The Seattle Times has anointed its choices for local offices and when I briefly skimmed the list, I saw what appeared to be a trend. Of the three city council members who were pilloried over some questionable rezoning votes on behalf of a (gasp) strip club, the two women are deemed unworthy to be returned to office, with the rezoning fiasco as a big factor, while the only man of the three is considered a strong, moral leader despite the recent lapse in judgment.
The big difference between the three seems to be inexperience on the part of the two women (councilman Compton has been in the game a bit longer): the Times has other issues with the two rookies, but by citing the strip club mess as a factor in all three endorsements, it raises some questions.
- Why are only the women in trouble for the appearance of impropriety in the rezoning debacle? Wouldn’t a more experienced hand politico be more likely to know better?
- Why are the candidates endorsed all men? I realize the choice has to made from whoever declares for the seat, but it just looks odd in the context of the different judgements meted out for the rezoning matter.
Rosenkrantz, Min to replace Nicastro
Judy Nicastro deserves a political thrashing for taking campaign money from the friends of a strip club, voting for a city ordinance at the request of the club and defending it all
Della instead of Wills
And Wills is up to her nose in the latest Seattle embarrassment, the campaign-finance shenanigans surrounding a Lake City strip club.
Wills voted — twice — for a rezone that would permit expansion of the club’s parking lot.
Re-elect Compton
His strengths, value and service to the community were not diminished or defined by lapses of attention and judgment during council land-use proceedings involving a Lake City strip club.
Compton argues his vote still fits the land-use facts, but readily concedes the troubling proximity of politics, money and requests for help, and the council’s failure to follow rules about outside contacts.