Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Pat Copeland and Al & Sue John some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    Tim Burgess to Kshama Sawant: Keep it brief

    An awkward exchange at Monday's Seattle City Council briefing pointed to the emergence of possible tensions among council members.
    Kshama Sawant wants colleagues to take a public stand on Gaza.

    Kshama Sawant wants colleagues to take a public stand on Gaza. Credit: Allyce Andrew

    In a somewhat awkward moment during Monday’s City Council briefing, Council President Tim Burgess tried repeatedly to rein-in Socialist Kshama Sawant. The rookie councilmember was working her way through a hodgepodge of policy topics, from ridesharing to food stamp cuts to wage theft. Eventually, Burgess cut her off mid-sentence.

    The meeting was intended to give councilmembers a chance to inform each other about their committee work and personal initiatives. Staff members from the Office of Intergovernmental Relations, who lobby state lawmakers on Seattle’s behalf, were also at the table providing an update on their work in Olympia. Burgess, responsible for keeping the meeting on schedule, pushed to keep conversations and comments at the briefing, well… brief.

    Early in the meeting, as councilmembers discussed the now months-long effort to regulate ridesharing, Sawant weighed in. She said that as the council considers how to regulate companies like Lyft and Uber, its central focus should be looking out for “working people” who drive taxis, flat-rate cars and rideshare vehicles. Sawant also noted that financial corporations like Goldman Sachs back rideshare companies. “We're not talking about a level playing field,” she said. 

    Councilmember Sally Bagshaw pushed back a bit, recommending that the council also consider the importance of traffic congestion reduction and citywide transportation options. “I'd really hate to pit one of these social goods against the other,” she said.

    Burgess, with an eye on time, cut off the conversation, encouraging members to attend a Friday committee meeting on ridesharing regulations. The council moved on to other business.

    But, when given another chance to make remarks, Sawant again raised ridesharing.

    “The idea that demand has skyrocketed for expensive convenience is not in line with the evidence from the recession,” she said. “In fact, demand, you know, has gone down and I know that there's a study that shows that, which I don't have access to right now, so I can't talk about it.”

    “But if you talk to just taxi drivers who are on the street,” she continued, “they can see how their daily business is changing and they will tell you that, actually, that's not correct. And just from an economic stand point it doesn't seem—”

    “So councilmember Sawant,” Burgess interrupted, “I think we've put that discussion off until Friday's committee meeting, so if you have any other updates—”

    “I'm just getting to the next points,” she said.

    "Please," Burgess said.

    Sawant went on to discuss the Senate’s failure to extend unemployment benefits and the Farm Bill signed last week by President Barack Obama, which included food stamp cuts.

    “Ultimately the lobby of the super-wealthy is going to outweigh us, and so we need to build mass movements,” she said. “I wanted to announce that Feb. 15, Saturday, will be a big day for $15now.org, the grassroots campaign that is underway and that I'm supporting.”

    Sawant described some of the day’s planned events, which will include music, workshops, education and discussion about how to counter arguments designed to “demonize” minimum wage increases.

    Burgess tried to interrupt. “Ok, thank you,” he said.

    But Sawant carried on, saying that she wanted to see if representatives from the police department could brief the council on wage theft reporting. “A couple of weeks ago, a local restaurant worker — ”

    “Councilmember Sawant, excuse me,” Burgess said. “You can take that matter up with councilmember Harrell and if he — ”

    “I just wanted, because this is the public meeting, I wanted to — ”

    “No, we're done with your section now,” Burgess said. “I'm sorry.”

    Bill Lucia writes about Seattle City Hall and politics for Crosscut. He can be reached at bill.lucia@crosscut.com and you can follow him on Twitter @bill_lucia.

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


    Posted Mon, Feb 10, 7:55 p.m. Inappropriate

    Sawant thinks the Council should take sides based on the relative economic power of the companies involved in the different segments of the ride-for-hire industry, and the generalized economic situation of their employees. Others focus on racial disparity of the drivers in different segments.

    What about the riding public? We ought to count for more, because there are more of us. The system which prevailed until a few years ago -- the one that is still on the books -- was terrible, an artificial cartel creating scarcity and bad service. Competition has brought more options, better and better experiences.

    It seems that our newest council member sees these issues through one lens, ideological blinders which cause her to ignore the majority. The taxi cartel, like ALL cartels, should be broken up and opened to all who can comply with basic safety standards.


    Posted Mon, Feb 10, 8:18 p.m. Inappropriate

    Except there is only so much business for the "cartel." So, if you open up the market to anyone who wants to enter, you drive the per capita income down. I.e., a race to the bottom similar to tragedy of the commons, with similar consequences. [Sure, there will be some expansion of the market with decreased prices, but how far will that take you?]

    Do you know of any city that doesn't limit entry to the ride-for-hire market? If there are any, I'd be curious to know how it works.


    Posted Mon, Feb 10, 9:19 p.m. Inappropriate

    I'm no expert, but something like our battles is fought in California and there has been nothing tragic except for those who must compete.

    Somehow the restaurant business has survived without a fixed number of permits. And they allow food trucks now! Is that a tragedy?


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 12:23 p.m. Inappropriate

    If you can cogently respond to cvandy's posts, I'll reconsider my skepticism. As for restaurants, about half fail (or get sold) within three years of opening. Is that the business model you recommend for the ride-for-hire industry as well?


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 2:21 p.m. Inappropriate

    with fewer young adults choosing to own cars and more people living longer in life, there is a definite need and market for more options. None of these companies, taxis included would work for no profit. Most important in this issue in my opinion is the reduction in drunk drivers on our roadways. that alone has me fighting for expansion of transit options.


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 9 p.m. Inappropriate

    Young people are missing the independent boat by not choosing to own cars. You'll figure that out one of these days.

    You are fighting for more transit options for drunks?? What is wrong with a taxi?

    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 9:30 p.m. Inappropriate

    There aren't enough regular taxis. Seattle Municipal Code 6.310.500 makes sure of that.


    Posted Mon, Feb 10, 8:33 p.m. Inappropriate

    Well, Sawant could be a bit more synthesized true. But, Rasmussen's follow up comment was critical of a process that stops discussion or sharing of issues council members are concerned about.

    And, Sawant was absolutely correct that ALL the drivers have more in common than differences.

    Posted Mon, Feb 10, 8:45 p.m. Inappropriate

    Those discussion are better geared for council workshops. She'll learn how to work things out, otherwise she won't get the votes she'll want to have from her fellow council.

    Posted Mon, Feb 10, 11:12 p.m. Inappropriate

    I'm reminded of Sen. Magnuson's oft-repeated line, about there being two types of politicians -- work horses and show horses. I sense that CM Sawant is campaigning for the latter title.

    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 7:28 a.m. Inappropriate

    What he said.


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 7:46 a.m. Inappropriate

    Sawant is proving that she's not a team player, which in itself may be good or bad in this particular setting. That Goldman Sachs likes rideshare businesses shouldn't matter beyond the fact they obviously believe it's a good investment for them and they've got a proven track record (for better or worse) of making money off those investments.

    Maybe these councilors should consider WHY Goldman Sachs thinks rideshare businesses are a good idea instead of people like Sawant (who claims to be "for the people") trying to limit the choices of how those without their own cars navigate through the city? How is it populism when you seek to make getting around difficult for the general population by doing the bidding of one form of business lobby against another? Is it going to become illegal to loan your kid your own car to go to a ballgame or the prom because that's money the taxi drivers won't be making?

    For all her socialist rhetoric, Kshama Sawant is proving to be yet one more politician beholden to the lobbies of those who helped elect her. Just what Seattle needs.

    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 4:38 p.m. Inappropriate

    GB, I think you missed Councilmember Sawant's point about Goldman Sachs' involvement in the situation. At about 15:20 into the briefing, she said, "I want to emphasize that despite all the complexity in the issue, at the end of the day it is about the interests of-- I would think that the job of the council is to emphatically look out for the interests of working people, and so across the board, the individual taxi drivers, the individual drivers who work for for-hire companies, and the drivers who work for Uber: They're all looking for a way to make a living, and that's the underlying issue. And that has to be correctly contrasted with the fact that the TNCs are underwritten by major financial corporations like Goldman Sachs, so you're not talking about a level playing field by any stretch of the imagination. At the end of the day, the issue is about living wage jobs, and that has to be kept at the center."


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 8:44 p.m. Inappropriate

    Thank you for this quotation. At the end of the day, the issue is about meeting customer demand. The alternative is what we had until a few years ago -- too many people with no way to get home except driving under the influence. The old cartel system did not work, except for its members. The TNC's are providing better service to the public. Sawant ignores the public interest in this at her peril.


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 9:02 p.m. Inappropriate

    What? You're fighting for drunk transportation too?

    YIKES. Taxis have always been the traditional way, and from what we've been told here, the TNC's won't go outside of the close-in city anyway.

    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 10:10 a.m. Inappropriate

    The taxicab industry has no problem with "rideshare"---people sharing their vehicles, and offsetting expense of operation, with the sharing of rides, from one neighborhood or point of origin to another.

    What we have a problem with, is people cruising around in motor vehicles, waiting for a dispatch from a dispatch company or an App, driving to a pick-up point, taking the passenger wherever they are going, and then hanging around that area for the next dispatch or App customer.... this is what taxicabs do, what we are licensed and regulated to do; the regulation balances any number of factors to make sure the system works, reliably. At all hours of the day and night.

    What we don't understand, is why rideshare companies object to the imposition of a regulation that says, the operator cannot be reimbursed more than the expense of operating the vehicle. In other words, if Lyft is 'rideshare' and not 'taxicab in drag', why do Lyft operators get paid $18 per hour, and expect to make a living at the job, cruising the City for dispatches?

    Lyft, Sidecar, Uber would be a bit less controversial, if they would quit acting like they need to lie to the public, about who and what they are. If they want to act like taxicabs, all we ask, as taxicabs, is that they consent to acting within the scope of regulations developed over time, to protect the public, and ensure a viable taxicab fleet exists in Seattle.

    And on that last point, Seattle deregulated taxicabs, allowed unlimited entry into the taxicab marketplace, in 1979. In 1984, the hospitality industry, the city, the taxicab industry, together went to Olympia, and asked the legislature to authorize reregulation------because deregulation had decimated taxi service in Seattle. And that was, uniformly, the same experience in every major city that has attempted deregulation of its local taxicab industry.

    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 3:07 p.m. Inappropriate

    Many employees are compensated more than the expense of operating their business. That is none of the government's business. The regulations developed over time include a fixed number of licenses which has not increased in decades, and which is now proposed to increased by an amount which neither riders nor drivers think is sufficient -- only the holders of existing permits support the status quo.

    The hospitality, entertainment, and especially the nightlife industry support innovative services and oppose the current cartel system. Much has changed since 1984. The innovative services are providing more and better service for the public than the cartel system did.

    You call for a system which is reliable at all hours, which was not the situation before innovation outside the cartel framework began.

    Government is under no obligation to protect or pay off the holders of cartel authority. Changes in technology and transportation have altered many industries. Most have adapted. Some have demanded government protection from the winds of change.

    Personally, I mourn the ongoing and increasing difficulties faced by retail book stores. I do not favor government programs to pay them nor to limit competition by Amazon and others. Government is having enough trouble doing what it must (basic services and infrastructure) without trying to redress every imbalance caused by inevitable changes. Powerful lobbying is the only difference here.


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 9:04 p.m. Inappropriate

    "You call for a system which is reliable at all hours, which was not the situation before innovation outside the cartel framework began."

    Or you could rent a hotel room and sleep it off.

    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 10:57 a.m. Inappropriate

    Actually, many US cities have deregulated the taxi industry and achieved a positive outcome for their citizens. Minneapolis, Denver, and Milwaukee to name a few. Most taxi drivers do not own their licenses, they rent them. Deregulation allows drivers to obtain their own licenses, and better control their own destiny. The regulated taxi industry only benefits a few people, those who could afford the artificially inflated licenses, and profits by renting them out to drivers. Since most drivers pay around $600 a week to the owners of the license, and after paying for gas, they earn less than minimum wage for the hours they put in. So I'm not sure why Ms. Sawant is trying to protect the owners of taxi licenses.


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 10:57 a.m. Inappropriate

    Actually, many US cities have deregulated the taxi industry and achieved a positive outcome for their citizens. Minneapolis, Denver, and Milwaukee to name a few. Most taxi drivers do not own their licenses, they rent them. Deregulation allows drivers to obtain their own licenses, and better control their own destiny. The regulated taxi industry only benefits a few people, those who could afford the artificially inflated licenses, and profits by renting them out to drivers. Since most drivers pay around $600 a week to the owners of the license, and after paying for gas, they earn less than minimum wage for the hours they put in. So I'm not sure why Ms. Sawant is trying to protect the owners of taxi licenses.


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 11:16 a.m. Inappropriate

    "Deregulation allows drivers to obtain their own licenses, and better control their own destiny. The regulated taxi industry only benefits a few people, those who could afford the artificially inflated licenses, and profits by renting them out to drivers. Since most drivers pay around $600 a week to the owners of the license, and after paying for gas, they earn less than minimum wage for the hours they put in. So I'm not sure why Ms. Sawant is trying to protect the owners of taxi licenses."

    Your statement has no basis in fact. Taxicab licenses in Seattle and King County are owned by over 700 Seattle families, most immigrant, minority, refugee, many of whom have been involved with, and rebuilt, the industry here, since re-regulation. There have been successive waves of immigration, reflective of conflict in India Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia, many of whom found refuge and economic success in the rebuilding of an industry that was, for all practical purposes, abandoned, with deregulation. Nobody else wanted it. The work is difficult, and dangerous. For the most part, the licenses are transferable, and their value reflects the ability of an individual to earn an income, in the industry. That is why we have mathematicians, doctors, lawyers, farmers, accountants--whose licenses for their professions or their educations are not recognized in this country----working as cab owner/operators. To purchase licenses, many borrow from friends and family; this practice is acknowledged, by ordinance, by the City. The City has an interest, certainly moral, if not legal, in not taking action that will result in the precipitous devaluation of those licenses----so yes, if the city is seen as protecting the 'value' of those licenses, it is doing nothing more than protecting the economic stability of one of its larger, more critical industries. Not to speak of its citizens, and their families, numbering into the many thousands......

    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 2:34 p.m. Inappropriate

    More important is reducing the rate of drunk driving in our great city. Also competition if done fairly is good for the public at large. I'm all for raising the level of entry for TNCs, while streamlining and lowering Taxi regulation to even out the playing field. But no government can protect an industry from change. Just ask the record and video stores that are no longer around. The genie is out of the bottle people, there is no going back. As for the issue of hurting the immigrant class, I do sympathize with that point, but expanding the topic to diversity in the workplace, one finds that the Taxi industry woefully lacking in female workers, while Lyft's ratio of female workers is near 40%. We cant pick and choose stats, the issues of mobility and safety are too important.


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 11:22 a.m. Inappropriate

    Disclosure, cvandyk5@msn.com is

    General Manager,
    GreenCab Taxi & Disabled Services Association LLC

    GreenCab is a worker-owned taxicab company, dispatching our licensed taxicab vehicles in King County. The allowance of unlicensed, uninsured, illegal operation of fake taxicabs in Seattle and King County, has put severe economic pressure on this company. We do not object to rideshare---so long as it is operated legally, and not for compensation of the operator----doing so makes it, as noted above, just like us.

    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 5:06 p.m. Inappropriate

    What I have seen from the taxi lobby/union is:

    -- These companies do not have to play by the same rules as us. It's unfair.

    What I have NOT seem from the taxi lobby/union is:

    -- The Uber/Lyft/Sidecar models have clearly taken off for a reason. People like the customer service aspect of it. They like the reliability and the predictability of it. They like the fact that no one balks at taking a credit card and that the cars do not smell. They also like that the drivers are polite.
    -- An acknowledgment that if the taxi drivers want more respect that they need to stop complaining about how unfair things are and realize that they need to improve their offering. It is inferior by a long way.

    You can sit there and complain about the legalities of things, but to me, you (and your colleagues) have done nothing to show that you need to adapt to changing consumer tastes. So I will continue to badger my elected representatives to not cap ridesharing options and will vote out anyone who votes to cap those companies.

    BTW the current legal set of taxis and their drivers are not safe! Stop with saying otherwise. They drive like maniacs and don't take care of their cars. Please stop insulting people by stating otherwise.
    Stop complaining and start changing to meet customer demands.

    Posted Wed, Feb 12, 2:48 p.m. Inappropriate

    The Lyft/uber/sidecar model has also taken off because the drivers are cutting corners. The vehicles are not insured.


    Posted Wed, Feb 12, 4:24 p.m. Inappropriate

    So fine - make them get insurance. BTW, I'd also like an audit that every medallion owner (or licensed yellow cab driver) isn't loaning their cab out to a relative when they aren't working. How am I protected if the owner of the taxi has his brother driving and they get into an accident?

    And once again, no one addresses the way better customer service associated with Lyft/Uber/Sidecar model. I take those because they are reliable, clean and polite. Seattle taxis - they are none of those.

    Posted Wed, Feb 12, 6:07 p.m. Inappropriate

    @clown, the TNCs say that they can't make money if they have to provide the vehicle insurance and that they are not going to do it. The part time drivers say that they can't make it they have to purchase commercial insurance for their vehicle.

    I am certainly willing to call their bluff on this. But if it turns out to be true then their "innovation" was based on nothing more than insurance fraud and cutting corners.

    Posted Wed, Feb 12, 6:24 p.m. Inappropriate

    I can't reply to your most recent comment for some reason.

    I want to see how they respond to insurance requirements if the caps are removed.

    That said, I call BS on how you characterize their innovation. They are innovative because they deliver cars to people when they say they will, take credit cards and make transactions seamless, and are easy to deal with.

    Taxi drivers have not done anything like that and I have not heard one thing from them on how they have improved their offering since Uber/Lyft/Sidecar have entered the marketplace. Their value prop has been about "wah wah... not fair". Compete on the offering.

    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 7:53 p.m. Inappropriate

    Sir, would you and your company protest an ordinance which would entirely remove the ceiling on the number of taxi licenses, currently set at 850 in Seattle Municipal Code 6.310.500? Or do you prefer that the government limit competition in your industry in this way?

    All should browse Chapter 6.310 of the Seattle Municipal Code to see all the restrictions and barriers there. What other competitive industry is subject to such restrictions, even without the ceiling on competitors? Antiquated and disgraceful!


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 9:06 p.m. Inappropriate

    Check out the terms of having a fishing boat license.

    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 9:29 p.m. Inappropriate

    That would be to conserve a scarce resource, correct? Customers willing to pay for a ride home (rather than drive) are a large and growing "resource," and we should encourage more of it in the interests of public safety.


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 11:43 a.m. Inappropriate

    This takes "please buy our paper 'the socialist revolutionary whatever' and come to our panel discussion" to a whole new level.

    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 11:55 a.m. Inappropriate

    I understand the worry about diluting the pool of taxi service to such an extent that one can no longer earn a living wage. It also does not seem fair that ride share services are not regulated, but taxis are regulated with respect to fares, requiring a business license, requiring BUSINESS liability insurance, requiring a taxi license, and requiring regular inspections. These all amount to legitimate business expenses that ride share services appear to dodge as well as collecting the taxes necessary to fund the regulating agency.

    A $1 million umbrella policy held by the ride share company will not go very far in the event of an accident by one of their workers, a criminal act by a driver, or a criminal act against a driver. A PERSONAL auto insurance policy held by the driver is not valid for BUSINESS use.

    Consider a house painter - yes, you can hire a laborer from the street at Home Depot and pay him/her under the table, but there are risks to the homeowner associated with doing so. They may do a fine job, maybe not. A painting business is licensed, bonded, and insured to provide some consumer protection for the homeowner in the event that the project or relationship goes south. Not perfect, but something.


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 3:08 p.m. Inappropriate

    I've used both kinds of painters. It was my choice. I'm a grown-up in a free country, and wish to be treated as such.


    Posted Tue, Feb 11, 9:06 p.m. Inappropriate

    Elizabeth Smart had parents who used drifters too.

    Posted Wed, Feb 12, 8:58 a.m. Inappropriate

    Regardless whether we deregulate or require licenses and quotas, etc., the story will change. We're seeing a change right now with the introduction of rideshares. Another change is coming, though not for several more years.

    When we can rent a driverless car, the entire taxi quota system will become mute. I can rent a car right now, without respect to any taxi laws. I'm pretty sure, in the future, I'll be able to rent a driverless car without having to stay within some quota.

    Thus, I'll "hire" the car, it will come and pick me up, take me where I'm going, then park somewhere till "dispatched" to the next customer.

    I don't see the existing system working very well so I say let's embrace the current changes, remove quotas, and otherwise require all the same rules for rideshare and taxis.


    Posted Wed, Feb 12, 2 p.m. Inappropriate

    I'm with you on the driverless cars. It will be here sooner than some think, and government agencies will start to only allowing transit and driverless cars on certain roadways. People will look back at this time as weird and quaint, that humans actually controlled the driving. The gained efficiencies in energy used and time spent and the massive reduction in accidents will usher in the change. Here is to the future.


    Posted Wed, Feb 12, 2:28 p.m. Inappropriate

    As I re-read this article I begin to fear Crosscut starting to go the way of Publicola -- breathless and incomplete gossip without background. For example, scope of Monday morning meetings has been an 'undercurrent' issue for some time.

    Posted Wed, Feb 12, 2:45 p.m. Inappropriate

    Lyft, Sidecar and UberX are putting uninsured vehicles on the street. Also their drivers are not covered for on the job injuries.


    These companies are backed by deep pocket capitalists such as Goldman-Sachs, Jeff Bezos, Marc Andreesen, David Horowitz, and Google. They seek to privatize profits and socialize costs by dumping their liabilities on auto insurance consumers and taxpayers.

    Posted Wed, Feb 12, 2:56 p.m. Inappropriate

    Most people on this thread are not opposed to requiring an evening out of the insurance issue. But the fact is that there will be more companies like the current TNCs entering the marketplace, not all backed by big business, and why does the funding matter in this issue anyways. My house loan is held by B of A, so does that make my a shrill for big business? More transit options & more public safety!


    Posted Sun, Feb 16, 11:27 a.m. Inappropriate

    I think the politicians are looking at the wrong things to help low income people. Do they ever ask low income people what they want? Or do they just talk to advocates and activists who have larger agendas?

    As a poor person I would like less government in my life. Less looking over my shoulder. More freedom. More choices.

    A taxi cab is an expensive luxury. I am not sure why no one realizes that. Let's finance the King County bus services creatively and make them free across King County. And to downtown Everett, Olympia, and Everett. And to Boeing. That is about as green and pro low income you can get. Mobility that is flexible and over used.

    The Orca card was a huge hit on the poor. You could only refill it at two places and had to have $5 in cash on you or the transaction was rejected with no error message. You could no longer transfer easily between different bus systems. The poor just take this stuff on the chin and deal with it. The project planners laud themselves on how well they help people out. The politicians close the books on another job well done. By Bertha. By public toilets. :-) the poor ended up being discarded guinea pigs. The negative impacts of the political decisions were never measured or even thought about. The $15 an hour wage and Obamcare have the same feel to them. The under represented will suffer from the resulting inflation much worse. And they will just take ACA on the chin and deal with less freedom and higher costs.


    Posted Sun, Feb 16, 6:23 p.m. Inappropriate

    Pretty much.

    Posted Mon, Feb 17, 12:50 a.m. Inappropriate

    Considering the fact that ex-Councilmember Conlin did not get called out for saying anything in his 16 years on Council (which could have been due to the fact that he really didn't say anything but just smiled beatifically), there seems to be a bit of patronizing going on by Burgess toward Sawant.

    And also by Slog commenters toward Sawant. Ever since she won (and she did win, you know, by getting more votes), there's been a constant crumbeat of "She's got to x and y and z if she wants to stay on Council" and "She's beholden to the lobbies who elected her". If the latter means the people who actually VOTED for her...well, yes, she'd better be beholden to us. So don't worry about us; we'll let you know when she isn't.


    Posted Mon, Feb 17, 1:35 p.m. Inappropriate

    Conlin said a lot, and some of the time it was knowingly inaccurate or misleading. He simply had too much power for anyone to call him on it. We voters need to remember the lesson: When any elected official is too arrogant, they are not representing us, only themselves (and their campaign contributors).


    Posted Mon, Feb 17, 7:18 p.m. Inappropriate

    Which suggests that many who voted for Sawant were motivated to defeat Conlin. That motivation will not be available to her in 2015


    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »