Kevin is a city hall reporter and the founder of SCC Insight, a web site focused on providing independent news and analysis of the Seattle City Council and Seattle City Hall in general. In a previous life, he worked for 26 years in the tech industry in a variety of positions but most notably as the COO of the research division at Microsoft.
Kevin volunteers at the Woodland Park Zoo, where he is also on the Board of Directors. He is also the Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees of Harvey Mudd College.
Among the criticisms of the spending plan: transportation gets a short end of the stick, and the money is spread thinly over a series of councilmembers' pet projects. All get a slice of the pie, but there are no big, transformative ideas.
It is well known (and hardly hidden) that Councilmember Sawant’s office staff does not use their “@seattle.gov” accounts the vast majority of the time. Instead, they have set up their own separate Gmail accounts that they use as their primary email accounts for conducting official city business.
In an email response this Tuesday to an inquiry as to how she planned to handle potential conflicts of interest with EOI, Morales said, “The Seattle Office of Ethics and Elections is clear that there is no conflict unless a matter comes before Council in which EOI has a financial interest. If that happens I would have to recuse myself, which I plan to do.” This is incorrect.
The new proposed bill still has all of the major issues that the original draft did. On top of that, it’s rent control, and there is broad consensus among economists that rent control doesn’t work as advertised and is poor policy.
If Seattle is going to succeed as a one-party town, it needs to figure out how to have a real culture of ethics in city government in the absence of political pressures to resist external influence and conflicts of interest.
He went off and wrote a 110-page order – essentially he wrote an entire book – granting the preliminary injunction. In doing so he crafted an initial remedy that goes well beyond what the plaintiffs asked for.
One problem with the original tax proposal: An employer that does no business in Seattle could end up paying taxes on the compensation paid to an employee who does no work in Seattle, simply because that employee chooses to live in Seattle — a choice outside the employer’s control. The Court is unlikely to approve this aspect.
Seattle Public Utilities expects that for a typical single-family home, the monthly bill will increase $15 this year, with smaller increases in the following years. An apartment will see an increase of about $4 per month this year, with slightly larger increases in the subsequent years.
The proposed amendment is a loud message to the Mayor, the City Council, and the City Attorney that they have bickered themselves into irrelevance. Their endless infighting and incremental tweaks are no longer fooling anyone into believing that they are going to make a difference to homelessness in Seattle.