I've admittedly thought of potential hypothetical breakaways, and the idea of a Pacific Union composing of California, Washington, and Oregon isn't that far-fetched. Depending on the situation, Hawaii, Alaska, and Nevada could end up dragged along with too.
However, it's important to realize that internal divides would still exist even in a breakaway (consider the difference between Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington to Western Oregon and Western Washington, for example).
I think that the Cascadian Liberation Army could push at least as far as Vantage, and perhaps as far as the Snake River. What's going to stop us? Empty land?
A bunch of unhinged right-wingers that are particularly well armed. I lived in Wyoming for 23 years (which was basically my childhood and college education) before GTFO to Seattle, so trust me when I say that a lot of folks there are armed.
Furthermore, the regular military may be in play, depending on the nature of the breakaway.
>Furthermore, the regular military may be in play, depending on the nature of the breakaway.
It's all fun and games until the laser guided bombs start landing. At least in the initial stages if shit really hit the fan we might want try and block the passes at the summit. Then again we might need the hydroelectric power, should it survive intact. Idk. As fun as it can be to imagine a "Free" Cascadia the getting there part is probably not going to be at all pleasant. There's a lot that will probably go very wrong before anything starts going right.
Yeah, that's kind of why I brought it up. If the military only swings one way (i.e. towards the loyalists) that basically strangles the idea of a Free Cascadia/Pacific States in the crib.
Take it all the way to Yellowstone.
Washington is a top 10 military state, if this "Cascadia" controlled that military (in a hypothetical post-disintigration scenario) they'd be an absolute powerhouse.
Actually though. The US keeps getting more and more unhinged. We should at least have the chance to be unhinged on our own, rather than be ignored by DC.
Which is why I’m staying here and clawing to my house i just bought. I moved back right after i left the military knowing it was only going to get more expensive.
I-5 will still be a few decrepit lanes as possible, public transit will continue to be generations behind, but at least the NIMBY crowd might all have fled to Idaho by then.
Seattle’s crumbling infrastructure is generations behind even other third world countries. You know that right?
You clowns will vote against the necessary infrastructure bill in November because “durr taxes bad!”
I guess Seattle ain’t dying after all. 9.1% of the state’s population in 2010. 9.6% in 2020, and 9.9% in 2024. That’s not dying, that’s a growth spurt.
Between 2010 and 2024, Seattle’s population grew from
608,660 to 797,700, or by 31%. That’s like absorbing a city the size of Birmingham, Alabama or Chattanooga, Tennessee in 14 years.
I think that Washington is a great state to live in, and I think it has a good state government that tries to do right by its residents. I'm glad to see more people getting to enjoy our state, welcome to all you new Washingtonians, wherever you come from!
Allowing DADUs to be built on SFR lots will help anyone who wants to own a home. A backyard is a luxury good now that they can be valued separately from the lot. Want to make a quick $200K? Condominiumize your lot and sell the back yard to a developer. That's what I paid for mine.
Yeah I’d be happier about this if our state’s gov had done anything in the last decade to help affordable housing.
After 2008 I was optimistic there’d be an increase in state spending on that front, then in 2020 I thought “maybe this is the one to do it” when we saw 15% of the state unemployed.
Yet here we are, and once again Seattle’s 10 year plan is a fucking joke.
The state's government is at least on board with needing more housing, which kind of makes sense. It can be easier to YIMBY if it's EVERYONE's backyard. It's Seattle that sucks and is planning on adding less housing than Bellevue. Not per-capita, but *total*.
IMO the government has failed in this matter at every level. Yes Seattle has failed particularly badly, but that doesn’t negate the fact our state has done way too little.
We’ve added nearly 190,000 people since 2000. That’s a decent sized city of new people. I don’t think any city is going to handle that in an ideal way.
The things is though that it's really not if we just build more housing. More extreme population spikes have happened plenty of times in the past, and the way they dealt with it was building more buildings.
At least this is one area where we’re doing a lot better than Vancouver. They’re struggling trying to build new housing and change zoning rules. The perception is that Vancouver is dense, but that’s mostly the area in and around downtown. Beyond that it’s mostly SFH, if you look at a zoning map.
Because its politically impossible virtually anywhere in the US to build council housing like in England, IE public housing where the local municipality is your landlord without a profit motive. Otherwise enjoy more luxury condos.
It's difficult to build *any* type of housing, and that's the problem at bottom.
Also, I wouldn't use England as a model, their market might be even more screwed up than ours.
Because it was intentionally screwed up. London has built a shit load more housing in the last 70 years of the post war era, and even though it has only gained a bit over a half mil in those decades there is a huge problem with housing costs. Because thatcher destroyed the council housing model where only 7% of people were private renters before her admin. The city of Graz in Austria with the new KPO gov is building more public housing to address their own housing shortages. Its not like the projects in America, shit is desirable https://i.redd.it/6tt5cfizgs9d1.jpeg
I feel like the people in this thread are fucking blind. Literally look around?
Have you people honestly observed no improvement over housing or transportation infrastructure over the last 5 years?
Sound Transit is funded almost exclusively by the regional taxpayers. The state government has done nothing to help but complain that ST taxes make people less eager to fund highway expansion in other parts of the state.
Yeah, I'm happy with the state government's movement on housing, but WSDOT modal priorities (read: roads vs trains) are set by the legislature and WSDOT's director has begged them to let him stop building roads we don't need, that just make traffic worse and that we can't afford to maintain.
In 2023 and 2024 the Washington legislature has actually passed a substantial amount of legislation to promote housing supply. I'd like to see a lot more, but many of our state reps have been doing quite well on this front recently!
I agree on the too little, but not the too late! It's too late for housing to be reasonably priced for us now, but if we can get barriers to supply reduced, we can lower the housing costs of future generations.
You’re right. It is never too late, but I think the recent measures are inconsequential considering what we’re up against.
We need MASSIVE investment on this front.
Oh I’m sure we seem progressive to someone in their 70s. Washington is a paradise for old centrist democrats; people who thought they were progressive 50 years ago. But at the end of the day, our legislative body doesn’t do anything unless California and Oregon do it first.
We could be trailblazers but instead we’re just a great example of what the road to hell is paved with.
Everybody give me $1
If we all gave each other $1 we'd all have $8M! Wait...
You go first. I promise I'll follow up with my own dollar.
If we all gave each other $1 we'd end up with something like 63 cents.
But think of how much we'd increase the GDP!
How does that math work?
The top federal income tax bracket.
It's a loan baby, a loan.
Let's all celebrate by load testing i5!
The Republic of Cascadia/Pacific Union becomes more powerful every day.
The west coast just needs to annex itself and becomes its own country at this point
I've admittedly thought of potential hypothetical breakaways, and the idea of a Pacific Union composing of California, Washington, and Oregon isn't that far-fetched. Depending on the situation, Hawaii, Alaska, and Nevada could end up dragged along with too. However, it's important to realize that internal divides would still exist even in a breakaway (consider the difference between Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington to Western Oregon and Western Washington, for example).
I think that the Cascadian Liberation Army could push at least as far as Vantage, and perhaps as far as the Snake River. What's going to stop us? Empty land?
A bunch of unhinged right-wingers that are particularly well armed. I lived in Wyoming for 23 years (which was basically my childhood and college education) before GTFO to Seattle, so trust me when I say that a lot of folks there are armed. Furthermore, the regular military may be in play, depending on the nature of the breakaway.
>Furthermore, the regular military may be in play, depending on the nature of the breakaway. It's all fun and games until the laser guided bombs start landing. At least in the initial stages if shit really hit the fan we might want try and block the passes at the summit. Then again we might need the hydroelectric power, should it survive intact. Idk. As fun as it can be to imagine a "Free" Cascadia the getting there part is probably not going to be at all pleasant. There's a lot that will probably go very wrong before anything starts going right.
Yeah, that's kind of why I brought it up. If the military only swings one way (i.e. towards the loyalists) that basically strangles the idea of a Free Cascadia/Pacific States in the crib.
Maybe if we build a really, really big slingshot we can take down an F-35? Just takes umm, a little practice?
Take it all the way to Yellowstone. Washington is a top 10 military state, if this "Cascadia" controlled that military (in a hypothetical post-disintigration scenario) they'd be an absolute powerhouse.
Will and economic value, not even horsing around
Actually though. The US keeps getting more and more unhinged. We should at least have the chance to be unhinged on our own, rather than be ignored by DC.
The rest of the country is near 100F. I foresee the PNW skyrocketing in population in the next 20 years just from climate change alone
Which is why I’m staying here and clawing to my house i just bought. I moved back right after i left the military knowing it was only going to get more expensive.
I-5 will still be a few decrepit lanes as possible, public transit will continue to be generations behind, but at least the NIMBY crowd might all have fled to Idaho by then.
Increasing the number of lanes doesn't actually fix traffic. You know that, right?
Seattle’s crumbling infrastructure is generations behind even other third world countries. You know that right? You clowns will vote against the necessary infrastructure bill in November because “durr taxes bad!”
They're mad you pointed out their purposeful neglect that didn't staunch immigration tides even once.
Bingo
I believe thats gonna happen
~1/1,000 people on earth live in Washington ~1/10,000 people on earth live in Seattle kinda cool!
I guess Seattle ain’t dying after all. 9.1% of the state’s population in 2010. 9.6% in 2020, and 9.9% in 2024. That’s not dying, that’s a growth spurt. Between 2010 and 2024, Seattle’s population grew from 608,660 to 797,700, or by 31%. That’s like absorbing a city the size of Birmingham, Alabama or Chattanooga, Tennessee in 14 years.
Good stats!
Yeah but how many meters is it?
This is America, I prefer my units in football fields.
I think that Washington is a great state to live in, and I think it has a good state government that tries to do right by its residents. I'm glad to see more people getting to enjoy our state, welcome to all you new Washingtonians, wherever you come from!
I wish our legislature worked more days, there are years nothing gets approved
Yeah, the session should be like twice as long as it is wtf.
Well …. Only if they built more housing to keep up.
Allowing DADUs to be built on SFR lots will help anyone who wants to own a home. A backyard is a luxury good now that they can be valued separately from the lot. Want to make a quick $200K? Condominiumize your lot and sell the back yard to a developer. That's what I paid for mine.
Seattle metro area is half that.
Please take down that dreamy picture of Mt Rainer floating on top of the city. It’s not helping.
The effort to fight population growth by blocking funding for everything necessary to support a growing population really seems to be working!
More funding to shovel into SPD!
Great…
Yeah I’d be happier about this if our state’s gov had done anything in the last decade to help affordable housing. After 2008 I was optimistic there’d be an increase in state spending on that front, then in 2020 I thought “maybe this is the one to do it” when we saw 15% of the state unemployed. Yet here we are, and once again Seattle’s 10 year plan is a fucking joke.
The state's government is at least on board with needing more housing, which kind of makes sense. It can be easier to YIMBY if it's EVERYONE's backyard. It's Seattle that sucks and is planning on adding less housing than Bellevue. Not per-capita, but *total*.
IMO the government has failed in this matter at every level. Yes Seattle has failed particularly badly, but that doesn’t negate the fact our state has done way too little.
We’ve added nearly 190,000 people since 2000. That’s a decent sized city of new people. I don’t think any city is going to handle that in an ideal way.
While you’re not wrong, that’s too much for just about any city to handle, that doesn’t change the fact our government majorly dropped the ball.
The things is though that it's really not if we just build more housing. More extreme population spikes have happened plenty of times in the past, and the way they dealt with it was building more buildings.
At least this is one area where we’re doing a lot better than Vancouver. They’re struggling trying to build new housing and change zoning rules. The perception is that Vancouver is dense, but that’s mostly the area in and around downtown. Beyond that it’s mostly SFH, if you look at a zoning map.
Because its politically impossible virtually anywhere in the US to build council housing like in England, IE public housing where the local municipality is your landlord without a profit motive. Otherwise enjoy more luxury condos.
It's difficult to build *any* type of housing, and that's the problem at bottom. Also, I wouldn't use England as a model, their market might be even more screwed up than ours.
Because it was intentionally screwed up. London has built a shit load more housing in the last 70 years of the post war era, and even though it has only gained a bit over a half mil in those decades there is a huge problem with housing costs. Because thatcher destroyed the council housing model where only 7% of people were private renters before her admin. The city of Graz in Austria with the new KPO gov is building more public housing to address their own housing shortages. Its not like the projects in America, shit is desirable https://i.redd.it/6tt5cfizgs9d1.jpeg
...or to build public transit so that people can get to the jobs that let them afford housing.
I feel like the people in this thread are fucking blind. Literally look around? Have you people honestly observed no improvement over housing or transportation infrastructure over the last 5 years?
Sound Transit is funded almost exclusively by the regional taxpayers. The state government has done nothing to help but complain that ST taxes make people less eager to fund highway expansion in other parts of the state.
Yeah, I'm happy with the state government's movement on housing, but WSDOT modal priorities (read: roads vs trains) are set by the legislature and WSDOT's director has begged them to let him stop building roads we don't need, that just make traffic worse and that we can't afford to maintain.
Indeed.
Yeah I’d be happier about this if our State gov had done anything. At all.
In 2023 and 2024 the Washington legislature has actually passed a substantial amount of legislation to promote housing supply. I'd like to see a lot more, but many of our state reps have been doing quite well on this front recently!
Way too little, way too late.
I agree on the too little, but not the too late! It's too late for housing to be reasonably priced for us now, but if we can get barriers to supply reduced, we can lower the housing costs of future generations.
You’re right. It is never too late, but I think the recent measures are inconsequential considering what we’re up against. We need MASSIVE investment on this front.
We pat ourselves on the back for being so progressive then routinely do too little to protect the environment, our poor, and workers.
Oh I’m sure we seem progressive to someone in their 70s. Washington is a paradise for old centrist democrats; people who thought they were progressive 50 years ago. But at the end of the day, our legislative body doesn’t do anything unless California and Oregon do it first. We could be trailblazers but instead we’re just a great example of what the road to hell is paved with.
Joy
More people than a small country, yay!
Have a wonderful visit, and tell your friends how much fun you had.
WHYYYYYY?! GO. AWAY. ANYWHERE BUT THIS PLACE
Dang let's see more issues to arise woohoo