My favorite quote?
“how do we balance the desire to flush our toilet with the need to save the orcas?”

The orca will always lose. Always.

Didn't Roger Valdez run Steinbrueck's campaign in 1997?

Roger ran for the 11th district some years back and was whupped like a red headed step child. I didnt know he ran Peter's campaign. Speaking of Peter, I wish Stephanie Pure was running for this job.

If both Valdezses win they could become a Democrats comedy team.

There is a comedian in Mexico called el Loco Valdez who was pretty good, his son became a masked wrestler in lucha libre.

Awww...

As for Roger, yes, he was Peter's first campaign manager in 1997. I loved his map, too.

Hell-you could have all those Vera kids knocking on doors for ya.

No offense, but map or no map, I think Roger sucks.

Hmmm...excellent idea! Maybe I can convert some of the anarchists to my side...Go, Representative Democracy!

Say what you will about Roger, but maps are cool.

Roemel(sp?) had maps, did that make him cool?

Say what you will, but I think you would probably get some non traditional voters to vote for ya. Besides most US anarchists either become liberals once they hit 24 or move to Eugene.

I like Valdez's balanced point of view on the smoking ban (understanding the intent of the ban and the 25' rule, and encouraging loose enforcement, rather than stubbornly, blindly enforcing it to the letter).

It's good to hear that he also has big picture vision when it comes to the city, what we want it to be, and where we are in the context of getting there.

I'm cool with Roger Valdez making the cut, to say the least.

Rommel, for the record, is not cool.

I like Roger Valdez and think did a good job with the smoking ban. I think he's qualified to make the first cut at least.

Roger’s density sound bite is a great example of misrepresenting (or completely misunderstanding) data. The population density of Seattle proper is about 2.5X that of either Phoenix or Albuquerque.

Roger was apparently quoting statistics not for incorporated Seattle, but for either the broader metropolitan area or urbanized area as defined by the US Census. These statistics are essentially meaningless because they’re based on broad land areas (including undeveloped lands or lightly developed surrounding communities). Based on these two definitions, Seattle would appear more dense if we encouraged more growth in Enumclaw and Duvall. Not exactly the right idea.

We need politicians that understand linking density to transit and transportation corridors while preserving open space and rural areas, not who don’t understand the basic data they’re presenting.

Roger is the type of City Councilor that we absolutely don't need another one of, and that's someone who does understand how to read and analyze information. His density comment is way way off. Seattle has a population of 573,672 and a land area (excludes ocean and lakes) of 58.7 square miles for a population density of 9,773 people per square mile. Phoenix has a population of 1,416,055 and a land area of 474.9 square miles for a population density of 2,982 people per square mile. Seattle is 3.3 times as dense at Phoenix. We already have too many councilmember who can't read spreadsheets, comprehend legal documents, or understand statistics. Just wait until the Sonics get a hold of our current crop of know nothing councilmembers. Dollars to donuts we'll be paying higher taxes soon to build the owners of the Sonics a new arena, for which I'm sure the Sonics will keep all the revenue.