Reddit posts from the subreddits you're tracking for Local Business — new ones are picked up automatically every couple of hours. Posts matching your keywords are marked Matched.
Greetings! There is a black bunny (possibly a Havana rabbit) under the hedges in the area outlined. I don't have the resources or knowledge to trap the little guy, but perhaps someone here does. I haven't tried approaching it, but it seems domestic. The area is specifically across from Peter Kirk Park, 10 feet from Arete.
As a current student I can't help but be interested in the deep history of my school. Do any of you have any pictures of how it was back in the day? I would really love to see what the basement looks like. Please help me out here🙂↕️
We’re in Montlake near the arboretum and heard what sounded like 10+ gunshots and an explosion about 10min ago. Anybody else here the same and know what’s going on?
Just arrived in Seattle tonite. I’m looking for someone who would be willing to barter or donate. I heard the liberty or the wavy caps are phenomenal. I’d really like to try some.
Seattle Should Recognize the Difference Between Cleaning Up a Crisis and Investigating Alleged Harm. The public deserves consistency, accountability, and a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON — October 2026 Seattle has no shortage of organizations willing to talk about homelessness, addiction, and the deterioration of public spaces. Far fewer are willing to confront these problems directly. That is why the investigation into We Heart Seattle raises important questions about how Washington treats organizations attempting to address the consequences of its homelessness and addiction crises. The nonprofit, founded by Andrea Suarez, has spent years organizing cleanup efforts in Seattle parks, neighborhoods, and other public spaces. Its work includes removing discarded needles, drug paraphernalia, and other hazardous waste left behind in areas used by residents, families, and people experiencing homelessness. In August 2026, reports emerged that Washington State’s Department of Labor & Industries had opened inspections concerning the handling of discarded needles and drug paraphernalia during cleanup operations. According to published reporting, the inspections followed an outside referral alleging improper handling of these materials. The agency had not established a violation when those reports were published. That distinction matters. Workplace safety regulations exist for legitimate reasons. Organizations handling potentially hazardous materials should follow appropriate procedures, protect their workers, and comply with the law. No nonprofit should receive an exemption from reasonable safety requirements simply because its mission is charitable. But neither should an investigation be confused with proof of wrongdoing. When an organization is attempting to remove hazardous waste from public spaces, the appropriate response should be to establish clear safety standards, communicate those standards, and ensure that they can be followed. If violations are identified, they should be addressed proportionately and fairly. The objective should be safer communities, not the unnecessary disruption of organizations contributing to that objective. We Heart Seattle’s work deserves to be evaluated on its actual conduct, its documented results, and its compliance with applicable requirements—not on political disagreements or assumptions about the people involved. An investigation should establish facts, not substitute for them. A More Difficult Question: Who Is Investigating the Organizations That Work Directly With Vulnerable People? There is another issue that deserves public attention. While government agencies examine the safety procedures of a street-cleanup organization, serious allegations have also been raised publicly concerning Battlefield Addiction, an organization associated with Art Dahlen and his work addressing addiction. The allegations circulating publicly are substantially more serious than questions about the handling of discarded needles. They warrant careful examination by people with the authority, independence, and expertise to determine what actually happened. To be clear, allegations are not findings of fact. They must be investigated, corroborated, and evaluated through appropriate procedures. No individual or organization should be declared guilty based solely on online statements. However, allegations involving the treatment, safety, financial interests, or potential exploitation of vulnerable people should not be dismissed merely because an organization presents itself as helping them. People experiencing addiction and homelessness can be exceptionally vulnerable. They may depend on others for shelter, access to services, guidance, and assistance navigating difficult circumstances. That vulnerability creates a responsibility for organizations serving these populations to maintain appropriate safeguards, transparent practices, and meaningful accountability. Where credible evidence suggests that those responsibilities may have been violated, an independent examination is warranted. The question is not whether an organization describes its mission as compassionate. The question is whether its conduct meets the standards that vulnerable people deserve. The Relationship Between We Heart Seattle and Art Dahlen Deserves Context We Heart Seattle’s publicly available website lists Art Dahlen, founder of Battlefield Addiction, on its advisory council. That association is a verifiable organizational relationship. It does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing by either party. It does, however, make it important to distinguish between examining an individual’s conduct and attributing that conduct to every organization with which the individual is associated. If concerns arise about a person connected to multiple organizations, investigators should examine the specific facts, relevant activities, and responsibilities involved. An association alone is not evidence of complicity. Likewise, an organization’s positive public reputation should not prevent legitimate questions about a person associated with it from being investigated. Both principles must apply equally. We Heart Seattle should not be presumed responsible for allegations concerning Battlefield Addiction simply because Art Dahlen appears on its advisory council. At the same time, credible evidence of misconduct should receive appropriate scrutiny regardless of an individual’s affiliations or public profile. The fairest approach is to examine the organizations separately, follow the evidence, and avoid drawing conclusions that the available facts do not support. What a Thorough Investigation Should Look Like Calls for accountability are meaningful only when they lead to a fair process. If credible allegations concerning Battlefield Addiction warrant investigation, the appropriate authorities should determine which agencies have jurisdiction and examine the matters within their authority. Depending on the evidence and the nature of the allegations, relevant questions could include: Were people receiving services treated appropriately and protected from abuse or exploitation? Were appropriate safeguards in place for individuals in vulnerable circumstances? Were financial representations, contractual obligations, and promised services accurately represented? Were complaints documented, taken seriously, and addressed appropriately? Were applicable licensing, regulatory, and reporting requirements followed? Is there corroborating evidence from independent witnesses, records, or other reliable sources? These are questions for an evidence-based inquiry, not conclusions that should be reached in advance. People who believe they were harmed should have a meaningful opportunity to provide documentation and describe their experiences. Records should be preserved. Witnesses should be treated fairly. Investigators should distinguish substantiated claims from rumors and identify which matters fall within their legal authority. If wrongdoing is established, appropriate action should follow. If allegations cannot be substantiated, that finding should also be respected. The objective must be truth and accountability rather than retaliation. One of the central challenges in addressing homelessness and addiction is that organizations can operate in an environment where the people they serve have limited resources, limited influence, and sometimes little ability to advocate for themselves. That makes independent oversight especially important. A compelling mission statement does not prove that an organization operates properly. Nor does criticism, controversy, or an investigation prove that it operates improperly. The same standard should apply to every organization, regardless of its political alignment, public support, fundraising success, or relationships with influential people. We Heart Seattle’s cleanup work should be assessed fairly. Appropriate safety concerns should be resolved without assuming that the organization has committed a violation. Separately, credible allegations concerning Battlefield Addiction should be assessed on their merits. If evidence warrants a formal investigation, the appropriate authorities should conduct one. These positions are not contradictory. They are applications of the same principle: investigate conduct, examine evidence, and reach conclusions only when the facts justify them. Seattle Needs More Accountability, Not Selective Accountability Seattle’s homelessness and addiction crises demand more than public statements and political arguments. They demand organizations that produce meaningful results, safeguards that protect vulnerable people, and oversight that operates consistently. The public should be able to support effective community work without being asked to ignore legitimate questions. It should also be able to demand investigations into serious allegations without treating accusations as convictions. We Heart Seattle deserves a fair assessment of its work and a process that distinguishes actual safety violations from unproven claims. Battlefield Addiction deserves the same evidence-based approach. Where credible allegations raise questions about the treatment of vulnerable people or other potentially unlawful conduct, those questions should be examined thoroughly by the appropriate independent authorities. No organization should be condemned without evidence. No organization should be shielded from scrutiny because its stated mission sounds admirable. And no person’s relationship with a respected organization should substitute for an examination of the facts. The standard should be simple: protect the vulnerable, preserve the evidence, investigate credible allegations, and hold people accountable when wrongdoing is established. Seattle cannot afford a system in which scrutiny is applied inconsistently or serious questions go unanswered.
Seattle Should Recognize the Difference Between Cleaning Up a Crisis and Investigating Alleged Harm. The public deserves consistency, accountability, and a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON — October 2026 Seattle has no shortage of organizations willing to talk about homelessness, addiction, and the deterioration of public spaces. Far fewer are willing to confront these problems directly. That is why the investigation into We Heart Seattle raises important questions about how Washington treats organizations attempting to address the consequences of its homelessness and addiction crises. The nonprofit, founded by Andrea Suarez, has spent years organizing cleanup efforts in Seattle parks, neighborhoods, and other public spaces. Its work includes removing discarded needles, drug paraphernalia, and other hazardous waste left behind in areas used by residents, families, and people experiencing homelessness. In August 2026, reports emerged that Washington State’s Department of Labor & Industries had opened inspections concerning the handling of discarded needles and drug paraphernalia during cleanup operations. According to published reporting, the inspections followed an outside referral alleging improper handling of these materials. The agency had not established a violation when those reports were published. That distinction matters. Workplace safety regulations exist for legitimate reasons. Organizations handling potentially hazardous materials should follow appropriate procedures, protect their workers, and comply with the law. No nonprofit should receive an exemption from reasonable safety requirements simply because its mission is charitable. But neither should an investigation be confused with proof of wrongdoing. When an organization is attempting to remove hazardous waste from public spaces, the appropriate response should be to establish clear safety standards, communicate those standards, and ensure that they can be followed. If violations are identified, they should be addressed proportionately and fairly. The objective should be safer communities, not the unnecessary disruption of organizations contributing to that objective. We Heart Seattle’s work deserves to be evaluated on its actual conduct, its documented results, and its compliance with applicable requirements—not on political disagreements or assumptions about the people involved. An investigation should establish facts, not substitute for them. A More Difficult Question: Who Is Investigating the Organizations That Work Directly With Vulnerable People? There is another issue that deserves public attention. While government agencies examine the safety procedures of a street-cleanup organization, serious allegations have also been raised publicly concerning Battlefield Addiction, an organization associated with Art Dahlen and his work addressing addiction. The allegations circulating publicly are substantially more serious than questions about the handling of discarded needles. They warrant careful examination by people with the authority, independence, and expertise to determine what actually happened. To be clear, allegations are not findings of fact. They must be investigated, corroborated, and evaluated through appropriate procedures. No individual or organization should be declared guilty based solely on online statements. However, allegations involving the treatment, safety, financial interests, or potential exploitation of vulnerable people should not be dismissed merely because an organization presents itself as helping them. People experiencing addiction and homelessness can be exceptionally vulnerable. They may depend on others for shelter, access to services, guidance, and assistance navigating difficult circumstances. That vulnerability creates a responsibility for organizations serving these populations to maintain appropriate safeguards, transparent practices, and meaningful accountability. Where credible evidence suggests that those responsibilities may have been violated, an independent examination is warranted. The question is not whether an organization describes its mission as compassionate. The question is whether its conduct meets the standards that vulnerable people deserve. The Relationship Between We Heart Seattle and Art Dahlen Deserves Context We Heart Seattle’s publicly available website lists Art Dahlen, founder of Battlefield Addiction, on its advisory council. That association is a verifiable organizational relationship. It does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing by either party. It does, however, make it important to distinguish between examining an individual’s conduct and attributing that conduct to every organization with which the individual is associated. If concerns arise about a person connected to multiple organizations, investigators should examine the specific facts, relevant activities, and responsibilities involved. An association alone is not evidence of complicity. Likewise, an organization’s positive public reputation should not prevent legitimate questions about a person associated with it from being investigated. Both principles must apply equally. We Heart Seattle should not be presumed responsible for allegations concerning Battlefield Addiction simply because Art Dahlen appears on its advisory council. At the same time, credible evidence of misconduct should receive appropriate scrutiny regardless of an individual’s affiliations or public profile. The fairest approach is to examine the organizations separately, follow the evidence, and avoid drawing conclusions that the available facts do not support. What a Thorough Investigation Should Look Like Calls for accountability are meaningful only when they lead to a fair process. If credible allegations concerning Battlefield Addiction warrant investigation, the appropriate authorities should determine which agencies have jurisdiction and examine the matters within their authority. Depending on the evidence and the nature of the allegations, relevant questions could include: Were people receiving services treated appropriately and protected from abuse or exploitation? Were appropriate safeguards in place for individuals in vulnerable circumstances? Were financial representations, contractual obligations, and promised services accurately represented? Were complaints documented, taken seriously, and addressed appropriately? Were applicable licensing, regulatory, and reporting requirements followed? Is there corroborating evidence from independent witnesses, records, or other reliable sources? These are questions for an evidence-based inquiry, not conclusions that should be reached in advance. People who believe they were harmed should have a meaningful opportunity to provide documentation and describe their experiences. Records should be preserved. Witnesses should be treated fairly. Investigators should distinguish substantiated claims from rumors and identify which matters fall within their legal authority. If wrongdoing is established, appropriate action should follow. If allegations cannot be substantiated, that finding should also be respected. The objective must be truth and accountability rather than retaliation. One of the central challenges in addressing homelessness and addiction is that organizations can operate in an environment where the people they serve have limited resources, limited influence, and sometimes little ability to advocate for themselves. That makes independent oversight especially important. A compelling mission statement does not prove that an organization operates properly. Nor does criticism, controversy, or an investigation prove that it operates improperly. The same standard should apply to every organization, regardless of its political alignment, public support, fundraising success, or relationships with influential people. We Heart Seattle’s cleanup work should be assessed fairly. Appropriate safety concerns should be resolved without assuming that the organization has committed a violation. Separately, credible allegations concerning Battlefield Addiction should be assessed on their merits. If evidence warrants a formal investigation, the appropriate authorities should conduct one. These positions are not contradictory. They are applications of the same principle: investigate conduct, examine evidence, and reach conclusions only when the facts justify them. Seattle Needs More Accountability, Not Selective Accountability Seattle’s homelessness and addiction crises demand more than public statements and political arguments. They demand organizations that produce meaningful results, safeguards that protect vulnerable people, and oversight that operates consistently. The public should be able to support effective community work without being asked to ignore legitimate questions. It should also be able to demand investigations into serious allegations without treating accusations as convictions. We Heart Seattle deserves a fair assessment of its work and a process that distinguishes actual safety violations from unproven claims. Battlefield Addiction deserves the same evidence-based approach. Where credible allegations raise questions about the treatment of vulnerable people or other potentially unlawful conduct, those questions should be examined thoroughly by the appropriate independent authorities. No organization should be condemned without evidence. No organization should be shielded from scrutiny because its stated mission sounds admirable. And no person’s relationship with a respected organization should substitute for an examination of the facts. The standard should be simple: protect the vulnerable, preserve the evidence, investigate credible allegations, and hold people accountable when wrongdoing is established. Seattle cannot afford a system in which scrutiny is applied inconsistently or serious questions go unanswered.
What’s it like? How were your coworkers and leadership? Was it worth the bonus and pay? Do you actually get breaks, ect?
Anyone know what’s up around Willows Road/ Trailwood apartments area? Tons of police activity and a drone
If anyone has any recommendations for spaces that are welcoming to people with disabilities/ people who use wheelchairs. I’d love to find spaces for rope, bdsm, tastings, play parties etc.
If anyone has any recommendations for spaces that are welcoming to people with disabilities/ people who use wheelchairs. I’d love to find spaces for rope, bdsm, tastings, play parties etc.