Tag Archives: city council

Op-Ed: City Council Has Nickelsville’s Rat-Infested Floodwater on Its Hands

November 21, 2012 Michael van Baker

“Council Members to Mayor: Slow Down on Nickelsville,” goes the Publicola headline from two years ago. Mayor McGinn, in his Ready-fire-aim way, had suggested relocating Nickelsville, the nomadic tent city of 50 to 150 souls, to a SoDo industrial site, and the Council was flabbergasted at the breach of Seattle process and Council protocol.

Anyway, was the site safe? Wasn’t the proximity to the freeway a problem? You couldn’t have a group of homeless squatters, currently living anywhere they could, living just anywhere.

“It may be possible to move forward and meet the needs of homeless individuals with greater speed by implementing alternatives other than the Mayor’s plan,” wrote the Council’s Richard Conlin, in a blog post six months later, concluding: “Let’s not make the mistake of thinking that we can solve issues around homelessness without putting in the energy to figure out what really works.”

“I don’t think we should accept the idea that people are doomed to be homeless and live in tents,” Conlin had told Publicola in November 2010. In October 2011, the Council passed legislation making it easier for religious groups to host tent cities for longer periods of time.

Two years on, Nickelsville, left to its own devices, is flooded, again. “City crews delivered cinder blocks to Nickelsville last week to help with the rat problem,” begins a KING 5 story on the encampment’s flooding by this week’s rains. Mayor McGinn still wants the campers indoors, out of the weather. (Seattle’s City Hall has shelter space on Fourth Avenue between James and Cherry streets–they have capacity for 75 people.)

The Council’s Nick Licata told KING 5 that he’d like to see the Council allocate special monies to provide actual living arrangements (emergency shelters operating, typically, on a night-by-night basis that puts people back out on the street during the day). But, in any event, the camp now represents a health emergency, and the Council’s dithering over whether to acknowledge its existence at 7116 W. Marginal Way SW can’t continue.

Waiting until the City’s actions are dictated by emergency may strike you as incompetent, even negligent. It reveals the camp’s “self-managed eco-village” descriptor as a bitter fiction, as well as the Council’s utter inability to make an executive decision on a matter that has its own timeline. Relocation of the camp’s inhabitants is a necessity. But I wish very much that the City Council could be relocated to Nickelsville until they can decide on a course of action that removes any excuse for tent cities in the first place.

News, Transportation

City Council’s Transportation Chair Wants to Slow Down Rapid Transit

October 31, 2012 Michael van Baker

Tom Rasmussen, chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee, “supports an amendment, drafted Tuesday, to delay a two-year Eastlake study to 2014 and to shift $1 million next year to help buses citywide,” reports Mike Lindblom in the Seattle Times. The study would compare bus rapid transit on Eastlake with a rapid streetcar line. This is all described in the city’s Transit Master Plan (Final Summary pdf), approved by the City Council, 9-0, in spring of this year:

Fairview/Eastlake Ave. E: Between the existing SLU terminus and the University Bridge, Fairview and Eastlake are consistently 5 lanes wide, and the center platform/center station configuration should work well. Transit could operate in mixed traffic or a dedicated lane. Few issues are anticipated assuming current peak direction parking restrictions on Eastlake are continued.

One reason “few issues are anticipated” is that Eastlake used to have a streetcar on it:

Eastlake’s excellent streetcar service encouraged the building of apartment houses, all lacking much on-site parking, as most of their tenants did not own a car. The apartments dating from 1900 to 1930 are generally of high quality inside and out, proportioned and landscaped not to overwhelm the neighboring homes or the streetscape.

Either way, BRT ($88 million estimated) or rail ($278 million), the new Eastlake line would have exclusive right-of-way, to avoid traffic congestion; stations would be farther apart, and fares would likely be paid at station kiosks, before boarding. A study would indicate whether a tram’s higher capacity was warranted. The TMP’s 2030 ridership estimate for the corridor is 25,000 for a streetcar, 20,000 for BRT.

Rasmussen, who recently rode on a crowded bus, thinks there’s nothing pressing about an Eastlake line, despite Amazon having just offered the city $5.5 million to pay, in part, for additional streetcar service in South Lake Union. The Seattle Streetcar carried 700,000 passengers in 2011–beating its forecasted ridership for that year by about 170,000. Now averaging over 15,000 riders per week, the streetcar was paid for half by federal, state, and local funds, half by a Local Improvement District (LID) tax on affected property owners.

You can’t find too many people who’d eliminate the service today, but in 2003, then-chair of the Council’s Transportation Committee, Richard Conlin, told the P-I: “‘I haven’t seen a groundswell. I haven’t had a single property owner contact me’ in support of the idea.” (Strategic thinking and the City Council often seem to be very distant relations.)

Despite the Eastlake corridor’s presence in a “final” Transit Master Plan, there’s no end to the armchair transit planning in Seattle, much of which recapitulates Rasmussen’s desire to buy transit fish today, rather than invest in high capacity lines for tomorrow. Seattle Transit Blog’s Bruce Nourish manages the trickier act of rebutting Rasmussen’s claim that Metro needs the money, while agreeing that an Eastlake streetcar may not be Job #1. Seattle Transit Blog’s Ben Schiendelman (also of Seattle Subway) has to point out that a lot more people work in South Lake Union these days, with more on the way:

People coming from all over the eastern half of the city would transfer from Link to this line to get to tens of thousands of new jobs in South Lake Union. Today, most of us don’t see that – we consider the South Lake Union Streetcar slow and infrequent, and we don’t see South Lake Union as a big urban center. But it’s not just Amazon’s new towers – there’s huge growth coming in SLU and more coming to the U-District shortly thereafter, and the focus on Eastlake ignores that this provides a connection between them – and a two way connection at that, as there are both jobs and residential in both centers.

Rasmussen’s attempt to punt the Eastlake decision until after the next mayoral election comes in the same week that Mayor McGinn announced the city has $850,000 in federal funds secured (with $900,000 pending final approval) for a study to extend the First Hill Streetcar line down Broadway past Denny. Originally intended to terminate at the Capitol Hill light rail station, the streetcar line would run another half-mile north (with three more stops), making Jerry Traunfeld, owner of Poppy, happy, along with other upper-Broadway business owners and the Seattle Asian Art Museum. Cost for the design and planning phase would total $3 million, construction about $25 million.

The First Hill streetcar will start carrying passengers in 2014; a construction period of about two years is the blink of an eye in rail-transit terms. In that context, Rasmussen’s delay of a year on the Eastlake line stands out.

News, Politics, Real Estate, Sports

City Council’s Two “No” Votes on Arena Justify Their Lack of Love

October 1, 2012 Michael van Baker

Apropos of nothing, a still from Grumpy Old Men.

On September 24, 2012, the Seattle City Council voted 6-2 to authorize Mayor McGinn to “execute a Memorandum of Understanding” with King County and ArenaCo, the last being the entity that, led by Chris Hansen, hopes to build a basketball arena in SoDo.

The Council’s Tom Rasmussen managed to miss out on this hotly debated vote. Richard Conlin and Nick Licata supplied the No votes. Both have now written explanations of their reasoning, with Licata seemingly of two minds about the deal. Concluding his analysis, Licata sounds more like a Yes: “In summary, I believe this proposal is a good one; it meets a high bar for public accountability. It is a rather solid tree in a forest of not such sturdy timber.”

But judging the proposal not simply on its merits, but on the other priorities of the city, Licata ultimately decides a new basketball arena is not Job #1. (He does not, however, suggest any alternative use of municipal bonding authority that the arena’s construction would forestall.) But fair enough.

This formulation, in contrast, is something of a drive-by: “They see someone purchase private land and in a couple of years get the city to buy it from him for double the price he purchased it for.” Since the purchase price has yet to be negotiated, it is premature to use the cap on the purchase price as the purchase price itself.

Conlin’s argument is pricklier from the outset. He says that though the revised agreement may do more to shield the city from downsides, it’s by no means clear that “we will wind up benefiting from it, or that it is a good use of the City’s time, resources, or financial capacity.” (In both Licata and Conlin’s arguments there is a tendency to elide the fact that basketball fans are also citizens.)

Conlin, who studied history as an undergraduate, sounds like a history major still when he argues that, “Only since World War II has it become customary for local governments to be primary funders–and the current trend may be away from public finance.” For one, that “only” refers to about 70 years. And his trend furnishes one example: the Golden State Warriors.

Licata and Conlin are, essentially, dismayed by a public-private partnership that they see as making off, somehow, with city monies. They sound particularly aggrieved by the new arena’s “self-funding” mechanism, where taxes paid by arena-goers would be directed to paying its debt. As politicians, both demonstrate the ability to annex notional revenues, and to cry out in pain at the thought of their hypothetical loss.

Speaking of notional revenues, both refer to “income” from Key Arena, which they half-rightly see as a white elephant. (“Half-” because it is a 50-year-old white elephant regardless of what happens with a new arena, though the two insist there’s a causal link. The more hard-headed wonks at Seattle Transit Blog are ready to knock it down, which is probably the best thing.)

Conlin claims the Key “made $310,000 on $6.6 million in revenues” in 2011. This is very similar to the “profit” the city looted from the Monorail for years, while foregoing essential maintenance and improvements; Key Arena’s infrastructure is in no better shape. Properly speaking, the Key’s depreciation wipes out any consideration of profit from operating expenses. Licata meanwhile mourns the $100 million in taxpayer money already spent: He could take comfort in realizing that works out to, over the Key’s lifetime, just $2 million per year.

News, Politics, Real Estate, Sports

City Council Covers Ass, Fans Get Free Beer in Seattle Arena Win-Win

September 12, 2012 Seth Kolloen

Would-be Sonics owner Chris Hansen can bait his hook and cast his NBA-team fishing rod now that he’s apparently steered his SODO arena proposal through the Straits of Seattle Politics.

City Council members Mike O’Brien, Sally Clark, and Tim Burgess yesterday announced their support for issuing up to $200 million in bonds to help finance the arena after Hansen altered the terms of his proposal to their liking.

Asked whether there was anything Hansen didn’t agree to, a smiling Burgess replied: “Nothing. We got it all.” The full Council is expected to approve the proposal Thursday.

The “new” arena deal announced yesterday isn’t substantially different than Hansen’s original proposal. The changes are symbolic, a redecoration of the deal’s iron-clad guarantees so councilmembers can explain them to feisty Magnolia grandmas who haven’t watched a professional sporting event since Frank Gifford retired.

With Hansen agreeing to such demands as a personal guaranty of the bonds, a conversation that would’ve required educating the anti-everything crowd about confusing topics such as “How things actually get done on Earth” can now go a little something like this:

Mrs. Syvertsen: “How can we be sure these fatcat developers aren’t ripping us off!?”

City Councilperson: “Well, ma’am, the loan will be fully paid back by revenues from the sports teams.”

MS: “What if sports goes out of business?”

CC: “Then Chris Hansen will pay back the loan personally.”

MS: “Well how do we know he’ll have the money? He could spend it all like some Goodtime Charlie!”

CC: “The city will audit him every year to make sure his net worth doesn’t fall below $300M.”

MS: “I can’t say I like your tone, you whippersnapper! What if the team leaves after the lease runs out? Why, an empty arena could be a haven of roguery for roller bladers, grunge musicians, and the Irish!”

CC: “In that case, the team will pay to demolish the arena, and give the land back to the city. But you will be dead by then. Hopefully.”

The deal’s propriety now seems immune to all conceivable scenarios–of course, we’ll have to wait and see if Nick Licata reads in Socialist Worker about a coming invasion by basketball-arena-hating aliens. Still, Hansen is ready to celebrate. In an open letter on SonicsArena.com, Hansen offered thanks to arena supporters, and an invitation:

All of the emails and letters to council members, the turnout at the City and County Council hearings, the rally at Occidental Park, and the flood of Green and Gold throughout our City for the entire summer…. Your voices were heard and your hearts spoke volumes. I really hope you all just appreciate how much it meant and what a difference each and every one of you made…And on that note, I would personally like to buy you all a beer at FX McRory’s this Thursday from 5-7. First beer for everyone is on me.

God bless Chris Hansen. After proposing one of the most generous arena investment deals in the history of American professional sports, he absorbed insults from anti-everything idiots, endured a misinformation campaign by the city’s newspaper, survived a blindside hit by the myopic Seattle Mariners and finally swallowed his privacy just so City Council members don’t have to explain capitalism to old ladies. Hansen may be buying the beer now, but if he does manage to hook an NBA team, he’ll get free pints in Seattle for the rest of his life.

News, Politics, Transportation

Nick Licata’s Costly Car-Towing Battle Set for a July Joust

May 15, 2012 Michael van Baker

The City Council’s Nick Licata has just published an update on the effort to regulate towing company fees in Seattle. As you recall, this was something we were all spitting mad about last December.

Every once in a while, diffuse populist outrage coalesces around an easy target, like a plague of potholes or Kardashians. Last winter, it was towing companies. Danny Westneat over at the Seattle Times has since made a mini-cottage industry out of reporting on towing horror stories, from the “$800 tow,” to the “$800, that’s nuthin‘” story, to the “$800 tow reversed by court,” to the capper, where a couple’s car was towed from their own condo (they parked in the “right” space on the wrong floor) and sold at auction.

After reading Westneat’s initial story, Mayor McGinn jumped in with both feet: “That day, my staff began working with the City Attorney’s office and the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to determine what action the City could take to regulate or curb these rates,” he declared, adding a little limply: “We also reached out to the City Council about working together on this issue.”

Council members Tim Burgess and Nick Licata were on fire, too. After hearing from the City Attorney that capping Seattle towing fees was feasible through legislation, they announced they’d look into that. Burgess also wanted to work on how car owners are notified of a tow.

Because caps for towing companies were being considered at the state legislative level, Seattle had to wait to see if any preemptive legislation would be passed. You may be shocked to learn that while much work was done in the House and Senate on separate bills pertaining to this issue, they were never voted on, clearing the way for Seattle to try its hand at local controls.

Here’s Licata, who sounds fired up still, on the latest:

Mayor McGinn sent a letter to towing industry groups recently seeking their collaboration and meetings are scheduled to begin next week that I plan to monitor or attend. Earlier requests for information during the state session didn’t receive a response from towing companies, making it difficult to determine a reasonable fee.

Frustrated in trying to move legislation forward, I let the Mayor know that if he could not reach an agreement by the beginning of July with the towing industry, I intend to introduce legislation regulating the industry.

News, Politics

City Council Votes to Bring Library Levy to Voters in August

April 10, 2012 Michael van Baker

On April 9, the Seattle City Council voted unanimously to put a levy before city voters August 7, 2012, that would “authorize the City to levy additional taxes for up to seven years for the purpose of supporting, maintaining and improving core public library services.” The levy would assess 15 cents per $1,000 of property value–that’s an additional $52 per year for the median homeowner.

That 15 cents adds up to a projected to raise $17 million yearly, over seven years, to help the Seattle Public Library counteract the effects of four years of budget cuts: an annual week-long closure of the whole system, over half the system closed two days per week, and significant cuts to the library’s acquisition budget (“more than 13 percent since 2009,” says the library).

It even allows the city to cut the library’s budget again in 2013, by as much as an estimated $5 million. Why would the city cut-and-fund, you ask? That $5 million would be cut from general fund support for the library, allowing the city to reallocate those monies. It’s a kind of budgetary gerrymandering, creating popular, self-funding “districts” via levy (schools, parks, libraries, roads) while allowing officials to pose dramatically with general-fund hatchets.

(Adding insult to injury, the years of budget-cutting set in just as the library had completed a $290.7-million program called “Libraries for All” that, besides helping pay for the new Central Library, paid for major infrastructural upgrades: “each of the 22 branch libraries that were in the system as of 1998 [were] renovated, expanded, or replaced; and four new branch libraries were opened to the public at Delridge, International District/Chinatown, Northgate and South Park.”)

Only an illiterate grinch would be against funding for the library, especially when, quite truthfully, demand for its services are at record highs. “Libraries support our residents looking for work, students needing homework assistance, and people who cannot afford a computer,” argued Mayor McGinn yesterday, at a levy press conference. “Our libraries are educational centers in every community and gathering places for neighborhood meetings and activities.”

Practically speaking, there’s no easy way out. The move toward reliance on levies is not new, and neither is the history overwhelmingly positive. Filling general fund budgetary gaps with perpetual levies isn’t sustainable (for one thing, as the city has already discovered, revenue can fluctuated alarmingly with property values).

Secondly, using levies as nitrous oxide for the operating-budget engines is corrosive. Officials discover that things like necessary annual maintenance can be put off, until the new money comes in. That tends to make the operating budget, over time, not fully reflective of operating costs.

As with the Bridging the Gap levy and road conditions, that accumulated delay can come with a startlingly immense price tag, when you finally get around to assessing what’s needed. In the case of Seattle streets, the real cost of fixing the roads is not politically viable. And that’s that. The new normal.

You can see this malign neglect in the state of the Seattle Public Library system’s jewel, the Koolhaas-designed Central Library, which is not only too expensive for the library to clean as often as you’d like–Windex sponsorships, anyone?–but comes with extra maintenance costs that strain the library’s resources.

Ironically, some of the extra maintenance cost is because the new-ish library is so popular with tourists, and sees so much more foot traffic. But the evident wear-and-tear in a Seattle landmark is indicative of Seattle’s tendency simply to “let itself go” when money is tight–and it’s symbolic of penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking that leads to perpetual levy. It’s almost always “the price of pizza,” according to advocates–but that may be the problem.

When you look at the history and number of levies Seattle relies on, we seem to be eating more and more pizza, with no end in sight.

Curious Georges in a conversation with Seattle