I think that's right. Conceptually, it makes so much more sense as a scalar concept, but for policy implementation purposes, it has to be contorted into a sortal concept.

Thinking about my mostly-somewhat-poor milieu growing up, people used extended family, neighbors and other community members for free or much-cheaper-than-formal/licensed childcare providers, leave kids home alone at a younger age than technically allowed, etc.

The official one is more "directionally correct" in that it's a minority of the population, which is what poverty has to mean in a very wealthy society.

I think it makes sense to think of childcare as a consumption choice. Like most consumption categories actual poor people consume less of it.

Whatever one thinks of the particulars of this analysis, it's in significant tension with the ordinary language definition of poverty, when ~70% of the households in one of the richest societies in the world qualify.

They were initially going to build a couple stories of housing on top of it, but then the 08-09 crash happened and they downsized their plans.

If they'd been a year earlier (or a couple years later) in the planning/financing process, it'd have a bunch of housing on top.

Hadn't thought about this angle but that makes a lot of sense. Spokane>>Seattle too.

People get mad at me for pointing out how obviously and clearly conservative SF progs are, but the parallel here to Republican legislators taking credit for district spending in bills they opposed is pretty striking.

Not defending Seattle's size limit, but it seems at least possible that 1100 is less demand-suppressing in Seattle than 1500 is in Clyde Hill? Seattle has much smaller lots, on average, and a lot more demand for modest-sized homes.

The theory is that if we're going to spend federal money on transit, we should direct that money to jurisdictions that are interested using land use law to allow, rather than prevent, more people from being able to use it.

Hand to God when I posted this I didn't realize quite how right I was (didn't know it was written by the ultimate nepo baby)

Many (most?) rich kids slumming it as artists in their 20's can meet income/asset guidelines because the primary assets they have access to, and will eventually inherit, are not yet in their possession.

I thought she explicitly said she's not planning to run when she accepted the appointment, but I could be misremembering.

In King County, yes they absolutely do. (I'd be shocked if that were not the case in the vast majority of jurisdictions.)

(Malta and Montpellier are partial cases, free to residents but fares still apply to anyone who doesn't reside there. I am not aware of any similar schemes in the US.)

Turns out everything bagels are kinda tasty I guess

Or maybe not? Seems to be some conflicting info about remaining votes.

bsky.app/profile/elec...