Category: reason

“Journalists are not the enemy.” Hot off of calling for more social-media censorship and supporting destructive speech regulations like FOSTA, newspaper editors would like you to know that Donald Trump’s dissing of the news media makes them sad. More than 300 U.S. newspapers ran Thursday editorials that “call for an end to President Trump’s sustained assault” on the press.

“Our role is to serve as a check on government,” the Chicago Tribune declares. “The president ought to get used to it.”

“Our democracy is endangered when citizens are persuaded to reject or ignore the professionals who provide news and information,” warns The Athens News in Ohio.

And so on.

The editorials were organized by The Boston Globe and, as HuffPost describes them, “have each been constructed with different words but bear a shared message: Mr. President, ‘journalists are not the enemy.'”

As a journalist (as well as general enthusiast for classical liberal principles and a person capable of making basic historical analogies), I too find the president’s description of journalists as enemies of the people unsettling. But whipping up contempt toward the press has been a staple of right-wing talking points in this country for at least two decades. The president’s preening anti-media tirades are not so much stirring new hatred within his base as stoking a longstanding sentiment.

So far, however, Trump’s anti-press antics have stayed in the realm of rhetoric. Meanwhile, the good folks in Congress, state government, and federal agencies are doing things all the time that actually infringe on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and an open internet, while the vast majority of news outlets remain silent at best.

Twitter’s online speech norms were created and shaped by lawyers who were deeply knowledgeable of existing First Amendment case law in the U.S. It feels like journalists now want platforms to intentionally deviate from that: https://t.co/e9XLJMCHxY https://t.co/kkdSBSqaHK

— Kim-Mai Cutler (@kimmaicutler) August 15, 2018

Meanwhile, in places where we could use real reporting, mainstream journalists fall all over themselves to create petty drama and praise John McCain for his contributions to warmongering. While the ideals espoused in these editorials may be righteous, they ring a little hollow…

…and a little self-serving. Too many in media seem to have confused their own diminishing role as gatekeepers of all info and narratives with an existential threat to democracy. Yes, let’s fight back against Trump and anyone else in government who seeks to suppress dissent. But maybe people wouldn’t hate us so much if we fought as hard for everyone’s dignity and right to speak as we do for our own tribe’s.

Jack Shafer shares some of these concerns. “It goes without saying that press bashing, Trump-style, is alarming,” Shafer writes in Politico. “But this Globe-sponsored coordinated editorial response is sure to backfire: It will provide Trump with circumstantial evidence of the existence of a national press cabal that has been convened solely to oppose him….The Globe‘s anti-Trump project is also an exercise in redundancy, not to mention self-stroking. Most newspapers have already published a multitude of editorials and columns rebuking the president for his trash-talking of the press.”

FREE MINDS

But on to journalists doing good things… The South Florida Sun Sentinel is under fire “for publishing confidential but legally obtained information about Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz.” The Broward County Public Schools had requested that two reporters and the paper be held in contempt of court after publishing portions of a school district report that Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer had ordered redacted before the district made it public.

“At issue is a report released Aug. 3 based on Cruz’s educational record, revealing what officials knew about him in the years leading up to his Feb. 14 attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where he killed 17 people and wounded 17 more,” the Sun Sentinel explains.

But here’s the kicker: The school district blacked out sensitive portions of the report only before posting it online, leaving the underlying data intact—a “method [that] made it possible for anyone to read the blacked-out portions by copying and pasting them into another file.” More about what the Sun Sentinel found in that “redacted” information here.

University of Southern California journalism professor Philip Seib told the paper, “It sounds to me like the people who were in contempt were those in the government agency who allowed it to be disseminated in a way that any school child could have decoded.”

FREE MARKETS

Marijuana vote in Utah hits Mormon snag. In November, Utah voters will get to vote on whether the state should legalize medical marijuana. But only if a lawsuit filed yesterday by Mormon activists is successful. “In the complaint, opponents of Proposition 2—which would legalize marijuana for people with an array of health conditions—said the ballot initiative would tread on their freedom of religion,” the Salt Lake Tribune explains. More:

The group says the measure would violate the religious beliefs of Walter J. Plumb, an attorney and active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is the primary financier of the opposition campaign.

The lawsuit takes issue with a provision of the ballot measure that would prevent landlords from not renting to a medical marijuana cardholder, saying that could create an issue of Mormon property owners being forced into renting to people who use cannabis. Plumb’s “religious beliefs include a strict adherence to a code of health which precludes the consumption and possession of mind-altering drugs, substances and chemicals, which includes cannabis and its various derivatives,” the complaint states.

QUICK HITS

• Trump has revoked the security clearance of CIA director turned Trump critic John Brennan. “Former national security officials often maintain their security clearances to advise their successors,” NPR notes. Trump also offered up a list of nine other folks whose security clearances he was considering revoking.
• A Georgia cop deployed a stun gun against an 87-year-old woman who was using a knife to cut dandelions. “She told us she was smiling at them to tell them that she wasn’t a threat…and she was trying to get closer to them to communicate with them, and that’s when they tased her,” her grandson told ABC News.
• Government policies are making the future of porn worse.
• Happy birthday to Madonna, who at 60 is still pissing people off with her outfits.
• Elizabeth Warren has a “plan to save capitalism.” Sigh.

I covered the case of Trudy Munoz, who was released from prison after being convicted with bad science but will now be deported. https://t.co/zq9ef47pHC

— Jessica Pishko (@JessPish) August 15, 2018

• An FBI robbery investigation leads to “an unprecedented grab for Google location data.”
• The Masterpiece Cakeshop battle never ends.
• The Federal Communications Commission has killed Alex Jones’ “Radio Liberty” station, but the move is unrelated to recent social media drama. “According to documents in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Austin this week, Radio Liberty had been illegally broadcasting over a local FM station from 2013 until it ceased pirating the airwaves in December and switched to online streaming and a call-in ‘listen line,'” The Week reports.

Who among us does not try to anonymously trash their spouse for a joint profile https://t.co/tTsrEH6GAL pic.twitter.com/Ufe2HXK1jb

— Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) August 15, 2018

There is a time and a place—many times and many places, in fact—when it is good to highlight that certain utterances are likely to offend. Once, my parents were on a trip and met someone who casually used the term “Jewed down.” And far too many people still use the term “gyp,” not realizing it is a negative, stereotype-fueling reference to a group that faces horrific discrimination and violence. There’s a reason it will be seen as a big deal if Donald Trump in fact used the ‘N-word,’ while no one would have batted an eye if a white person used that same term just a couple of generations ago. Part of the evolution of language is retiring old, bad words, or severely limiting their usage.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be on the lookout for language overpolicing, as well, writes Jesse Singal in his latest piece at Reason.

View this article.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump said of Bernie Sanders, “He and I are similar on trade.” Trump was correct, writes Veronique de Rugy. Despite seemingly falling on different ends of the political spectrum, both men are populists who apparently believe that governments are better than markets at managing economic activity.

View this article.

Dylan Dyke, 12, and his family are fighting to keep his two ducks. Georgetown Township, Michigan, officials say local zoning codes don’t allow the family to keep ducks. Mark Dyke, Dylan’s father, says neighbors complained the ducks could depress their property values. The dad says he doesn’t understand that concern given that the family’s home is next to a lake where you can find plenty of ducks and geese.

Anyone who was milling around the counter-protesters at Sunday’s “Unite the Right 2” rally in Washington, D.C., might have overheard the incessant chants from a small group of Revolutionary Communist Party members, one of which concluded with the line “five, six, seven, eight, America was never great.”

It’s the kind of commentary one would expect from Marxist demonstrators. It’s more surprising to hear it come from the mouth of a sitting governor up for re-election, and who might well be mulling a 2020 run for president.

“We’re not going to make America great again,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday at a bill signing ceremony. “It was never that great. We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.”

The line drew a mix of gasps and claps from the audience, some of whom clearly appreciated Cuomo’s #resistance bravado. Others were likely a little offended at the governor ragging on the entire country.

The comment has naturally torn through conservative media as well, earning write-ups at Foxnews.com, The Federalist, and The Free Beacon, as well as a number of sarcastic jabs on Twitter from people who suggested the governor use the line for his own, much-speculated-about 2020 presidential run.

Seems like a winning 2020 slogan https://t.co/SaqochciO8

— Allahpundit (@allahpundit) August 15, 2018

Bold strategy, Cotton. https://t.co/HoUhqPYHcu

— Ben Domenech (@bdomenech) August 15, 2018

Cuomo has since tried to walk back his comment with a statement saying that while America is in fact great, it could also be a lot better.

CUOMO’s office clarifies:

“Governor Cuomo disagrees with the President. The Governor believes America is great and that her full greatness will be fully realized when every man, woman, and child has full equality. America has not yet reached its maximum potential.”

— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) August 15, 2018

I think few people would disagree that a lot of things in America are not quite reaching their “maximum potential,” and it’s surely no sin to criticize the bizarrely nationalistic and backward-looking slogan of our current president, especially when it is invoked to justify pointless trade wars and immigration restrictions.

Nevertheless, Cuomo’s statement does deserve a little bit of piling on, if only because I see in it the same dangerous, illiberal idea that undergirds all of Trump’s #MAGA shouting. Both statements are predicated on the idea that it is the role of politicians to make America the right amount of great. For Trump, that means reclaiming an idealized past that never actually existed for white people and was actually a lot worse for most non-white Americans. For Cuomo, making American great means something seemingly more anodyne, but also way less specific. (Really, what is engagement? What is “full equality”?)

The latter might sound a bit better were it not for the fact that Cuomo—in full campaign mode as he fights off primary challenger Cynthia Nixon—can’t help but tie making America great again to his own political fortunes. Reelecting Cuomo gets you the greatness. No Cuomo, no greatness.

Whether they want to make American great again or the first time, every politician who believes your and my success depends on theirs generally wants to prove it to us by doing something upon assuming office. Often times, they want to do many somethings. Cuomo, while hardly as left-wing as those chanting RCP members, has never shied away from using the government to shape New York in his image, whether that involves banning plastic bags, giving out tax credits for every activity under the sun, preserving net neutrality, cracking down on fraternity initiation rituals, or doing “something” about gun violence.

These are small potatoes compared to Trump’s MAGA-inspired trade wars, but American politics are trending towards upping the intervention ante. Both parties are pushing for increasingly more government, not less. We should all be worried about any politician who says they’ll make things great. Chances are they won’t.

After the ratification of the Constitution, the very first law passed by the new Congress was the Tariff Act of 1789. It imposed an 8 percent tax on pretty much all imports into the United States, with the revenue from the tariffs used to fund the new national government and to pay down debts accumulated during the Revolutionary War.

This bit of early American history seems to be what President Donald Trump was gesturing towards with a Wednesday tweet declaring that America “built on tariffs.”

Our Country was built on Tariffs, and Tariffs are now leading us to great new Trade Deals – as opposed to the horrible and unfair Trade Deals that I inherited as your President. Other Countries should not be allowed to come in and steal the wealth of our great U.S.A. No longer!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 15, 2018

And, indeed, Trump has suggested that the tariffs could help pay off the national debt. The math doesn’t really work out on that one—the tariffs have generated about $1.4 billion so far, which is hardly even a drop in the bucket against a $21 trillion national debt, as I’ve pointed out before.

But set aside those technicalities, and the fact that America’s economy in 2018 is literally nothing like the nation’s economy in 1789. Today, we have more wealth—in large part because of the benefits reaped from trade—but also far more debt than the Founders could fathom.

Still, there’s something to be learned by contrasting the Tariff Act of 1789 with Trump’s tariffs of 2018. The key difference between today’s tariffs and America’s first experiement with import taxes is that those old-timey tariffs were used to raise revenue, rather than as protection for domestic industires. This distinction was hard-won, as northern industrial interests tried to use their influence—through their avatar, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton—to impose higher tariffs that would have served as protectionist measures.

Hamilton’s argument wasn’t all that different from Trump’s. He wanted tariffs for what basically amounts to national security reasons—as a way to protect America’s nascent industries, without which the country would struggle to survive as an independent nation. Even though he lost that argument to the Jeffersonians, Hamilton’s proposed tariffs were a least more closely connected to a legitimate national security concern than Trump’s are.

While they weren’t protectionist policies, those early tariffs did solve a very practical revenue problem for the early United States government. In those days before H&R Block (indeed, before income taxes) collecting taxes was a difficult prospect. It was much easier to post-up customs officials at every port and collect taxes on the physical stuff that came ashore than to send tax collectors to every town and borough across 13 states to collect taxes from the populace—espescially since many of those would-be taxpayers weren’t entirely sold on the idea of a powerful central government, and had a recent history of armed rebellion against excessive taxation.

The tariffs-for-revenue versus tariffs-for-protectionism distinction is an important one, though Trump seems to struggle with grasping the difference. Today, tariffs have fallen out of favor with virutally all governments around the world as means to raise revenue because there are many alternative ways for governments to collect tax revenue from the general public that are considered to be less damaging to the economy than tariffs—though, of course, all taxes have a distorting effect on how goods, services, and investments are allocated.

But tariffs can still be a tool of protectionism. Indeed, explicitly protectionist tariffs were enacted by Congress in 1815 and again in 1828. On both occasions, they imposed economic costs, failed to achieve their policy goals, and fostered political dysfunction that pushed America closer to the Civil War. Another round of protectionist tariffs enacted during the 1930s is now widely credited with worsening and extending the Great Depression.

Pretty much all of Trump’s justification for tariffs—ranging from the ridiculous claims about national security to the possibly illegal suggestion that he’s using them to gain leverage in trade negotiations—recognize this function of tariffs. That he’s lately begun trying to shoehorn some sort of revenue argument into the debate over taxes is either a misdirection or a signal that the president is woefully uninformed about the economic issues at play. Choose for yourself which it is.

If Trump wants to make the argument that America should use tariffs to raise revenue, like we did in the 1790s, he better have a plan to abolish all federal taxes on income, investments, and labor. If he wants to have that discussion, well, I’ll listen.

In the aftermath of a car attack outside the Houses of Parliament in London, U.K. officials have proposed making the area a car-free zone.

On Tuesday, the driver of a silver Ford Fiesta hit multiple pedestrians and cyclists, injuring at least three people, before crashing into a security barrier. Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu says authorities are treating the incident as an act of terrorism.

Now some politicians and police officials are suggesting that parts of Westminster, where the attack took place, should be closed to cars. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling told Sky News it’s important not to “take an on-the-hoof response to what was a very disturbing incident.” But he said “there may well be a case for pedestrianization” of parts of Parliament Square.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan agrees. “I’ve been an advocate for a while now of part-pedestrianizing Parliament Square, but making sure we don’t lose the wonderful thing about our democracy, which is people having access to parliamentarians, people being able to lobby Parliament, visitors being able to come and visit Parliament,” he said, according to The Telegraph.

Nigel Evans, a Conservative member of Parliament, told TalkRadio that “filtering traffic” in the area could add an extra layer of security. “I suspect this will reignite the debate on whether the whole of Parliament Square should be pedestrianized to ensure that anybody can’t weaponize a vehicle and disrupt and indeed destroy our democracy,” he said.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick doesn’t want Londoners to let terrorists “completely change our way of life.” At the same time, she told the London radio station LBC it’s important to take “reasonable measures” to protect the public. “Whether that area outside should be pedestrianized further is a matter that will be discussed, no doubt, between the parliamentary authorities, us, the intelligence agencies, the local authorities, and the mayor,” she said.

London has a history of banning any sort of weapon that criminals could use to attack civilians. For decades, restrictive gun laws have kept the vast majority of Londoners (and all U.K. citizens) from legally obtaining firearms. But gun laws haven’t stopped criminals from killing. In February and March, London’s murder rate even exceeded New York City’s.

Khan’s solution was to launch a knife control campaign, even though carrying a knife in public without “good reason” has been banned in the city for years. But prohibiting people from carrying guns or knives did not stop Tuesday’s car attack. And banning cars, even if it’s only a partial ban in certain parts of London, probably won’t do the trick either. People who really want to commit crimes will find a way, bans be damned.

Masterpiece Cakeshop is back in the news with a lawsuit, but this time it’s not about gay wedding cakes. Instead, it’s a brand new fight over whether the government can force a baker to produce a cake celebrating a transgender person’s new identity.

Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, was the focus of a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. After its owner, Jack Phillips, refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, the state’s civil rights commission ruled that he had violated Colorado’s public accommodation law, which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. Phillips said he wasn’t discriminating against gay people but objected to doing work that violated his religious beliefs by implying support for same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court ruled, 7-2, in Phillips’ favor. But it did so in a carefully worded ruling that did not address the issue of whether a wedding cake is a form of artistic expression or whether Phillips could be compelled to make wedding cakes for all couples. Rather, the Court ruled that the Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission had violated the First Amendment by approaching the case with a clear animus against Phillips’ religious beliefs.

Judging from a new federal lawsuit filed by the bakery, the commission is not backing down. On the same day that the Supreme Court agreed to hear Phillips’ case, he says he got a call from a lawyer named Autumn Scardina, who asked if he would make a custom cake with a “blue exterior and a pink interior” to reflect Scardina’s transition from male to female.

Just as Phillips has religious objections to recognizing same-sex marriages, he has religious objections to embracing sex changes. He declined to make the cake for Scardina, and she complained to the commission, which is coming after him again. According to Phillips’ lawsuit, the commission is ignoring his explanation that he objects to the message Scardina wants him to express with the cake and is instead claiming that he is refusing to serve Scardina due to her transgender status. The lawsuit also notes that Scardina’s web page says she handles LGBT discrimination cases, suggesting this call was more than a strange coincidence.

Phillips, represented again by the Alliance Defending Freedom, argues that the commission is still singling him out because of his religious beliefs. Colorado generally does not force bakers to promote messages with which they disagree. A baker could refuse to make a cake with an anti-gay or anti-transgender message, for instance. The lawsuit even cites a case where the same commission ruled in favor of a baker who refused an order for cakes with anti-gay messages. Phillips says the commission is denying him the same right out of anti-religious prejudice.

If anything, this dispute seems even more clear-cut than the wedding cake case, where one of the central issues was whether producing the cake was a form of expression. In this case, Scardina specifically asked for a cake that expressed how she felt about being transgender. It clearly was intended to communicate a message.

Phillips claims the commission is violating his religious freedom and his freedom of speech, which includes protection against compelled speech. He is asking for an injunction to stop Colorado from enforcing its law in this fashion and seeking $100,000 in damages.

Read the lawsuit here.

San Francisco’s streets are full of poop. They’re so dirty, in fact, that the city is spending $750,000 on a “Poop Patrol” to take care of human and animal waste before residents complain.

The city already tried to tackle the issue by setting up 22 public “Pit Stop” toilets at various points downtown. But the Pit Stop program has not fully eliminated the problem. Since the start of 2018, the city has received 14,597 poop complaints, Department of Public Works Director Mohammed Nuru told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Instead of waiting for residents to complain, San Francisco is trying to get ahead of the problem. “What we are trying to do is be proactive,” Nuru told KGO-TV, the local ABC affiliate. “So we’ll have a crew that will roam around looking for locations. We actually have data for neighborhoods where we get frequent calls.”

The Public Works Department will set aside a team of six staffers—five employees and one supervisor, plus two trucks—to scour the streets. The Poop Patrol program, which will cost at least $750,000, officially starts next month. Depending on how things go, the city could decide to expand it, local Fox affiliate KTVU reports.

The idea for a Poop Patrol grew out of a conversation between Nuru and San Francisco Mayor London Breed about how best to clean up the streets. “I’ve been talking to the Department of Public Works director on a regular basis, and I’m like, ‘What are we going to do about the poop?'” Breed told the Chronicle.

It’s no secret that San Francisco has struggled to keep its streets clean. In March, KNTV, the local NBC affiliate, published the results of an investigation into the city’s “diseased streets.” The station surveyed an area encompassing 153 downtown blocks and found 300 piles of feces and at least 100 drug needles.

The city has sunk a lot of money into cleaning the streets, KNTV reports:

San Francisco spent $65 million on street cleaning last year and plans to add nearly $13 million in additional spending over the next two years. Nuru has estimated that half of his street cleaning budget has gone toward cleaning up feces and needles from homeless encampments and sidewalks.

Although the Poop Patrol seems like a novel idea, San Francisco previously set aside $750,000 for a program to remove used needles from the streets, which began in April.

Pouring money into the problem won’t fix the root cause of San Francisco’s dirty streets: homelessness. To get people off the streets and into homes, more homes would need to be built, something that bureaucracy and senseless regulations have made all too difficult in the City by the Bay.

Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant favors raising more money for affordable housing, except when she doesn’t.

A few months ago, Sawant was fighting for the “Amazon tax,” a literal tax on jobs that would have raised some $75 million annually to fund affordable housing and services for the homeless. Now, however, the one self-identified socialist on the Seattle City Council is doing her best to kill a proposed downtown building that would provide 442 apartments and $5 million for the city’s affordable housing fund from the project’s developer, the Canadian company Onni.

Sawant is willing to forgo that money because the apartment building would replace a music venue that currently occupies the spot, Seattle’s iconic Showbox. “If we let the Showbox be demolished, then everything else is moot,” Sawant warned Bloomberg last week.

The fight for the Showbox, where performers such as Duke Ellington and Pearl Jam have appeared, began in late July, when it was first reported that Onni’s project would require the venue’s demolition. A petition calling for the preservation of the concert hall netted nearly 100,000 signatures and the endorsement of famous Seattle artists such as Macklemore, Guns and Roses bassist Duff McKagan, and Death Cab for Cutie singer Ben Gibbard. The cause was quickly picked up by Sawant, who introduced legislation last week to declare the Showbox part of the nearby Pike Place Market Historical District, which would essentially kill Onni’s project.

On Monday, the city council unanimously passed a temporary, 10-month expansion of the historical district, while it mulls whether to make the change permanent. That move prevents Onni from going forward with its planned apartment building for the time being and ensures that any zoning changes can be imposed retroactively.

Helping to kill off a housing project that would add hundreds of new units to the overpriced city in order to save one of Seattle’s many music venues might seem slightly hypocritical coming from Sawant. She has called housing a “human right,” a right she is now subordinating to preservation of a concert hall. She supported a “linkage fee” that new developments would pay into the affordable housing fund but is now ready to pass up the $5 million offered by Onni.

Last year Sawant voted to rezone the land on which the Showbox sits, which is what made Onni’s proposed apartment building possible in the first place. Now she is having second thoughts.

Sawant insisists her Showbox-saving efforts will not cost the city affordable housing. “This is not about affordable housing, and I don’t think we should accept councilmembers who say this is about affordable housing,” Sawant said during last week’s city council meeting. “It is about the community going up against a big developer.”

The Stranger quotes Sawant as saying, “We will succeed in saving the Showbox, but…this could be the catalyst for the future struggle for affordable housing. Maybe we can win the Amazon tax that was repealed; maybe we can win a tax on big businesses. Why should we stop with just saving the Showbox?”

The idea that saving a music venue will ultimately lead to more affordable housing seems far-fetched. The city is obviously out the $5 million fee that would have subsidized new housing. And while the apartments that Onni wants to build would not necessarily be affordable for low-income renters, killing the project will only serve to raise rents further across the city as the tenants who otherwise would have lived in the new building bid up prices for the existing housing units.

There is also a concern that the city council’s flipflopping on the Showbox site will set a bad precedent that will further constrain the housing supply in Seattle. “The council has shown that they will overturn major land-use policy decisions that took years to develop in response to concerted public pressure from vocal interest groups,” observes Erica Barnett at the Seattle housing blog The C is for Crank, noting that there is little to stop the city council from bending to public pressures on future developments.

I think that’s a fair concern. The 10-month pause may prompt Onni, which does not yet own the site, to walk away from the project. It’s also possible the current owner will sue the city for the reversing the rezoning, arguing that it’s a taking of his property without due process. Sawant has suggested the city might buy and operate the Showbox. Whatever happens with the concert hall, it looks increasingly unlikely that Seattle will see new housing on the site anytime soon.