellings lost their homes when those properties were sold and developed into multiple condo’s selling in the $800,000 range.
It is quite telling that Strom Peterson switched from talking about low income housing to affordable housing when facts started to leak out..
Finally the Comprehensive Plan being presented by our Council will lead to more development than required by the State Department Of Commerce. We can only wonder why our Council has chosen thie road.
Hi Robert, zoning has always been the purview of the state (via the police power, originating under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution), delegated to cities however the Legislature has seen fit. In Edmonds, our state representatives are elected by more voters than any of our local elected officials, a trend consistent across the state (https://www.sightline.org/2023/11/08/in-every-washington-city-odd-year-elections-crush-voter-turnout/); every single Washington legislator of either party who voted for HB1110 (missing middle bill) and ran for re-election in 2024 ended up winning both their August primary and November general elections (https://www.sightline.org/2024/11/15/in-race-after-race-people-keep-electing-pro-housing-politicians/); policies like HB1110 are popular with a majority of Washington residents (https://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Memo.SightlineInstitute.f2.2022.02.01.pdf).
Would it not be more accurate to describe policy changes like those engendered by HB1110 as the manifest will of the People?
Zoning changes in Ballard incentivized the demolition of old homes & the construction of more new ones: local costs for a global benefit (making housing supply for the 1/2-bedroom-apt-submarket more responsive to demand.) You might be glad to hear: a recent bill is requiring cities like Edmonds (which currently bans them) to legalize SROs again (https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2024/02/07/wa-house-approves-bill-to-expand-dormitory-like-housing/).
So far, Edmonds policy includes allowing lining 99 from its south end of Edmonds to the north end with 75 foot apartment/condo buildings — like the Hazel apartments, only side-by-side all the way up and down 99. That was established years ago by previous Comp Plans. I heard from people who live in that area that those plans are already more development than they want.
The current draft includes the absolute maximum planned growth for ADU’s and DADU’s allowed by State regulators. You can lobby the legislature to get that changed, but such a change won’t come before the Comp Plan deadline.
The Comp Plan does not add the green-building height incentive. The green building incentive was already approved by city Council earlier this year. Like the 75-foot apartment houses along 99, it is already part of Edmonds regulations.
The new Hazel apartment is advertising online several 520sqft units available at $1,650 a month, it’s very logical to believe an apartment closer to Downtown Edmonds will be much much more. This is a good indication/case study of what the least expensive new unit could be on the edge of Edmonds boundary, by creating more multi-family apartment like structures in Edmonds, just my observation.
A truly Green Build incentive program in my mind, would reward builders providing more open space for yards and tree’s and not provide incentive for larger foot prints and maximizing often the entire parcel, because they use some more green materials or have better energy efficiency in there products, its really clever way by the housing development industrial complex to maximize there products and profits. We should give MFTE discounts to developments who leave open spaces like court yards and green plazas and such.
Totally agree with all your points here.
Private green space for attached homes is a really important outcome and we should be doing more to incentivize it. The courtyard apartment is probably the typology that best balances human & blue/green infra needs in an urban setting (including some physical aspects, like cross-ventilation of homes, daylight on multiple sides, stormwater infiltration, etc.) and we should have it in mind as we write our codes. We would probably have to allow flexibility around height/site geometry to make sure protective clauses in code aren’t an impediment to development actually taking place (which I personally believe is also important), but that flexibility could very easily be cognizant of public view corridors, as long as impacts are really quantified, and not again used as a tool to stop all development. Vancouver BC is one notable neighbor that has taken real efforts to assess/protect public views in a number of places (https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-public-views.aspx). I don’t know much about it; interesting.
RE pricing, I agree that stuff downtown would rent for more. There’d still be a systemic market effect over time. I also agree that the actual (realized) material/energy use savings from these incentives – if the City even ends systemically tracking uptake – will be marginal at best compared to the larger-level energy use savings of more market-driven land use patterns (https://rmi.org/why-state-land-use-reform-should-be-a-priority-climate-lever-for-america/).
Joan, I appreciate the passion you bring to this discussion and your connection to those facing real challenges from our housing policy outcomes. I think framing Council as either “lying” or “ignorant” undermines the potential for good-faith dialogue & disagreement about our options. Collaboration is essential if we hope to address Edmonds’ housing challenges effectively.
The draft Comprehensive Plan expands developable capacity, which is available to both market-rate and subsidized housing providers; most of this capacity will likely be used by market-rate providers. Beyond complying with State law to create more area zoned for lowest-cost homes (apartments), the Plan doesn’t build subsidized homes: that would require additional legislation, such as new funding mechanisms for subsidized homes or streamlined permitting to support their construction. With new home permitting slowed by macroeconomic factors, Edmonds has a timely opportunity to implement policies that encourage subsidized housing. Shoreline’s funded inclusionary-zoning model (https://www.sightline.org/2024/10/28/to-fix-inclusionary-zoning-fund-it/#Shoreline) is one example of a policy that has built real homes.
New market-rate housing is structurally required to slow price growth. In high-demand submarkets, like that for family-sized homes, new homes ease pressures on existing home prices. Through vacancy chains (https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=up_workingpapers), newer units free up older, more affordable homes for lower-income households. While its intensity is moderated by other factors, this dynamic is part of the reason that homes in Edmonds were once relatively more attainable.(1/2)
(2/2) I also want to make a point with regard to the respective roles of new/old homes in our market.
New homes, like most new goods, are the least likely to be attainable for those with the lowest incomes. Over time, however, housing typically depreciates relative to newer options, making older homes more affordable. Nearly 50% of Edmonds’ housing supply was built before 1969. These homes (still expensive) are the most relatively affordable ones available.
Without new construction today, we will not have a future pipeline of aging homes “cheapening” w/time, just as the relative lack of construction from the 90s-2000s left us with fewer aging homes from that era today. This dynamic forces lower-income households to compete with higher-income ones for a relatively fixed pool of homes, driving up prices and eliminating options for those with the least flexibility. Intra-income competition is a dynamic we can influence at the municipal level by increasing housing supply; this means allowing providers to build new homes today to support long-term attainability.
And while price/income mismatch largely stems from market dysfunction (housing bans), I agree that tools like targeted subsidies are useful to help vulnerable households stay housed during short-term economic challenges, and that long-term subsidy for the small minority of people unable to procure housing through our housing market is a compassionate approach to minimize suffering.
Just out of curiosity Mackey how much experience do you have developing, building, financing, or marketing housing and most importantly paying for including taxes? What advanced degrees do you have urban planning or professional certificates. You remind me of the character in the movie “Goodwill Hunting”, A smart young man who has lots of theories of life because he read them in a book or somewhere but has no first-hand practical experience and so tries to compensate (or BS) it with word count.
Brian, if you feel my ideas are flawed, misinformed, or otherwise of concern, I ask you to disagree with them by expressing ideas of your own to help me fill in potential blind spots or misunderstandings. Deliberative exchange is how our society collaboratively moves towards truth. I will never claim to have the truth: just a perspective that’s as close as I believe I can get it, at this moment. I am always open to updating my beliefs with new information, as I hope you are.
Deliberation is a dance. It is an exercise of care and trust. I’m here because I want you to catch me if you really think I’m falling, the same way I would catch you. That’s the whole point, right? We have each other.
I think you should use your judgement to filter good ideas from bad ones, as you see fit. I don’t think your educational and occupational background has any bearing on your ability to do that. Information is very distributed.
My perspectives and ideas have been whittled and reformed by conversation and analysis, learning from the world & people around me, just like yours. What matters is what happens when we bring them together.
Can you help me understand what I might be missing?
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go see about a girl.
Mackey, you didn’t answer my question about your experience or education? Your move chief…
Brian, I really appreciate your curiosity!
I’m choosing not to make personal testimony to my work experience or academic credentials, because I’m concerned that you are asking as a means by which to dismiss or minimize the merits of my assertions. That kind of argumentation is formally known as an “ad hominem” fallacy. Could you please assert a clear & consistent threshold for participation here?
While my background is certainly related to my thoughts – not to mention liberally indexed via the internet, to the extent that a Google search would pick up practically all of it! – it has no bearing on your ability to parse my words for what they say. I will take this occasion to proactively assure you that my words come from a place of lived experience and intellectual inquiry, rather than any ulterior motive/interest (that is, beyond my own interest in avoiding an unexamined life, and contributing to an discursively disciplined society.)
Could you clarify why I’m the only commenter on this thread (or related ones) that you have prompted for a credential inspection?
It can be challenging to learn that others hold differing views. I understand if my words inspired difficult or uncomfortable feelings (surprise, frustration, confusion) in you. I want you to know that I’m excited to hear your thoughts, if or when you’re comfortable sharing them.
Mackey, I value your enthusiasm for making the most for our city. Hopefully you will stay involved. I believe it will be a fascinating journey for you as you acquire more work experience and education and observe how your point of view progresses. After over three decades of developing, constructing, financing, and marketing housing and real estate in the Pacific Northwest and internationally, my perspectives have certainly evolved.
Best, Brian
Mackey, I’ve got good news and bad news for you. We’ll sell you our old 1960 house for $330,000. The bad news is you can’t buy it unless you pay us $1,000,000 for the dirt under it. Guess how my wife and I got this property. We had a very very cheap wedding, we both worked hard, we seldom ate in restaurants, we drove old cars, we didn’t take fancy trips , we went camping when we took almost any trip, and started out with a termite ridden dump in South Everett that we fixed up with sweat equity and worked our way up. I know that’s tough to do now partly due to supply and overpricing; but I see an awful lot of young people drinking $8.00 cups of coffee at Starbucks, eating out in expensive restaurants and lounges, sporting tattoos and piercings all over their bodies, talking on the latest and greatest I-phone and I know all those things don’t come cheap. We all have to play the hand we are delt in life and some always manage better than others. You can’t legislate everyone into an affordable roof over their head and the only people who get ahead without working hard and being frugal are rich kids who inherit wealth.
Hello Mackey,
This is all good textbook information for ANY Town USA; but not a coastal community like Edmonds that has many critical areas that are protected by law from development. Having said that, the CARA (critical area recharge) code was passed because Attorney Taraday used the same takings ruling lawsuit that City loss (wasted taxpayer dollars) as an example of “potential liability”. He failed to Google critical area protection laws and so Planning Board recommended and Council approved the use of UIC wells for stormwater control in Deer Creek CARA. This code was passed not on science but on the City’s needed affordable housing? And, because of the three-year delay in getting the CARA code before Council while I was in office, DR Horton purchased two homes in the CARA and built a 11 home subdivision. Those houses were over $1.M a piece – certainly not affordable for the new homeowner.
With market prices at peak in Coastal Cities because of our open space, wetlands, critical areas and a network of tree canopy to think we can achieve affordable housing is stupid at best.
Tell Council to DELAY the passage of the Comprehensive Plan update past 2024. Require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement with accurate topography and mitigation techniques and areas needed to protect our watersheds and canopy for future generations. http://www.edmondsenvironmentalcouncil.org has facts.
Hi Diane, as you point out, Edmonds’ critical areas are protected by law from development. I will defer to an attorney on legal matters; you are already working towards a different CARA code outcome in court, and I wish you the best of luck if your arguments have merit. Scrutiny can only improve our certainty about what is true.
Coastal areas are subject to incredible demand – to make matters worse, the Seattle area has a fantastically vibrant economy! That being said, Edmonds goes out of its way to ban lower-cost homes – which would constitute the exact same impermeable surface area if redeveloped – across the vast, vast majority of our residentially zoned land. Why? (New homes are always relatively more expensive at first.)
I must say that I don’t think it’s productive to identify any preference – though the one you specifically call out is not one I identify with – as “stupid at best”. That kind of rhetoric is not conducive to productive discussion and disagreement. You are entitled to any and all rationales as to why such an outcome would not be, in your view, in the best interest of our community, but I encourage you to share those rationales, rather than relying on reductive labels. I am sure I would learn something from you if you did!
Okay, Mackey, I have another offer to you for “affordable” housing. Instead of selling our joint when the unfair taxes hit, we are going to go in with my wife’s builder son, knock down the $330,000 house and build a four plex with an elevator , filling up the whole lot with a partially buried garage space for one story and two more stories as high as the code will allow. You will be able to buy one of those “babies” for only $800K with a nice view and all the time in the world to pontificate on how you and your Democratic Party Pals have saved the concept of affordable housing in Edmonds. Of course, you will have to put up with me as a neighbor so you might want to think twice before taking that plunge should that opportunity arise from all your good works so far in saving space in Edmonds for the less economically endowed among us.
Thanks Clint. I think it would be great for you to do that and am happy to help in any way I can (mackey@mackeyguenther.com / 206-915-3925). I’m as glad about the idea of you doing that as you probably were/are about the fact that someone cut down the trees and built a home on your lot so that you could live there to begin with: an action not without effects, but ultimately with future prosperity in mind.
I’m sorry our property tax structure is putting pressure on you to leave Edmonds and I wish you had more options to stay here and evolve your property (https://www.spur.org/news/2017-09-21/could-germanys-co-developed-urban-housing-be-model-bay-area). Snohomish County offers exemptions that you may qualify for (https://snohomishcountywa.gov/328/Property-Tax-Exemptions)
The existence of an incentive to do more with the land you own is evidence of a market at work: the same way anyone else is incented to help produce more of something if it can be done profitably. This is good for society.
The median sales price for a family-size home built in the 1960s/70s is over a million dollars and will continue to rise; $800k all-in for a similar new build is an accessible option for more people. Our code will support better, more family-oriented floor plans over time. I am not a member of the Democratic Party. I think you would be a great neighbor.
Often older homes are built to last. I mean look around in cities in expensive areas and see the tree lined street with the beautiful homes built long before 1969. Here I suspect many have totally remodeled and those homes are made better and will last as long as they are properly attended to. The stuff I have seen being built will give you those older homes but what condition they will be in in 15 years is anyone’s guess. I see them and I see the buckling vinyl sidings (cheap) I see the buildings that won’t accommodate people with disabilities! Places with no green space for kids to even sit in their yards. I see tiny balconies if any. These places are no better than the tenement’s built before and we all know how that went for our underprivileged population. Right. Right. SO first find builders with ethics and years of experience building nicer places not cheaper places. It’s the governors problem that we can’t afford housing that is truly affordable for minimum wage workers. But they would rather spend it all on BS. Then call us nimbys. What a load all of this is and I don’t mean burden when I say load. And if done well your idea of the U or Square garden concept is a nice one. 2 stories. HI.
Thanks Nick. Where are the 75 foot apt buildings on HWY 99 in Edmonds city limits? I guess I missed them. Are they built and selling or renting? What street intersections are they near? I am just curious I want to drive by and take a look for myself. Also, I thought the residents in the S area of 99 in Snohomish County wanted more growth and shopping etc. down there? Could or will these new 75 foot buildings have bottom floor shopping? I would think that if nicer little stores were on the ground floor that would be good for the residents and all of us. What is between 220th and the county line as far as small retail doesn’t look very good to me. Nice people but the buildings are in bad condition. Look like they are barely standing? Most anyway. Do you know Nick? And remember the big sell for the busses included people living in that area to transport easily to work S of Edmonds and a bit North? Nick what would you choose to do about all of the not wanted tall buildings everywhere if say you were the King of Edmonds haha. Go on let it out. I want to know I really do. I mean I know you have some idea. Ok Thanks Nick.
Hi Deborah,
The comprehensive plan does not build buildings. Just like the plans for the centers and hubs. No buildings are built by the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan (in this case, the plan from 2020 or 2015) allows for 75-foot residential buildings everywhere 99 is in Edmonds or Edmonds touches 99. That’s all the coming comprehensive plan does as well: it allows for buildings. So far, the allowance for 75-foot buildings on 99 has led to the Hazel. It is on the West side of 99 at 234th street. The 2020 comp plan and the coming comp plan allow for a number of apartments along 99. To meet the number (sorry I don’t remember the exact number) you would have to repeat the Hazel with gaps of about 30 feet (maybe less) everywhere along the Edmonds portions of 99. That’s the current and the coming comp plan.
If you like living with 75 foot apartment houses next door, you should let the Planning staff know. You would be the only person in Edmonds who has said it’s ok with them. That goes with the neighbors of 99 too. And the idea of adding more height to 99 bothers them even more.
Hi Nick. Thank you for the info. No I wouldn’t want a 75 foot building next to my single family home. I also do not want to see Hwy 99 totally covered with them either. I am just curious. When Landmark was the thing that all were wanting so badly I thought they wanted housing. It’s confusing sometimes for me who wants what where and why haha. If I were the Queen of Edmonds haha I would not want more than 2 stories anywhere haha. I would never allow people to build right up against someone’s fence or property line. I wouldn’t allow more than one 2 story DADU in any yard anywhere and I would demand the owner of main property live on site. I would invite all types of housing (meaning price ranges) in every neighborhood in Edmonds and I would make a few other areas around here take on some growth too. Gee this is fun day dreaming with Nick. No additional 5 feet but I like solar panels for roofs. Ok as the Queen I want a house on the Sound, north a little bit from the action. It will be 1 story. I would like a 15 foot fence and a moat please. I would have all citizens gather there and all CC meetings. No building needed. I am giggling.
Queen Arthur! 😀
Nancy Johnson,
Many stakeholders have presented “suggestions for a workable, fair solution” that support reasonable development which protects our environment. There are too many to list here. Unfortunately, Council (except CM Dotsch) have ignored public input, instead choosing to impose standards in the Comp Plan that go beyond the State’s housing mandates.
The Edmonds Environmental Council https://edmondsenvironmentalcouncil.org/home/about/ has proposed “Environmentally Sensitive” zoning and a “staggered” approach to development outlined here https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/11/reader-view-a-better-idea-for-edmonds-comprehensive-plan-update-environmentally-sensitive-zoning/
There’s a great deal of information on the EEC’s website to help you become more informed. Time is short, however, because Council plans to finalize the plan before year end. Council is reviewing the Final Environmental Impact Study by Herrara in a special meeting tonight. As of yesterday, the FEIS was not available on the city’s website.
The FEIS has been posted: https://edmondswa.iqm2.com//Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=4786&MediaPosition=&ID=9189&CssClass=
I am very concerned our city’s Critical Areas being destroyed by development. Our city doesn’t seem to have regulations to provide adequate protection.
I encourage everyone to check out the newly released Environmental Impact Statement. Do you agree with the conclusions and plans there?
Marjie,
Mayors/administrations (ie staff) past, and present, have failed to equally and fairly enforce our Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) for at least 20 years (since 2004 when I started following Edmonds politics).
Our CAO is based on best available science, but Mayors/staff have allowed developers to build on Critical Areas, without regard for our CAO for at least two decades.
Mike McMurray,
I disagree with your suggestion about green incentives to MFTEs. I disagree with ANY incentives to developers. As I said in my RV, Multi-family Tax Exemption buildings don’t provide “affordable” housing per the RCWs definition of affordable (paying no more than 1/3 of income on rent). Why should developers be allowed to build tax-free (for 12 years on ALL residential) when NO “affordable” housing is provided and the taxes they don’t pay are shifted to non-exempt taxpayers?
It’s my understanding that all improvements the MFTE makes to their apartments are also tax free. (If anyone knows otherwise, please provide reference that contradicts) What’s to stop Henbart from upgrading the apartments and selling them at market rate at the end of the 12 years?
Council should repeal the MFTE in Edmonds. Council should also eliminate the increased sales tax allocated to HASCO until they demonstrate they can actually provide “affordable” housing per the RCWs definition.
The DADU code and Green Incentives, when combined, will allow 30 foot tall view blocking DADUs to rise in every neighborhood, which will be great AirBnB rentals for those who are into that. Most of our neighborhoods have 25-foot roof heights, the sharp developers will go to 30 feet to peek over all those rooftops. These will slowly but surely ruin lots of neighborhoods. The Built Green checklist that will be used to allow the incentives of extra 5 feet height and reduced setbacks is a joke, there is nothing difficult about adding those bells and whistles to a new DADU in order to “earn” the extra 5 feet of height. There’s nothing green about building a larger, taller structure regardless of what the Planning Board says.
There is nothing in the Comp Plan update or DADU code that provides an incentive to build a smaller, one story unit where feasible, or to leave trees/green space in the setbacks. The direction things are headed is quite the opposite, the incentives are there to build taller and bigger (= more expensive, less affordable). To top it all off, we ended up with an EIS that ignores the environmental impact and resultant tax increases necessary to improve the drainage, sewer and roads around all of these neighborhood hubs and centers.
Nick Maxwell. HAHA You forgot the All Hail Thats ok just don’t let it happen again. As things stand you will be allowed to cross the moat bridge. You’re an ok guy Nick. I like you. I hope to meet you sometime. I am sure I will. Now its meeting time. Ug. oh BTW I forgot to Thank you for your info before. So Thank you. Deb Dang where are the emojis when ya need one!
Mackey, maybe one reason you do get picked apart a bit is that many know you are from Edmonds. Maybe some have watched you grow up. Maybe as weird as it sounds feel a certain affection for you. That is actually pretty sweet. I know you have some college under your belt and I know you have traveled and seen how some other cities in the world do their building etc. I know you are very smart and yeah wordy but I would give anything to be able to write as well as you. I bet your parents are also very proud of you. Are you ready for office in Edmonds? No I don’t quite yet. Your age is a factor I know but honey its the same on this end of the spectrum haha. I too think if that is what you really want you will probably be a VIP in politics here. I wonder though at what 23, 24 why you don’t want to go see the world etc. but that is your business. Not a Democrat huh? Me either ha. I am I. I am glad I chose to not really commit to a certain party. I allows me to choose the person not the party. You are doing just fine and I know everyone in Edmonds loves Mackey :}