Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Paul Shoemaker and Sherry Richardson & James Montague some of our many supporters.


How Seattle is exporting its poor people

A look at new Census data shows the effects of gentrification and new urbanist planning for the region, with families and poor people fleeing to the south of Seattle.

The University of Washington branch campus in Tacoma. (UW)

The University of Washington branch campus in Tacoma. (UW) None

It’s time for a current portrait of the social and economic condition of greater Seattle, thanks to the Census Bureau, which recently released data from the American Community Survey (ACS) for 2009. The figures confirm a remarkable series of trends that are pushing poor people and families out of Seattle.

First, some methodological notes. Since the census no longer has the long form for much of the information that people, business, and government want and need, we have to rely on the smaller ACS sample. And since the one year data are reliable only for larger units, I report here on the region’s 27 PUMAs , or Public Use MicroAreas, which average about 120,000 people each, and which pretty nicely correspond to recognizable parts of the metropolis.

It’s also a little irksome to work with these data so I report on only six characteristics, the percent of minorities, of families with children, of poor persons, of workers unemployed, of the foreign born, and of single family homes (including duplexes).

Minority populations. The pattern is classic in the sense of an “inner” concentration of minorities, with the share falling to low levels in exurban and rural areas. But it is very different from 40 or even 20 years ago in that the highest minority shares are no longer in the city of Seattle, but in south King county, in Burien-Sea-Tac, Renton, and Kent, and moderately high in Tacoma, Federal Way, and Bellevue.  This is one manifestation of Seattle’s gentrification.

Families with children. The traditional nuclear family survives in far suburban, exurban, and rural areas of King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties, and even in Kent (high share of immigrant families), but is remarkably low, by historic and US standards, in Seattle, Tacoma, and inner suburban areas. Conversely these core urban areas are high in non-family households, in singles and unmarried partners, both opposite and same sex. This is a second manifestation of gentrification and the shift of families to the suburbs, as well as a distinctive marker of Seattle. But note that there has been a small increase in young children in Seattle in the last few years, among more affluent households, although the share is still very low, under 10 percent.

Persons in poverty.  The distribution of poor persons is not mainly a classic one of an urban core of poverty, surrounded by richer suburbs. Rather there is a more complex pattern of class segregation, with the highest poverty in south King County, especially in Burien-SeaTac and the city of Tacoma, and with relatively high shares now in southwest and northern Snohomish county. The fairly high shares in northeastern Seattle is an artifact of the large student population, temporarily poor.

As expected, lower levels of poverty occur in the eastern suburbs of Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, and Issaquah. Yet again the figures reveal major displacement over the last two decades of the poor out of Seattle, not only to south King County and to more affordable  Pierce County, but northward into Snohomish County (the SR 99 corridor).

Unemployment. The pattern of high levels of unemployment is yet a little different, surprisingly low in Seattle, considering the year (2009) and concentrated in much of south King County and especially in Pierce County, reflecting weaker economic sectors of construction, trade, transportation, and manufacturing. Unemployment is lowest in north Seattle and high tech Kirkland and Redmond. Anyone want to venture how such areas voted this year?

The foreign born.  Shares are low in far suburban to rural areas, especially in Kitsap and  Pierce counties, but are very high in a large contiguous region of south Seattle, south King and inner suburban East King County, reaching quite high levels in Bellevue (highest at 31 percent)  and southeast Seattle (24 percent). The entire region is fairly high, and immigration has accounted for a substantial share of growth.

Single family homes. The share of housing units that are single family remains high only in far suburban to rural regions of all four counties, but especially in east King, which also has the highest shares of families with children. Shares are below national levels in many suburban areas and in Tacoma, and are quite low in much of the older urban core, including north Seattle, Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond, and Burien-SeaTac, and really low in the urban core (downtown, Queen Anne). This is an expected pattern, from 20 years of new urbanist planning under Growth Management, and yet another manifestation of gentrification and core densification.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


Posted Wed, Nov 10, 7:41 a.m. Inappropriate

I like seeing Crosscut covering demographic and social justice issues around the region, but from the perspective of someone in (a not particularly poor(who knew, right?) part of) Tacoma, the article is simplistic. While recognizing Seattle as a major base of employment, the "center" of the Tacoma area is Tacoma. One can see similar patterns to the ones the article discusses around Seattle within the south Sound. Even in this recession there seems to be slowly increasing wealth in central and north Tacoma (including parts of Hilltop and the Lincoln District that used to be in really bad shape) and increasing poverty as you move away from Tacoma's core into south Tacoma and its southern and eastern suburbs (the western suburbs on Puget Sound are doing fine). As someone who grew up in Kirkland and Seattle and subsequently moved to Tacoma as an adult, the continuing caricature of Tacoma in the Seattle media -- even in relatively thoughtful media -- would be surprising if I hadn't subscribed to it myself before exploring Tacoma and moving here.

Oh, and why is this article accompanied by a photo of the UW Tacoma campus -- what is that supposed to represent?


Posted Wed, Nov 10, 8:16 a.m. Inappropriate

In the 70's , when we were trying to attract people back to the almost abandoned Seattle consistant with the "Back to the City Movement" all over the Country, Our mantra was "Seattle, a city for all!"

Today, Seattle is "a city for all wealthy and tourists!"

We have sold our soul for the dollar. And ironicly, the people who came back or stayed in the city back then, were rewarded by being priced out.

Seattle has fallen from grace. And it looks like that trend will continue.

What could reverse this pattern, is a continued economic downturn, people walking away from "underwater" residences, increased unemployment, reduction of services, increased crime and the ever crushing impact of the City of Seattle(and State)constant effort to increase or create new ways to replace lost revenue ( ie. increased fees and the spread of paid parking , etc.) .
This reversal will catapult us back to the 70's almost overnight. And we will have to recreate progams (again) to attract people (of all income level and ethnicities)back to the city.

How Ironic and shortsighted!

The blind leading the blind!

Seattle has lost it's bragging rights!

Wake up!

Posted Wed, Nov 10, 8:28 a.m. Inappropriate

I appreciate the analysis and it represents an important topic- how do our policies and regualtions affetc the poor and minority populations?

It uses dramatic language to describe the process, however, and I think that suggests a more violent process than what is actually occuring. For example the subtitle says people are "fleeing", says the that trends are "pushing poor people and families out" and rfers to the "expulsion of the poor and of minorities".

Many minority families have moved to higher economic status and can afford to move to the same areas that middle class white families "flee" to in order to pay less for bigger yards. The removal of race barriers in the 60s did not instantly make welcoming sububan neighborhoods for minorities, but today racially diverse suburbs are becoming more common.

As long as the highways are wide enough to carry all the cars, and the gas is cheap enough, detached single family homes will be preferred by American families of all stripes. Seattle will never again be able to compete in that market, unless we lose our job base like Detroit has.

Posted Wed, Nov 10, 8:51 a.m. Inappropriate

In other words, we're moving toward a more European model.

Seattle is doing reasonably well to remain affordable, via the housing levy and moderate steps to allow new housing supply. Of course, the main method of providing housing to the working class will be the same as it is anywhere: make sure supply stays ahead of demand, so that older units can get gradually cheaper (in relative terms) as they age. Today's affordable housing tends to be the new houses and apartments of 1920, 1970, and even 1990. Thankfully we're not San Francisco, where restrictions on supply mean that even crappy housing is outrageously expensive.


Posted Wed, Nov 10, 12:58 p.m. Inappropriate

I've got to agree with "pika" that it's mistaken to characterize Tacoma as a sort of homogenous suburb of Seattle. Tacoma is the hub of its own social and economic region that encompasses everything from the southern Kitsap Peninsula to Mount Rainier. And there is a whole mosaic of socioeconomic micro-climates within that area. It would be a little like saying "Crime in the Tacoma area is highest in South Tacoma, the Portland Avenue corridor, the Hilltop and King County."


Posted Wed, Nov 10, 2:18 p.m. Inappropriate

The author claims that the "main story" here is gentrification and the "expulsion of the poor and of minorities." It's an unfortunate, narrow outlook that is supported by an abstracted academic view of statistical measures. The reasoning does not take into account Seattle's heritage as a boomtown and a far western frontier city, nor does it bring in mid-century industrial prosperity. Both are long gone eras but have left us with a physical legacy in the urban fabric that does not fall in line with many other places. The city and county have utterly failed to either embrace or mitigate that heritage for decades, and instead have relied on passing the buck over to suburbia grotesque.

The reason there are so few families in the most central areas of Seattle is because there is next to zero housing stock to support it, and almost as little service infrastructure, and what is left is highly competitive. In the last century the core of the city was repeatedly built to accommodate a very transient and mobile labor force. The adjacent in-city suburban neighborhoods were built as show homes for managers and skilled laborers that had incomes to support those quite nice homes. For a long time the flight to the far suburbs diminished the value of these in-city suburban neighborhoods, and nobody gave it much thought. Now that the tide has shifted back to the center they are in very high demand. Through the last building boom, Seattle and the surrounding areas repeated nearly the exact same disparaties in housing stock we've had for 100 years. Tiny urban dwellings for the childless, and large separated single family houses for families.

A century of physical actions on geography is difficult and expensive to change course from. I'd say as long as we continue to visualize our urban places as rough environments existing solely for commerce, and our suburban places as isolated and car-dependent I'd expect this trend to accelerate and continue despite any implied racism or classism.

Posted Wed, Nov 10, 2:48 p.m. Inappropriate

My wife and I left Seattle for the suburbs when we started a family. The reasons, in order of importance:
-Price- A 1,700 sf, 3-bedroom 2.5 bath (2-car garage) home on 8,000 sq-uare feet for the sale price of our 930 sf, 2BR 1BA home on 4,500 sf.
Crime- taggers, gang violence and the city's tacit overlooking or approval of car prowls, graffiti and drug use (can you say "Hempfest?").
-Infrastructure- our new home in Snohomish County was served by well-paved roads with usable sidewalks, our choice of high-speed cable or dsl internet and snow-removal services. Today, sitting in my office on the Seattle side of the ship canal, I still can't get high-speed internet unless I purchase a $500/month T-1 line.
It's not an "urban vs. suburban" issue, it's an issue with a city run by dummies, elected by same.


Posted Wed, Nov 10, 3:31 p.m. Inappropriate

This story is a good example of a description of a manefestation of national policy. In the late 60s, a study was commissioned on the repreated urban uprisings of the 1960s, called the Kerner Report. One of its many (and for these purposes, simplified) conclusions was that in order to stave off further rebellion from poor disenfranchinsed minorities, their communties would have to be broken up and removed from the inner city areas.

The resulting policies grew out of the ideas put forth in works like _Opening Up The Suburbs_ and _Urban Problems and Prospects_. Section 8 and other public housing programs would relocate minority groups (spacial deconcentration) in suburban areas or other parts of the city that were not central to economic life, while vigorously pursuing urban renewal projects and investment to re-attract whites into the cities post-urban flight; what we now call "gentrification", lately under the meme "Urbanism" to reflect the greening of the white middle class.

Anti-poverty programs would be amped up while groups proposing to change the system through revolutionary or even peaceful means were liquidated, their memebers put in the prison system. Seattle is reaping the benefits or downside of this policy, depending on your point of view.

While this does much to create wealth for real estate speculators, and feed liberal guilt, we can see that it does nothing to alleviate poverty, racism, or even the will and ability to express collective anger. The Paris suburbs, modelled on similar lines, exploded with riots not so long ago. The program is a state supported market based policy and investment scheme that has failed, and will fail in Seattle, in time.

For an exellent local analysis of the subject I highly recommend _Securing the Spectacular City_. Get it at the library; it's expensive to buy.


Posted Wed, Nov 10, 4:50 p.m. Inappropriate

".. One is reminded of a New Yorker cartoon from way back in the 1960s, of a conversation between two city leaders. One says, what can we do about these poor people? The other says, Just zone them out!"

So, Mr. Morill, you think different zoning would make for housing available right here in Seattle for low income, perhaps even the unemployed? a highly dubious proposition.

Zoning in Manhattan is not particularly restrictive but I think current trend is for poor people who remain in Manhattan to either live in subsidized housing, dangerous neighborhoods (both in many cases) or move to New Jersey. What is perplexing about Mr. Morill's article is the implication that if we were a properly functioning society poor people could keep living where they lived thirty or forty years ago, preferably with no increase in rent. Where on this earth is that possible? in a free market economy one would expect rich people to be able to live where they want to live. Forty years ago they all wanted to live in Bellevue, now some of them want to live in Seattle. You make that sound like a bad thing.


Posted Wed, Nov 10, 9:23 p.m. Inappropriate

Percentages only tell a bit of the story, also highlighted in the recent "Can We Achieve Social Equity Using Smart Growth?" (which you can watch online, links at
http://thesouthlake.com/2010/09/29/slu-low-income-housing ) Nick Licata's intro showed how the number of units in South Lake Union affordable for those making under 80% of area medium income has dropped precipitously from 60% to only 37%. Oh my! However, the numbers on the report also showed that there had in fact been a net increase of over 300 affordable units. How can both be true? Easy, over 1300 units of middle class housing were also built in the same time period, mostly replacing parking lots. A small amount of upper-income housing was also heavily marketed, leaving many with the mistaken impression that South Lake Union apartments, including the one my middle-income family lives in, were "million dollar condos". That's not to say there's not a lot of work to be done. The event also featured the PolicyLink Equitable Development Tool Kit, and CDOT recently released a set of case studies titled "Preserving Affordable Housing Near Transit".

You may also be interested in some recent research from Canada, which shows that many families prefer a "low-maintenance [apartment] home with a short commute [to] allow for more family time." The survey results fit my family so well that I might even think that Americans and Canadians are similar.
Another problem for Seattle is the lack of suitable apartments; over 90% in my neighborhood are 1 bedroom or smaller, and many of the 2 bedrooms are shared by younger roommates.


Posted Fri, Nov 12, 12:44 a.m. Inappropriate

"Poor" is a relative term. You could also say that Urbist Seattle is grossly overpriced, and no rational person would waste his money living there, unless he was somehow enticed by all the hype about how it was once a "place to be" back in the Nineties. Once all the twenty-somethings grow up and realize that spending $80 on a bowl of "the best Pad Thai ever" isn't as cool as it used to be, the whole thing will evaporate under the pressure of its own absurdity.


Posted Fri, Nov 12, 10:56 p.m. Inappropriate

The author clearly doesn't understand the unique socioeconomic characteristics of this region. Exporting its poor people? Hardly. The author has interpreted the statistics to suit his own view, but really doesn't capture what is actually happening. I don't understand why Crosscut would choose to publish something from someone who clearly cannot imagine other reasons why people might choose to live somewhere other than Seattle by their own volition.

The Growth Management Act is also not all about housing. Incorporation has served communities well by allowing them to form cities and provide neighborhood services such as roads, fire, police, in some cases with better quality compared to Seattle or King County.

First off, not many people desire to live in the city of Seattle. They would much rather prefer to live in a quieter, more suburban neighborhood. There are plenty of affordable places to live within the city limits. But most people prefer to live South or North in the suburbs, for a number of different reasons.

One of the strongest reasons I have observed is the cost of buying a house. Many people choose to live further away from downtown because you can get more bang for your buck on housing. People want the American Dream, they want the big house, with lots of room and a quiet neighborhood to raise their kids in with better, larger roads.

Not only that, many immigrants choose to live away from the Seattle city limits for a number of reasons. Many ethnic groups have come and gone through the region, but increasingly, many choose to move to the South, again because of the large supply of cheap housing and big houses. Big houses to fit large families. Many times, an immigrant will start out with just a couple family members, and when they get established, will bring more family members over from other places.

This is just one example of immigrant patterns. Another is when people move to Seattle area en mass, and already have families; the cheapest place to do this is in the South end. Immigrants also tend to start their own churches, with services held in their native language. Again, it's easier and cheaper to find land to build large new churches away from downtown Seattle. These churches are hubs for immigrants and make it easy to build friendship and also a place to share resources and skills for people just starting out.

Again, cheap housing also has produced a pattern where people begin living on their own very cheaply in the south end, and eventually move closer to the city, or to nicer neighborhoods within the city limits, particularly to the north end, when they perhaps get a better job that pays more money.


Posted Sat, Nov 13, 3:12 p.m. Inappropriate

The legacy of the south end, as a place to live inexpensively, stemmed from lending company redlining and poor or nonexistent city services, all exacerbated by real estate agent 'blockbusting' which at one time had devastated the Seward Park and Madrona neighborhoods as well as the more traditional central district. By the mid-80s real estate prices were firming up, but well into the 90s the south end remained visibly underdeveloped.

At no time, however, did it seem likely that the low prices would last forever- in fact, it seemed inevitable that eventually neighborhoods equally remote from downtown, such as West Seattle, Seward Park, and Loyal Heights in Ballard, would be approximately equally priced.

In another context we might welcome the thought that a city could 'expel' the poor by 'gentrifying'. I mean, how great would that be? You simply turn on the prosperity machine and before you know it, there are too many prosperous people wanting to live in your town. Lots of people before us have searched for such a wonderful machine and had no luck.

But we may have actually found it when we built the Link light rail line to the airport. It's no surprise that property values rise, and rents, when people can ride a train to work. At the same time, this isn't 'gentrification' used as a prybar to expel the poor- a person can afford higher rents if they don't need to pay for and own a car. This is, in fact, a great opportunity to seamlessly integrate low-income and elderly housing, on a transit line, with prosperous market-value development.

Dr. Morrill appears to be saying that a regular program of densification and urban growth boundaries has resulted in a City of Seattle that is more prosperous than the surrounding suburbs. To my way of thinking, that's a feature, not a bug.

Posted Sat, Nov 13, 8:09 p.m. Inappropriate

Thanks for all the comments and different perspectives.
Just wanted to assure the Tacoma folks that I appreciate the diversity and change within Tacoma, but my data only was for large areas, like Tacoma as a whole.


Posted Sat, Nov 13, 10:58 p.m. Inappropriate

In 1974 I was just a poor dumb long hair working minimum wage for Seattle Public Schools, when it became apparent to me that Seattle wasn't a suitable place to live and enjoy life. It was rapidly becoming LA north. Very busy with "Those Kinds Of People", loud busy bodies that thought being heard was much more important then the message. So I left. Haven't missed it. I've lived in several place since that have met my simple criteria as a reasonable place to live. First, neighbors who talk to you or about you but not about themselves. Second, at night one can see the stars and hear the frogs. Third, space and soil for a decent garden. Fourth, has to be a town with a population under 12,000.

In my opinion anybody, rich or poor, that moves out of Seattle has made a wise choice.


Posted Sun, Nov 14, 11:08 a.m. Inappropriate

Some government propagandist hiding behind a screen name posted some real garbage up above:

But we may have actually found it [a way to 'expel' the poor by 'gentrifying'] when we built the Link light rail line to the airport. It's no surprise that property values rise, and rents, when people can ride a train to work. At the same time, this isn't 'gentrification' used as a prybar to expel the poor- a person can afford higher rents if they don't need to pay for and own a car. This is, in fact, a great opportunity to seamlessly integrate low-income and elderly housing, on a transit line, with prosperous market-value development.

The facts don’t support any of that nonsense.

-- Rents and property values have fallen throughout the city in comparison to 2007, which is before light rail was operational. Read about it here:


“Seattle posted the second-fastest quarterly decline, 4.3 percent, of the 25 areas in Zillow's third-quarter report (Atlanta was tops at 5.3 percent). Seattle's median home value, $273,500, was down 10.6 percent from a year ago and 28.2 percent from the peak in June 2007.”

No reliable data suggests that reality is any different for the few residential properties within walking distance of the few light rail stations.

-- No data suggests ST’s light rail has meant any significant number of people gave up cars, or didn’t acquire a car.

-- Whether or not this light rail line represents an “opportunity to seamlessly integrate low-income and elderly housing, on a transit line, with prosperous market-value development” is beside the point. No prosperous market value development is taking place near those stations. SHA building is near those stations, and the one condo project along MLK Jr. drive near a station has been anything but “prosperous” for the developer. Condo prices are dropping and they are auctioning off the oversupply. That reality means there will not be developers trying to make big money by building multi-unit condos near light rail stations anytime soon.

That knob is raising nothing but cheap talking points, unsupported by any data.

If you look at the excessive taxing for transit here (including the unconscionable 1.8% sales tax stacked on top of the already-abusive 7.7% rate) there’s a good argument to be had that the reason so many people remain poor is a function of how transit is managed around here. Regressive taxes that high take food off the tables of poor families, and act as an anchor on local economic activities.


Posted Sun, Nov 14, 2:46 p.m. Inappropriate

Crossrip's 'reasoning' is the same as pointing out that they sold fewer new cars in 1930 than they did in 1927, and concluding that the experiment of the private automobile had been tried, and failed.

Posted Sun, Nov 14, 3:16 p.m. Inappropriate

This has nothing to do with how many cars were sold eighty years ago. Why are you suggesting ST's light rail is some kind of "experiment"?

Your arguments are nothing but hot air:

-- Housing prices and rents have gone down near light rail stations. You have no data to back up your contention to the contrary.

-- Light rail is no substitute for car ownership. You claim otherwise, yet offer no evidence to back that assertion up.

-- Given the oversupply, and still-inflated prices, of condos around here your argument about some kind of profitable condo development boom coming soon near light rail stations is ridiculous.

Who pays you to post nonsense? Tell everybody your name, and who pays you.


Posted Sun, Nov 14, 10:03 p.m. Inappropriate

"-- Rents and property values have fallen throughout the city in comparison to 2007, which is before light rail was operational."

Crossrip, since 2007, we've gone into something called a recession.


Posted Sun, Nov 14, 10:38 p.m. Inappropriate

I don't doubt that the data the article is based on are real. But why the pejorative tone? Are we supposed to be trying to import poor people to Seattle in order to concentrate them in a ghetto? What would be the most socially responsible arrangement of poor people? Should each city have a target? Why is your article not titled "Eastside Communities Continue to Bar Poor People" or "Seattle Now Has Average Number of Poor For Region" or "Due to Poor Planning Poverty Rates Skyrocket in Burien?" What about the average poverty rate of the region? Isn't the goal to lessen poverty overall, rather than try to arrange the poor in a way that conforms to some aesthetic ideal?

I live in a nice neighborhood in Seattle where people know each other by name, where there's enough land to plant a garden and where there are good schools and wonderful parks for my three children. Why all the Seattle bashing? From the comments in this section you would wonder why prices for housing are high in Seattle, since they describe a horrible crime ridden garbage strewn place filled to the brim with vile, antisocial morons.

Finally, Crossrip, rents and property values have fallen near the light rail line since 2007. They've also fallen across the nation, in small towns and in large towns, near light rail and far away from it. You are right, and yet it doesn't prove your point.


Posted Thu, Nov 18, 12:42 p.m. Inappropriate

Dear Crosscut:
Now that you have the attention of sdstarr et al, please ask King County Councilmember Patterson and the Seattle-King County Board of Health to pick up where demographer emeritus Morrill leaves us at the social costs that are actually huge disparities all too easy to dismiss while going about the good life where ever you are. The one liner that will do until then is that it takes people from all walks of life and levels of income to sustain a city, not just snowbirds and hatchlings with high prospects or a securitized mortgage.

True, it is over the top to "confuse" exports with land use policies that exacerbate the re-gentrification forcing all who can not afford it to vote with their feet, for a while driving in to employment until employers with the same problem take up the same search. Fat chance that Seattle hegemony will ever make the top of the "change" docket. The place to start in making that happen is with demographic data at the top of Crosscut's most clicked list, so how about starting a new thread and getting to the heart of the matter?


Posted Fri, Nov 19, 1:39 p.m. Inappropriate

The big message of the past 10, 20 and 30 years is the growing disparity between the incomes of the very wealthy, now occupying the top floors of condo/hotels in both downtown Seattle and downtown Bellevue, not just Medina. Seattle has passed four housing levies since 1980, dedicated to housing affordable for people at less than 60% of the area median income, mostly for people at less than 30% of the median income.

The surrounding suburbs have come late to the table. Suburban municipalities have done far less to fill the gap left when Ronald Reagan's HUD eviscerated public housing, cutting funding by 90%. Seattlites have proven that they are committed to providing "housing for all" by pubic and private means. All of the writers who mention reasons for families, especially larger immigrant families, to settle in South King County and Bellevue, closer to congregations, mosques and ethnic stores, cheaper to start businesses, are correct. Of course, Rainier Valley has this, too, and more diversity than any other zip code. The reasons people still prefer to live in Seattle and are willing to pay a premium are still evident. Seattle is a better place to live, based on housing values.

We thank Prof. Morrill for crunching the numbers and ask him to withhold his values-laced interpretations ("expulsion of the poor"). I respect the writer who chooses to live in towns of fewer than 12,000, where he can see the stars. Obviously, more of us would rather see a play or go to indy movies. Ideally, we will house all our homeless, and people with disabilities and the elderly will have safe, affordable housing close to transportation so they can have choices we all would enjoy to live anywhere in the region. We should each ask, "Where would you live, if cost were no object?" Tacoma??

Posted Sun, Dec 26, 11:29 p.m. Inappropriate

Congressional representation is changing after the release of the Census outcomes. I found this here: Census results lead to 12 seats in Congress changing states There are twelve seats that will belong to different states in the House of Representatives from now on. Republicans are likely to realize the most increases, as the brand new seats are in strong Republican districts.


Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »