D6 candidate debate at National Nordic this week

Meghan Walker Ballard

The next debate for our District 6 candidates is later this week, happening Wednesday, Oct. 2 at the National Nordic Museum.

Seattle City Council candidates Heidi Wills and Dan Strauss will take part in the debate, which will be co-presented by the Ballard Alliance and Ballard District Council. The moderator will be Enrique Cerna.

The debate is free and open to the public, and is happening on Wednesday evening from 7pm to 9pm at the museum (doors open at 6:30pm).

32 thoughts to “D6 candidate debate at National Nordic this week”

        1. So Elenchos2 is voting for Heidi based solely on her gender, and some one else is being sexist? Check your own sexism Elechos2, and vote for some one whose positions you agree with, regardless of the their gender.

          2. Like a Christian, liberals aren’t perfect; just forgiven. We forgive you.

    4. Placing a gal in office means we then can’t talk back or complain, right honey??? That’s certainly a fair and open minded opinion. Your magic beard of knowledge is showing here. I hear N. Korea is nice this time of the year.

    1. Your best bet for cleaning up the neighborhood and promoting a safe place for families is Heidi Wills. Dan wants to put a supervised heroin injection site in Ballard.

      1. Dan wants to put a supervised heroin injection site in Ballard.

        Excellent!

        Supervised injection sites have decades of proven success throughout Europe that the naysayers seem to conveniently gloss over. Even Canada’s fledgling sites have shown short term benefits of $1.50 to $4.00 reduction in taxpayer spending on the opioid crisis per $1.00 of taxpayer spending on the sites. The site staff also give addicts sanitary and life saving assistance and referrals to seek treatment, which they cannot get overdosing on a sidewalk.

        The people that are against supervised injection sites are mostly the Helen Lovejoy “think of the children” types. They don’t like them because they’d rather see people injecting and overdosing in the streets rather than fund a facility that is proven to actually help drug users. Something is clearly mentally wrong with these people.

        Meanwhile, Heidi is funded by a bunch of extremely wealthy “Moms for Seattle”, of which none live in District 6 and maybe half even live in Seattle. She has no plan for the homeless crisis. You want the status quo? Vote for Heidi.

        1. First, I’m not debating the legality or the effectiveness of a safe injection site. I’m debating whether one should be located in the Ballard neighborhood.

          The decision can’t be clearer: Dan Strauss will place a site for illegal drug injection site — for heroin — in our neighborhood. Heidi will NOT do this.

          Unabashedly, I’m 100% NIMBY on this issue as are a majority of the people who call Ballard home. Ballard is a place for individuals, families, and small businesses to thrive and simply put, an illegal drug injection site does not belong in Ballard. Period.

          Second, you’re wrong about Heidi’s plan for homeless.

          Heidi’s approach is regional based and entirely based on data: Seattle has 30% of King County’s population but 70% of the County’s homeless population. It’s time to look at this from a regional perspective, so we stop the flow of addicts into our neighborhoods. We’re already overburdened; an illegal injection site just exacerbates our unfair and unwanted burden.

          Let me ask you this: do you honestly believe that the people who line 58th street every night doing drugs and soiling our public places are are from Ballard? They aren’t. The moved here because Seattle accommodates them with services and has handcuffed our police officers from enforcing basic city ordinances.

          It’s time for a change: VOTE HEIDI

          Heidi’s plan is located here: https://heidiwills.com/on-the-issues/#1

          1. First, I’m not debating the legality or the effectiveness of a safe injection site. I’m debating whether one should be located in the Ballard neighborhood.

            Our neighborhood has a significant amount of drug use. Supervised injection sites work best when located in areas with significant drug use. Locating it elsewhere would just maintain the status quo in Ballard. Opioid addicts don’t function or think clearly when strung out.

            Do you really think an addict is going to hop a bus to Lake City or Rainier Valley or wherever YOU believe a supervised injection site should be located? It’s pretty clear your knowledge of how addicts, mentally ill and homeless function is terribly flawed.

            Ballard is a place for individuals, families, and small businesses to thrive and simply put, an illegal drug injection site does not belong in Ballard. Period.

            Neither does illegal drug use, but it’s there and continuing to ignore it, like you and Heidi seem to want to do, will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem and arguably makes it worse.

            I get it, you want to homeless problem gone, but you want the solutions to exist out of sight, out of mind elsewhere, so you can maintain your Stepford Wives style of life. Unfortunately, that’s how we got to where we were in the first place..

            Let me ask you this: do you honestly believe that the people who line 58th street every night doing drugs and soiling our public places are are from Ballard? They aren’t. The moved here because Seattle accommodates them with services and has handcuffed our police officers from enforcing basic city ordinances.

            Ah yes, the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Studies have shown that the homeless are by and large from King County and Seattle. Seattle also has abysmal services, even Heidi admits that (hence why our homeless problem exacerbates). The homeless do not come here because we’re some homeless utopia where they can live on Easy Street, mooching off of our non-existent services. People tend to congregate where other people are. That’s the simplest reason why the homeless are in Ballard, along with other urban centers around the City.

            Also, what are the police going to do, arrest the homeless, mentally ill and drug addicts? That seems to be the delusional opinion of “Safe” Seattle, are you by chance one of their upstanding members?.

            Heidi’s approach is regional based and entirely based on data: Seattle has 30% of King County’s population but 70% of the County’s homeless population. It’s time to look at this from a regional perspective, so we stop the flow of addicts into our neighborhoods.

            Yeah, I’ve read Heidi’s view on the homeless. It boils down to:

            1. There’s a homeless problem.
            2. We should do something about the problem.

            She conveniently does not provide HOW we are going to do something about the problem, especially how to pay for it. That last little bit has basically crippled our ability to make any progress with the homeless problem because nobody can agree on how to fund solutions to the homeless problem, so we instead spend time and money mitigating the problem rather than solving it.

          2. And folks, this is this is why we have elections…

            Democracy is a beautiful thing: I and a majority of my neighbors will be voting against placing an illegal drug injection site in the Ballard neighborhood where we are raising our families and building small businesses.

            Vote Heidi Wills!

          4. Democracy is a beautiful thing: I and a majority of my neighbors will be voting against placing an illegal drug injection site in the Ballard neighborhood where we are raising our families and building small businesses.

            And you and “a majority” of “your” neighbors (after all, Heidi’s benefactors benefit from the “us vs them” attitude, amirite?) will be blessed with addicts shooting up and overdosing in public, while blaming everyone else until your voice gives out despite you rejecting accepted, successful solutions.

            Good luck explaining to your children that the man dying in a pool of his own vomit and feces is there because mommy/daddy didn’t feel comfortable providing a place for addicts to have access to medical professionals, clean facilities and an avenue for treatment and rehabilitation.

            Seriously, do some basic research on drug addiction and accepted solutions, including the decades of research on the successes of supervised injection sites.

            Until then, you come off as an ignorant fool with some bizarre Stepford Wives style reality. Is that the type of voters Heidi is trying to impress?

          5. You sound like Trump with all the unhinged ad hominem attacks. Stop it, you’re hurting your case.

            I return to my original posts – I’m simply saying that it’s not appropriate for an illegal drug site to be located in Ballard, which as you know has been designated for growth as an “urban village” by city planners.

            It’s an entirely legitimate position on a #1 topic to be voted on by the people who live in Ballard. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree on the approach – respect that.

            Please note neighbor that I’m not advocating for a “do nothing” approach as you’ve mischaracterized me as doing.

            To be sure, we need a concerted multi-prong, regional approach that includes emergent care, law enforcement, housing, medium and long term addiction treatment, and suing the (*&*&^ out of the companies (and the Sackler Family) that got us in the mess in the first place.

          6. Yeah, we get it. Your “Safe” Seattle crowd is perfectly happy with people shooting up and overdosing in the streets and parks in view of children and family. You’ve made that perfectly clear.

            The other solutions you suggested are all parts of a complete solution, of which supervised injections sites is one.

            Luckily, Seattle is full of rational people and we as a society will move on with proven solutions to overcome the opioid crisis and hopefully the homeless crisis. Sure you’ll be unhappy at first, but when people are no longer dying on our streets, you’ll fine something else to get your feathers ruffled about.

            Ignoring the problem does nothing. The only things that go away when you ignore them are your teeth and your spouse.

  4. whatever happened to the days of campaign promises like “a chicken in every pot” as opposed to “if you don’t want a heroin shooting gallery in your backyard you are a meany and even worse, a NIMBY!!!!!”?

      1. Yes, because nothing helps a neighborhood more than more junkies. Ever walk down Hastings St in Vancouver? Waking Dead for a 3 block radius around their site.

  6. BAD: government sponsoted methamphetamine/heroin injection site. It perpetuates addiction and the associated criminality (car prowls, shoplifting, etc). Sucks limited resources away from meaningful treatment programs.
    GOOD: Treatment on demand. It addresses the root cause of homeless/crime; provides a path out of out of addiction and off the streets.
    HEIDI WILLS is for treatment on demand and against drug injection site. VOTE HEIDI WILLS!!!!

    1. Let me guess, you were one of those people that thought needle exchanges were bad and encouraged drug use?

      It perpetuates addiction and the associated criminality (car prowls, shoplifting, etc). Sucks limited resources away from meaningful treatment programs.

      Isn’t that what “Safe” Seattle people are screaming is happening on a massive scale right now in Ballard? Do you REALLY think that ignoring the problem is going to actually solve or even make a dent in the crisis?

      Please do basic research on supervised injection sites, it’s clear neither Heidi nor any of her supporters have and it shows when you come out of the woodwork to post.

      Your ignorance and horrifically false facts (whether your own delusional conclusions or something some angry person yelled at you on the radio) only helps to perpetuate the current crisis. Studies have shown time and time again that supervised injection site do not increase or encourage drug use.

      Treatment on demand does not work on the streets and addresses nothing but fleeting, good feelings for the people who truly believe it works. Treatment on demand relies on people having, well, access to treatment. A person shooting up on the street is not likely to pursue treatment. A person shooting up in a supervised injection site is offered advice and recommendations on treatment, including a path to treatment. That same person is much more likely to pursue treatment if talked to by a non-judgmental, medical professional in a safe facility than an addict shooting up on the streets.

      Not to mention, treatment on demand does exactly NOTHING to address overdosing, which is a main purpose of a supervised injection site. In fact, there has never been a reported death at a supervised injection site How does Heidi propose to reduce or eliminate overdoses and resulting deaths?

      I’m seeing a direct correlation between ignorant people with delusional outlooks on reality and Heidi Willis supporters. She’s looking less and less palatable by the day.

      Between her delusional campaign, Stippergate and the fact that she’s financed by wealthy, out of city people, she’s trending towards a Weatbrook-esque landslide loss. Downvote me all you want Heidi supporters, I know facts trigger you!

        1. Pointing out flaws and hypocrisies in your opinions is not “ad hominem attacks”.

          That is a Trumpian way of dealing with contrarian opinions and it terrifies me that you and your “Safe” Seattle colleges are trying to seize control of the homeless conversations.

  7. Which of these 2 candidates is the most pro junkie? I want my vote to go the most pro junkie candidate. People need to wake up and realize that junkies matter too. We have to raise taxes to help build junkie shoot up facilities. I want council leadership who understands these pressing needs in our district.

Leave a Reply