This time of the year is both exciting and a little stressful for us. It’s exciting because, all over the country, people get to cast ballots and put in their two cents about the people and issues that matter to them. It’s a little stressful because it’s tough to pick who to endorse or what to support and to display it so publicly.
We’d like to offer some thoughts and rationales behind some of our stances.
We are very glad that someone like Frank Irigon is running. He is a trailblazer, an activist, and an advocate for the local Asian Pacific American (APA) community. He was instrumental in the movement to preserve the Chinatown/International District. From 1975 to 1985, he helped to shape and oversee Washington state’s affirmative action policies. Over the years, many people have told Irigon that he should run for office, and for one reason or another, Irigon didn’t.
So it’s especially exciting for us to see him finally doing so. He has done so much for APAs over the years that it’s only right that we band together and support him in his endeavor.
Of course, many of us do not live in Newcastle, where he is running for a seat on the city council, but surely, we have friends in Newcastle that may be swayed if we tell them about the great work Irigon has done.
Seattle Transportation’s Proposition 1
Why would we support a $60 hike in car tab fees? Well, we know two things. Seattle needs more reliable and efficient transit service. Also, a solid number of people who rely on public transit on a daily basis are low-income and/or immigrants.
In community surveys, compared to the general population, a higher percentage of Asian immigrants in Seattle state that policies and issues surrounding public transit matter to them. A study from the Journal of Public Transportation shows that immigrants in California commute by public transit at rates twice that of native-born adults.
Prop. 1 would create a better transit service. It would also move projects along. With about $23 million dedicated to pedestrian improvements, Prop. 1 would also create new or better sidewalks, contributing to a safer environment for all users.
I-1163 concerns long-term care workers and services for elderly and disabled people. I-1163 would require background checks and extended training for long-term care workers.
So why are we against I-1163?
Bad timing. With the state in such deep debt, this measure is asking for too much — $80 million. We’re not against the idea. Additional training would create better long-term care, but at this moment, we just can’t substantiate the high costs. (end)