I’m trying to do the research necessary about what this entails, but all I see is no real answer and just biased opinions. Is this actually as bad as it sounds? Will this actually just give millionaires a tax break meanwhile schools suffer if I vote yes? Or am I being lied too?

A final meeting between project managers and tribe members last week wrapped up the Stillaguamish Tribe's largest project to date, restoring more than 230 acres of floodplain along two miles of the North Fork Stillaguamish River. The $15 million restoration was the first joint project between the Stillaguamish Tribe and Snohomish County, said Jason Griffith, the tribe's environmental program manager, during a tour.

"The plan is a 50-year plan, so we were under no delusions that it was going to be fast," Griffith said. "But the tribe has been consistently purchasing land the last 20 years or so with the aim of ecosystem recovery to benefit Chinook and other treaty resources."

~ That ground was a nursery, a dairy farm, a beef ranch and a golf course before it was a floodplain again. Twenty years of buying it back parcel by parcel, on a timeline nobody ran for reelection on.

Hi folks! Please don't use fake spider web decorations as part of your Halloween display. It traps birds and they starve to death or asphyxiate. This is not the kind of horror we need for the holiday. Thank you for considering this request. Happy Halloween!

The dam removal also uncovered nearly 1,100 acres of federal lands that the tribe is now getting ready to reclaim. Congress passed a bill this fall enabling the transfer. Once completed, it will nearly double the tribe's reservation.

Once approved, it will be the first time since the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe signed a treaty with the federal government in 1855 that lands have returned to it.

~ The tribe did the restoration work for decades and is only now being handed oversight of it. That order of operations says a lot.

I was surprised to learn that Seattle, and all of Washington State, has no state minimum age for buying kratom or 7-OH, the products sold behind the counter at a lot of gas stations and smoke shops. Some stores card anyway, but it’s up to them.

A few things I found while looking into it:

• Three bills to set the age at 21 (SB 6287, HB 2291, and SB 6196) were introduced in the 2026 session. None passed. You can look them up on the Legislature’s bill search at app.leg.wa.gov.
• 7-OH is a concentrated compound that acts on the same receptors as opioids, and it’s much stronger than plain kratom leaf. It isn’t federally scheduled yet, though the DEA started that process again this month.
• Washington has banned retail sales of nitrous oxide since June 2026 (ESHB 2532).

I’m not arguing for banning kratom for adults. I know some people use it to get off opioids, and a ban could push them toward something worse. But setting no age limit at all seems like a gap.

A few questions for Seattle folks:

1. Do the shops near you card for these products?
2. Would an age limit of 21 plus testing and labeling requirements make sense, or would it just push sales elsewhere?
3. For anyone in harm reduction or recovery: what would good regulation actually look like?

Full disclosure, I wrote a longer piece on this with all the sources linked: https://ewyattmendel.substack.com/p/the-systemic-poisoning-of-our-youth?r=8wwcsh&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

Happy to answer anything here too.

Northbound 95th & Lake City Way (same on other side). I’ve pulled the cord for this stop on route 72 only to have the driver go past I’m guessing confusion whether it’s supposed to serve 72 or is route 77 only.

Looking for dashcam footage of a crash on S Columbian way and beacon ave S between 1:30 PM and 1:40 PM on Thursday Oct 15

Hi! I'm a 23m from Norway visiting Seattle from October 22 - 25 as part of a solo trip, and I'm down to hang out if snyone's in that area that weekend 🙌 I'm a laidback and social guy, and enjoy exploring new things. I only have the Everett factory planned on Friday as of now, so I'm pretty flexible.

Or who are you voting for if you live in District 5?

Governor Bob Ferguson has said that his office's actions of canceling ICE and DHS's access to Nlets has resulted in blocking 100,000 attempts to use Nlets to access state data. However, the UWHRC report found that from January 1, 2025 to May 31, 2026, DHS-affiliated agencies still searched the DOL database via Nlets 3,696,147 times, showing the gaping hole in the state's data protections.

Researchers have confirmed 356 arrest incidents between August 1, 2025 and October 13, 2026 that have resulted from federal agents receiving Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL) driver data through the interstate querying system Nlets.

~ The blocked attempts came from the governor's office. The 3.7 million searches that went through came from a university research center. Only one of those numbers got a press release.

Hi!

My boyfriend and I are visiting from Louisville, Kentucky right before Christmas. In Louisville, our public transit is sketchy as hell and is pretty much avoided by all who can. We were looking at renting a car, but are curious is public transit is enough to get around town and just rent a car for our day trip to the Christmas market a couple hours away.

Anyone have any thoughts that may help us out?

We will be visiting Dec 18-22

Edit: Thanks for all the info! We are staying around N90th st and will be going to Leavenworth for the Christmas market. We had no idea about the amtrak and are looking into tickets now. That was SUPER helpful.

All we have in Louisville are buses that never run on time and smell like piss. No rail, no express train, etc. I feel like most big cities have at least SLIGHTLY better planning than our haphazard "well I GUESS we should mayyyyybe make the city kinda accessible for people that don't drive? The audacity of those people, but we can try."

Hi! I have two tickets at Showbox tonight. Was going to take my kiddo but cant make it. Selling for $30 each. I can transfer tix directly to you. PM me! Thanks!

Dynamic grocery store prices: bad

Dynamic street parking prices: good

Earlier this year, SSHD increased its 2027 year-end production goal by 70 percent. It currently has at least six additional new projects planned for the next year. In addition to the social housing tax money and rental income, the developer plans to issue a $270 million bond to pay for the portfolio expansion.

The two-year period in which council members are not allowed to amend the tax expires in February 2027.

~ JumpStart was supposed to fund housing too, and now it plugs the budget hole. This tax is amendment-proof until February 2027.

I’m voting yes on I-645, but there’s a detail worth clearing up: repealing the income tax at the ballot box isn’t the same as having a court strike it down. The tax breaks passed alongside it could be affected differently.

What a yes vote leaves in place

I-645 would repeal the new 9.9% tax on qualifying annual income above $1 million, scheduled to begin in 2028. It wouldn’t repeal the accompanying non-income-tax relief.

The AG’s official explanation, page 2⁠, says:

"The non-income tax credits, exemptions, and deductions that accompanied this tax would not be repealed and would remain in place. " https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/ExStmt_IP26-645.pdf

That includes expanded eligibility for the Working Families Tax Credit, a larger small-business B&O tax credit, and sales-tax exemptions for qualifying diapers, over-the-counter medicines, and grooming and hygiene products.

Those provisions were already passed with the income-tax law. I-645 doesn’t create them. The household-product exemptions and increased small-business credit are scheduled for January 1, 2029, so these aren’t savings that would show up right after the election. The dates are in sections 903 through 912 of the enacted law⁠.

The court issue: Section 1202

ESSB 6346, the enacted income-tax law, also contains a null-and-void clause. Section 1202, on printed page 107⁠ says that if a court of final jurisdiction invalidates Section 201, which imposes the tax, specified sections of the law become void. That includes the family and small-business relief above, but not every provision in the entire law. A repeal vote isn’t that court ruling. However, I-645’s repeal list⁠ leaves Section 1202 in place.

In its September 22 analysis, page 2⁠, the Washington Research Council says a qualifying court ruling could still void those tax breaks even if I-645 passes. That’s a possible legal consequence, not a prediction that a court will issue that ruling.

So saying repeal doesn’t itself remove these tax breaks is accurate. Saying repeal guarantees they’ll survive regardless of what happens in court goes further than the documents support.

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6346-S.SL.pdf#page=66

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6346-S.SL.pdf
https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/Finaltext_IP26-645_fulltext.pdf
https://researchcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Initiative645.pdf#page=2
https://researchcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Initiative645.pdf

Why this matters below the $1 million threshold

For a family buying diapers, the planned sales-tax exemption doesn’t disappear just because I-645 passes. But that exemption is among the provisions covered by Section 1202.

For a qualifying small business, the increased B&O credit has the same issue. And keeping that credit in place isn’t the same as abolishing B&O tax or promising every business a refund. Sections 905, 909 and 1202 spell out those provisions.⁠ You don’t have to owe the new income tax to have a stake in what happens to the accompanying relief.

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6346-S.SL.pdf

There’s still a budget trade-off

Keeping the tax breaks doesn’t replace the revenue the income tax was expected to bring in. OFM’s official ballot fiscal statement⁠ estimates about $11.4 billion less state revenue across fiscal years 2027-2031 if I-645 passes, along with about $150.5 million in net state-agency savings over the same period. Those savings don’t come close to offsetting the projected revenue reduction.

Those are estimates from the ballot statement, not guaranteed amounts or income-tax money the state has already collected. The statement assumes the first taxpayer payments would be due in April 2029.

Repeal by itself doesn’t remove the tax breaks, but it also doesn’t settle what happens in court or how lawmakers handle future budgets.

https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/FIS%20-%20Initiative%20645%20-%20FINAL.pdf

Show is at 7 in Mt Vernon! Less than face value.

TLDR:

Position 1 Scott Edwards

Position 3 David Stevens

Position 4 Sean O'Connell

Position 5 Dave Larson

Postion 7 Todd Bloom

It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat, centrist, independent, or Republican. We should all be concerned about the so-called “millionaire tax.”

This isn’t a left-versus-right issue. It’s about constitutional limits, government accountability, and whether the voices of voters still matter. You can support higher taxes, oppose them, or believe our state needs a different tax system altogether. Those are legitimate debates to have. But regardless of where you stand politically, we should all agree that the government must follow the constitution and respect the will of the people.

Our state constitution places restrictions on taxing property, and voters have rejected an income tax 11 times throughout our state’s history. Yet, rather than letting voters decide this issue, state leaders are pursuing a path that raises serious questions about constitutional limits and democratic accountability.

The current governor has appointed state Supreme Court justices whose rulings, in my view, raise concerns about whether the constitution’s protections and the will of voters are being respected. Their decision to classify capital gains taxes as something other than a tax on property is a clear example of why these judicial appointments matter.

And this should concern everyone, regardless of party. If we allow politicians and judges to work around constitutional limits whenever the voters reject their preferred policies, what happens when the next issue is one you care deeply about? Today, it might be taxes. Tomorrow, it could be an issue that matters to you, whether you’re on the left, right, or somewhere in between.

No party should have a blank check to govern however it wants. No elected official should assume that party loyalty will shield them from accountability. And no voter should feel that their voice doesn’t matter simply because those in power believe they have a reliable voting bloc.

Unfortunately, our state’s Democratic leadership seems increasingly confident that it can push forward with its agenda without winning the public’s approval. That confidence will only grow if voters continue to support incumbents regardless of their decisions.

It’s time to remind them that our votes are not guaranteed.

You don’t have to agree with Republicans on every issue to demand constitutional accountability. You don’t have to oppose every tax to believe voters deserve a say in how their state is governed. And you don’t have to abandon your political values to insist that the constitution applies to everyone.

This is bigger than party politics. It’s about preserving the principle that government serves the people, not the other way around.

If you believe our constitution should be respected, that voters deserve a voice, and that judges must be held accountable for their decisions, then use the power you have.

Vote the incumbent state Supreme Court justices out of office. Not because of a party label, but because constitutional accountability matters regardless of who holds power.

Our votes should never be taken for granted. Let’s prove that they still mean something.

(Below is a repost from when the primary was going on)

My picks:

Position No. 1: Scott Edwards

• Incumbent Status: Challenger (Tax lawyer).

• Capital Gains Tax History: N/A.

• Millionaire Tax Outlook: As a tax lawyer, his professional focus centers on tax compliance and code interpretation; candidates with this background often scrutinize the structural legality of novel state taxes under the state constitution.

Position No. 3: David Stevens

• Incumbent Status: Challenger (Mason County Superior Court judge).

• Capital Gains Tax History: N/A.

• Millionaire Tax Outlook: Endorsed by state and county Republican parties. His platform emphasizes textualism, originalism, and judicial restraint—arguing that courts should serve as a strict constitutional backstop against government policy expansion. He is expected to view a millionaire tax skeptically as an unconstitutional income tax.

Position No. 5: Dave Larson

• Incumbent Status: Challenger (Former municipal court judge).

• Capital Gains Tax History: N/A.

• Millionaire Tax Outlook: Tends to run from an independent/conservative judicial perspective, suggesting potential skepticism toward expanded state tax authority.

Position No. 7: Todd A. Bloom

• Incumbent Status: Challenger (Tax attorney and frequent candidate).

• Capital Gains Tax History: N/A.

• Millionaire Tax Outlook: As a tax attorney with past conservative-leaning political runs, he would likely scrutinize any proposed millionaire tax heavily as an unlawful income tax violating constitutional uniformity requirements.

---

Washington State Supreme Court Primary (August 2026) – Candidate Breakdown

Here is an objective overview of the candidates running for the four positions on the Washington State Supreme Court primary ballot, detailing their incumbent status, connection to the capital gains tax precedent (Quinn v. Washington), and an analytical look at how they might approach a potential "millionaire tax" or similar progressive revenue measures.

Position No. 1 (Unexpired 2-Year Term)

• Colleen Melody (Incumbent)
  • Incumbent Status: Appointed by Governor Bob Ferguson in late 2025/2026 to fill the vacancy left by Justice Mary Yu.
  • Capital Gains Tax History: Did not participate in the 2023 Quinn v. Washington decision, as she joined the bench in 2026.
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: Given her background leading the Civil Rights Division in the Attorney General’s office and her appointment by a Democratic governor, she is expected to align with the court's established framework supporting legislative excise and progressive revenue measures.
• Laura Christensen Colberg
  • Incumbent Status: Challenger (Family law attorney and pro tem commissioner).
  • Capital Gains Tax History: N/A (Non-incumbent).
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: Endorsed by the Washington State Republican Party, signaling a likely critical view of progressive taxation and a strict interpretation of constitutional uniformity clauses regarding income and property.
• Scott Edwards
  • Incumbent Status: Challenger (Tax lawyer).
  • Capital Gains Tax History: N/A.
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: As a tax lawyer, his professional focus centers on tax compliance and code interpretation; candidates with this background often scrutinize the structural legality of novel state taxes under the state constitution.

Position No. 3 (Full Term)

• J. Michael (Mike) Diaz
  • Incumbent Status: Challenger (Washington Court of Appeals Division I judge; no incumbent is running for this open seat).
  • Capital Gains Tax History: N/A (Appellate judge, though not on the state supreme court during Quinn v. Washington).
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: Endorsed heavily by former Democratic governors and multiple supreme court justices; likely to defer to legislative authority and follow the current court’s precedent upholding targeted excise taxes.
• Jaime Michelle Hawk
  • Incumbent Status: Challenger (King County Superior Court judge).
  • Capital Gains Tax History: N/A.
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: Endorsed by Governor Bob Ferguson and prominent progressive judicial figures; expected to view progressive tax proposals favorably within established state legal bounds.
• David Stevens
  • Incumbent Status: Challenger (Mason County Superior Court judge).
  • Capital Gains Tax History: N/A.
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: Endorsed by state and county Republican parties. His platform emphasizes textualism, originalism, and judicial restraint—arguing that courts should serve as a strict constitutional backstop against government policy expansion. He is expected to view a millionaire tax skeptically as an unconstitutional income tax.

Position No. 5 (Unexpired 2-Year Term)

• Theo Angelis (Incumbent)
  • Incumbent Status: Appointed by Governor Bob Ferguson in 2026.
  • Capital Gains Tax History: Did not participate in the 2023 Quinn v. Washington decision due to his recent 2026 appointment.
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: As a recent appointee of a Democratic administration, he is generally anticipated to support the millionaire tax or uphold legislative tax frameworks consistent with the capital gains precedent.
• Greg Miller
  • Incumbent Status: Challenger (Appellate lawyer).
  • Capital Gains Tax History: N/A.
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: Private appellate practice background; would likely evaluate legal challenges to a millionaire tax strictly through the lens of statutory interpretation and established state tax precedent.
• Dave Larson
  • Incumbent Status: Challenger (Former municipal court judge).
  • Capital Gains Tax History: N/A.
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: Tends to run from an independent/conservative judicial perspective, suggesting potential skepticism toward expanded state tax authority.
• Sharonda Amamilo
  • Incumbent Status: Challenger (Thurston County Superior Court judge).
  • Capital Gains Tax History: N/A.
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: Focuses heavily on procedural equity at the trial court level, though broader rulings on tax matters typically align with structural constitutional interpretations of state revenue powers. ### Position No. 7 (Full Term)
• Debra L. Stephens (Incumbent)
  • Incumbent Status: Incumbent Chief Justice.
  • Capital Gains Tax History: Authored the 7–2 majority opinion in Quinn v. Washington (2023), which officially upheld the state’s capital gains tax by classifying it as a lawful excise tax rather than an unconstitutional income tax.
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: Highly likely to support or uphold similar progressive tax and excise measures, given that she authored the foundational precedent protecting the state's recent revenue structures.
• David R. Shelvey
  • Incumbent Status: Challenger (Family law attorney).
  • Capital Gains Tax History: N/A.
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: Likely to be receptive to legal arguments from taxpayers challenging novel tax structures under traditional property and income tax limits.
• Karim A. Merchant
  • Incumbent Status: Challenger (Criminal defense attorney).
  • Capital Gains Tax History: N/A.
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: Criminal defense background means less direct civil/tax casework, but generally approaches constitutional questions through individual rights frameworks.
• Todd A. Bloom
  • Incumbent Status: Challenger (Tax attorney and frequent candidate).
  • Capital Gains Tax History: N/A.
  • Millionaire Tax Outlook: As a tax attorney with past conservative-leaning political runs, he would likely scrutinize any proposed millionaire tax heavily as an unlawful income tax violating constitutional uniformity requirements.