The Seattle Times editorial board opposes hiking fees on South Lake Union developers who exceed the old height limits, decrying the proposal as a "last-minute money grab." But all you really need to know about the paper's outspoken opposition is this:

The Seattle Times also has an interest. Over the years, The Times has sold property in South Lake Union and invested the money in this newspaper. The Times has property on the market and would be hurt by a sudden increase in the city’s fee.

Then, you know, it really isn't an appropriate subject for an editorial, is it? A press release, maybe. From corporate communications. But to wrap a public policy argument around their publisher's personal business interests is more than a little bit disingenuous.

It's also not much of a public policy argument. "The area is booming," say the editors. "Investors are ready to roll." So, um, isn't that exactly the right time to try squeeze a little more revenue out of developers in exchange for a rezone that permits taller, more profitable buildings? Besides, the city has plowed lots of resources into the SLU neighborhood—streets, utilities, street car, etc.—to the benefit of Amazon, Vulcan, et al. So what's the harm in trying to up our return on investment?

Amazon could afford a higher fee, but might decide it didn’t want to, and invest elsewhere.

“A stare-down of Jeff Bezos is not a game I’d be interested in playing,” says Seattle land-use attorney Jack McCullough, referring to Amazon’s founder and CEO.

Really? City Hall should be afraid to stare down Jeff Bezos? He's just another billionaire, for chrisakes, not fucking Medusa.

It's a stupid argument in defense of a selfish cause, unbefitting of a publication that fancies itself our state's paper of record.