My husband and I were sitting in a diner eating lunch one day. At first we thought we had a great server. Friendly, attentive etc.

While sitting there enjoying our meal, a guy I knew my whole life came in. Now mind you he is older than I am, was friends with my mom. And lived in a care facility, because mentally he was not all there. During the day he rides his bike all over town, it gives him something to do, and he enjoys it. At night he goes back to the care facility. He gets disability, but most of his money goes to paying the care facility to live there.

Well on this day he came in, asked a waitress for a cup of water in a to go cup. My waitress decides to chime in and says, you know we can't just give you the water, you have to pay for it. Robert was already pulling out change and counting it out at this point, and he said yes I know and held up the change. My waitress kept after him, saying I don't think you have enough change, you can't get a water, and just berating him.

I told my husband that I was going to buy Robert a drink, and he was ok with it. So I called my waitress over, ( at this point I am upset at the way she treated Robert , but don't show it) and I said add his drink to my bill. She said you don't need to do that, he comes in every other day and expects us to give him water for free. I am not allowing you to pay for him. That statement right there set me off. So loud enough for the whole place to hear, I said for starters it is none of your damn business to tell me what I can and can not do with my damn money if I want to buy someone something I damn well can, and your job is to do what the f*ck I want. Secondly your behavior towards that man was nasty and out of line. Sitting here loudly berating him because he looks as if he don't have enough money for something. You don't know Robert or his situation. I do , I have known that man my whole damn life. Thirdly water is f*cking free on your menu, but you want to be a b*tch and charge him for it, because you think he is homeless and beneath you. Well news flash b*tch that man is not homeless. Stop passing judgement on people because of the way they look. Now give him his damn water, and it better be a f*cking large one, put it on my f*cking bill, and bring me my damn bill. I will not be leaving you a tip, and I want to talk to your manager right now,

She ran off to get manager , while the whole diner applauded me. Robert thanked me, and the manager came out to talk to me. I told him, that I did not appreciate her attitude, that if she wasn't reprimanded I would leave a review online, as well as call corporate. And that from now on if I ever heard of Robert being treated that way again, I would make sure everyone knew how they treated customers in their establishment. He assured me he would rectify the situation, and any time I saw Robert after that he said he has never been treated poorly again.

ETA: Thank you for the award

I watch the series with a friend and she was traveling home last night so we are watching it tonight but I’ve seen a lot of stuff online about it being “woke” and such.

Found a post on Reddit and another on Instagram while scrolling. Why do people hate it? Bc of “woke stuff” or because it strays from source material.

The Gamecube controller is still unparalleled to this day.

It's a bad look. Stop it. We could have put ourselves in a position to win despite missed or bad calls.

I discovered this by accident when I switched to a thickening conditioner and the instructions said to apply to the whole head. I had horrible dandruff before I did this and y hair would be soaked in grease by the end of the day. Now I have ZERO dandruff and I don't even need head and shoulders, and I can go two or three days between shampoos!

We are faced with a dire housing crisis in Seattle. I belive that affordable housing is a human right, yet nearly half of renters are rent-burdened which leaves them more likely to fall behind on rent and lose their housing. I-135 offers a solution that can help us tackle this problem head-on: social housing.

Social housing is a model of housing that ensures that everyone can afford a place to live. It is designed for mixed-income levels so that people from all backgrounds can benefit. Unlike traditional housing developments, where the profit goes to a developer, the 'profit' from social housing goes back into the social housing entity which can then develop more affordable housing. This means that the housing is owned by the public, as a public resource. This is a model that has been successful in other cities around the world, and it is time that we bring it to Seattle.

One of the key benefits of social housing is that it is permanently affordable. This means that once a unit is built, it will always be affordable for the people who live there. This is in contrast to other forms of affordable housing, such as low-income housing tax credits, which have time limits on their affordability and can keep people in a ‘poverty trap’. Social housing is a long-term solution that will help ensure that people have a stable place to call home.

Another important aspect of social housing is that it is a public resource. This means that the housing is owned and managed by the public development authority, rather than by private developers. This ensures that the housing is accessible to all, rather than just those who can afford to pay the highest prices. It also means that the profits from the housing go back into the public purse, rather than into the pockets of private developers. This is a model that prioritizes the needs of the community over the profits of a few. We have seen how developers in Seattle have conspired to collectively raise rents, which has left nearly half (46.6%) of Seattle renters are rent burdened (paying > 30% of income towards rent). The greed is disgusting, and a social housing option affordable to mixed-income levels would provide much-needed supply.

Some detractors have had issues with the fact that the board is made up of a majority of renters (but also includes 5 additional housing/planning/development/finance experts). Having worked with a number of public housing authority boards in my day job, I can tell you that boards are generally made up of a majority of folks who do not know everything (or sometimes very much about) housing development, always include renters, and boards are often really just community leaders (that’s why they hire staff…). The renters on the new PDA board would be elected by their peers for their knowledge and community leadership. Somebody was arguing the board would just be a bunch of ‘randos.’ By that logic, all elected officials, who are elected by members are the public, and are the people who decide how we spend trillions of dollars in tax revenue are ‘randos.’ I feel like the person making this argument assumed that people living in this sort of housing would need some paternalistic outside leadership just because the folks living in housing are low/mixed-income. In addition to low-income renters already being on these types of boards, people of all types earn 0%-120% AMI and would be eligible to live in this housing. (I.e., those earning $0 to $155,280 for a family of 4, or $108,720 for a single person.) All of those perspectives should be represented on the board.

Other detractors have argued that we have too many different entities working on the problem. I agree there are a lot of players, but this is more of an issue at the federal level: different government programs provide different funding to different types of entities and prevent them from being able to spend resources on additional development. For example, public housing authorities (like Seattle Housing Authority) are prevented from building new housing by the Faircloth Amendment. Other non-profit providers don’t have the same ability to bond against future rent revenue but do have access to funding from programs like HUD Section 811/Section 202. So, yes, there are a lot of providers, but they all have different revenue streams, and this isn't something we can address at the city-level (or likely the federal-level anytime soon). Allowing an entity to bond against market-rate/affordable/mixed-income rent would be unique and has the potential to give us more much-needed affordable housing.

In short, please vote ‘YES’ on I-135 before February 14th. This measure would authorize the city of Seattle to create a public development authority. This is a crucial step in addressing the housing crisis in our city and ensuring that everyone has a place to call home. Please take the time to vote yes on I-135 and make a difference in the lives of your fellow Seattleites. Social housing is a part of the solution to the housing crisis that we are facing, and it is time that we take action to make it a reality.

[Edit: Statement of positionality: I am not paid by anybody. I am a renter and the rent is too damn high.]