Housing: Dwellings that aren’t just accessories, please
I had high hopes for Pacific magazine’s “How do you DADU?” article on May 2. As nice as the architecture was, three out of the four were not dwellings that helped alleviate any housing needs — they just expanded footprints for people who already have a wealth of property and space. The fourth is a dwelling, but only part-time as the parents/grandparents gradually move in (they have two places to live).
It would be nice to see DADUs, or detached accessory dwelling units, and ADUs, accessory dwelling units, that are actually providing additional housing and properties that have opened up for more density in our city.
Diana Robbins, Seattle
WA Drought: Work now to avoid disaster
Congratulations to the Times Climate Lab (“Facing low snowpack, severe drought, WA officials in search of answers,” May 7) for waking up the leaders on both sides of the Cascades to the urgent need for replacement of winter snow with year-round reservoir retention. All other problems that our society faces pale in comparison to our running out of water.
Our bodies must have it constantly, our farms and animals must have it, our fish and fowl, our forests and parks, the list is endless. NOAA and the EPA confidently predict that our historic winter snows will greatly decrease, they are doing that now, and without that natural storage of water in the mountains, our leaders must find artificial sources of replacement storage to get us through the dry summer and fall. We have the answer now in Chester Morse Lake and other reservoirs; we need more now. We are already too late in starting the lengthy process and we cannot afford any more delay. Plan quickly; build soon; work to avoid drought and disaster.
Charles E. Watts, Bellevue
Elon Musk: Why does he need a tax break in Texas?
Interesting article in Monday’s paper about a planned giant computer chip plant in Texas. (“Elon Musk’s SpaceX plans $55 billion investment to make AI chips,” Business) The article stated that SpaceX owner Elon Musk is the world’s richest person and went on to describe a number of Mr. Musk’s other current endeavors.
The sentence that jumped out at me, however, read “SpaceX is also asking for tax breaks for the project …” Why is a tax break needed? Is Mr. Musk going to be unable to proceed with his plans without a tax break? This is yet another example about how the U.S. system of taxation is slanted in favor of the very rich, and the rubber-stamping of these tax breaks by all levels of government is why the “world’s richest person” pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than you or I.
Kathryn Hope, Bremerton
White House ballroom: How about a checkpoint?
Re: “Senate Republicans move ahead with $1B for Trump’s ballroom security as Democrats pledge to fight,” May 11, Nation: If the billion-dollar price tag for the ballroom is justified by the Hilton “incident,” maybe it would be better to first see if the Secret Service could, for a little less money, develop a temporary screening checkpoint that can withstand an assault by a sprinter. This is gated community thinking at its worst.
Dale Burson, Gig Harbor
Voting Rights Act: ‘The Civil War continues’
Re: “Court rulings jolt Democrats, lift Republicans’ midterm hopes,” front page, May 10)
Perhaps instead of focusing once again on the political horse race, The Times could change this story’s headline to: “Jim Crow rises again.”
Aided and abetted by the Supreme Court’s gutting of the last vestiges of the landmark Voting Rights Act, numerous Southern states have gleefully rushed to eliminate Black congressional representation. Make no mistake, this is racial gerrymandering now sanctioned by our highest court. The Civil War continues on and reporting must not shy away from this tragic fact.
Beverly Marcus, Redmond
Vision Zero: Walk with caution
This letter supports the op-ed, “Years of projects and spending aren’t making Seattle streets safer,” May 12. I walk, drive and ride the bus in Seattle. The timing of walk signs has changed so that the walk signal comes on 3-5 seconds before the corresponding green light for cars. In theory, a safer plan.
However, drivers now understand that they have 3-5 seconds after the red light to cross the intersection before the cross traffic starts. Walking, I have seen this more than once crossing Delridge Way Southwest. I used to think the walk sign indicated “start crossing.” Now it means “wait until all the cars stop.”
John Steedman, Seattle
Vision Zero projects have enhanced safety
Is the “road rage” referred to twice in the op-ed, and presumed to be a consequence of traffic congestion from Vision Zero projects, the actual reason for these projects’ failures? To suggest this seriously diminishes the credibility of this article.
In my experience, the Southeast Seattle bike lane projects on Martin Luther King Jr. Way South and Beacon Avenue South, in combination with enhanced pedestrian crossings, have greatly improved pedestrian safety in our neighborhood. Other projects on Rainier Avenue South around South Walker Street are a response to dangerous conditions and have significantly improved pedestrian and driver safety.
Vision Zero projects have often been a response to neighborhood input. At least in my neighborhood, I’m witnessing safer streets. I am also seeing far worse driving behaviors since the onset of the pandemic that are not road rage; they are the exhibition of poor judgment by people who drive with selfish impunity.
Terry Holme, Seattle
Vision Zero: Look more closely at accidents
I read with interest the op-ed and agree with much of it, especially the need to have an audit that includes a case-by-case analysis of every death and serious injury.
I was hit by a car and seriously injured on the last day of 2025 (three weeks at Harborview and eight weeks in rehab to recover from multiple injuries). The police responded and took statements but there was no further investigation. If accidents don’t even get a rudimentary investigation, how can things improve? I was at a lighted intersection and stepped off the curb when the crosswalk signal turned to “walk” — one would think as I did, that you’d be safe doing that, but I was not.
Mary Geiger, Seattle
Artificial intelligence: I’m not optimistic
The May 10 Pacific article “Seeking AI Optimism” doesn’t make me feel optimistic. Because AI can do amazing things doesn’t mean that it’s a fair tradeoff with the dangers it poses. To the AI dangers quoted from an article in The Atlantic magazine, scientist Robert Rallo’s response is that “you need to educate people on how to use this tool.” Really? Relying on education seems pretty weak.
Jason Kelly of Boston company Ginko sounds so excited about “the greatest tool we’ve ever built.” Is excitement running over safety concerns? He says his dream is “for the public to do experimental work.” Because he calls it democratizing, that makes it OK?
Scientist Court Corley admits that he may be one of the few who is optimistic because “the opportunities…are pretty astounding.” He stated in an earlier report that the threat to humanity is analogous to nuclear weapons. Isn’t that equally astounding?
Dario Amodei, the head of AI builder Anthropic, tells of turning down a request by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for an AI system without guardrails to surveil Americans. What if the next CEO, or some other AI company head, is not so ethical? Would an offer of $40 million override ethics?
Roger Sharp, Lake Forest Park
Trump accounts: Who benefits?
In Allison Schrager’s piece about wealth redistribution, we should be skeptical. (Trump accounts and a new way to redistribute wealth,” Opinion, May 13.) Wow. With all the myriad Trump business scams, no doubt these accounts will redistribute money back to his own pockets.
Mary Emmick, Sammamish
Gas prices: Tax the fossil fuel companies instead
Instead of lowering gas taxes, let’s tax the fossil fuel companies 100% of the increase in profits from sales this year over the profits in 2025. (“Trump says he’ll move to suspend federal gasoline tax. He can’t do it on his own,” May 11, Business)
Since the fossil fuel companies would still earn the same very large profit margin that they earned in 2025, it would be hard to pity the loss of profits being paid by everyone today.
And, since the Citizens United decision “made corporations people,” the companies should bear the same costs as people do, not be profiteering from people.
Of course there will be debates on the best way to give drivers rebates or otherwise use this onetime source of funds, but it sure makes more sense than to turn road maintenance money into fossil fuel company profits.
Michael Glisson, Poulsbo
Howard Schultz: Move on
Re: “Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz calls Seattle ‘hostile’ to business,” May 12: I get it, that for whatever reasons, Starbucks has decided to move employees from its headquarters out of Seattle. But for Howard Schultz to keep harping about how terrible Seattle’s business environment is, never once mentioning the many ways that the Emerald City helped him build his business from nothing to the international mega-corporation that it is today, is simply ridiculous!
Move on, Howard.
David C. Matthes, Seattle
Starbucks move: Bye, Howard
Starbucks founder Howard Schultz, in a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, criticized the business climate of Seattle, citing “chronic homelessness, persistent budget deficits, declining public safety, falling foot traffic, slower hiring and downtown vacancies” attributable to the current mayor and state policies. This, from the man who got the city to waive a $25,000 fee for his disruption to Viretta Park when he put a 100-foot driveway through it, making the park unusable to the public.
He has fought unionization of his baristas, acquired Seattle’s Best coffee and virtually put it out of business with Seattle’s worst coffee, and has benefited greatly from the city’s and state’s infrastructure and amenities. But he complains about taxes the very, very rich have to pay, which helps build and maintain this infrastructure, and thinks that the amenities (heavy foot traffic, occupied buildings, etc.) will just reappear if no rich person has to pay an income tax.
All I can do is join Mayor Katie Wilson and say, “bye” to this man. What is it with all these billionaires who have to have more, more and more? I have something he, and other billionaires, will never have. I have enough.
Linda Museus, Bremerton
E-bikes, scooters: ‘Simple solution’
The Seattle Times May 13 editorial, “It’s past time for Seattle to make E-bikes, scooters safer rides,” failed to address the most important issue: pedestrian safety. As a senior who lives downtown, walking is my method of micromobility. Since rental scooter riders refuse to ride in the streets, near-accidents involving pedestrians happen daily. Existing rules are not enforced, and the scooter riders face no consequences for their erratic behavior. Seattle taxpayers will be at risk for any legal settlements when (not if) pedestrians are injured.
Good behavior cannot be forced, but a simple solution exists that will improve safety for both pedestrians and riders. Any street adjacent to a street with a protected bike lane could be designated a scooter-free zone, with signage and removal of scooter corrals. Geo-fencing technology is accurate enough to disable operation of rental scooters on these streets and their sidewalks. For example, Second Avenue has a protected two-way bike lane, so First and Third avenues could be scooter-free.
This is a win-win solution that could be implemented immediately. Walkers would be safer and riders will be channeled to the safety of bike lanes with little deviation from their original routes.
Karen Gielen, Seattle
