1. I want to flag the piece I posted late yesterday afternoon about the controversy over state representative Brady Walkinshaw’s (D-43, Capitol Hill) campaign ads; Walkinshaw is running against state senator Pramila Jayapal (D-37, Southeast Seattle) for retiring U.S. representative Jim McDermott’s (D-WA, 7) seat.
I wasn’t the only one to say the ad wasn’t negative. Two other middle-aged, white guy pundits like me, Danny Westneat at the Seattle Times and the Stranger’s Dan Savage, both defended Walkinshaw and criticized Jayapal for denouncing the ad.
And therein may be a huge clue that I’ve missed something. Jayapal and many of her supporters hear racist and sexist dog whistles that I likely missed.
2. And also: a follow-up to yesterday’s Fizz about the taxes that Chris Hansen might not pay if the city goes with his offer to fund the stadium himself.
I noted that if Hansen didn’t pay admission taxes as he’s proposing, it would cost the city about $76 million over the life of the lease. It’s actually about $74 million—or $191 million in nominal dollars.
Or put more simply—about $4.5 million a year, according to the city’s analysis in 2012 when the original deal, which included Hansen’s tax payments, was inked.
That’s 67 percent of the taxes the city should be getting from the stadium.
3. Reporter Erica C. Barnett has an in-depth Q&A with GOP state senator Mark Miloscia (R-30, Federal Way). Miloscia is a vocal opponent of King County executive Dow Constantine and Seattle Mayor Ed Murray’s recent task force recommendation to open safe consumption sites to battle the heroin epidemic.
(In the most recent issue of Seattle Met, Miloscia took the nay position in our “Snap Judgment” column where this month we asked if safe use heroin sites were a good idea.)
Miloscia recently visited Vancouver, BC’s safe injection site, Insite, (Barnett tailed him there), and in the Q&A, he explains his reaction to the successful program and why he still thinks it’s a bad idea.
For one thing, he says this:
You’ve got to focus on prevention. That’s the only way you rightsize the problem. Do an analysis of why people are turning to drugs. If you want to solve the problem rather than just maintain it, slow the growth. To solve any problem, it’s all about preventing the causes. That’s where it’s cheaper. That’s where you get results. And that’s, to be honest, where the bulk of the money needs to be spent. We’re triaging now. If we do everything in a systemwide manner, yes, there’s a way I see her program working—if it’s just a temporary stair-step program to get people into treatment. I try not to get visibly angry over the destigmatization of drugs and ‘It’s all about choice’—but that’s the wrong approach. It’s hard for people to choose to get out of their addiction. It’s carrots and sticks, for all of history—that’s how you motivate people. If you have no stick, you’ll never get a person to the point [of entering treatment] unless they hit literally rock bottom and are at death’s doorstep.
4. Speaking of con opinions on the idea a safe consumption site—which, by the way, Seattle City Council member Sally Bagshaw (the chair of the human services committee) strongly supports—it could be an uphill battle to site one in the city.
Here’s a sample objection taken from an email that came into the mayor’s office (Murray also supports the idea):
“Another good location would be next to your house, I'm sure you and your neighbors would like junkies around them.”