As someone who lives in Seattle I can tell you at least two things 1) the homeless population and use of drugs out in the open on sidewalks in the city has gone up significantly and no plan for addressing. 2) the city management tends to be anti-tech, things like pushing Amazon and others out with the head tax and the gig worker min hourly pay and all that which basically shut down use of Uber eats and other delivery services due to misunderstanding economics (which they are now scrambling to reverse since the workers themselves hate it).
The open use of drugs is offensive but rarely dangerous. I live adjacent to Seatle and have been coming here for 30 years.
The gig worker min hourly pay is fine. If it decreases the total demand for deliveries thats ok. I wouldn't want more McJobs for the state to subsidize anyway. Those workers don't cease to exist they just work somewhere else for someone who can actually afford to pay.
Eh, I don't want my kids around it, we shouldn't be ok with it, and I don't blame anyone who doesn't want to live near it. "Rarely dangerous" is a hell of a term if you've walked downtown at night as anyone but a large man (and as one even I am not a fan and moved my office to redmond from 4th ave area even though I live in north cap hill). I asked my visiting sister to avoid coming to my office in the evening when I was downtown after she was harassed by a few individuals who were very openly doing drugs, it's quite embarrassing for a supposedly well off city. We want the city to be safe and welcoming, not what it is today. We're looking as complacent as SF with no plans to cleanup and fix things.
The gig worker min rate has completely cut out their money, you can hear feedback directly from the gig workers and see that it's being reversed because of the backlash: https://www.newsweek.com/20-minimum-wage-law-seattle-deliver... -> "300,000 fewer orders within Seattle". I can't agree with you here at all. These are jobs people have the choice to take or not, the government here is eliminating that choice by basically making the jobs nonexistent. I know I've cut my orders significantly and will walk or drive myself nowadays to pick up food when I do get takeout.
"Those workers don't cease to exist they just work somewhere else for someone who can actually afford to pay" <- citation needed. Setting wage floors almost always get modeled out as shortages where supply of workers will no longer meet demand for jobs, and most people aren't perfectly fungible, nor are there are bunch of jobs that allow people to work for a few hours between other gigs, watching their kids, trying to be entrepreneurial, etc. Let adults decide which jobs they want to work for which pay. If there were alternative jobs that paid more don't you think they'd naturally flow there rather then the government stepping in?
Delivery for random shit was never cheap before its not to ME shocking that it should reasonably be somewhat expensive to have someone drive their $50k car to the starbucks for you.
The government disallows work that people would otherwise do all the time for instance by instituting minimum wage, requiring benefits, or requiring regulation that drive up costs enough that marginal businesses fold. Those employees don't cease to exist they are reallocated to other parts of the market which are more worthy. In the end uber eats isn't worth anything it loses money. It's a side show until investors money runs out.
There are parts of Seattle that are shady. Unfortunately those people exist and they aren't going anywhere so we are basically playing whack a mole. If we want them out of people's faces we should probably house them. Finland did and it worked for them.
