4 ms·

I agree, there is an argument for broader regional governance (whether it's the bay area, or western King County in Washington), in between the city and state l

I agree, there is an argument for broader regional governance (whether it's the bay area, or western King County in Washington), in between the city and state level... whether through expanding existing bodies (reforming city borders) as regions develop or forming new layers of legislative change. For example, Seattle has a problem where the urbanized area around lake washington support expanding our public transportation - but we're chained down by eastern King County, largely rural citizens who don't want or need subway lines. However, rural districts depend on taxes redistributed from urban areas to fund programs like public education... so it's not clear that breaking up the district is the answer either. Ideally we'd have some type of adaptive democracy, where each issue is regulated by the scope of people impacted by the decisions.

kitten_mittens_ 9y ago
There are plenty of nimbys around Lake Washington. Even if one was to improve transit more on the east side of the lake, population density is low enough because of the lack of multifamily housing that it's a losing game. People with long commutes that don't want the corresponding increase in traffic are probably justified. I personally wanted light rail to go out to Redmond, but that seems hung up on three counties (not just King). I left Seattle just before Capital Hill and the U-District were served by light rail though. Maybe things have changed.