NWMLS: Listings Inch Up, Sales Dip, Prices Slip

Get access to the full spreadsheets used to make the charts in this and other posts, as well as a variety of additional insider benefits by becoming a member of Seattle Bubble.

July market stats were published by the NWMLS yesterday. Here’s an excerpt from the NWMLS press release:

Some Brokers See Early Signs of “A More Balanced Market”

Home prices are still rising but the supply of homes is improving, prompting brokers to suggest some relief is in sight for would-be buyers. “We might actually be starting to move very slowly back toward a more balanced market,” said OB Jacobi, president of Windermere Real Estate, in commenting on July’s figures from Northwest Multiple Listing Service.

“We are experiencing a record breaking market,” exclaimed J. Lennox Scott, chairman and CEO of John L. Scott, Inc. “Last month was the best July in history in the Puget Sound real estate market. We’re in a frenzy hot market with a large backlog of buyers.” He credits improving inventory with spurring sales. “That additional inventory gave us the boost to not only be able to claim an all-time, best ever July, but to also position the last three months as the best in history for [pending] sales activity in the Puget Sound region.”

Slow down and take a breath, Lennox. Sheesh. Anyway, you didn’t come here to read hyperventilating home salesmen. You came here for the data, so let’s get on with the stats.

CAUTION

NWMLS monthly reports include an undisclosed and varying number of
sales from previous months in their pending and closed sales statistics.

Here’s your King County SFH summary, with the arrows to show whether the year-over-year direction of each indicator is favorable or unfavorable news for buyers and sellers (green = favorable, red = unfavorable):

July 2016 Number MOM YOY Buyers Sellers
Active Listings 3,554 +11.9% +0.1%
Closed Sales 2,803 -3.1% -3.3%
SAAS (?) 1.33 -1.3% +13.1%
Pending Sales 3,198 -4.9% +<0.1%
Months of Supply 1.27 +15.5% +3.5%
Median Price* $555,000 -3.2% +14.4%

Last month I said that we might hit “positive year-over-year territory by the end of this month” and sure enough, here we are. In July, for the first time since September 2014, inventory did not set a new record low for the respective month. We still have a long way to go to get to anything remotely resembling a balanced market, but you can’t walk around the world until you take the first step.

Prices dipped slightly from June to July, and closed sales were down both month-over-month and year-over-year.

Here’s your closed sales yearly comparison chart:

King County SFH Closed Sales

Closed sales fell 3 percent from June to July, and were also down 3 percent from a year earlier.

Pending sales dropped off a bit again in July (they set an all-time high in May), and were basically flat year-over-year (there was one more pending sale this July than in July 2015).

King County SFH Pending Sales

Here’s the graph of inventory with each year overlaid on the same chart.

King County SFH Inventory

This is the first year-over-year increase we’ve seen in inventory since August 2014.

Here’s the supply/demand YOY graph. “Demand” in this chart is represented by closed sales, which have had a consistent definition throughout the decade (unlike pending sales from NWMLS).

King County Supply vs Demand % Change YOY

The blue supply line crossed into positive territory finally, just barely. Meanwhile the red demand line turned back down just barely, reversing the trend of recent months.

Here’s the median home price YOY change graph:

King County SFH YOY Price Change

Year-over-year price growth was basically unchanged at 14 percent in July.

And lastly, here is the chart comparing King County SFH prices each month for every year back to 1994 (not adjusted for inflation).

King County SFH Prices

July 2016: $555,000
July 2007: $481,000 (previous cycle high)

Here’s this month’s article from the Seattle Times: Owners flip new Seattle condos for big profit before they even open

Check back on Monday for the full reporting roundup.

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

About The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market. Tim also hosts the weekly improv comedy sci-fi podcast Dispatches from the Multiverse.

201 comments:

  1. 1
    Buyer says:

    Where are the Snohomish county stats?

  2. 2
    Matt says:

    …looks like we are quite neatly fitting to yearly trends. As far as the small price dip: not surprising given the explosive run-up this year nor is it out of line with historic small blips. Let’s see if we settle around a price level for the remainder of the year as we have in the past. Next Spring is what will be more telling about whether or not this market is done rising, I think.

  3. 3
    ess says:

    http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2016/08/01/apartment-rents-climbing-4-times-faster-in-seattle.html

    Article about rents. Interestingly, rents are increasing faster in cheaper areas surrounding Seattle, and sales of apartment buildings are also increasing outside of Seattle. Those that can’t afford Seattle are moving north and south. We see this where we reside.

    Note – there are a number of other jurisdictions where rents are even higher than Seattle. Thus Seattle rents are more the norm than an outlier when compared to other major cities. Some cities have higher rents – some have lower, and Seattle is comfortably in the middle.

    A healthy rental market with increasing rents should help maintain a healthy real estate market in the near future.

  4. 4
    GoHawks says:

    RE: Matt @ 2 – couldn’t agree more Matt. This time of year is always quieter. The true test/turn will be a sluggish February-June.

  5. 5
    AJT says:

    Here’s a couple of articles that are consist with this one. Whether this is the start of a normalization, who knows??? But there does seem to be more non-there’s no where to go but up articles out there then I’ve seen in a while. Especially the metro study. Only time will tell though.
    http://seattle.curbed.com/2016/8/4/12370942/seattle-housing-market-slowdown

    http://www.metrostudy.com/seattle-housing-2q16-time-caution-amidst-growth-record-prices-signs-slowdown-appear/

  6. 6
    Justme says:

    RE: ess @ 3

    Look! We are NOT the most expensive city, rent-wise, in the US. Clearly that means that rents are reasonable, will rise, and house prices will continue to rise as well. No question about it. Just buy, at whatever price they are asking. I’m telling you, you can’t go wrong!

  7. 7

    RE: Justme @ 6

    ” Just buy, at whatever price they are asking. I’m telling you, you can’t go wrong!”

    Was that a joke? I’m terrible at recognizing snark. Who is “they”? You can’t be serious.

  8. 8
    redmondjp says:

    I’m calling peak bubble for my area of Redmond (around Grasslawn Park). Yesterday, I counted six open house signs in as many blocks. I cannot remember the last time that I have seen that many signs in such a short distance. Maybe back in the early 2000s.

    There are still two $1.45M new (Quadrant) homes for sale behind me, so you still have your opportunity to live in this exclusive neighborhood.

  9. 9
    Doug says:

    RE: Ardell DellaLoggia @ 7 – Very much a joke. Justme is the biggest bear here.

  10. 10
    ess says:

    http://www.seattlepi.com/realestate/article/Affordable-Seattle-open-homes-under-400-000-8661640.php

    Hopefully I have the correct article above. Embedded in an article about “inexpensive” housing in Seattle is a discussion about new rental construction. Apparently, only 7% of the new rental construction that has come on the market after 2014 in Seattle was priced in the lower third of housing rentals. Thus the new rental construction will not put downward pressure on prices, and the housing market should remain fairly stable in the short term.

  11. 11
    js says:

    By AJT @ 5: http://www.metrostudy.com/seattle-housing-2q16-time-caution-amidst-growth-record-prices-signs-slowdown-appear/

    “The state’s in‐migration has hit negative numbers for the first time in over 4 years,” said Todd Britsch, Regional Director of Metrostudy’s Seattle region. “April and May both saw a net negative state migration totaling –3,457 people…”

    Interesting that the state had a net loss of population. Anyone know how many left King County? Maybe Seattle isn’t that special to everyone?

  12. 12

    RE: js @ 11 – This is not that valuable of a piece of evidence, but in my searches for buyers I’ve been seeing fewer relocation listings than say a year or two ago. Maybe it’s the area or price range, meaning my searches for buyers vary over time, and certainly wouldn’t be as accurate as say checking the total number of REO listings in King County every month. Also, not all people who move for their employer get a relocation package, so their sales might show up as a regular listing (or even a rental).

    Another large group of people moving out would be retirees, and the higher prices may be allowing more to move now. I always felt sorry for people who retired in 2009-2011, because the equity that they had in their homes would have likely declined substantially, just due to bad timing.

  13. 13
    ess says:

    Re: Kary @11
    Another large group of people moving out would be retirees, and the higher prices may be allowing more to move now. I always felt sorry for people who retired in 2009-2011, because the equity that they had in their homes would have likely declined substantially, just due to bad timing.

    ————————————————————————————————————————

    Yep – got a trip next month to Arizona to do two things. Hike in the beautiful deserts, but also look at housing and various communities down there with an eye to relocate. Housing is so much cheaper in Arizona than in Puget Sound, as well as the real estate taxes. Two negatives – long hot summers, and state income tax. On the other hand – we have long dreary winters, as well as high property taxes that always seem to be rising after every election.

  14. 14
    wreckingbull says:

    RE: ess @ 13 – The other negative is water shortage. In fact, this will prove to be the primary negative in years to come. It’s getting ugly down there.

  15. 15
    ess says:

    By wreckingbull @ 14:

    RE: ess @ 13 – The other negative is water shortage. In fact, this will prove to be the primary negative in years to come. It’s getting ugly down there.

    Yep – it will be a problem – although water desalinization plants are coming on line in the west and that entire industry will not only get bigger but more efficient. Of course the vast majority of water in any state is usually used by agriculture – and I can’t even grow a decent tomato.

  16. 16
    redmondjp says:

    RE: wreckingbull @ 14 – Las Vegas is also at risk. They have now completed their THIRD water intake from Lake Mead, which basically sucks from the bottom of the lake. They completed Intake number 2 about 14 years ago and it was at risk from the ever-lowering water levels so they started on the third intake:

    https://www.snwa.com/about/regional_cip_intake.html
    https://www.snwa.com/about/regional_intake3.html

    The sad thing is, you’d never guess how dire the situation is by reading anything on the above-linked website. There are times when alarm bells need to be sounded, but aren’t. Lack of potable water in the western and southwestern US is a far greater concern and immediate threat to our survival than that other topic championed by a former preacher who has turned the cause into great personal gain.

    Regionally, we have falling aquifer levels in our dry eastern regions of the state, and nitrate contamination from agriculture and failed septic systems also are significant threats in rural areas.

    [edit] I just found a newspaper article regarding fast-tracking intake #3 – at least somebody got how serious the situation was (and still is):

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/water-environment/officials-ok-emergency-tunneling-project-lake-mead

    We don’t realize how blessed we are here in the Seattle area with respect to our water supply.

  17. 17
    cm says:

    Been a while since I was here, but I have a business prop for you all: demo tourism!!! We take a Deutche Bank property such as this:
    http://gis.clark.wa.gov/gishome/Property/?pid=findSN&account=214915000

    and trash it, leading to listings like this:
    https://www.redfin.com/WA/Ridgefield/4520-NE-239th-St-98642/home/14645187

    Let’s repeat: DB takes it back at 511k and lists it for 275k. What’s not to like? Bitcoin me your VC funding and I’ll pass 10% on to Tim.

    Who’s with me?????

  18. 18
    cm says:

    RE: ess @ 13 – AZ state income tax isn’t so bad, but the quality of life absoltely sucks. Can you rent for a year or two before buying?

    The water situation is very serious. If you can stand the humidity NC may be a better fit.

  19. 19
    ess says:

    By cm @ 18:

    RE: ess @ 13 – AZ state income tax isn’t so bad, but the quality of life absoltely sucks. Can you rent for a year or two before buying?

    The water situation is very serious. If you can stand the humidity NC may be a better fit.

    I hear you – good idea about trying a place out via rent before committing . We have been kicking those very ideas around. I lived in Tucson one summer to attend school, but this is still a trip to see what is going on in the area for both of us. Quality of life can be an issue here if one has to have so much tied up in housing and pay high real estate taxes. If we can pull it off – a few months in Arizona during the winter is the preferred way to go while we primarily reside here. Can’t beat Puget Sound summers. Have lived in Arkansas for three years – rather have dry heat than humidity!!

  20. 20

    RE: cm @ 17 – I’m not going to comment on the particular property, but Deutsche Bank tends to have some of the trashiest properties. I’m not sure if they are the original lender on such things or if they just view buying loans in default on such properties as being a good investment opportunity.

    The only worse bank is Ocwen, who probably doesn’t have a single Board Member, Officer or employee with an IQ over 80.

  21. 21
    Carol says:

    I am a realtor in Phoenix AZ….welcome to the the Valley of the Sun! You will love love love it!

    RE: ess @ 13

  22. 22
    ess says:

    By Carol @ 21:

    I am a realtor in Phoenix AZ….welcome to the the Valley of the Sun! You will love love love it!

    RE: ess @ 13

    Thank you Carol – we are not there yet. One of us doesn’t like heat and would miss the Puget Sound area. But all I know is that I can buy a comparable house in a 55 Plus community such as Green Valley or Sun City and the cost of the house is about 1/3 the cost for a similar house in the greater Seattle area. The property tax savings alone would finance a nice cruise each year. The best thing if we move to Arizona and we can pull it off is that we can still maintain the houses that we own here as rentals while we live down there. So we shall see what the next few years bring.

  23. 23
  24. 24
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Blake @ 23 – Great story! And what happens when the music stops?

  25. 25
    Jordan Chang says:

    By Justme @ 6:

    RE: ess @ 3

    Look! We are NOT the most expensive city, rent-wise, in the US. Clearly that means that rents are reasonable, will rise, and house prices will continue to rise as well. No question about it. Just buy, at whatever price they are asking. I’m telling you, you can’t go wrong!

    Yup. Seattle is still a good deal compared to Vancouver, SF, LA, San Diego. Best deal on the West Coast.

  26. 26
    Sam Hunter says:

    Tim your charts are getting real crowded, find another way to represent them, not to hard to embed live charts… thought you were in tech… lemem know if you need help.

  27. 27

    RE: Blake @ 23 – Nice article, but REITs and other investors buying rental properties is not going to cause rents to rise. And buying SFR as rentals would reduce rental rates (but increase the price of houses for sale).

  28. 28

    RE: Sam Hunter @ 26 – He does have the other (Tableau??) charts for the Case-Shiller article, but I’m not sure now is a critical time for the change. The prices are at record highs and inventories at or near record lows. Do you really need to figure out what 2003 was? It had lower prices and higher inventory, and that is rather obvious for every other year too! ;-)

  29. 29
    ess says:

    By Blake @ 23:

    This is well researched and interesting…
    http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/08/08/24442014/hot-money-and-seattles-growing-housing-crisis-part-one

    Compare Vancouver and Seattle. Both cities have about the same population, and the population of greater Seattle is actually larger than the Vancouver area. Even accounting for higher real estate prices in Vancouver (minus the exchange rate for the lesser value of the Canadian dollar ) the amount of foreign real estate money that was invested in the Vancouver area for one year dwarfs the amount that was invested in Seattle – twelve billion vs one billion. And that article, unlike other sources believes that foreign investments will accelerate in the immediate future.

    If this article is correct about Seattle being in the sights of foreign investors (as well as REITs , private equity firms and hedge funds), the immediate future of Puget Sound real estate may prove very interesting.

    Thank you Blake for posting that most informative article. Also some of the links in the primary article are also most informative and are worth reading.

  30. 30
    ess says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 27:

    RE: Blake @ 23 – Nice article, but REITs and other investors buying rental properties is not going to cause rents to rise. And buying SFR as rentals would reduce rental rates (but increase the price of houses for sale).

    Kary

    Are you sure that institutional investors are not causing rents to rise? Those companies have deeper pockets than individual investors, and they are able to invest monies to improve the properties that perhaps an individual investor can’t afford. I would assume improvements increases the rent they can ask, especially in a tight market. I wonder if there is any research on that particular subject.

  31. 31
    js says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 27:

    RE: Blake @ 23 – Nice article, but REITs and other investors buying rental properties is not going to cause rents to rise. And buying SFR as rentals would reduce rental rates (but increase the price of houses for sale).

    The real question is what happens when the REITs smell trouble and decide to sell off their inventory. Could be ugly (or pretty if you are a buyer).

  32. 32

    RE: js @ 31 – That would be good for buyers, but I don’t know how ugly it would get.

    RE: ess @ 30 – Yes, improving the property would increase the rents, all other things being equal.

  33. 33
    Doug says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 32:

    RE: js @ 31 – That would be good for buyers, but I don’t know how ugly it would get.

    Exactly. Won’t be ugly at all. We won’t see a crash of the recent magnitude for a very, very long time – if ever in my lifetime. Real estate is a very important and strategic asset to hold during this time of monetary uncertainty.

  34. 34

    RE: js @ 11
    Similar Comments on the Attractiveness of Our $15/hr Min Wage

    Its driving hiring down and less work hours too….net result “no gain in pay”….no wonder they’re repelled by Seattle.

    http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-bitter-lesson-from-seattles-minimum-wage-hike/

    My real estate investment in Kansas City has attracted California CASH buyers [in writing]….my daughter is sitting on a “pot of gold” down there now?

  35. 35
    Blurtman says:

    When securitization interest wanes, and interest in the underlying revenue generating assets declines, where go home prices? I did not read the Shiller piece, but I am guessing he is proposing that securitization demand is affecting prices at the margin.

  36. 36
    boater says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 27:

    RE: Blake @ 23 – Nice article, but REITs and other investors buying rental properties is not going to cause rents to rise. And buying SFR as rentals would reduce rental rates (but increase the price of houses for sale).

    I suspect you’re wrong on the impact of reits at least. It’s my understanding reits typically aim for 95% occupancy and push rents up to the maximum amount they can get. They have in house repair crews etc

    I am a mom and pop landlord. My goal is max rent for minimum work. I can’t spread the cost of repairs across 100 properties. I want good revenue but I’ll sacrifice some for no damage, consistent payment and tenant willingness to deal with repairs scheduling etc.

    A REIT is far more likely than I am to raise rent at every opportunity.

  37. 37
    js says:

    By boater @ 36:

    A REIT is far more likely than I am to raise rent at every opportunity.

    Fully agree with this. I’ve been a landlord for 10 years, never once raised the rent. Happy tenants are worth their weight in gold.

  38. 38
    ess says:

    By js @ 37:

    By boater @ 36:

    A REIT is far more likely than I am to raise rent at every opportunity.

    Fully agree with this. I’ve been a landlord for 10 years, never once raised the rent. Happy tenants are worth their weight in gold.

    Yes – most non landlords don’t understand the truth to what you have stated. Most landlords who have a tenant who takes care of the place and pays their rent regularly highly value that tenant. Why raise the rent a few dollars and jeopardize losing a good tenant? It doesn’t make any sense from a business standpoint. Plus any increase in rent is offset by the time the rental property is off the market both renting the premises again, as well as doing maintenance to bring the rental back to peak rental condition. And who knows if the new tenant will be as good as the old one that moved as a result of a few dollars more rent. But the old saw is that landlords are greedy and will raise rents every chance they get – not true for many landlord out there. The smart landlord understands that a stable tenant that pays less rent per month is advantageous to higher paying tenants that may present other problems.

    As per REITs, all the underlying property that is owned by a REIT is not going to be discarded if there is a turndown in the real estate market. REITs, unlike open ended managed stock market funds limit themselves to real estate, whether it be malls, storage facilities, apartments, office buildings, and apparently now single family residences. Those types of funds may discard a certain property for very specific reasons, but they won’t dump the entire portfolio of real estate because they would be out of business, and REIT managers are well paid. If there are real estate problems (such as increased interest rates – a REIT share price killer) those problems will be reflected in reduced payments/dividends to shareholders through a decline in share prices. Traditional REITS have had dramatic declines in share prices over the years – at times 30% plus or more, but they don’t discard their entire portfolio of real estate holdings.

    Furthermore, I assume that most REITS operate with certain parameters in terms of having cash on hand for repairs, evictions, taxes, renting and all the other costs associated with operating property in an uncertain world. In that way a REIT is in much better financial position to hold its portfolio than a small rental operation, and certainly in much better shape than a person who obtained a house through a “liar loan” during the halcyon lending days before the “Great Recession” and had no real expectation of paying for it, or a homeowner that has an unforeseen reversal of fortune and unfortunately loses their property. Furthermore, one who defaults on their loan vacates the property, which sets in motion a long process of foreclosure, while a non payer of rent is evicted and replaced. Yes, the rent may drop when times are bad, and there may be higher vacancies and those vacancies may be for a longer duration, but most rentals, whether office buildings, storage units or apartments made it through the recent “Great Recession”, one of the worse real estate most of us have experience in intact. And people still need a place to reside – even if they have to double or triple up. So the entire residential market isn’t going to collapse right away, especially in areas that are experiencing housing shortages that are not going to be resolved any time soon.

  39. 39
    Mike says:

    RE: ess @ 22 – You can also buy a house too small for kids in an area with bad schools here for about 1/3 of what you’d pay for a family size house in a middle class neighborhood with good schools… just saying.

  40. 40
    Irrational Exhuberance says:

    RE: Mike @ 39

    Or just wait for the modern day equivalent of the 60’s civil rights movement to reach criticality which hasn’t happened in full yet; people are just getting started. The tech community will most likely partake as businesses nationally do not grasp their own demographic age groups in management positions and the overwhelming support of the silent majority to mobilize and demand greater democratic influence which has been slowly chipped away by greater corporate interest with the support of public relations campaigns. I would cash out now — wait til the last bastion of security workers have… Real Estate… takes the heat due to its close ties and well studied correlation with wealth inequality. As I said and will say it again to paraphrase finance execs just after the recent market crash, “the pitchforks are coming.” Carlos Slim knows it’s coming — education for the masses and shorter workweeks with equal salaries? It won’t last forever and kiss the idea of it stabilizing and not decreasing — people want their money back and will side with the democratic public if they see the tide turning their way. It’s happening — an example of his is this comment in a blog like this.

  41. 41
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Irrational Exhuberance @ 40 – If it comes, it will be as a reality TV show or Pokemon game.

  42. 42
    boater says:

    Ah the Seattle City Council has done it again. In an attempt to reduce discrimination they now require landlords to rent on a first come first serve basis. Sounds reasonable on the face of it but if you force mechanical solutions on landlords they will respond with mechanical solutions. Higher credit score, higher deposits and higher rents to deal with the perceived increase in risk.

  43. 43
    Sam Hunter says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 28

    Now is never the time for change for an old guy like yourself Kary. It is to be expected that you would not want to implement a 10 second fix to drastically improve the graphs. “I mean its broke why fix it?! Now is now the critical time for a change!!”. Boggles my mind how you think that is critical change. Probably why you can’t even program your coffee maker. Can’t wait for you to log into your dial up and read this comment. And old people are wondering why Millennials are scooping up all these good paying jobs.

    Go take your Metamucil, Grandpa.

  44. 44

    RE: Sam Hunter @ 43 – Rather obviously you know nothing about my technical skills. Amazes me how many Internet trolls try to guess things about me and end up getting them 180 degrees off. It’s like being a troll somehow makes you less likely to be able to guess anything. Probably explains why their comments about real estate are also so far off.

    But I will stand by my comments. At the current time this really isn’t a huge issue. If more of the graphs were in the middle of the pack it would be more of a concern, but right now more information is better and the current graphs allow you to see more seasonal trends, and that is a good thing.

    Finally, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Tim’s efforts here have been dropping off. He no longer posts a new story virtually every day. Presumably he has other things taking up his time, so if he’s going to expend effort on this site it should be for something much more useful.

  45. 45

    RE: boater @ 42 – My thought on reading that is that owners will probably start requiring the full payment to rent to accompany the application, because they aren’t going to want to wait long after approval for that first applicant to come in and sign the lease. So there will probably be two checks–one for the credit check which gets deposited right away, and one for the first/last/deposit (or maybe just the deposit) which gets deposited as soon as the application is approved.

    I’ve often said I’m glad the Seattle City Council is not in a position where they try to protect me, because their efforts often backfire.

  46. 46

    RE: js @ 37 – I think your position on keeping tenants happy is more a function of how many rental units you own. The more you own the better positioned you will be to deal with a tenant leaving. It will be ordinary course. And the more units you have the more important improving the income stream will be (you’re not just talking $200 a month you’re talking $20,000+ a month–not to mention greatly increased resale value of the building). So not the type of owner that matters, but how many units the owner owns.

    It’s similar to what I warn new landlords about. If you only have two or three rentals, having a tenant from hell (one who doesn’t pay rent and delays eviction) can be a huge disaster. But if you have 100+ units, it’s a PITA, but not a big deal in the scheme of things.

  47. 47
    js says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 46:

    I think your position on keeping tenants happy is more a function of how many rental units you own. The more you own the better positioned you will be to deal with a tenant leaving. It will be ordinary course.

    It’s not at all about being positioned to deal with a tenant leaving. Tenant turnover is very simple, and it’s a great time to do maintenance and possibly increase the rent.

    Happy tenants keep my stress level down. They don’t piss the neighbors off. I seldom hear from them or worry about them.

  48. 48
    redmondjp says:

    By boater @ 42:

    Ah the Seattle City Council has done it again. . .

    You’re absolutely correct. Approving $149M for a new north Seattle police precinct building is, well, I truly have no words for it:

    http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/after-mayor-shaves-cost-council-seems-ok-with-new-seattle-police-precinct/

    Seattle voters: you get the government that you deserve. Think before you darken in the bubbles this fall.

  49. 49
    David B. says:

    RE: boater @ 42 – As someone who was jerked around on the other side of the process once, I think that’s a reasonable measure. Landlords are still free to set whatever screening standards they desire; they just have to screen ’em as they take ’em in, and offer the unit to the first application that passes the standards.

  50. 50
    David B. says:

    RE: Blake @ 23 – For the sake of others, I hope it doesn’t happen, but if it does I’ll certainly enjoy cashing out on my home, retiring early, and moving to a more rural area outside the influence of the madness.

  51. 51
    Justme says:

    RE: redmondjp @ 48

    Wow. That is beyond crazy to spend $149M on a police station. The current police station looks fine to me.

    EDIT: better link

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/College+Way+North+and+North+103rd+Street/@47.699909,-122.3350489,387a,20y,41.61t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xda579078098b474a

    Whenever some bureaucrat wants a new building they can just declare it “delapidated”. How about maintaining what you got?

  52. 52
    boater says:

    By David B. @ 49:

    RE: boater @ 42 – As someone who was jerked around on the other side of the process once, I think that’s a reasonable measure. Landlords are still free to set whatever screening standards they desire; they just have to screen ’em as they take ’em in, and offer the unit to the first application that passes the standards.

    How much will you pay evwr time to not get jerked around one time? I think you’re about to find out

  53. 53
    David B. says:

    RE: boater @ 52 – By definition we’re “about to find out”. Really, it doesn’t strike me as that onerous, given how many landlords’ associations already recommend first come, first served as a best policy to minimize the chance of discrimination lawsuits, anyhow. I think the concerns about it being an onerous burden will prove to be overblown.

  54. 54
    Bigdipper says:

    We bit the bullet, sold our 3 properties in the east side and moved to San Diego to live by the beach. I live 2 blocks from the ocean, paying less than my downtown Bellevue SFH. I also bought 2 condos in Scottsdale in Phoenix as rentals and for us to visit during winters.

    I personally think the bubble will burst and the quality of life has significantly changed in the twenty years I was a resident of the greater Seattle area. I work remote for the company in Seattle..but I prefer the sunshine now!

  55. 55
    boater says:

    By David B. @ 53:

    RE: boater @ 52 – By definition we’re “about to find out”. Really, it doesn’t strike me as that onerous, given how many landlords’ associations already recommend first come, first served as a best policy to minimize the chance of discrimination lawsuits, anyhow. I think the concerns about it being an onerous burden will prove to be overblown.

    It will have it’s largest effect on the lower cost rentals done by mom and pops. The larger more professional organizations are already doing it. As i said before they spread risk across a larger set if properties. The mom and pops use selective screening as a form if asset protection because they can’t spread the risk. Usually that also leads to a lower rental rate as the mom and pops value low risk and consistent renters over absolute highest rental rates. The mom and pops will either likely sell, behave more like pros with the higher rental rates or violate the law in some manner.

  56. 56
    Ross says:

    By boater @ 55:

    By David B. @ 53:

    RE: boater @ 52 – By definition we’re “about to find out”. Really, it doesn’t strike me as that onerous, given how many landlords’ associations already recommend first come, first served as a best policy to minimize the chance of discrimination lawsuits, anyhow. I think the concerns about it being an onerous burden will prove to be overblown.

    It will have it’s largest effect on the lower cost rentals done by mom and pops. The larger more professional organizations are already doing it. As i said before they spread risk across a larger set if properties. The mom and pops use selective screening as a form if asset protection because they can’t spread the risk. Usually that also leads to a lower rental rate as the mom and pops value low risk and consistent renters over absolute highest rental rates. The mom and pops will either likely sell, behave more like pros with the higher rental rates or violate the law in some manner.

    … Or switch to a property outside of Seattle city limits. I wonder if these laws with have a measurable impact on rental property values.

  57. 57
    SMW says:

    Deja Vu….

    Tim, I’d love to see the numbers for the month(s) starting the last crash. I bet they look similar to these. I’ll withhold judgment until the Fall data comes out, but this sure feels like a changing of the tide.

  58. 58
    boater says:

    By Ross @ 56:

    By boater @ 55:

    By David B. @ 53:

    RE: boater @ 52 – By definition we’re “about to find out”. Really, it doesn’t strike me as that onerous, given how many landlords’ associations already recommend first come, first served as a best policy to minimize the chance of discrimination lawsuits, anyhow. I think the concerns about it being an onerous burden will prove to be overblown.

    It will have it’s largest effect on the lower cost rentals done by mom and pops. The larger more professional organizations are already doing it. As i said before they spread risk across a larger set if properties. The mom and pops use selective screening as a form if asset protection because they can’t spread the risk. Usually that also leads to a lower rental rate as the mom and pops value low risk and consistent renters over absolute highest rental rates. The mom and pops will either likely sell, behave more like pros with the higher rental rates or violate the law in some manner.

    … Or switch to a property outside of Seattle city limits. I wonder if these laws with have a measurable impact on rental property values.

    Well selling just switches the owner. The new owner either uses it as a residence or rents it. If they rent it goes back to the above situation. If they reside in it then you have one less SFH in the rental pool. Another thing that pushes for higher rental rates assuming we haven’t hit some upper limit of individuals ability to pay.

    Now the rules dont apply to rentals wherethe owner is in the same building so ADUs being rented shouldn’t see any change.

  59. 59
    Mike says:

    RE: Irrational Exhuberance @ 40RE: Irrational Exhuberance @ 40 – I’m not sure the ability of retired people to buy a small house in a neighborhood without good public schools is necessarily indicative of income inequality so much as service targeting to the population. Most of the retirement heavy areas do not invest in public schools, and older people are less likely to waste their energy maintaining space they don’t use. Retiring in a large house you have to pay other people to work on, supporting schools when your kids have kids of their own? California ‘s Prop 13 ended up driving sprawl as well as suburban decay buy giving incentives to the elderly not to move to smaller homes and less expensive areas with services better targeted to an aging population. Whether that was the original intent of the law is debatable, but that is what happened.

  60. 60
    MD says:

    IT’S OVER! The tech bubble in SF is slowly but surely popping. The worthless startups are going under. Fewer transplants to Seattle. Fewer Chinese all-cash buyers. The top is in! Here comes the downturn!!!!

  61. 61
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Mike @ 57 -The Prop 13 fear campaign rationale was totally bogus – Grannie can’t pay property taxes on the now million dollar rambler, and will lose her home. Oh, my! Of course, Grannie could tap her considerable equity to pay the tax. but then the greedy heirs would get less. Oh, my! Plus, many Californios, looking at the increasingly diverse population, said the heck with everybody else, my kids are educated, bugger off.

  62. 62

    RE: Blurtman @ 59 – Not to mention they could have done what Washington does–allow certain elderly people to pay less in RE taxes, basing that decision on their age and financials.

  63. 63

    On the police precinct issue, per an editorial in the Times today the mayor’s cost cutting involved cutting the size of the parking garage in half and deferring some of the construction. Seattle government is so inept it can’t even figure out how to cut costs in a reasonable manner.

  64. 64
    Saffy The Pook says:

    By boater @ 42:

    Ah the Seattle City Council has done it again. In an attempt to reduce discrimination they now require landlords to rent on a first come first serve basis. Sounds reasonable on the face of it but if you force mechanical solutions on landlords they will respond with mechanical solutions. Higher credit score, higher deposits and higher rents to deal with the perceived increase in risk.

    Don’t worry. Kshama is proposing that landlords can’t ask for deposits of more than one month’s rent, so that won’t be a problem. Once they bring in universal rent control, it’ll be a utopia. Just like Berkeley.

  65. 65
    S-Crow says:

    Public Service Announcement for buyers in this King, Pierce, Snohomish Counties etc. :

    Buyers~ please do not obtain your financing by walking into your local branch of Chase Bank or Bank of America. It is fine if you want to bank there but loans are a different story. Responsiveness and back end processing is HORRENDOUS. Delays can impact your closings and jeopardize your Earnest Money (EM). Contact a local mortgage broker recommended by an agent or better yet contact ESCROW for suggestions because we deal with lenders every single day. I’m tired of seeing both sellers lives (in boxes) and buyers being impacted by lousy lending and poor transaction management from both of these institutions.

    S-Crow

  66. 66

    RE: S-Crow @ 65 – Actually, anyone who banks with Bank of America is probably a masochist , and would probably appreciate delays in closing and losing their earnest money!

    I’ve not personally had problems with Chase, but BoA is another matter (as is Merrill Lynch, their subsidiary).

    But yes, I would recommend using a lender recommended by your agent.

  67. 67
    David B. says:

    RE: Blurtman @ 61 – Plus the threat of Grannie being priced out serves as a motivator for Grannie and her family to oppose anti-housing-growth (not “anti-growth” in general because job growth is still being pursued) policies which are creating the shortages responsible for the price increases. Prop 13 allowed a “screw everyone else, I’ve got mine” attitude to prevail until we’re at the point where those ramblers now really do cost $1M and up in much of coastal California.

  68. 68
    David B. says:

    RE: Saffy The Pook @ 64 – “Once they bring in universal rent control”

    Unlikely, since it is banned at the state level.

  69. 69
    Justme says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 63

    >>On the police precinct issue, per an editorial in the Times today the mayor’s cost cutting involved cutting the size of the parking garage in half and deferring some of the construction. Seattle government is so inept it can’t even figure out how to cut costs in a reasonable manner.

    On top of that, I would not be surprised if “lack of parking garage” was one of the very reasons for wanting to replace the existing police station, for a which a google map/satellite link is provided in post 51.

    Why they need to build that proposed Taj Gulag Majal is way beyond reason.

  70. 70

    RE: Justme @ 69 – What I want to know is how you look at the artist conception of that building and conclude that to cut costs you need to reduce the parking?

    That would be sort of like going to a car dealership, deciding the Ferrari is $50,000 over your budget, and asking how much less it would be without a cigarette lighter.

    In the spirit of Colbert’s Big Fuzzy Hat segments: From here on, the Mayor of Seattle shall be known by his new official title, the Moron of Seattle.

  71. 71
    leydan says:

    RE: Prop 13, does anyone have any evidence and/or citations for the claims regarding its causing sprawl and/or housing shortages and price increases?

    Given that Seattle is experiencing among the highest price increases in the country and does not have an equivalent to Prop 13, wouldn’t this be a counter-example to a causal relationship between Prop 13 and large price increases? And is the attitude of WA homeowners towards these price increases different than that of CA homeowners? If so to my eye it is a subtle difference.

    Also the existence of sprawl itself would seem to be a counter-example to the “anti-housing growth” argument as sprawl tends to be how CA (at least the parts of central and southern CA where I used to live) deals with housing shortages and price increases. I always figured that was because a lot of cities in CA have abundant quantiles of reasonably flat, reasonably barren land on the outskirts of their boundaries; so it’s usually easier to expand a city out than it is to increase density at the city core.

  72. 72
    boater says:

    By leydan @ 71:

    RE: Prop 13, does anyone have any evidence and/or citations for the claims regarding its causing sprawl and/or housing shortages and price increases?

    Given that Seattle is experiencing among the highest price increases in the country and does not have an equivalent to Prop 13, wouldn’t this be a counter-example to a causal relationship between Prop 13 and large price increases? And is the attitude of WA homeowners towards these price increases different than that of CA homeowners? If so to my eye it is a subtle difference.

    Also the existence of sprawl itself would seem to be a counter-example to the “anti-housing growth” argument as sprawl tends to be how CA (at least the parts of central and southern CA where I used to live) deals with housing shortages and price increases. I always figured that was because a lot of cities in CA have abundant quantiles of reasonably flat, reasonably barren land on the outskirts of their boundaries; so it’s usually easier to expand a city out than it is to increase density at the city core.

    It does have an equivalent to prop 13 in the growth management act. Both act to reduce the amount of buildable land. Prop 13 by keeping propery off the market and developed to a lesser degree than the properties around it. The growth management act by placing restrictions on sprawl.

    Prop 13 would be just annoying but not so bad if not for two things. The inflation of the late 70s and the ability to pass property and the reduced tax on to future generations instead of ending with the original purchasers death. Most peop5dont own property for 20+ years so the advantage of the tax savings is limited but if you own for a long time then the tax savings is a strong incentive. Passing it on to future generations just adds to that. The rapid inflation of the late 70s and early 80 compressed how long you had to own to get that advantage. Also it seems safe to assume that properties in the 70s sat on larger lots so you’re reducing the buildable land that way too.

    Sprawl is a function of travel time i believe. Roads and highways encourage sprawl by making living 30 miles from where you work possible.

  73. 73
    Saffy The Pook says:

    By David B. @ 68:

    RE: Saffy The Pook @ 64 – “Once they bring in universal rent control”

    Unlikely, since it is banned at the state level.

    And so is local preemption of the state constitution’s right to bear arms but the city council found a way around it. The current Seattle mayor and council have no compunction about trying to work around state restrictions.

  74. 74

    On the Seattle Landlord First in Line issue, here is a link:

    http://seattle.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2802901&GUID=1B597DBF-2FC5-4766-BAC5-F5E8F511F3D6&FullText=1

    Go to 14.08.050.

    What’s crazy about this is from a quick early morning review it looks like if the tenant doesn’t provide some information, or if maybe a referral is slow to respond, that the landlord has to give the tenant 72 hours before they move onto the next applicant, and once an applicant is approved they have 48 hours to respond. Apparently the Seattle Stupid Council doesn’t understand the speed of real estate. And it may preclude them doing the process on more than one application at a time to speed things up with the first doesn’t pan out. Hopefully I’m reading those things wrong. But I’m not seeing that it limits the criteria that a landlord can use–they just have to specify what they use–e.g. applicant must have a clean car).

  75. 75
    boater says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 74:

    On the Seattle Landlord First in Line issue, here is a link:

    http://seattle.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2802901&GUID=1B597DBF-2FC5-4766-BAC5-F5E8F511F3D6&FullText=1

    Go to 14.08.050.

    What’s crazy about this is from a quick early morning review it looks like if the tenant doesn’t provide some information, or if maybe a referral is slow to respond, that the landlord has to give the tenant 72 hours before they move onto the next applicant, and once an applicant is approved they have 48 hours to respond. Apparently the Seattle Stupid Council doesn’t understand the speed of real estate. And it may preclude them doing the process on more than one application at a time to speed things up with the first doesn’t pan out. Hopefully I’m reading those things wrong. But I’m not seeing that it limits the criteria that a landlord can use–they just have to specify what they use–e.g. applicant must have a clean car).

    Somewhat related do you happen to know if you have to charge the same rent each month in a lease or can you make it 10 grand the first month and 500 all the subsequent months. This goes to the attemt to limit damage deposits to one months rent..

    Does the code discuss what happens if all applicants fail the screening and you lower your standards?

  76. 76
    Blurtman says:

    RE: boater @ 72 – Yes, it was just a greed grab by the heirs. There was a time when UC tuition was zero. Prop 13 ended that.

  77. 77
    Bob Gustavson says:

    So when will the 15% real estate tax on foreign buyers hit Seattle? It was just implemented in Vancouver. Early anecdotal evidence suggests this has popped the bubble up there.

  78. 78
    Bob Gustavson says:

    There’s never been a better time in history for retirees to cash out. All it takes is another down month to confirm the top, and things could fall rapidly, but the amount of hassle it takes to sell a home may increase exponentially. My neighbor cashed out nicely last month and moved to Eastern Washington. I’m worried next Spring could be a whole different market.

  79. 79

    RE: boater @ 75 – I don’t know. I was also wondering if there was something that would limit the application fee, since the applicant could tie up the property for five days. Maybe a $750 application fee?

    I haven’t spent a lot of time looking at that ordinance because it doesn’t really affect me or my clients (other than I’ll continue to recommend people looking for rental property look outside the Seattle city limits).

  80. 80

    RE: Blurtman @ 76 – When I started at the UW, tuition for a quarter was only $200, give or take $10. I think CA was free back then, but that didn’t make it much of a savings. Your books could easily run more than that for a quarter.

    What made tuition so expensive was student loans.

  81. 81
    Mike says:

    By Justme @ 69:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 63

    >>On the police precinct issue, per an editorial in the Times today the mayor’s cost cutting involved cutting the size of the parking garage in half and deferring some of the construction. Seattle government is so inept it can’t even figure out how to cut costs in a reasonable manner.

    On top of that, I would not be surprised if “lack of parking garage” was one of the very reasons for wanting to replace the existing police station, for a which a google map/satellite link is provided in post 51.

    Why they need to build that proposed Taj Gulag Majal is way beyond reason.

    Probably for the same reason they’re building a gigantic Elementary school in Loyal Heights. The unspoken expectation is the area is about to undergo a massive increase in density. The current North Precinct is ridiculously over capacity, something like 250 officers in a building built to hold half that. Even with the building stuffed full there’s hardly any police around on the streets and they frequently are unable to respond to 911 calls in the areas further from the precinct.

    While the new building may seem massive, it’s only because the current building is so far out of scope with the current police needs, let alone the future demand. As it is, police are so overburdened they spend all day racing around in cars from crime to crime with very little patrols going on. It’s a really strange way to provide coverage over such a broad and increasingly dense area. Not surprisingly, both reported and non-reported crime has grown substantially in the North Precinct due to drug activity yet we’re stuck in some silly debate about whether we need a new building? Build the darn thing already and start solving more than 5% of crimes! maybe even prevent some?

  82. 82

    RE: Mike @ 81 – [Edit–I noticed you’re responding to Justme, not be, but since I already wrote this . . . ] I’m not really addressing at all the size of the building, or questioning the need to replace it (someone else is doing that). I’m focusing more on its cantilevered glass curtain wall construction. They need a building, not a work of art.

    Note, I’m not being critical of government in general, but specifically the City of Seattle. Their main criteria seems to be “what is the most expensive?” That was true with Bertha, that was true with the sea wall (freezing method of dealing with surrounding water) and it seems to be true with this police building.

  83. 83
    Justme says:

    RE: Mike @ 81

    There is room on the parcel to build a multi-storey building next to the existing Police station. Why create a massive $149M+ Gulag Taj Mahal (or should I call it the Kremlin) when a bit of incremental construction will do the job? Is some developer salivating over the current location?

    Those 250 officers don’t need offices. Only 1/3 (or less with 12 hour shifts) are on duty at any given time anyway, and most of them should be on patrol, not at the police station.

    Big police stations create hierarchical policing, with lots of people sitting in offices and being insulated from the street life. This is exactly the opposite of community policing,

  84. 84

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 80
    For Me It Was $167/QTR, Graduate school about $20-30/QTR more…in state only.

    Today its like $2-3K/QTR excluding books, parking and car [or long bus ride].

    Its a horrible rip off, even inflation adjusted.

  85. 85
    Mike says:

    RE: Justme @ 83RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 82

    Look at where they’re building it. That intersection of 130th and Aurora is smack dab in the middle of some of the cheapest and most underdeveloped real estate in North Seattle. A sea of parking lots awash in used heroin needles just aching to be up-zoned as part of the Bitter Lake Urban Village. The city really needs a flagship police station to properly gentrify an area best known for used car lots and crack whores. So yes, it’s a bit ostentatious as far as police precincts go but 1) The North Precinct needs better police coverage and 2) this is going to be THE most modern, expensive building in an area better known for rent by the hour motels. It’s a sign of what is to come to an area neglected since the construction of I-5.

  86. 86
    Justme says:

    RE: Mike @ 85

    >>2) this is going to be THE most modern, expensive building in an area better known for rent by the
    hour

    Do people really want to live in a location where the police station is the fanciest and only notable building? I’m not at all certain about that. Do people even want to live close to ANY police station, given a choice? If the city was going to spend money on chasing out (or morally reforming? /sarc/) the current residents of a neighborhood (assuming that this would even be a good and moral thing do do?)

    Could $149M perhaps be better spent in other ways? And what will happen to the old location? Perhaps the crack addicts will then move down there?

    All that in addition to all the other issues that I and other people have brought up.

    My take is that certain interest groups want a fancy new police station for a number of reasons, and public benefit has little to do with it.

  87. 87
    S-Crow says:

    By softwarengineer @ 84:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 80
    For Me It Was $167/QTR, Graduate school about $20-30/QTR more…in state only.

    Today its like $2-3K/QTR excluding books, parking and car [or long bus ride].

    Its a horrible rip off, even inflation adjusted.

    With my two boys heading to college next week I have been heavily involved in finding ways to reduce tuition costs. They did their part with good grades (one Valedictorian) and even after top academic scholarships we are having to cough up substantial sums to make it happen so they graduate debt free. I’m not sure if that is going to be possible. I see lots of student loan debt (in the tens of thousands) in the escrow work we do for people purchasing home and refi’s and it is a serious problem and burden. The marketing to students of some of these schools is incredibly good and the facilities and services are amazing. The marketing rivals that of top businesses and corporations. It’s off the charts.

    S-Crow

  88. 88
    David B. says:

    By Saffy The Pook @ 73:

    By David B. @ 68:

    RE: Saffy The Pook @ 64 – “Once they bring in universal rent control”

    Unlikely, since it is banned at the state level.

    And so is local preemption of the state constitution’s right to bear arms but the city council found a way around it. The current Seattle mayor and council have no compunction about trying to work around state restrictions.

    What legislation are you talking about, and what was the result of challenging it in court?

  89. 89

    RE: David B. @ 88 – There are at least three that come to mind.

    Probably 20 years ago, state law required Seattle to sell its confiscated guns, but they refused. The legislature finally relented, resulting in a loss of revenue for the city and more sales for gun manufacturers. But hey, they think they accomplished something.

    About 2-3 years ago they tried to ban guns in parks, even though the state AG said that was illegal. They eventually lost that one in court.

    More recently they have a sales tax on ammunition sold in the city, with the proceeds going to “gun research.” They won at the Superior Court level, and I believe it’s now at the Court of Appeals. Even ignoring the preemption statute, I’m not sure they have the power to impose a sales tax in excess of that allowed by the state, and they’re already pretty close to the top on that.

  90. 90
    David B. says:

    By leydan @ 71:

    RE: Prop 13, does anyone have any evidence and/or citations for the claims regarding its causing sprawl and/or housing shortages and price increases?

    It is both a result and then a further cause of price increases. One of the reasons Prop 13 passed is that housing costs were starting to really go up in California in the 1970s. That was the decade California went from a state with lower than average housing costs (hard to believe now, but that once was the case) to one with higher than average costs. The reason for that increase was that it became harder to add housing by building sprawl (due to growth controls), and it was not made easier to add housing by creating density.

    The result was rapidly increasing property values, which caused real hardship for some on fixed incomes. The reaction was not to address the root cause of the property value increases, but to mask them (at least for existing homeowners).

    A further reaction was rent control. The California cities with rent control passed it as part of a backlash to Prop 13, which was sold to tenants by making the (preposterous) claim that it would be a windfall to them, too, because landlords would pass on their property tax savings. When that failed to materialize, tenants’ groups in some California cities reacted by passing rent control, which was sold as a means of forcing landlords to share the promised savings.

  91. 91
    David B. says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 89 – The only one of those that strikes directly at the right to keep and bear arms was the ban in the parks, which was overturned.

    Having to pay a bit more to buy ammo doesn’t count as much of an infringement; if you’re going to argue that, then you might as well argue that the state is infringing on RKBA by failing to furnish free guns to anyone who asks for them, because having to pay anything for a gun makes it harder (and significantly so, for the poor) to acquire one.

  92. 92
    Mike says:

    By Justme @ 86:

    RE: Mike @ 85

    >>2) this is going to be THE most modern, expensive building in an area better known for rent by the
    hour

    Do people really want to live in a location where the police station is the fanciest and only notable building? I’m not at all certain about that. Do people even want to live close to ANY police station, given a choice? If the city was going to spend money on chasing out (or morally reforming? /sarc/) the current residents of a neighborhood (assuming that this would even be a good and moral thing do do?)

    Could $149M perhaps be better spent in other ways? And what will happen to the old location? Perhaps the crack addicts will then move down there?

    All that in addition to all the other issues that I and other people have brought up.

    My take is that certain interest groups want a fancy new police station for a number of reasons, and public benefit has little to do with it.

    Bitter Lake stretches from 115th to 145th, so not much of it is “right next” to the police station.

    All of the big re-development projects end up displacing people, it’s nothing new. This one won’t be any different. The importance of making the police station a central showpiece in the gentrification of the area is that it has a well deserved reputation of vice and property crime. For Bitter Lake, a stepped up police presence and a showpiece building will improve the area. In other neighborhoods it would not have as great of impact.

  93. 93

    By David B. @ 91:

    Having to pay a bit more to buy ammo doesn’t count as much of an infringement; if you’re going to argue that, then you might as well argue that the state is infringing on RKBA by failing to furnish free guns to anyone who asks for them, because having to pay anything for a gun makes it harder (and significantly so, for the poor) to acquire one.

    What I’m arguing is whether it’s legal. The preemption statute goes beyond infringement.

    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

  94. 94
    boater says:

    RE: David B. @ 91

    I haven’t looked at the rate but it depends on what ‘a bit more’ is. If the tax is $100 per bullet then its clearly an attempt to supercede the Constitution.

  95. 95
    ess says:

    I have followed the north end police station controversy with interest. It has been my experience, both having fought excess government spending for oversized projects on a local level, as well as follow projects in other jurisdictions that there is a similar method as to how these projects progress:

    1. Propose a new project for a tremendous amount of money, more money than seems reasonable. If it passes – great – the new government building will contain an excess of office space that will enable the bureaucracy to expand by hiring more employees, which provides everyone on all levels not only more power, but the justification to inflate job titles and salaries.

    2. If the proposal is defeated by public outcry or by an election, come back to the electorate with a more “modest” and “reasonable” proposal. Of course, the size of the project usually remains way too expensive , but at least the government entity can assure the public that they have taken costs under consideration when answering their critics. Of course present the “need” for the project in the most positive light, and underscore the dire consequences if the project does not receive funding.

    3. Have the proposal pass, and in a few years, discover other “concerns” and “needs” to increase funding. Put it in terms of a public emergency or great need, and return to number one.

  96. 96
    Jake says:

    Hi Tim. Wondering when the full roundup report is gonna happen. Thanks.

  97. 97
    Blurtman says:

    RE: David B. @ 90 – “The result was rapidly increasing property values, which caused real hardship for some on fixed incomes.”

    Please explain the hardship that tapping the rapidly increased home equity would not cure.

  98. 98
    David B. says:

    RE: boater @ 94 – $100/bullet more is much more than any reasonable interpretation “a bit”.

  99. 99
    David B. says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 93 – Ah, so it’s not really the “right to bear arms” (as Saffy the Pook claimed) that was not preempted but some other part of firearms policy.

  100. 100
    Justme says:

    RE: ess @ 95

    Ess wrote something that I can totally agree on. The world must be coming to an end.

  101. 101
    Justme says:

    RE: Mike @ 92

    >>Bitter Lake stretches from 115th to 145th, so not much of it is “right next” to the police station.

    You are contradicting yourself. First you claim it is the area right next to the new proposed location of a police station that needs cleanup, and that will benefit (“gentrify”). When that is challenged, the motivation is suddenly all of Bitter Lake, and not the immediate area.

    Look, if Bitter Lake needs more local policing, then build or rent a smaller and less expensive (10-20M?) police station there. This will offload the current station and bring local policing to Bitter Lake. No big new Bitter Lake Kremlin station is really needed, nor desirable.

    I stand by what I have said: Centralization, upsizing and hierarchy-building in a new and different location does not make policing better. It makes policing worse and also more expensive.

  102. 102
    pfft says:

    Just an update, Nate Silver gives Clinton a 88% chance of winning.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

  103. 103
    redmondjp says:

    By pfft @ 101:

    Just an update, Nate Silver gives Clinton a 88% chance of winning.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

    Hey there pfft, did your personal info get hacked this past week?

    Your Open Society Foundation check must have cleared, as you are once-again here posting Shillary propaganda — who in the frack cares what some dude I’ve never even heard of thinks is going to happen? This is relevant to the collapsing real estate bubble how (other than the fact that Hillary is in the bag for the big bankers, QE to Infinity and Beyond)?

  104. 104
    Mike says:

    By Justme @ 100:

    RE: Mike @ 92

    >>Bitter Lake stretches from 115th to 145th, so not much of it is “right next” to the police station.

    You are contradicting yourself. First you claim it is the area right next to the new proposed location of a police station that needs cleanup, and that will benefit (“gentrify”). When that is challenged, the motivation is suddenly all of Bitter Lake, and not the immediate area.

    Look, if Bitter Lake needs more local policing, then build or rent a smaller and less expensive (10-20M?) police station there. This will offload the current station and bring local policing to Bitter Lake. No big new Bitter Lake Kremlin station is really needed, nor desirable.

    I stand by what I have said: Centralization, upsizing and hierarchy-building in a new and different location does not make policing better. It makes policing worse and also more expensive.

    No contradiction just because Bitter Lake is the only Urban Village that stretches for 30 blocks. All of it is going to be within 3 minutes of the police station. Millions of square feet of blacktop along a major north south route all primed for re-development. It’s flat land, easy to build on, close to major transportation routes, perhaps bisected by a new rail line courtesy of ST3. It’s going to be a commuter suburb within the city. But first, this long neglected area has to be anchored in. Putting in a new precinct serving 35% of the city’s population helps serve that purpose.

  105. 105
    pfft says:

    RE: redmondjp @ 102 – propaganda? it’s polling data. you must be a drumpf supporter?

    I always get a chuckle when someone accuses me of working for organizations. I’ve been here since at least 08.

    u mad bro? oh yeah you mad.

  106. 106
    Blurtman says:

    RE: pfft @ 101 – Silver gave Hillary a 99 percent chance to win the Michigan primary. She lost. Bad troll, bad.

  107. 107

    By David B. @ 98:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 93 – Ah, so it’s not really the “right to bear arms” (as Saffy the Pook claimed) that was not preempted but some other part of firearms policy.

    Well the preemption statute is related to the right to bear arms, but I’m looking at this a bit broader–whether it’s legal–something that they have the power to do. Even without the preemption statute, and just looking at this from a taxation issue, I’m not sure the city has the power. For example, I don’t think they could impose a 15% sales tax on power drills on top of the regular sales tax (which is limited). But it’s not an area I’ve looked at, so I’m not terribly confident in that position.

    Then with all things Seattle I look at whether it’s smart, and typically it is just the opposite. Here seemingly their goal is to force gun shops from Seattle. Assuming they succeed they won’t reduce the number of guns or number of bullets within the city limits of Seattle by even one of either (e.g. look at Chicago), but they will cut down on their tax revenue because they will no longer be getting sales tax and B&O tax on such sales.

    The same thing was true of their decision to not sell off confiscated guns years ago. As I mentioned that just helped gun manufacturers, exactly the same way as “Cash for Clunkers” helped auto manufacturers. What’s interesting about that though is there Seattle was knowingly and willingly violating state law, but they somehow think criminals are going to follow their laws (e.g. no guns in parks). They are hypocrites of the worst type.

  108. 108

    Back to the police station, it apparently has an indoor gun range. That’s surprising because last I heard they didn’t have an adequate budget for ammunition for their existing range. It was something like 50 bullets a year per officer, or some such thing. I couldn’t find a current link, but looking for that I did find this story where Seattle apparently continues to waste assets in the mistaken belief that destroying guns somehow fights crime.

    http://www.guns.com/2016/06/30/seattle-to-melt-90k-worth-of-surplus-police-guns-despite-budget-crunch/

  109. 109
    redmondjp says:

    By pfft @ 104:

    RE: redmondjp @ 102 – propaganda? it’s polling data. you must be a drumpf supporter?

    I always get a chuckle when someone accuses me of working for organizations. I’ve been here since at least 08.

    u mad bro? oh yeah you mad.

    No, not mad at all, bro . . . but you must be really desperate to be posting polling data, which has shown to be almost meaningless.

    And 2008 was when Obama was elected, coincidentally, so no surprise that you showed up then. I notice that you’ve never refuted the claim of working for Soros either – I participate in a lot of blogs and it is pretty easy to identify the paid political posters, by the talking points that they get from HQ.

    And if you want to get into a spitting contest, I’ve been here since before this blog started, as I used to sit in the cubicle next to Tim when he came up with the idea.

  110. 110
    David B. says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 106 – This is turning into topic drift from the point I wanted to bring up, which definitely was RKBA-related (since it was related to Saffy the Pook’s comment specifically about RKBA). Clearly, Seattle hasn’t been able to do that — the one measure that specifically targeted RKBA got swatted down in the courts, and the ammo tax is still working its way through the appeals process and may well suffer the same fate.

    Melting down confiscated guns threatens legal gun owners’ RKBA about as much as the FCC’s long-standing policy of smashing up confiscated equipment from radio pirates threatens legal use of the radio spectrum, yet for some reason the gun fetishists get all worked up over it in a way that radio spectrum users never have. Frankly, it’s not something that I can get very upset about even though a plausible argument can be made that it is silly in both cases.

    I won’t deny that Seattle sometimes does foolish things (and to pull in another thread I’d agree the police palace at Bitter Lake certainly seems to be one of those).

  111. 111

    RE: redmondjp @ 108 – I’m surprised you’ve never heard of Nate Silver. I don’t really care about polling data either, but he’s fairly famous.

    But it is interesting pfft just pops up to promote Hillary. This election is a choice between a corrupt and inept politician who lies about lying and then has her disbarred, impeached husband also lie about her lying, versus the most unqualified, uneducated, uninformed, unintelligent candidate of all times. With both candidates having record unfavorable ratings it’s amazing anyone pops up to promote either one of them.

  112. 112
    David B. says:

    By redmondjp @ 108:

    No, not mad at all, bro . . . but you must be really desperate to be posting polling data, which has shown to be almost meaningless.

    Hardly meaningless. In 2004, the polls overall showed Kerry losing by thin margins to Bush. In 2008, they showed McCain losing to Obama. In 2012, they showed Romney suffering the same fate. They’re not always right in all instances, of course, but they do have real predictive value.

  113. 113

    RE: David B. @ 109 – I care about their sale of guns only because it greatly affected me back in when they were openly ignoring state law by not selling confiscated guns for revenue. It affected me because I was walking around Green Lake and the public restrooms weren’t open due to budget constraints. ;-)

    But again, my criticism of Seattle probably touches on virtually everything they do. No other city seems to be so inept at so many things.

  114. 114
    David B. says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 112:

    RE: David B. @ 109 – I care about their sale of guns only because it greatly affected me back in when they were openly ignoring state law by not selling confiscated guns for revenue. It affected me because I was walking around Green Lake and the public restrooms weren’t open due to budget constraints. ;-)

    What you’re worrying about is basically chump change. The chance revenue from confiscated gun sales would have resulted in those restrooms staying open is minuscule. It would have probably been spent on other things.

    But again, my criticism of Seattle probably touches on virtually everything they do. No other city seems to be so inept at so many things.

    In that case, I think you need to get out and travel more. Seattle is hardly perfect (heck, I choose not to live in the city limits myself), but it compares pretty good to many other cities I’ve visited.

  115. 115

    By David B. @ 113:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 112:

    RE: David B. @ 109 – I care about their sale of guns only because it greatly affected me back in when they were openly ignoring state law by not selling confiscated guns for revenue. It affected me because I was walking around Green Lake and the public restrooms weren’t open due to budget constraints. ;-)

    What you’re worrying about is basically chump change. The chance revenue from confiscated gun sales would have resulted in those restrooms staying open is minuscule. It would have probably been spent on other things.

    But again, my criticism of Seattle probably touches on virtually everything they do. No other city seems to be so inept at so many things.

    In that case, I think you need to get out and travel more. Seattle is hardly perfect (heck, I choose not to live in the city limits myself), but it compares pretty good to many other cities I’ve visited.

    The point though is the city was obviously in serious financial trouble at the time, but still sticking to their guns (pun intended) on something that was really stupid and meaningless.

    As to other cities, maybe that’s true of other big cities (e.g. Boston’s Big Dig, NYC’s soda tax, etc.), but I have followed California pretty closely and while many of the cities there are liberal like Seattle, and thus tend to think the same way, I wouldn’t describe them as inept. Instead I was comparing Seattle to the other local cities. With the possible exception of Pacific, Seattle is clearly the most inept.

  116. 116

    RE: S-Crow @ 87
    College Tuition Costs Remind Me of Obamacare

    The Blue Cross [i.e.] needs 40-60% increases in their 2017 rates in states like California to break even….my federal Blue Cross costs about $600/mo, with my pension covering $1200/mo for this plan. $600 a month for a retiree to get decent health coverage…..OUTRAGEOUS!

    I gave up on college for my daughter, when she finished her first 2 years….she couldn’t see a job market justifying the insane costs. She lives rent free in Kansas now instead….an alternative for your kids too? She’s doing wonderfully BTW and I was told by many in the escrow business in Kansas, “I wish my parents did that”.

  117. 117
    David B. says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 114 – Funny, since California cities were big in my mind when I typed that Seattle compares favorably. Just compare how dirty and tatty much of San Francisco’s public amenities are to Seattle’s. Ditto for Oakland (which though despite being a poorer city is actually cleaner than SF).

  118. 118
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 105:

    RE: pfft @ 101 – Silver gave Hillary a 99 percent chance to win the Michigan primary. She lost. Bad troll, bad.

    so what? nate silver has a great track record. Michigan changed their voting system so that screwed things up too. you also don’t seem to understand statistics.

  119. 119
    pfft says:

    By redmondjp @ 108:

    By pfft @ 104:

    RE: redmondjp @ 102 – propaganda? it’s polling data. you must be a drumpf supporter?

    I always get a chuckle when someone accuses me of working for organizations. I’ve been here since at least 08.

    u mad bro? oh yeah you mad.

    No, not mad at all, bro . . . but you must be really desperate to be posting polling data, which has shown to be almost meaningless.

    And 2008 was when Obama was elected, coincidentally, so no surprise that you showed up then. I notice that you’ve never refuted the claim of working for Soros either – I participate in a lot of blogs and it is pretty easy to identify the paid political posters, by the talking points that they get from HQ.

    And if you want to get into a spitting contest, I’ve been here since before this blog started, as I used to sit in the cubicle next to Tim when he came up with the idea.

    oh yeah you are defiantly mad bro. good thing obamacare covers that.

    “but you must be really desperate to be posting polling data, which has shown to be almost meaningless.”

    really? source please?

    I am a housing bubble blog refugee. they were just too anti-immigrant/rascist over there and no I don’t work for soros or anything.

    “I participate in a lot of blogs and it is pretty easy to identify the paid political posters, by the talking points that they get from HQ.”

    well than your spidey sense is even more worthless than polling data.

  120. 120
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 112:

    RE: David B. @ 109 – I care about their sale of guns only because it greatly affected me back in when they were openly ignoring state law by not selling confiscated guns for revenue. It affected me because I was walking around Green Lake and the public restrooms weren’t open due to budget constraints. ;-)

    But again, my criticism of Seattle probably touches on virtually everything they do. No other city seems to be so inept at so many things.

    why would cops want to set guns back out on the street where they could possibly be used against them or against civilians?

  121. 121
    Justme says:

    RE: Mike @ 103

    I don’t find your vacillating answers very convincing. Other people can judge for themselves, I suppose.

    It would also help if your replies were more complete. Please answer this: Why is it necessary or favorable or cost-effective to build a $149M Kremlin in Bitter Lake, when instead one can build a smaller 10-20M facility to offload the existing police station at ? Or perhaps rent a space?

    I invite everyone to take a look at the map.

    current police station location: 103d st and college way north (10049)
    proposed police location: 130th st and Aurora Ave

    https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.7029755,-122.3346481/13000+Aurora+Avenue+North,+Seattle,+WA/@47.7136024,-122.3481558,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m8!4m7!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x54901136df95d0f5:0xd81155f4b4a47710!2m2!1d-122.3431562!2d47.7242753

    These two locations are 1.8mi apart and 6min driving. Your claim that we need to build a $149M station to cover that area is not at all convincing to me. I stand by my claim that a small local station will do the job just fine, and can be used to offload the current station, as needed.

  122. 122
    Anonymous Coward says:

    RE: pfft @ 119 – For the same reason they eventually auction off all the other valuable assets which they gain possession of. Why do put cars used by drug mules back on the streets where they can be used to transport more drugs instead of sending them off to the crusher?

  123. 123
    Blurtman says:

    By pfft @ 117:

    By Blurtman @ 105:

    RE: pfft @ 101 – Silver gave Hillary a 99 percent chance to win the Michigan primary. She lost. Bad troll, bad.

    so what? nate silver has a great track record. Michigan changed their voting system so that screwed things up too. you also don’t seem to understand statistics.

    Silver got it wrong on Trump’s nomination. He got it wrong on the Brexit vote. You seem to mistake celebrity for competency.

  124. 124
    pfft says:

    By Anonymous Coward @ 121:

    RE: pfft @ 119 – For the same reason they eventually auction off all the other valuable assets which they gain possession of. Why do put cars used by drug mules back on the streets where they can be used to transport more drugs instead of sending them off to the crusher?

    cars and guns are very different.

  125. 125
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 122:

    By pfft @ 117:

    By Blurtman @ 105:

    RE: pfft @ 101 – Silver gave Hillary a 99 percent chance to win the Michigan primary. She lost. Bad troll, bad.

    so what? nate silver has a great track record. Michigan changed their voting system so that screwed things up too. you also don’t seem to understand statistics.

    Silver got it wrong on Trump’s nomination. He got it wrong on the Brexit vote. You seem to mistake celebrity for competency.

    he has an excellent track record. of course you look bad when you only show the interceptions or fumbles.

    “Silver got it wrong on Trump’s nomination.”

    no he didn’t. his polling data was spot on. his non-data prediction early in trump’s campaign was wrong. his data has trump winning many of the primaries that he in fact won. silver has an excellent prediction record, in the 90% range.

  126. 126

    By pfft @ 119:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 112:

    RE: David B. @ 109 – I care about their sale of guns only because it greatly affected me back in when they were openly ignoring state law by not selling confiscated guns for revenue. It affected me because I was walking around Green Lake and the public restrooms weren’t open due to budget constraints. ;-)

    But again, my criticism of Seattle probably touches on virtually everything they do. No other city seems to be so inept at so many things.

    why would cops want to set guns back out on the street where they could possibly be used against them or against civilians?

    So you know as little about guns as you know about everything else. No shocker there. Like everything else you accept the Democratic party line without any thought whatsoever.

    But I guess in pfft’s world if a criminal wants a gun it won’t be there just because the cops don’t sell a particular gun. There will just be an open space on the shelf of the gun dealer. Or if they break into a house to get a gun, the owner of that house won’t have a gun because there was that empty space on the shelf of the gun dealer.

    What part of my saying that Seattle’s policy only helped gun manufacturers and was like Cash For Clunkers to auto manufacturers was too difficult for you to understand?

  127. 127

    By pfft @ 123:

    By Anonymous Coward @ 121:

    RE: pfft @ 119 – For the same reason they eventually auction off all the other valuable assets which they gain possession of. Why do put cars used by drug mules back on the streets where they can be used to transport more drugs instead of sending them off to the crusher?

    cars and guns are very different.

    Yes, unlike cars, guns are not just inanimate objects, and how they are used isn’t determined by the person who is in control of them. If something bad happens with a gun it should be punished for being a bad gun. /sarc

    But in pfft’s defense, here are some very bad cars stealing jewelry–starting at the 12 second mark. Clearly those cars should be destroyed.

    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/police-arrest-pink-panther-gang-jewel-heist-spain-41154951

  128. 128
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 124:

    By pfft @ 119:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 112:

    RE: David B. @ 109 – I care about their sale of guns only because it greatly affected me back in when they were openly ignoring state law by not selling confiscated guns for revenue. It affected me because I was walking around Green Lake and the public restrooms weren’t open due to budget constraints. ;-)

    But again, my criticism of Seattle probably touches on virtually everything they do. No other city seems to be so inept at so many things.

    why would cops want to set guns back out on the street where they could possibly be used against them or against civilians?

    So you know as little about guns as you know about everything else. No shocker there. Like everything else you accept the Democratic party line without any thought whatsoever.

    But I guess in pfft’s world if a criminal wants a gun it won’t be there just because the cops don’t sell a particular gun. There will just be an open space on the shelf of the gun dealer. Or if they break into a house to get a gun, the owner of that house won’t have a gun because there was that empty space on the shelf of the gun dealer.

    What part of my saying that Seattle’s policy only helped gun manufacturers and was like Cash For Clunkers to auto manufacturers was too difficult for you to understand?

    do you ever think? why would a cop put a gun back out on the street? this isn’t hard to grasp kary.

    “Like everything else you accept the Democratic party line without any thought whatsoever.”

    don’t know how you could possibly know that.

    hey kary, by your logic cops should sell all the drugs they confiscate.

    and yes kary, less guns equal less crime. that is a verifiable fact.

  129. 129
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 125:

    By pfft @ 123:

    By Anonymous Coward @ 121:

    RE: pfft @ 119 – For the same reason they eventually auction off all the other valuable assets which they gain possession of. Why do put cars used by drug mules back on the streets where they can be used to transport more drugs instead of sending them off to the crusher?

    cars and guns are very different.

    Yes, unlike cars, guns are not just inanimate objects, and how they are used isn’t determined by the person who is in control of them. If something bad happens with a gun it should be punished for being a bad gun. /sarc

    But in pfft’s defense, here are some very bad cars stealing jewelry–starting at the 12 second mark. Clearly those cars should be destroyed.

    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/police-arrest-pink-panther-gang-jewel-heist-spain-41154951

    kary you are the very definition of obtuse.

    you can’t figure out why cops wouldn’t want guns back out on the street? especially one they may have already been used against them?

  130. 130
    Blake says:

    RE: pfft @ 101
    Well then pfft pops up to note that Hillary is beating Trump… Heck, I could beat Trump!!

    Hey pfft… Your favorite boondoggle program is failing! …just as I predicted years ago… not enough healthy enrollees!
    Insurers continue to abandon ACA exchanges, limiting choice
    http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-08-16/insurer-aetna-slashes-aca-exchange-participation-to-4-states

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/16/
    >> “With each successive annual open enrollment the tendency of the sickest to buy coverage while the healthiest hung back has only repeated itself (what a surprise he?)….. Obamacare has been an utter disaster for the working and middle class that seem willing to buy the unattractive plans only if they are sick and can come out ahead on the deal. Until we are willing to have a conversation about how to fundamentally change a failing program Obamacare is just going to continue to deteriorate.”

    But but… Hillary told Bernie that if he tried to change O-care he would be scrapping it and throwing it away! What is she going to do?? ;-)

  131. 131
    Blake says:

    By David B. @ 111:

    By redmondjp @ 108:

    No, not mad at all, bro . . . but you must be really desperate to be posting polling data, which has shown to be almost meaningless.

    Hardly meaningless. In 2004, the polls overall showed Kerry losing by thin margins to Bush. In 2008, they showed McCain losing to Obama. In 2012, they showed Romney suffering the same fate. They’re not always right in all instances, of course, but they do have real predictive value.

    As you get closer to the election date, polls get more and more accurate… But Trump is a f’ing train wreck and Hillary is so lucky to run against him. As many have asked: “If Trump were actually trying to lose, what would he have done different?”
    There still might be surprises ahead – – such as a dump of the emails hackers took from Hillary’s home server! Either way… our President in 2017 will be despised from the time they enter office… and it will only go downhill from there! Our political and economic system is a mess… it doesn’t work… “For the People!”

  132. 132

    RE: Blake @ 126 – pfft will deny all that with Obamacare, just as he denied the fact that premiums skyrocketed, even though that was widely reported.

    This is going exactly the way it went when Washington tried to outlaw preexisting conditions maybe 15 years ago. It took the companies about 3 years or so to stop writing individual policies, so the law had to be changed back. Obamacare has now been in full effect (with the exchanges, etc.) for 2+ years.

  133. 133
    pfft says:

    By Blake @ 126:

    RE: pfft @ 101
    Well then pfft pops up to note that Hillary is beating Trump… Heck, I could beat Trump!!

    Hey pfft… Your favorite boondoggle program is failing! …just as I predicted years ago… not enough healthy enrollees!
    Insurers continue to abandon ACA exchanges, limiting choice
    http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-08-16/insurer-aetna-slashes-aca-exchange-participation-to-4-states

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/16/
    >> “With each successive annual open enrollment the tendency of the sickest to buy coverage while the healthiest hung back has only repeated itself (what a surprise he?)….. Obamacare has been an utter disaster for the working and middle class that seem willing to buy the unattractive plans only if they are sick and can come out ahead on the deal. Until we are willing to have a conversation about how to fundamentally change a failing program Obamacare is just going to continue to deteriorate.”

    But but… Hillary told Bernie that if he tried to change O-care he would be scrapping it and throwing it away! What is she going to do?? ;-)

    this is a joke. obamacare has brought insurance and great healthcare to tens of millions of people.

    Obamacare might be making people—especially poor people—healthier
    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/13/1558365/-Obamacare-might-be-making-people-especially-poor-people-healthier

  134. 134
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 128:

    RE: Blake @ 126 – pfft will deny all that with Obamacare, just as he denied the fact that premiums skyrocketed, even though that was widely reported.

    This is going exactly the way it went when Washington tried to outlaw preexisting conditions maybe 15 years ago. It took the companies about 3 years or so to stop writing individual policies, so the law had to be changed back. Obamacare has now been in full effect (with the exchanges, etc.) for 2+ years.

    premiums did not skyrocket. some junk subprime insurance that people had saw a big increase but overall there was no big increase.

    like there weren’t huge insurance premium increases before?

  135. 135
    Mike says:

    By Justme @ 120:

    RE: Mike @ 103

    I don’t find your vacillating answers very convincing. Other people can judge for themselves, I suppose.

    It would also help if your replies were more complete. Please answer this: Why is it necessary or favorable or cost-effective to build a $149M Kremlin in Bitter Lake, when instead one can build a smaller 10-20M facility to offload the existing police station at ? Or perhaps rent a space?

    I invite everyone to take a look at the map.

    current police station location: 103d st and college way north (10049)
    proposed police location: 130th st and Aurora Ave

    https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.7029755,-122.3346481/13000+Aurora+Avenue+North,+Seattle,+WA/@47.7136024,-122.3481558,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m8!4m7!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x54901136df95d0f5:0xd81155f4b4a47710!2m2!1d-122.3431562!2d47.7242753

    These two locations are 1.8mi apart and 6min driving. Your claim that we need to build a $149M station to cover that area is not at all convincing to me. I stand by my claim that a small local station will do the job just fine, and can be used to offload the current station, as needed.

    Personally I’d have been fine with a bunch of smaller precincts distributed around the crime hot spots of Greenwood, Green Lake and Ballard, but each of those extensions would have been fought tooth and nail just like the proposed larger building. The main groups fighting the new larger building aren’t fiscal conservatives, they’re social activists opposed to ALL police. Certain council members have aligned with the activists, and none of those council members are opposing the building from a public funding perspective. They’re doing so because they’re enemies with the police union. When several council members are at complete odds with the union for reasons that have nothing to do with providing public services it’s a ripe environment for politicizing projects such as this. So no, it’s not perfect, but it’s better than the alternatives that can be created in this awful political climate.

  136. 136

    By pfft @ 129:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 128:

    RE: Blake @ 126 – pfft will deny all that with Obamacare, just as he denied the fact that premiums skyrocketed, even though that was widely reported.

    This is going exactly the way it went when Washington tried to outlaw preexisting conditions maybe 15 years ago. It took the companies about 3 years or so to stop writing individual policies, so the law had to be changed back. Obamacare has now been in full effect (with the exchanges, etc.) for 2+ years.

    premiums did not skyrocket. some junk subprime insurance that people had saw a big increase but overall there was no big increase.

    like there weren’t huge insurance premium increases before?

    Like I said, you would deny it. Washington never allowed junk policies. That’s just more Democratic party BS that you’ve fallen for hook, link and sucker.

    Also, most of these increases have been after the Obamacare provisions (e.g. free physicals) were already added. So that argument is complete nonsense.

  137. 137
    Justme says:

    RE: Mike @ 130

    Aha, so now you are changing the argument from “we need the big 149M police station” to, “it is easier to get the city council to pass a decision to build the 149M big police station we do not need than the 3 smaller stations that I think we actually need”.

    And at the same time, you are basically saying that we should be “for” the new $149M bitter lake kremlin police station, because the people who are against it are the wrong kind of people:

    QUOTE: The main groups fighting the new larger building aren’t fiscal conservatives, they’re social activists opposed to ALL police.

    Wow, just wow, I hope a lot of people read this and are ready to fight the kremlin boondoggle $149M police station.

  138. 138
    David B. says:

    Frankly, I think the idea that there would be paid posters here is pretty laughable. How many people read this blog, anyhow? How many of those read the comments section? Campaigns are supposed to be interested in such a small audience?

  139. 139
    Ross says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 131:

    By pfft @ 129:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 128:

    RE: Blake @ 126 – pfft will deny all that with Obamacare, just as he denied the fact that premiums skyrocketed, even though that was widely reported.

    This is going exactly the way it went when Washington tried to outlaw preexisting conditions maybe 15 years ago. It took the companies about 3 years or so to stop writing individual policies, so the law had to be changed back. Obamacare has now been in full effect (with the exchanges, etc.) for 2+ years.

    premiums did not skyrocket. some junk subprime insurance that people had saw a big increase but overall there was no big increase.

    like there weren’t huge insurance premium increases before?

    Like I said, you would deny it. Washington never allowed junk policies. That’s just more Democratic party BS that you’ve fallen for hook, link and sucker.

    Also, most of these increases have been after the Obamacare provisions (e.g. free physicals) were already added. So that argument is complete nonsense.

    Aggregate medical spend has been increasing by double digits per year for decades. It seems Obamacare hasn’t significantly changed that (it’s slowed slightly, but it’s still increasing unsustainably). One way or the other, we need to deal with medical costs.

  140. 140
    Eastsider says:

    By pfft @ 129:

    premiums did not skyrocket. some junk subprime insurance that people had saw a big increase but overall there was no big increase.

    like there weren’t huge insurance premium increases before?

    Seriously, who are you kidding?

  141. 141
    Mike says:

    By Justme @ 132:

    RE: Mike @ 130

    Aha, so now you are changing the argument from “we need the big 149M police station” to, “it is easier to get the city council to pass a decision to build the 149M big police station we do not need than the 3 smaller stations that I think we actually need”.

    And at the same time, you are basically saying that we should be “for” the new $149M bitter lake kremlin police station, because the people who are against it are the wrong kind of people:

    QUOTE: The main groups fighting the new larger building aren’t fiscal conservatives, they’re social activists opposed to ALL police.

    Wow, just wow, I hope a lot of people read this and are ready to fight the kremlin boondoggle $149M police station.

    If you listened to the council members explain their ‘no’ votes it wasn’t for fiscal reasons. It was that they didn’t want to expand police coverage due to ‘people being afraid of the building and the people in it’. So that is the choice, either an expensive precinct or no precinct. The other options aren’t being voted on currently.

  142. 142
    Anonymous Coward says:

    RE: Justme @ 132 – Instead of calling it the “bitter lake Kremlin police station”, I’d like to propose we simply call it “Lubyanka at Bitter Lake”.

  143. 143
    David B. says:

    RE: Anonymous Coward @ 136 – I’m not sure that’s really fair to the KGB. The Lubyanka Building was a pre-existing structure that was adapted to KGB use, not an all-new super-expensive palace like what Seattle is proposing.

  144. 144

    By David B. @ 133:

    Frankly, I think the idea that there would be paid posters here is pretty laughable. How many people read this blog, anyhow? How many of those read the comments section? Campaigns are supposed to be interested in such a small audience?

    Or that the campaigns would be interested in Washington at all. We’re hardly a swing state when it comes to Presidential elections.

  145. 145

    By David B. @ 116:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 114 – Funny, since California cities were big in my mind when I typed that Seattle compares favorably. Just compare how dirty and tatty much of San Francisco’s public amenities are to Seattle’s. Ditto for Oakland (which though despite being a poorer city is actually cleaner than SF).

    I wasn’t thinking about how dirty the cities were, because other than stopovers/transfers I haven’t been to a major California city for over 20 years. And I’m not judging Seattle by how dirty or clean the streets and parks are.

    The recent comments on the Council’s focus regarding the precinct station is the type of incompetence I’m referring to. That and that the almost certain result will be building a building which is far more expensive than reasonably necessary.

  146. 146
    Blurtman says:

    Obamacare: We passed law due to ‘stupidity of the American voter’.

  147. 147

    RE: Blurtman @ 140 – Obamacare has been largely about the expansion of Medicaid and the screwing over those of us with individual plans. In Washington state, 300,000 people have gained coverage between 2012 and 2014, of which 680,000 have been Medicaid. See page 3. https://www.insurance.wa.gov/about-oic/reports/commissioner-reports/documents/2014-2015-state-of-uninsured.pdf

    The number of people with individual plans has increased only 12,000, while small group plan coverage has decreased 29,000 and “other” insurance decreased by 85,000. Large group (employer) has only increased by 27,000. See page 15. Since the individual market is the one opened up for those with pre-existing conditions, it’s safe to assume many of those who had individual plans in 2012 have dropped out.

    So basically all of the increases in coverage of Obamacare could have been done through changes to Medicaid, without messing with the health insurance coverage for the rest of us, which caused decreases in the number of people covered.

    Not to mention that lifting the $3,000,000 lifetime cap most policies had has been a Godsend for companies that want to charge $25,000+ for a month of their company’s drug. That’s helped a lot! /sarc

    http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/9-most-expensive-medicines-world-courtesy-big-pharma

  148. 148
    David B. says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 139 – Three words: New Bay Bridge.

  149. 149

    RE: David B. @ 142 – Yes, that has been somewhat of a disaster, but I’m not so sure that’s not a design issue. I’ve followed that to some extent and I’m not really sure where I’d lay the blame for that. Is it design, material supplier, contractor, construction oversight? I don’t know.

    But I suspect that’s more the state government than local government, unless maybe I missed something like local government pushing the state to that design, as with the Bertha tunnel. I’ve not said California state government is competent, and in fact have been very critical of it in the past. It’s almost the exact opposite of Washington, where you have the state taking reasonable positions and Seattle pushing absurd ideas.

  150. 150
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 141 – The Obamacare feelgood was enabling folks with pre-existing conditions to gain coverage and who could argue with that? Personally, I am for single payer, but the blue dog democrats would have torpedoed that attempt, let alone republicans. So you are paying to insure these folks. And a compromise that included significant bennies to industry was the bargain with the devil. Can kicked, yet again.

  151. 151

    By Blurtman @ 144:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 141 – The Obamacare feelgood was enabling folks with pre-existing conditions to gain coverage and who could argue with that?

    You mean by noting that allowing insurance coverage for something that already exists is not insurance? ;-)

    I don’t have a problem with government providing a solution for that problem, such as single payer. My problem is that they imposed the burden of that entirely on those with individual plans–a very small group of people–5% of the insurance pool in Washington state. And by doing so took choices away from those who were responsible and forced many of them into the ranks of the uninsured. Not everyone can afford $4,000-6,000 a year for insurance that doesn’t begin to kick in until you’ve spent another $3,500+. (Subsidies don’t kick in unless you make something like less than $50,000 a year, depending of course on family size.)

  152. 152
    Justme says:

    RE: Mike @ 135

    >>If you listened to the council members explain their ‘no’ votes it wasn’t for fiscal reasons. It was that they didn’t want to expand police coverage due to ‘people being afraid of the building and the people in it’. So that is the choice, either an expensive precinct or no precinct. The other options aren’t being voted on currently.

    More of the bad logic there, Mike: “The current proposal is bad, but there was no other proposal, so we must vote FOR it, especially since the people who vote against are the wrong kind of people”.

    So you were at the hearing, Mike? What is your interest in this boondoggle, exactly? Are you Police, City, Builder, Politician, Business or Landowner (in Bitter Lake)?

  153. 153
    Justme says:

    RE: Anonymous Coward @ 136

    Lubyanka, the old Soviet prison? Sure, if anyone understands the reference except some Russian immigrants. Americans have shallow knowledge and short attention spans. Their daily lives are filled with TV/media-generated trivia rather than actual knowledge. I’m sure most people do not even know what a Gulag was (is?).

    RE: David B. @ 142

    Yeah, the KGB probably had better fiscal management than Seattle Police and their enablers in City Hall. Would not surprise me. KGB just re-used the old prison.

    In general: What happened to the “mobile precinct” busses? How about we rent a few parking spaces for those near and at Aurora/130th, and keep them on rotation between those spaces? That’s what these vehicles are for: Covering hotspots. One heck of a lot cheaper than $149M or $20M. Why don’t we try that first. Has everyone forgotten about these police busses already, and what was the stated rationale for the busses? A bit of a history lesson here is called for.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/zheistand/6480469905

  154. 154
    Green-Horn says:

    RE: pfft @ 129

    As self-employed I had a Group Health policy well before ACA. After ACA, my premium doubled and my deductible increased from less than 2000 to more than 6000. The American people felt bad for the uninsured and they wanted something to be done to provide these poor folks with health coverage. But the American people were also promised it wouldn’t cost them anything at all to be able to deliver all that charity; solidarity without sacrifice in other words. Nothing is for free; somebody has to pay. American politics is great at fanfare when delivering any benefit but awfully sneaky at hiding the costs. I wish there had been more transparency in the whole affair. We want solidarity, here’s what it’s going to cost and everybody is going to have to contribute something.

  155. 155

    By Green-Horn @ 148:

    American politics is great at fanfare when delivering any benefit but awfully sneaky at hiding the costs.

    If they had proposed the benefits of Obamacare as a government program paid for by a pro rata increase income taxes, it never would have passed. But forcing 5% of the population to pay, that was okay.

  156. 156
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 131:

    By pfft @ 129:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 128:

    RE: Blake @ 126 – pfft will deny all that with Obamacare, just as he denied the fact that premiums skyrocketed, even though that was widely reported.

    This is going exactly the way it went when Washington tried to outlaw preexisting conditions maybe 15 years ago. It took the companies about 3 years or so to stop writing individual policies, so the law had to be changed back. Obamacare has now been in full effect (with the exchanges, etc.) for 2+ years.

    premiums did not skyrocket. some junk subprime insurance that people had saw a big increase but overall there was no big increase.

    like there weren’t huge insurance premium increases before?

    Like I said, you would deny it. Washington never allowed junk policies. That’s just more Democratic party BS that you’ve fallen for hook, link and sucker.

    Also, most of these increases have been after the Obamacare provisions (e.g. free physicals) were already added. So that argument is complete nonsense.

    how can you be serious?

    Junk health insurance
    Stingy plans may be worse than none at all
    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/03/junk-health-insurance/index.htm

    your excuse is washington wouldn’t allow it? seriously? rick scott is a gov now. think about that.

  157. 157
    pfft says:

    By Eastsider @ 134:

    By pfft @ 129:

    premiums did not skyrocket. some junk subprime insurance that people had saw a big increase but overall there was no big increase.

    like there weren’t huge insurance premium increases before?

    Seriously, who are you kidding?

    everything I said was true. I can put up links if you want.

  158. 158
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 141:

    RE: Blurtman @ 140 – Obamacare has been largely about the expansion of Medicaid and the screwing over those of us with individual plans. In Washington state, 300,000 people have gained coverage between 2012 and 2014, of which 680,000 have been Medicaid. See page 3. https://www.insurance.wa.gov/about-oic/reports/commissioner-reports/documents/2014-2015-state-of-uninsured.pdf

    The number of people with individual plans has increased only 12,000, while small group plan coverage has decreased 29,000 and “other” insurance decreased by 85,000. Large group (employer) has only increased by 27,000. See page 15. Since the individual market is the one opened up for those with pre-existing conditions, it’s safe to assume many of those who had individual plans in 2012 have dropped out.

    So basically all of the increases in coverage of Obamacare could have been done through changes to Medicaid, without messing with the health insurance coverage for the rest of us, which caused decreases in the number of people covered.

    Not to mention that lifting the $3,000,000 lifetime cap most policies had has been a Godsend for companies that want to charge $25,000+ for a month of their company’s drug. That’s helped a lot! /sarc

    http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/9-most-expensive-medicines-world-courtesy-big-pharma

    oh god you are so seriously misinformed it’s tragic. also kary what happens in washington state doesn’t mean its’ happening in the rest of the country.

    you don’t even seem to know that if you had individual plans your insurance was strengthened. it’s been around 6 years since obamacare was implemented and you still don’t know basic facts about the program! you talk like an expert though.

    HOW OBAMACARE HELPS AMERICANS WHO ALREADY HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE
    http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/how-obamacare-helps-americans-who-already-have-health-insurance

  159. 159
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 145:

    By Blurtman @ 144:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 141 – The Obamacare feelgood was enabling folks with pre-existing conditions to gain coverage and who could argue with that?

    You mean by noting that allowing insurance coverage for something that already exists is not insurance? ;-)

    I don’t have a problem with government providing a solution for that problem, such as single payer. My problem is that they imposed the burden of that entirely on those with individual plans–a very small group of people–5%

    source or it didn’t happen.

  160. 160
    David B. says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 143 – It’s actually very similar to the Bertha debacle in many respects. It’s a state highway project but with significant local investment/input. The reason the unusual (and trouble-prone) design for the new east span was chosen was that Caltrans came up with a reasonably-priced but admittedly ugly concrete box girder design that got shot down as too ugly by both Oakland and San Francisco. After a bunch of back-and-forth, the current design emerged, got approved, and was built. Like Bertha, you can point to both design and execution as culprits.

    As things stand now, I doubt the new span will have a service lifetime even half as long as the old one did.

  161. 161
    Justme says:

    RE: David B. @ 152

    Good information about SF-Oakland Bay Bridge , David. One could wish the Bertha Booster tunnelheads had some sense of looking at big projects in other states, and what they cost, and the benefit.

  162. 162
    Jack says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 141

    Yes, expanding Medicaid or moving to a single-payer system would have been a superior solution, but republicans wouldn’t allow it. The problems you mention are all due to concessions that had to be made to get some form of healthcare reform done.

    On the other hand, if your metric is expanded access to healthcare for everyone, then the Affordable Care Act has been a success.

  163. 163
    Eastsider says:

    By pfft @ 150:

    By Eastsider @ 134:

    By pfft @ 129:

    premiums did not skyrocket. some junk subprime insurance that people had saw a big increase but overall there was no big increase.

    like there weren’t huge insurance premium increases before?

    Seriously, who are you kidding?

    everything I said was true. I can put up links if you want.

    I assume you are not paying for ObamaCare out of your own pocket. I do. And I don’t need your link to know how much premium has gone up in the last few years. Something is seriously wrong with people like you.

  164. 164

    By pfft @ 151:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 145:

    By Blurtman @ 144:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 141 – The Obamacare feelgood was enabling folks with pre-existing conditions to gain coverage and who could argue with that?

    You mean by noting that allowing insurance coverage for something that already exists is not insurance? ;-)

    I don’t have a problem with government providing a solution for that problem, such as single payer. My problem is that they imposed the burden of that entirely on those with individual plans–a very small group of people–5%

    source or it didn’t happen.

    I already did in post 141, although that is 5% of insureds as opposed to 5% of the population. So it is really less than 5%.

    Are you really that dense that you don’t understand what is happening to the private insurance market? You don’t understand why companies are pulling out? The math is pretty simple. If you have to let in one person who has bills of over $3,000 a month it takes a lot of healthy people to make up for that. Washington state learned that about 15-20 years ago, but you don’t even understand that today. But if the link had DNC in it, you’d eat it up hook, line and sucker.

  165. 165

    By Jack @ 154:

    On the other hand, if your metric is expanded access to healthcare for everyone, then the Affordable Care Act has been a success.

    Only because of the expansion of Medicaid, which could have been done without the other.

    Other than that it just substituted one group of private insureds (irresponsible people who didn’t have insurance) for another (responsible people who had insurance but can no longer afford it, or at least decide that).

  166. 166

    RE: David B. @ 152 – I wasn’t aware of that history. I only started following it when the corrosion problems popped up (and also on World’s Toughest Fixes, which covered one of the switchovers to the new bridge).

  167. 167
    pfft says:

    By Eastsider @ 155:

    By pfft @ 150:

    By Eastsider @ 134:

    By pfft @ 129:

    premiums did not skyrocket. some junk subprime insurance that people had saw a big increase but overall there was no big increase.

    like there weren’t huge insurance premium increases before?

    Seriously, who are you kidding?

    everything I said was true. I can put up links if you want.

    I assume you are not paying for ObamaCare out of your own pocket. I do. And I don’t need your link to know how much premium has gone up in the last few years. Something is seriously wrong with people like you.

    overall premiums have not skyrocketed. this is not even a dispute. if you have different data on overall premium increases please post them. and please do remember I said overall premiums.

  168. 168
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 156:

    By Jack @ 154:

    On the other hand, if your metric is expanded access to healthcare for everyone, then the Affordable Care Act has been a success.

    Only because of the expansion of Medicaid, which could have been done without the other.

    Other than that it just substituted one group of private insureds (irresponsible people who didn’t have insurance) for another (responsible people who had insurance but can no longer afford it, or at least decide that).

    oh my god. are you saying if you didn’t have insurance you are irresponsible? oh my god.

    6 years later and you know nothing about obamacare or health insurance in general.

  169. 169
    pfft says:

    So what anti-obamacare large private corporation is paying you guys to post here such blatant misinformation guys? anyone going to fess up?

  170. 170

    By pfft @ 168:

    oh my god. are you saying if you didn’t have insurance you are irresponsible? oh my god.

    As someone who has been insured my entire life, much of it by buying individual policies for the past 25 years or so, yes I would say it is irresponsible to not have insurance, unless of course there was no financial choice. Unfortunately not having had a financial choice is not a prerequisite to Obamacare allowing some people to basically steal other peoples’ money by joining the small pool of individual insurance. But again, if government wanted to take care of the irresponsible people, I’d not have a problem with that. That though is not what Obamacare did.

    But nice deflection about the fact that Obamacare has not significantly increased the number of insured people. It’s mainly added people to Medicare, while totally messing up medical insurance. How do you deal with that fact (other than continued denial that there’s a problem)?

  171. 171
    Green-Horn says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 155

    Exactly Right.

    Voters are more dishonest than the politicians. Voters say they want honest leaders, but on this they’re themselves lying.

    I’m agnostic on the solidarity question. If citizens want solidarity, they should be honest about the sacrifice it’ll take, not just demand that somebody else bear the costs for feel good conscience balm. There should be a special place in hell for this kind of phony do-gooder who wants to help others at somebody else’s expense.

  172. 172
    Joe says:

    Vancouver bubble has popped!!!!! Prices in free-fall. How long before it hits Seattle?

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2887766/data-is-the-metro-vancouver-real-estate-market-in-free-fall/

  173. 173
    Joe says:

    Unfortunately, this means everyone who bought in Vancouver this Spring just lost their 20% down payment the last couple months (and very quietly). If they were foreign buyers who didn’t close before the 15% tax became effective, they may have lost 35%. And there’s probably a lot more price drops to come. This has just started.

  174. 174
    Mike says:

    By Justme @ 152:

    RE: Mike @ 135

    >>If you listened to the council members explain their ‘no’ votes it wasn’t for fiscal reasons. It was that they didn’t want to expand police coverage due to ‘people being afraid of the building and the people in it’. So that is the choice, either an expensive precinct or no precinct. The other options aren’t being voted on currently.

    More of the bad logic there, Mike: “The current proposal is bad, but there was no other proposal, so we must vote FOR it, especially since the people who vote against are the wrong kind of people”.

    So you were at the hearing, Mike? What is your interest in this boondoggle, exactly? Are you Police, City, Builder, Politician, Business or Landowner (in Bitter Lake)?

    None of those. Just someone that has live in the north precinct for a while and seen the police services removed. It’s the carrot and stick – in this case it’s mostly stick since it’s funded by taxes. Same thing with sound transit, homelessness, whatever issue can be leveraged into a giant mess – make the problem SO BAD people are willing to vote for whatever expensive solution is offered. It would be nice if we could go back in time and unelect the people that clearly had an incentive to pursue these types of “solutions” but that’s not going to happen.

  175. 175
    redmondjp says:

    By pfft @ 169:

    So what anti-obamacare large private corporation is paying you guys to post here such blatant misinformation guys? anyone going to fess up?

    Wow, what kind of reality distortion field are you living in? I’ve got plenty of similar horror stories about Obamacare from my own friends as well.

    Maybe the problem is that you can’t handle the truth – ever think of that?

  176. 176
    pfft says:

    By redmondjp @ 175:

    By pfft @ 169:

    So what anti-obamacare large private corporation is paying you guys to post here such blatant misinformation guys? anyone going to fess up?

    Wow, what kind of reality distortion field are you living in? I’ve got plenty of similar horror stories about Obamacare from my own friends as well.

    Maybe the problem is that you can’t handle the truth – ever think of that?

    what are you even referring too? Overall premiums have not skyrocketed. there is no disputing that.

    the reason we have obamacare is because there were plenty of insurance horror stories. maybe your friends had subprime junk insurance like kary did.

    you guys just don’t like obama and don’t like obamacare. you are too blind to see that obamacare has been a great success. it hasn’t collapsed of it’s own weight like people like paul ryan predicted.

    it’s a success, move on! go distort some other Obama policy.

    let’s review what we’ve proved so far.

    1. obamacare has successful signed up tens of millions

    2. it hasn’t “collapsed of it’s own weight”

    3. there were junk insurance policies

    4. premiums overall haven’t skyrocketed

    any other lies need debunking?

  177. 177
    Irrational Exhuberance says:

    RE: Joe @ 172

    The Chinese and foreign investors couldn’t possibly have distorted the market — no way. Yes way, they were bailing when the tax was looking like it was going to pass because they are family and friends playing a speculative game on the other side of the pond. You can bet Seattle and other cities world wide are being bid up by this behavior — real estate is gamed.

    I bet there is a racket of family, friends and execs in foreign countries working together to bid up prices and cash out before the bubble pops. It’s called hype! And this is caused by value-cocreation concepts from Service Dominant Logic — the consumer ascribes value, all the service company need do is arm consumers with materials to get them to perceive more value and they will pay more for less. Public relations campaigns pull the string and the experts will relay information to play to their belief systems and ego’s.

    Look at this blog here and comments on Vancouver — it has happened, will happen again and again because it’s the game.

    Communication systems of today amplify — and its so funny how much unscientific data is out there to support, “it can’t possibly be a bubble” or “it is a bubble”. The whole thing is a bubble from day one — someone thinks the house is worth something in the first place, the bubble gets a little air. If you realize this fact, you now are welcomed to the world of valuation — of appraisal and some of the concepts of value investing.

    Seattle is overpriced — just stand on the top of any of the towers around Amazon and look as far as you can see. It’s Detroit — all of this investment into the labor of software. We saw this before, we’ll see it again. DARPA has a project that has an award for the first successful system that writes software on its own — automation for software development.

    It’s time to buy into where the puck is going — it’s not the people using neural networks. It’s the businesses that will help the 99% from the 1% just like the 60’s. Invest in that, just like when the King of England hedged his investments in attacking the early colonies by funding the revolutionary war on the other side. You’ll make more money off of the swing trade – it’s not in Real Estate right now, it’s time to move on.

  178. 178
    boater says:

    By pfft @ 167:

    By Eastsider @ 155:

    By pfft @ 150:

    By Eastsider @ 134:

    By pfft @ 129:

    premiums did not skyrocket. some junk subprime insurance that people had saw a big increase but overall there was no big increase.

    like there weren’t huge insurance premium increases before?

    Seriously, who are you kidding?

    everything I said was true. I can put up links if you want.

    I assume you are not paying for ObamaCare out of your own pocket. I do. And I don’t need your link to know how much premium has gone up in the last few years. Something is seriously wrong with people like you.

    overall premiums have not skyrocketed. this is not even a dispute. if you have different data on overall premium increases please post them. and please do remember I said overall premiums.

    Why would I as an individual payer give a damn that Obamacare did nothing to Microsofts insurance plan rates? Mine have doubled. One large reason is because I am now covered for pregnancy. Nevermind I am male ans incapable of getting pregnant. Before OC I had a plan without now that is impossible to buy.

    OC did not control Healthcare costs. It tried but hasnt. I don’t hate OC. The lifetime cap limit being lifted is great. But premiums for single payers have most definitely skyrocketed. That you don’t care that the majority of the burden of the system is being born by a few people is your deal. But don’t tell me I’m not experiencing skyrocketing rates.

  179. 179
    Joe says:

    There are lots of people with money that will undoubtedly capitalize on the bust, and there are those who say stuff like “the price is what it is”, as if you have to overpay and there’s nothing that can be done. The only other option is renting, and most people find that distasteful for some reason. They don’t even run the numbers. I think these behaviors are “luxuries” that will be paid for very soon.

  180. 180

    By Joe @ 172:

    Vancouver bubble has popped!!!!! Prices in free-fall. How long before it hits Seattle?

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2887766/data-is-the-metro-vancouver-real-estate-market-in-free-fall/

    It could be, but that article, or more precisely, the agent who provided that data, is not terribly convincing.

    It’s only two weeks of data for a fairly small area, similar to one of the NWMLS’s many areas in King County, provided by an agent who has been bearish for over a year for other reasons. As the article notes at the very end of the first sentence, many experts think it’s too soon to tell, and I would agree with that, adding in the area is too small.

    That said, undoubtedly that law didn’t help increase prices and probably will lead to lower prices or more moderated increases, all other things being equal. But it’s too soon to tell the overall direction.

  181. 181

    By Green-Horn @ 171:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 155

    Exactly Right.

    Voters are more dishonest than the politicians.

    Dishonest might not be the right term, but I get what you’re trying to say. The best example of that was years ago voters passed a measure to build a lot of roads financed by bonds, and then the next year passed Tim Eyman’s measure to gut the funding for building roads (the car tab tax). They want the benefits but don’t want to pay for them.

    Or more recently, how Tony Ventrella (sp?) won in the primary, even though he had dropped out a long time prior. Name recognition did it, which is part of the reason we’re facing Clinton/Trump.

  182. 182
    ess says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 181:

    By Green-Horn @ 171:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 155

    They want the benefits but don’t want to pay for them.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————

    This is why the only major initiative to fail in Seattle over the past number of years was a tax on each cup of purchased coffee that slated to fund early childhood education programs. Initiatives pass overwhelmingly when they are attached to property taxes, because either voters don’t make the connection between those taxes and their rent, or they can blame “greedy landlords” when their rents are raised to pay for increased taxes. But an additional tax on coffee was a tax that the buyer would have had to personally pay for at the time and place of purchase, and it went down in flames after much outrage.

  183. 183
    Justme says:

    RE: Mike @ 174

    What about using some of those Mobile Precinct busses, Mike? Are you for or against that?

  184. 184
    Mike says:

    By Justme @ 183:

    RE: Mike @ 174

    What about using some of those Mobile Precinct busses, Mike? Are you for or against that?

    I’ve never seen one but if they increase coverage for patrol and enforcement they sound like a good addition.

  185. 185
    Justme says:

    RE: Mike @ 184

    I was asking about (post number 153) Mobile Precincts as an ALTERNATIVE to building the $149M Bitter Lake police station.

  186. 186
    Blake says:

    By redmondjp @ 175:

    By pfft @ 169:

    So what anti-obamacare large private corporation is paying you guys to post here such blatant misinformation guys? anyone going to fess up?

    Wow, what kind of reality distortion field are you living in? I’ve got plenty of similar horror stories about Obamacare from my own friends as well.

    Maybe the problem is that you can’t handle the truth – ever think of that?

    ObamaCare is collapsing for obvious reasons that Lambert Strether at Naked Capitalism has been writing about exhaustively for years:
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/08/obamacare-death-spiral-accelerates-as-aetna-pulls-out-of-the-exchanges.html
    – “(NC readers already know how crapified the ObamaCare plans are: links 2013, 2013, 2014, 2015…) Note that Laszewski’s 40% figure is entirely consistent with NBER Working Paper No. 21565, which concludes, in short form, that for approximately half the “formerly uninsured,” ObamaCare is a losing proposition.”…
    “Rates may jump 24 percent next year, according to ACASignups.net, a website that tracks the law, and a quarter of U.S. counties could have just one insurer on the exchanges, according to Cynthia Cox, a researcher at the Kaiser Family Foundation.”
    … How’s that for choice?

    The idea to pass a mandate requiring citizens to buy private insurance was first promoted by the rightwing Heritage Foundation (funded by insurance companies, no surprise…) and first implemented by Republican Gov Mitt Romney. It was a half-assed, poorly designed “solution” that only got worse as they traded away almost all cost controls to get it passed: negotiated drug prices, nationwide health exchanges, public option etc etc. In the last months of 2009, trying to get OC passed, Big Pharma bought millions of dollars in TV ads urging passage of Obama’s plan!

    Here’s Obama in 2013 pleading with the Wall Street Journal CEOs to like him… citing his “health care reform based on the private marketplace”
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/11/19/transcript-of-obama-remarks-at-wsj-ceo-council-meeting/
    “Here in America, the difference between Democrats and Republicans — we’re fighting inside the 40-yard line, maybe…. My health care reform is based on the private marketplace.”

    Pfft wrote: “So what anti-obamacare large private corporation is paying you guys to post here such blatant misinformation guys? anyone going to fess up?”

    I’m sorry I baited pfft by bringing up the fact that his beloved healthINSURANCE reform was collapsing… It is sad to see his crazed ravings, but unfortunately there are too many died-in-the-wool partisans like him in this country… now more than ever. Sad… I do appreciate people on this and other forums who are actually thinking for themselves and not defending corrupt intitutions and people.

    (Note: The Democratic and Republican parties are PRIVATELY held, highly secretive institutions that are tied-in directly with the most powerful groups that own the economy – – they like the status quo! In most US counties and many states they have uncontested, monopoly power and nationwide they form a cartel or oligopoly that prevents any outside influence and reform. Their power must be broken…)

  187. 187
    pfft says:

    “OC did not control Healthcare costs. It tried but hasn’t”

    source for your unsubstantiated claim please.

    “But premiums for single payers have most definitely skyrocketed.”

    source for your unsubstantiated claim please.

    “the majority of the burden of the system is being born by a few people”

    source for your unsubstantiated claim please.

    “is your deal. But don’t tell me I’m not experiencing skyrocketing rates.”

    I never stated an opinion either way. why are you lying about what I said? why? what I said was overall premiums weren’t skyrocketing. I will gladly give you like after link if need be. they are bookmarked.

    “Before OC I had a plan without now that is impossible to buy.”

    it sounds like you had junk insurance.

  188. 188
    Ross says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 180:

    By Joe @ 172:

    Vancouver bubble has popped!!!!! Prices in free-fall. How long before it hits Seattle?

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2887766/data-is-the-metro-vancouver-real-estate-market-in-free-fall/

    It could be, but that article, or more precisely, the agent who provided that data, is not terribly convincing.

    It’s only two weeks of data for a fairly small area, similar to one of the NWMLS’s many areas in King County, provided by an agent who has been bearish for over a year for other reasons. As the article notes at the very end of the first sentence, many experts think it’s too soon to tell, and I would agree with that, adding in the area is too small.

    That said, undoubtedly that law didn’t help increase prices and probably will lead to lower prices or more moderated increases, all other things being equal. But it’s too soon to tell the overall direction.

    Agree. Any foreigner who was buying a home would have accelerated their purchase to come in before the deadline. That was borrowing demand from the short term future. Date from 2 weeks after the change, as the market is seasonally slowing, with shifted demand is not going to be conclusive.

    Logically, this should slow the market, slightly.

  189. 189
    Joe says:

    In Vancouver, people who were already legally committed to transactions tried to close them before the tax took effect. Anybody who wasn’t legally committed walked away because they knew prices would plummet. Lots of them simply forfeited their deposits.

    Let’s not pretend anybody rushed to purchase a house in Vancouver before the tax took effect. That would be financial suicide.

  190. 190

    RE: pfft @ 187 – pfft, although you like Obamacare, you obviously know nothing about it.

    Obamacare did nothing to control healthcare costs–what exactly do you think it did? At most it tried to control the cost of insurance, by creating more competition, but that was extremely naive because the cost of insurance is mainly a function of the cost of healthcare products and services. Calling it the Affordable Healthcare Act was very Orwellian.

    As to your last comment about an insurance plan not being available, that is also just ignorant. Although Obama claimed you could keep your current insurance, Obamacare required changes to insurance policies from the get go, so it was a lie from the start, but then when they fully implemented it your ability to keep an older policy was dependent on that policy having not changed, which was nearly impossible (if not impossible) due to the prior required changes. Again, very Orwellian.

    Quit asking for cites for things that you should know. That you have eaten so much Democratic party BS that you can’t see doesn’t mean that we have to educate you on what everyone else knows. Also, some of what you’re asking for (e.g. the burden on a small number of people) has already been answered here. You’re just too much of an Obamabot to accept facts.

    BTW, there was new news out that echoed what I said above. The people who now have coverage who didn’t before have it as a result of buying policies is only 11% of the newly covered. The vast bulk of the newly covered added coverage were through Medicaid. So Obamacare screwed up the insurance market to benefit a very small group of people.

  191. 191
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 190 – I am guessing that Obamacare helped hospitals, as people like you are paying for what would have been uncollectable bills.

  192. 192

    By Blurtman @ 191:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 190 – I am guessing that Obamacare helped hospitals, as people like you are paying for what would have been uncollectable bills.

    Maybe, but it did help the government, who was picking up a lot of the tab on that. Even if covered by Medicaid that would at least be at negotiated or limited rates. Not the BS full cost fee that hospitals only try to collect from the uninsured or those who don’t negotiate a lower payment for cash.

  193. 193
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 192 – Careful you communist, you are making an argument for single payer.

  194. 194
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 190:

    RE: pfft @ 187 – pfft, although you like Obamacare, you obviously know nothing about it.

    Obamacare did nothing to control healthcare costs–what exactly do you think it did? At most it tried to control the cost of insurance, by creating more competition, but that was extremely naive because the cost of insurance is mainly a function of the cost of healthcare products and services. Calling it the Affordable Healthcare Act was very Orwellian.

    As to your last comment about an insurance plan not being available, that is also just ignorant. Although Obama claimed you could keep your current insurance, Obamacare required changes to insurance policies from the get go, so it was a lie from the start, but then when they fully implemented it your ability to keep an older policy was dependent on that policy having not changed, which was nearly impossible (if not impossible) due to the prior required changes. Again, very Orwellian.

    Quit asking for cites for things that you should know. That you have eaten so much Democratic party BS that you can’t see doesn’t mean that we have to educate you on what everyone else knows. Also, some of what you’re asking for (e.g. the burden on a small number of people) has already been answered here. You’re just too much of an Obamabot to accept facts.

    BTW, there was new news out that echoed what I said above. The people who now have coverage who didn’t before have it as a result of buying policies is only 11% of the newly covered. The vast bulk of the newly covered added coverage were through Medicaid. So Obamacare screwed up the insurance market to benefit a very small group of people.

    sorry but I need sources first for all your unsubstantiated claims.

    Obamacare Doesn’t Ignore Health Care Costs. It’s Helping To Bring Them Down.
    https://thinkprogress.org/obamacare-doesnt-ignore-health-care-costs-it-s-helping-to-bring-them-down-2c1a3fd87e60#.pkwpbh1mk

    Covering a lot of uninsured people now and sparing them future health costs will do wonder both to control future spending, improve quality of life and save lives.

  195. 195
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 192:

    By Blurtman @ 191:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 190 – I am guessing that Obamacare helped hospitals, as people like you are paying for what would have been uncollectable bills.

    Maybe, but it did help the government, who was picking up a lot of the tab on that. Even if covered by Medicaid that would at least be at negotiated or limited rates. Not the BS full cost fee that hospitals only try to collect from the uninsured or those who don’t negotiate a lower payment for cash.

    you guess obamacare is helping hospitals? obamacare is saving hospitals by many of those payments.

    Thanks To Obamacare, Hospitals Saved More Than $7 Billion Last Year
    https://thinkprogress.org/thanks-to-obamacare-hospitals-saved-more-than-7-billion-last-year-baffe0a98335#.h4famydw4

    I am sure like others you’ll have some snarky comment about how obamacare is just a big giveaway to corporate hospitals like you and others say about obamacare’s effect on drug companies.

  196. 196
    Blurtman says:

    RE: pfft @ 195 – I think Kary can afford to relieve even more of the hospitals’ burden. We all have their stocks in our 401k’s. What a transfer of wealth is all about, ka-ching!

  197. 197
    Eastsider says:

    RE: pfft @ 195 – Here are some tidbits on your source – thinkprogress.org. One former editor worked as the Director of New Media for Nancy Pelosi (“we have to pass the [ObamaCare] bill so you can find out what is in it”). Another writer publicly claimed that when he wrote for ThinkProgress, he was pressured to support President Barack Obama’s policies. [Source – Wikipedia.]

    How about show us some links from WSJ to support your claims?

  198. 198
    pfft says:

    By Eastsider @ 197:

    RE: pfft @ 195 – Here are some tidbits on your source – thinkprogress.org. One former editor worked as the Director of New Media for Nancy Pelosi (“we have to pass the [ObamaCare] bill so you can find out what is in it”). Another writer publicly claimed that when he wrote for ThinkProgress, he was pressured to support President Barack Obama’s policies. [Source – Wikipedia.]

    How about show us some links from WSJ to support your claims?

    WSJ will screw up basic facts as always.

    also, wikipedia? really? there wasn’t anything wrong with nancy pelosi’s quote. most of the time, like when you used it, it’s taken out of context.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html?utm_term=.32046e9cce32

  199. 199

    RE: pfft @ 198 – You still haven’t dealt with the questions/facts I presented you. Just cited partisan nonsense.

    Deal with the questions/facts as presented in the Insurance Commissioner’s report before you start asking for cites.

  200. 200
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 199:

    RE: pfft @ 198 – You still haven’t dealt with the questions/facts I presented you. Just cited partisan nonsense.

    Deal with the questions/facts as presented in the Insurance Commissioner’s report before you start asking for cites.

    I don’t think you understand how this works kary. you post stuff w/o any sources and I am supposed to debunk it? no kary, you post sources first.

    for example, you said obamacare did nothing to control costs. can you please back up that claim?

    you guys are unbelievable. you post unsourced “facts” and then turn it all around me like I did something wrong.

    if we are just going to post “facts” I’d say that obamacare cut costs by 50%. it’s true because I said it. I am not going to post any sources you guys will have to do that.

    also, the seahawks are the worst team in the NFL. Russell Wilson is the most overrated quarterback in the NFL. Also seattle is a world class city. it’s all true because I said so. it’s up to you guys to prove me wrong.

  201. 201

    By pfft @ 200:

    I don’t think you understand how this works kary. you post stuff w/o any sources and I am supposed to debunk it? no kary, you post sources first.

    for example, you said obamacare did nothing to control costs. can you please back up that claim?

    First, I did post a link to the facts I asserted, and you have not responded. I was first, so answer my questions. Refute the information in the insurance commissioner’s report.

    Second, I don’t think you understand how things work. How am I possibly going to post a link to how Obamacare didn’t do something that it didn’t do? You can’t prove a negative. Newsflash, I won’t be able to post a link to how Obamacare made manned flight to Mars possible either, because it didn’t happen. You really don’t have a clue as to how anything works. Pathetic.

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.