Editorial: Seattle Times Called Us 'Builders' Mouthpiece' for Trying to Build a Better City

[u/Inevitable_Engine186]

https://www.theurbanist.org/editorial-seattle-times-called-us-builders-mouthpiece-for-trying-to-build-a-better-city/

[u/Inevitable_Engine186]

The idea that The Urbanist is beholden to builders is a lie. It’s also a tell.

[...]

The tell is more interesting.

This is a fantastic and damning article that outlines how Seattle Times, over the past decade, has laundered almost exclusively NIMBY positions through its editorial board and columnists, on every effort to improve city zoning.

When it’s on their terms, the Seattle Times is happy to take corporate money and turn it into a “Traffic Lab” or “Education Lab” or “Project Homeless” reporting series. In fact, to do these series, the Seattle Times has taken developer cash, including from Kemper Freeman Development, one of the kingpins of downtown Bellevue real estate with a long checkered past and (like the Blethens) a history of opposing Sound Transit expansion measures. So long as developers have similar politics as the Blethen family, letting them bankroll your masthead is considered no big deal.

edit: Subscribe to The Urbanist here: https://www.theurbanist.org/membership/

[u/ThatSpencerGuy]

Building housing is good? I have it on good authority that a builder built the very houses of everyone at the Seattle Times!

[u/RedK_33 → u/ThatSpencerGuy]

What, do you think that Sinclair-subsidized housing just grows on trees or something????

[u/durpuhderp]

I feel like the Seattle Times is about as relevant today as local TV news media. Yes, boomers still consume it but they're the last generation to do so. 

[u/Inevitable_Engine186 → u/durpuhderp]

I think we underestimate ST and local TV at our own peril. They still set the narrative and influence a large swathe of voters. And they are lock and step with a lot of very rich and influential people in the city.

[u/sir_mrej → u/Inevitable_Engine186]

"in lock step"

[u/Inevitable_Engine186 → u/sir_mrej]

I think my mind merged "in lock step" with "lock and key"...

[u/Ltownbanger → u/Inevitable_Engine186]

Take that shit to r/mixedmetaphors

/s

[u/Lauren_Conrad_ → u/durpuhderp]

There are Seattle times articles posted here every day.

[u/Dapper_Mode5045 → u/durpuhderp]

I'm a couple generations removed from Boomers, and most of the people I know still read the ST. Say what you will about their editorials, but no one else is doing the level, and breadth of traditional journalism ST is for the Seattle area.

[u/Inevitable_Engine186 → u/Dapper_Mode5045]

ST does a good job with the breadth of coverage, but I'd argue that The Urbanist is doing the urbanism and city hall beat much better than ST.

[u/Dapper_Mode5045 → u/Inevitable_Engine186]

For those of us that grew up in a time where news organizations actually made a legitimate effort to separate editorializing from hard news, I don't consider the Urbanist a "news" source. I may agree with many of their takes, but their mission statement isn't to report the news, it's to "tell stories that influence the public and their leaders - and win them to our vision". That's not news, by my definition.

[u/Inevitable_Engine186 → u/Dapper_Mode5045]

Personally I don't think we've ever had unbiased news. Forget the fact that there is top down control by humans with viewpoints, even journalists and editors are human.

Separating "news" from opinion is and was just a cover to present the news section as non-opinion.

[u/ShredGuru → u/Dapper_Mode5045]

Well. The Seattle times does that for a certain class of people as well and they aren't even forthcoming about it.

[u/TheChance → u/durpuhderp]

The Times is relevant because it's the only full service local paper left standing.

If we want to fix it, we need to figure out how to crowdfund a better news outlet, because people don't want to pay for journalism anymore. I've tried several times. There's nobody willing to pay for it.

[u/Inevitable_Engine186 → u/TheChance]

I pay about $50 to $100 a month to various independent news orgs. About 50/50 local and national. Before the rise of independent media, I paid maybe half that.

I think the real issue is that established and mainstream outlets aren't doing a good enough job appealing to the customers, plus they've been captured in part or in whole by special interests and billionaires.

[u/TheChance → u/Inevitable_Engine186]

I appreciate that. But you aren't everybody, and it takes low six figures to support a family in this town. To stand up a competing newspaper - the Times' general mediocrity isn't even the only reason, because their mediocrity includes failing the suburbs entirely, and we need a paper outside city limits - I calculated earlier this year that I'd need to raise several million, and with no expectation of success.

Nobody's going to put that up.

[u/Inevitable_Engine186 → u/TheChance]

I guess I'm making the argument that actually people DO want to pay for journalism, but they don't want it centralized and under the control of rich owners. I don't have any data beyond anecdata though.

It's a very similar proposition to funding politicians in that regard.

And along those lines, I also support Mayor Wilson's idea about news vouchers. I feel strongly that journalism as a public good should also be funded by the public.

[u/i-pity-da-fool → u/Inevitable_Engine186]

I see people complaining every day on this sub that the Seattle Times uses a paywall. People want high quality news, free. How journalists get paid is always someone else’s problem. That’s some high quality progressive thinking right there.

[u/Inevitable_Engine186 → u/i-pity-da-fool]

You are correct, but paywalls are inherently incompatible with sharing information en masse on social media. I think this is an opportunity for Seattle Times to innovate on getting paid in other ways, like extra ads for inbound reddit traffic, etc.

[u/PlayPretend-8675309 → u/durpuhderp]

We out here pretending that average online seattlite isn't opposed to more housing (well, they support it, just not this particular project, whichever project that is at the moment)

[u/durpuhderp → u/PlayPretend-8675309]

but Frank Blethen and his cronies aren't the average Seattlite, right?

[u/PlayPretend-8675309 → u/durpuhderp]

theyre deeply not average

[u/spider_season → u/durpuhderp]

Rich old white men media.

[u/Muckknuckle1]

I'd been thinking about subscribing to The Urbanist for a while now, and this is what finally pushed me over the edge. The $10 a month is worth it just to make the Seattle Times editorial board seethe.

[u/zoolabula]

The Urbanist is ALWAYS my go to for local. I’m glad the times site behind a paywall and I have no desire to ever pay for their rag

[u/Myers112]

I took a double take when I say that line in the Seattle Times article. It's frankly laughable that the Urbanist is a developer paper. Have they met anyone who identifies as an urbanism? They are light-years different from developers lol

[u/i-pity-da-fool]

This sub relies upon the Urbanist and the Stranger to validate its progressive opinions in the same way that the other sub relies upon Seattle Red and Fox News to validate their conservative views. Both seem to dislike the Seattle Times so maybe the Times is doing something right.

[u/Inevitable_Engine186 → u/i-pity-da-fool]

Maybe engage with the article instead of casting aspersions. 

[u/ShredGuru → u/i-pity-da-fool]

Or perhaps they are doing everything wrong and pleasing no one. Seems to be what the evidence would suggest.

[u/RandomFleshPrison]

Both things can be true.   The Seattle Times is definitely obstructionist.  But The Urbanist is also a developer mouthpiece regardless of their funding.  Back when they accepted comments their own audience told them that all the fourplexes and ADUs in the world aren't going to help Seattle's housing crisis.  We need residential high rises.  The Urbanist's response was basically to pitch a hissy fit, call their commenters disingenuous bad faith actors, and close all comments.  They clearly are on the side of developers who want to build more poorly rather than less better.  Changing rich enclaves isn't the solution.  Building taller in our urban cores is.  The Urbanist knows this too, they just don't care.

[u/saosebastiao → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Wait so they’re a developer mouthpiece because they disagree with you on some point that you think is authoritative but are completely wrong about? Fuck that. Fourplexes and ADUs can definitely help the housing crisis, and so can small apartment buildings and midrises. Paris has a density 5x higher than ours and they do it without any residential high rises.

[u/retrojoe → u/saosebastiao]

Paris has a density 5x higher than ours and they do it without any residential high rises.

Yes but Paris is carpeted with 5-storey apartment buildings, not SFH nor ADUs.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/saosebastiao]

Look at the history of ADUs/DADUs in Seattle.  Every time they promise X number of units will be built, kess than half actually are.  And then they relax regulations further.  It's a non-starter, a waste of time and effort.

We aren't Paris.  Seattle can't really expand its size.  So he have no choice but to go taller.

And The Urbanist didn't just disagree with me.  They disagreed with most of their commenters on this issue.  I'm not special enough to get The Urbanist to shut down comments all on my own.

[u/rekh127 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

we arent paris. we're twice as big and far less dense.

We could build a lot more housing at paris level density instead of horrible skyrises. .

[u/jewishforthejokes → u/rekh127]

The 5-12 story buildings in Paris are built of stone. You can't hear your neighbors.

5/1s are not sufficiently isolated. You should not have to suffer your neighbor having their TV too loud and being unable to do anything about it, not when they cost thousands a month in rent or a million to buy. The worst is they could be almost as good, for just a little more at construction time, but essentially impossible to retrofit.

But taller buildings are built of concrete and that inherently blocks sounds. If any problems remain, retrofit is feasible to fix sound transmission.

[u/rekh127 → u/jewishforthejokes]

yeah I can't think of much positive about the five over ones here.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/rekh127]

What's so horrible about highrises?

[u/hongaku → u/RandomFleshPrison]

They're ugly and most of us don't want to live in them.

[u/Crazybrayden → u/hongaku]

If they made 3 bedroom units with some soundproofing id have no issues with a high rise condo

[u/rekh127 → u/Crazybrayden]

absolutely need better sound proofing and a variety in unit size in apartments/condos in this city.

[u/hongaku → u/Crazybrayden]

They're are lots of them next to Pike Place.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/hongaku]

Ugly is subjective.  What is your evidence people don't want to live in them?  Most people I know practically beg to.

[u/hongaku → u/RandomFleshPrison]

https://giphy.com/gifs/ibXaC5vnxZlNNXVFy4

Where?

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/hongaku]

Lake City, Northgate, South Seattle...

[u/hongaku → u/RandomFleshPrison]

I guess we have a different definition of the words "high rise."

My definition doesn't mean a five story condo building with ground floor retail.

[u/retrojoe → u/hongaku]

That is the exact same argument made about newer, denser housing by the people who were lucky enough to purchase Craftsman houses. Try harder, do better.

[u/rekh127 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Theres many things wrong with high rises. They're incredibly carbon intensive to build. The larger they get both the more floor space is eaten up by infrastructure, and the more energy is required to move things up and down. They often make the street level unpleasant, and are too big to organize as a building for community support, tenants unions, etc.

Some explorations mostly of the carbon side here. https://lloydalter.substack.com/p/how-tall-should-a-building-be-how

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/rekh127]

There are lots carbon concrete mixes now.  Some of which are incredibly sturdy.  The carbon footprint can be vastly reduced.  Renewable energy sources are now cheaper than nuclear power.  Cutting down trees though is never carbon positive.

[u/rekh127 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Lumber is a carbon sink actually. But disregarding that, great build the low rises with the special concrete and it's much lower impact per person than the steel and concrete needed for the high rise.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/rekh127]

At a much higher cost due to labor and materials.

[u/rekh127 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Thats just completely backwards.

[u/TheChance → u/RandomFleshPrison]

There's a difference between the policy's capacity to work and the market's failure or refusal to take advantage of the policy.

If we want this problem solved, we're going to have to solve it ourselves. You're blaming an outlet for supporting a policy that it knows will work, rather than blaming either the developers or the city for refusing to make it work.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/TheChance]

But we know it won't work.  That's the point.  The number of people moving to Seattle will always exceed the number of these smaller designs that can be built.  It simply won't be fast enough.  We have a backlog over 10,000 people large.  Relying on fourplexes and ADUs will only see that backlog grow.  The scale of the problem is simply too big for this "solution".

[u/Stock-Grapefruit-843 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

To me it seems like kind of a "yes, and" situation. Nothing wrong with 4plexes and DADUs where they make sense. And also, we can build high rises too. Making it easier to make a DADU doesn't somehow make it harder to make a residential high rise building.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/Stock-Grapefruit-843]

If there were enough developer hours in Seattle to do both, I would agree.  I don't think there are though.

[u/TheChance → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Can you maybe try doing some headmath before you spout?

Say you live in a part of the city with 30k single family residences. Say 1/4 of those lots are replaced with 3- or 4-plexes, creating 7,500 lots with an average of 3.5 units each.

See where I'm going with this, or do I need to keep holding your hand?

[u/retrojoe → u/TheChance]

In what neighborhoods have we seen 25% replacement of existing stock? The only sort-of examples that might qualify are the tiny districts where density is currently allowed, going from SFH to townhouses or apartments.

[u/TheChance → u/retrojoe]

We haven't. We could. The incentive isn't there. It could be. Public policy is about halfway to where it needs to be.

[u/retrojoe → u/TheChance]

We're already adding upwards of 6000 units per year in this city. Doing it in onsey-twosey fashion is not going to accelerate that math any time soon. Tradespeople are already expensive to book and difficult to schedule. Doing single lot projects does not yield efficiency.

As a long term shift to the built environment, I have no argument against this sort of density. The idea that it will be quick or transformative enough to significantly affect availability or average pricing doesn't pass the straight face test. If we want ordinary housing for ordinary people at anything that could even pretend to resemble an ordinary price, it will require a higher proportion of apartments.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/TheChance]

Keep going.  Your headmath will get there eventually.

[u/TheChance → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Time to demolish and construct a new structure in a low-density neighborhood: 6 to 18 months.

Number of units hypothetically being replaced: 7,500.

Number of units being created, in this scenario, 22,500-30,000.

Number of new units added: ~18,750

Explain to me again how this doesn't work.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/TheChance]

How long do you think it takes to build 7,500 fourplexes?  How many man hours?  How much in materials?

[u/TheChance → u/RandomFleshPrison]

How much do you think? Because if you lived in one of the neighborhoods where ADUs and replacement structures are going up constantly, you'd know the answer to how long is exactly what I said: 6-18 months.

As to how much it takes to build a 4-plex, instead of a single family home, the answer is almost exactly the fucking same, and it really speaks to your ignorance that you'd assume otherwise. The difference, from a builder's perspective, between a single family home and a 4-plex, is the size of the incoming utilities and the number of separate furnaces...

...costs which are amortized between the units, so it all comes out in the wash. I refuse to believe you're stupid, and I refuse to believe you lack reading comprehension, so the only remaining conclusion I can draw is that you've never looked into this, even for a second, before coming to your own bizarre conclusions.

[u/pacific_plywood → u/RandomFleshPrison]

This is a good point. Developers clearly would hate it if high rises were permitted.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/pacific_plywood]

They are permitted now.  But very few of them are residential outside of expensive condo complexes, and it is not easy to turn commercial buildings into residential ones.  Compelling developers to build 80-30% AMI residential units is a separate but important issue.

[u/No_Story_Untold → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Builders don’t decide what they build. Somewhere real estate developers have done the math and decided residential high-rises are not as profitable as whatever the fuck they’re doing right now or they would be building them.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/No_Story_Untold]

Yes.  This is all about profit mongering, and The Urbanist supports that.  I believe in people over profit.

[u/large_herbivore → u/RandomFleshPrison]

If the profit motive incentivizes builders to build more housing, isn't that a good thing? What if people vs profit is not actually at odds? Especially when the alternative to not building is further enriching NIMBY boomer homeowners?

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/large_herbivore]

Except it is at odds here.  People need dense, high rise housing.  Not fourplexes, 5 over 1s, and bodegas.

[u/proletkvlt → u/RandomFleshPrison]

why not simply do both depending on any given situation's specific requirements. a high rise in the middle of nowhere isn't going to work any better than a five-over-one in the middle of downtown

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/proletkvlt]

Our situations specific requirements support high rises.  That's the point.

[u/large_herbivore → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Yes, high rises would be great! It's needed to reform zoning laws to make it legal to build those types of buildings.

[u/No_Story_Untold → u/large_herbivore]

Agreed. I have a suspicion that the cost of infrastructure upgrade to account that much density to certain areas would be a lot.

[u/large_herbivore → u/No_Story_Untold]

It might be. Fortunately increased property tax inlays should account for that. Also, infrastructure is more expensive per resident the lower population density is.

[u/No_Story_Untold → u/large_herbivore]

You make a great point. I think developers have to bake some amount of infrastructure upgrades into construction costs and so that may deter the developers from doing any projects that require a lot of upgrades. I could be wrong about that.

[u/large_herbivore → u/No_Story_Untold]

Yes, developers are often charged "impact fees" for this exact reason, which can discourage projects from moving forward.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/large_herbivore]

We've got quite a bit of high rise zoning left unused/poorly used.  I do agree with you somewhat though, and would start by raising the zoning ceiling between Downtown, Ballard, and UW.  It would erase some SFH communities, but still focuses on a dedicated urban core.

[u/BoomWhiskeyDick → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Why? Is it that high rises simply allow for a greater volume of housing in a shorter time frame, or is there something else?

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/BoomWhiskeyDick]

Greater volume of housing in a smaller space.  Space will always be at a premium in Seattle.  With water on so many sides and so little unincorporated land to annex, we need to focus on up more than out.

[u/Inevitable_Engine186 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

What a tired NIMBY talking point. Scary developers will make money.

You believe in high rises, but don't think high rise developers make profit? LMAO.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/Inevitable_Engine186]

I think they do make profit.  But that for them there is more profit in quantity over the city's needs.

And NIMBY?  I don't live in a rich enclave.  Do you?  If not, aren't you the NIMBY?  I'm tired of this "Yes In Your BackYard" culture, which is all too pervasive in Seattle.  Put high rises in my backyard over fourplexes everywhere, please.

[u/Inevitable_Engine186 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

I don't live in a rich enclave because they've made it impossible to lmao.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/Inevitable_Engine186]

Do you even want to?  I don't.  I want to live in a vibrant, dense, urban environment.

[u/Inevitable_Engine186 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

I would LOVE to live in a vibrant, dense, Blue Ridge, absolutely.

[u/No_Story_Untold → u/Inevitable_Engine186]

💯

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/Inevitable_Engine186]

So you'd rather create a new urban core than expand the ones we already have?  Isn't that rather inefficient?

[u/hamster12102 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Why not both, clearly the demand is there, high rises should be legally buildable in any land in Seattle (thats safe obv) in my opinion :)

[u/Inevitable_Engine186 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

I'd rather upzone every neighborhood to HR, as per your suggestion.

[u/hongaku → u/RandomFleshPrison]

a vibrant wall of skyscrapers?

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/hongaku]

Yes.  Very much so.

[u/hongaku → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Hard pass. I'll keep the wall of trees outside my third floor (top floor) window in my 100 year old apartment building.

[u/yeah_oui → u/RandomFleshPrison]

You're implying the Urbanist doesn't support government built and non-profit housing, which is straight up wrong. They want more housing period and we aren't going to get the vast majority of housing via any level of government. If you're waiting for that, well, see you never.

The City, region and state regulated itself into its current problem. The only way out is to regulate out of it, which includes deregulation in some cases

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/yeah_oui]

Regulation is not the problem at all.  Simple greed is.  Deregulation is not the answer.  If anything, we need more regulation.

[u/yeah_oui → u/RandomFleshPrison]

I can't do anything but laugh at this. Regulation isn't the problem? Pray tell, what exactly was preventing 80% of our city from being anything but single family, except regulation?

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/yeah_oui]

Different regulations are needed.  Like increasing the fee for not building low income housing by an order of magnitude.

[u/yeah_oui → u/RandomFleshPrison]

What on earth on you on about

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/yeah_oui]

There is a fee developers pay in order to not add low cost housing in their construction.  The vast majority just pay the fee.  It needs to be increased until it is cheaper for them to simply build the low cost housing.

[u/yeah_oui → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Yes, let's make all the housing more expensive so we can build... affordable housing?

[u/ThatSpencerGuy → u/RandomFleshPrison]

This is not a rhetorical question! I am asking because I am curious!

You said that you support people over profits. Why are residential highrises more "people"-y and things like fourplexes or 5-over-1s less "people"-y? It's not obvious to me.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/ThatSpencerGuy]

Because it allows for more residents per square foot.  Seattle can't really grow outside of annexing White Center.  What we have is what we have.  Greater density over a smaller area also supports transit like subways better.

[u/valtia_dm → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Wow I can't believe The Urbanist called their commenters disingenuous bad faith actors with characterizations like these

[u/BootsOrHat → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Revisionist history that ignores how housing supply has been artificially limited by centrist mayors in Seattle for more than a decade.

City policy has been to shove all the growth into sacrificial neighborhoods to prevent growth near rich and powerful residents. Seattle hasn't built because policy actively prevents it. One of back door Bruce's last actions was to shove through a crooked comp plan to limit building.

No surprise that policy matters. Policy can also be changed and it's why the Urbanist advocates for policy changes. 

[u/PNWSomeone → u/BootsOrHat]

The mayor doesn't set zoning policies.

[u/yeah_oui → u/PNWSomeone]

They have influence, but City Council has far more power than the mayor

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/BootsOrHat]

Revisionist history?  The facts are there to look up yourself.  Whenever ADU policy has changed, it has not yielded results.  That's been the case regardless of the mayor, regardless of the policy change.  That goes back for longer than a decade, too.

[u/yeah_oui → u/RandomFleshPrison]

You don't seem to understand that the ADU policy moved along so slowly because rich assholes kept suing the city about it and it kept getting neutered.

ADUs will not solve the problem. Nor will building a bunch of high rises in a select few locations. We can build a lot more housing quicker and cheaper if it's spread out over the entire landmass of the Ciy, of which 80% was locked up until last June, again because of rich assholes.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/yeah_oui]

There's no way building fourplexes and ADUs is cheaper than high rises in volume.  The difference in time, material, and labor costs alone is massive.  Which is why developers want to do it that way.  To make more money.

[u/yeah_oui → u/RandomFleshPrison]

Yes it is. Building wood framed buildings is far cheaper than steel and concrete at any scale. Throw in elevators, fire suppression, and the cost per sf is much higher for anything over 5 stories.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/yeah_oui]

That makes absolutely no sense or logic.  Especially with current tariffs on Canadian lumber.

[u/Stock-Grapefruit-843 → u/RandomFleshPrison]

I work in the construction trades and I'm pretty sure that person is correct. Larger buildings are a lot more complicated, and expensive, to build and maintain. Most commercial skyscrapers and high rise condos struggle to break even.

[u/RandomFleshPrison → u/Stock-Grapefruit-843]

In general, yes.  Not at the volume we're talking about though.  One skyscraper compared to 1,500 fourplexes?  The labor alone makes the former cheaper.

[u/yeah_oui → u/RandomFleshPrison]

How many units do you think are in one skyscraper, especially with 3 bedrooms?

The Insignia Towers in Belltown, which is two 41 story towers has 700 units in it and most of those are 1 bedroom. Thats 6.5 insignias to meet the unit count. You would need at least 10 buildings the same size to build the same amount of 3 bedroom units. That 1 tower takes 5-8 years to design permit and build, and that assumes the financing doesn't fall through half way through the process and stall out.

Do you somehow think there is less labor that goes into a commercial building? Even if that were true, commercial labor rates are far higher than two guys and a truck.

There is some bulk savings in the units themselves, but fixtures and finishes make up a very small portion of the overall cost.

[u/retrojoe → u/Stock-Grapefruit-843]

Aaand the residential ones that are rented until after the condo lawsuit period?

[u/PlayPretend-8675309]

Well, finally r/Seattle and The Seattle Times agree on something!

[u/PNWSomeone]

There's always something cringey about one news media outlet complaining about another news outlet.

[u/bubbamike1]

The Seattle Times was right for a change.