Tag Archives: city council

News, Politics

Why the City of Seattle Can’t Budget

Seattle in stormy weather (Photo: MvB)

I have to admit to a bait-and-switch here. I realize that with a headline like that, you expect to be told why the City of Seattle can’t budget. But–and here is where things get very devious indeed–my thesis is that most likely you already know why. So the real reason that the city keeps facing deficits is not because leaders simply don’t know how, but because they correctly understand that the populace would rather they dither than decide on a less reversible course.

If the economic siege is going to lift, then it makes sense to keep Seattle poised to take advantage of that. If the economy has reset, and the current boom-fed structure is unsustainable, then it makes sense to act more radically, to reorganize the “city walls,” so to speak. But Seattle is a confusion of people, and at any given time, some thirty percent agree on anything.

Functionally, the city is not allowed to run a deficit, which removes some of its short-term flexibility. Seattle is dependent on funding from state and county governments, and–things being tough all over–leadership all over has been practicing the exact same kind of budget strategy: that of kicking the can into the next budget biennium, when things hopefully will have turned around. In fact, things have not, and it has made it impossible for local governments to accurately anticipate where their particular can will land.

Part of Governor Gregoire’s most recent $2-billion budget cut includes $91 million in monies normally shared with the state’s counties and cities. Everywhere, you see talk of the lowering tide sinking all boats: Seattle’s budget director Beth Goldberg echoes the state’s chief economist Arun Raha when she blames “the federal debt-ceiling debate, European debt crisis, and plunge in the stock market” for expecting $4.3 million less in revenue for 2011 and 2012.

But as Publicola points out, that’s just the tip of the looming city-services iceberg: “Next year’s projection pales, however, in comparison to projected shortfalls in 2013 and 2014, when deficits are projected at $39.4 million and just over $44 million, respectively.” While just about everyone can think of a few things in the city budget that represent “staggering waste,” they have a much harder time persuading a majority of their position. One person’s tough-but-necessary budget axe is another’s executioner’s blade.

Advocates of “small government” may cheer the results in principle,but the practical fact is that creating a smaller government in a recession pours gas on the unemployment fire: “The industry hardest hit by the job losses was government, losing 10,800 jobs as budget cuts led to paring of an estimated 6,100 jobs in local education and 4,700 jobs in state education,” reported the Puget Sound Business Journal in October. In contrast, a booming aerospace industry added 1,000 jobs. That’s the wrong ratio.

For some reason, when the short-term effects of laying off government workers are calculated, you are typically not provided with the counterbalancing costs in unemployment insurance, government aid, and reduced tax revenue, not to mention the longer-term unemployment effects, such as repossession and foreclosure. Given the recession’s historic lengths of unemployment, this is not trivial. Property taxes fund an enormous amount of services.

Though Seattle is fortunately positioned (with hiring in aerospace, software, online retail), it’s also true that it’s increasingly expensive to live in the area. Seattlepi.com reports on a University of Washington study that claims: “For a family of two adults and two young kids in Seattle, the cost of living grew by 13 percent since 2009. For a single person with no kids, making ends meet is now 19 percent more expensive.” In East King County, the most expensive area, “a single parent of two young kids” spends $65,690 on basic needs: housing, food, child care, health care.

That’s without, Sightline underscores, in their more in-depth treatment of cost of living study: “the additional costs of any comforts such as savings, vacations, cable TV, or the occasional restaurant meal.”

Sightline breaks it down:

Over the last decade, taxes for that average 3-person Washington family have risen by 28 percent. Compare that to the cost of housing (up 37 percent), food (up 41 percent), childcare (up 44 percent), health care (up 75 percent) and other necessities like clothing, shoes, telephone service, and household goods (up 40 percent).

That’s the kind of thing that makes it difficult to pass new taxes to deal with plunging revenues. The actual impact of the taxes may be smaller than all else, but struggling people can say no to new taxes. They can’t say no to cost of living increases, except to relocate. And relocating to an area of higher unemployment carries its own expenses and risks.

For the moment, all we have for comfort is the knowledge that if things truly can’t go on this way, they won’t.

News, Politics

City Council Unveils Tent-City Plan to End Homelessness

2 Comments
Slightlynorth found this encampment under the West Seattle Bridge, and dropped it into our Flickr pool.

Back in April, Seattle’s city council stepped in to assert their leadership in solving homelessness. Our Mayor had gone rogue, suggesting semi-permanent locations for “encampments” (aka tent cities) in either SoDo or Lake City, and it was important that the Council review alternatives to acting. “Our goal is to approve one or more options by the end of July,” said Council President Richard Conlin.

My goodness, look at the time. Where did summer go? With La Niña on the way back to town, we can look forward to cozying up to the fire this winter, as above-average precipitation falls across the Pacific Northwest–maybe we’ll get another of those major snow storms! Hot chocolate and marshmallows!

Now, wasn’t there something we were supposed to do re: sheltering the homeless? Let’s see, Nickelsville residents have been out holding eco-friendly car washes to pay for portable toilets. What has the City Council accomplished?

In April, in a dark mood, I predicted that “the Council will do nothing substantive over the next several months.” I was incorrect. In fact, the Council adopted unanimously this week Council Bill 117288, which spells out “standards that a religious facility is expected to maintain when operating encampments.”

That’s how the Council’s news release puts it. The Seattle Times puts it another way: “City eases tent-city rules for churches.” The newspaper notes that, “Under the new ordinance, religious organizations don’t have to notify neighbors and there is no limit on how long an encampment may stay in one place.”

There’s yet another way to look at it, which is that the City of Seattle was putting itself in harm’s way, legally, by appearing to hinder the mission of religious organizations. The Council’s news release, near the end, allows that:

State law (RCW 35.21.915) requires that cities not impose conditions other than those necessary to protect public health and safety and that do not burden the decisions or actions of a religious organization regarding the location or shelter for homeless people on property owned by the religious organization.

While I can appreciate the spirit behind Tent City 3 and Nickelsville, I am not a fan of tent cities, when better shelter is available. Better shelter has been promised homeless people, they have been repeatedly told to be patient, and yet we enter another winter season with the City Council broadcasting the news that tent cities are–it turns out–something that religious organizations might like to take on semi-permanently. (Sorry, atheist do-gooders. You need to get a permit.)

This is a miserable failure, all around. A frustrated Mayor McGinn has in his proposed budget reallocated the money that would have been spent on a semi-permanent encampment. The Council appears to be backing away quietly as well. It is a continual civic shame that people sleep out of doors at all in Seattle’s winter. It is an even greater embarrassment that homeless people who are capable of the organizational resources that our tent cities display can’t find equal resourcefulness on the part of the City Council.

But then, the Council is not facing winter in a tent.

Film & TV, Health

Contagion Could Happen Every Flu Season

2 Comments

OMG, we all saw Contagion this weekend, yes? I could watch Gwyneth Paltrow die all day, every day. God bless Steven Soderbergh.

Contagion is my kind of taut and un-dumbed-down thriller. Because massive die-offs from a disease epidemic are much more likely (and perhaps warranted) than a zombie apocalypse. We are waaaaaaay overdue for a plague of some sort—making it a whole century with only one really nasty global flu pandemic is unheard of. That shit is real.

And even if things don’t get Contagion bad (just yet), Americans get sick in the millions every cold and flu season. And that’s a problem.

Case in point:

As the new blockbuster film Contagion, a thriller about a global pandemic, finishes its first weekend at the box office, activists from across the country are releasing an online video called Contagion: Not Just a Movie. The web film, produced by Family Values @ Work, shows the stories of five American workers [including Tasha, a Seattle-area Safeway cashier] who have been forced to go into work when they are sick because they weren’t allowed to take off or couldn’t afford going without pay…. These workers are some of the 44 million Americans without paid sick days who risk their families’ financial security or their jobs if they stay home when they are ill.

Everybody knows that if you’re sick, it is in everyone’s best interest that you stay home and reduce the risk of infecting others. Too bad then that in this economy, taking unpaid time off is not a viable option for many, even when they are severely sick. Here’s a little factoid from the IWPR to give you pause: “Three in four food service workers, three in five personal health care workers, and three in four child care workers, all of whom have significant interaction with others, do not have paid sick days.” Yowza. That’s not a good idea, for all of society. Simply put, a paid sick days policy is the reasonable and prudent thing to do.

Closer to home, the local branch of FV@W, Seattle Coalition for a Healthy Workforce has been lobbying for sick days, and just yesterday afternoon, the Seattle City Council passed a paid sick days bill. (We already noted that Dick Conlin was the only member of the Council to vote no.)

The Philadelphia City Council is expected to vote on another bill later this week, which is also expected to pass. Those hippies in San Francisco, DC, and Milwaukee already have laws on the books, and many more municipalities (among them Connecticut, Denver, Massachusetts, New York City, and Georgia) should have bills on the docket for votes this fall.

Crime, News, Politics

Looking for a Fix on Third Avenue

1 Comment
Photocoyote's SEPIA STREETSHOT from our Flickr pool was taken in 2009, the year of the drug sweep.

Ironically, it is fairly easy to get a fix on Third Avenue in Seattle (or get stabbed or beaten nearly to death) because it has become the entrenched home of a large open-air drug market. But the City of Seattle has so far struggled to fix that problem. Better crowd control late-night, when bars are letting out, has helped reduce aggressive brawling, and despite bullets flying less frequently, overall confidence in personal safety is still low.

It’s not that the City is unaware. The City Council’s Tim Burgess writes on his blog: “Residents and small business owners in Belltown send a steady stream of complaints to Council members and the Mayor asking why drug dealers are allowed to sell heroin and cocaine with near impunity near their homes and shops.” Let’s start, he suggests, “with an increased presence of uniformed police officers.”

Burgess also thinks Third Avenue could use a facelift in general:

It should be converted into a restricted “complete street” that serves only transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and delivery and emergency vehicles all day.  Sidewalks could be expanded and streetscape improvements installed, such as hanging flower baskets and other “green” enhancements, public art, wayfinder signage, and additional lighting.

Is it possible to stop Belltown’s illegal drug market?, asks Seattlepi.com. A 2009 sweep of drug dealers, reports Casey McNerthney, led to 32 being charged. But they soon popped up again. SeattleCrime.com’s Jonah Spangenthal-Lee calls them “catch-and-release drug arrests.” Newly ensconced at Publicola, Spangenthal-Lee details the city’s new drug diversion program, which seeks to separate the major dealer wheat from the small-time chaff.

Beginning October 1st, small-time drug dealers and drug users arrested with less than three grams of crack, heroin, meth or drug paraphernalia in Belltown by members of SPD’s West Precinct Anti-Crime Team and bike patrol officers will be given the option to go to diversion DEFINE or go to jail as part of the Law Enforcement Assistance Diversion (LEAD) pilot program.

Essentially, the program tries to distinguish between addicts selling (or carrying) to support their own habit, and the more troublesomely entrepreneurial dealer. Addicts will get “housing, social security benefits, job training, or on-the-spot treatment,” and aren’t booted from the program for relapsing, as addicts will do. If there’s an 80/20 rule in effect, this should have the effect of emptying the sidewalks and pocket parks of small-time illegal activity, providing less cover for the serious drug dealers.

“LEAD, which costs about $1 million a year,” says Spangenthal-Lee, “already has enough funding to run for the next four years.”

News, Politics, Transportation

Op-Ed: For Rail, Be Bold (by Mayor McGinn)

Mayor McGinn, rail magnate

“For Rail, Be Bold,” reprinted by permission from Mayor McGinn’s blog.

“If you’re going to ask for $80,” I wrote a few days ago, “you need to show exactly how that money is going to be spent, and how it’s going to benefit Seattle. Squishily ‘maintaining’ and ‘improving’ isn’t going to win you votes, and bike paths will likely lead to your summary execution.”

Mayor McGinn has responded to the call, with a call for streetcar funding (and bus rapid transit, which isn’t as sexy). Seattle Transit Blog agrees the $80 level is the one that moves the needle. Seattle’s City Council, though, will likely need to be persuaded that $80 doesn’t vote them out of office.–Ed.

As the City Council deliberates on a new transportation measure, it is important to recognize that there is an opportunity here for expanded rail transit in Seattle — if the council can be bold.

First some background. In 2010, the City Council and I appointed a Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, to advise the city on how to finance its transportation needs, now and in the future. At the same time, the Transit Master Plan process was launched, also advised by a diverse set of residents.

The Transit Master Plan showed that Seattle’s greatest weakness was connecting neighborhoods to each other. It identified fifteen corridors overall, five of which will need high capacity service – and four of these are suitable for some form of rail transit. To some degree, we’ve all known this, but the rigorous approach of the Transit Master Plan clearly identifies the best corridors, and points to the better ways to serve each corridor. In a number of cases, it points to rail, specifically a concept that has come to be known as “rapid streetcar.” Unlike Sound Transit’s Link light rail, it operates in the right of way, making it cheaper and faster to build. To ensure it moves rapidly, it has high priority in the right of the way.

For the distances served — neighborhood to neighborhood — it looks like the right choice for a number of corridors in Seattle. That includes Ballard to downtown via Fremont, the University District to downtown via Eastlake, and linking those to Seattle’s two initial streetcar lines to South Lake Union, the International District/Chinatown and Capitol Hill. Other cities have already demonstrated the promise of this approach, like Portland with its MAX system.


MAX train running in street right of way in downtown Portland

Until now, Seattle has always thought we could only afford more rail the Sound Transit way – wait for a regional vote, and take decades to build it. But for local transit, the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee pointed to a different way: Use our local taxing authority to create a dedicated transit fund to expand neighborhood to neighborhood high capacity transit.

The committee recommended an $80 VLF. Much of it goes to catching up on deferred maintenance, which I support. 49% percent goes to implement the Transit Master Plan, to catch up on our deferred transit needs. As a permanent funding source, this could fund the following in the next ten years: planning and alternatives analysis for all five high capacity corridors in the Transit Master Plan, planning and construction for connecting the two streetcar lines through downtown, speed and reliability improvements on half of all non-high capacity transit corridors, and substantial upgrades to our electric trolley bus infrastructure. Over the next twenty years, we could make good on the Transit Master Plan’s stated need to accommodate substantially more travelers on each of the high capacity corridors the Plan identified.

But here is the problem. The City Council is only considering a VLF for a limited amount of time, after which it expires. For this amount of money, all you can do is study a single corridor. You cannot finance long term infrastructure with a short term financing plan. You cannot get in the queue for federal, regional, or state funds because there will be no source of funds for us to put up our local match. The Transit Master Plan will join the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plans as nice plans, without serious funding.

There is a better way, and here is where boldness is required. If the VLF is ongoing, it becomes a steady source of revenue that can be borrowed against to build rail that will serve us for decades. It is how Sound Transit finances Link light rail, by borrowing against its statutory taxing authority. It is how the Washington State Department of Transportation finances major projects. It is how Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is planning to build a major expansion of rail in his city. In fact, even Seattle does it. We put into place a permanent parking tax that we bonded against to pay for the Spokane Street Viaduct and the Mercer Corridor, among others.

So, the question is now on the Council — can it do for transit what it does for major road projects, and commit to a long term funding source that will begin building the rail system Seattle needs and wants? If the answer is yes, we will begin the work of expanding rail to connect neighborhoods to each other, to downtown, and to the Link Light Rail system.

If the answer is no, I will not stop working to fulfill my commitment to expand rail in Seattle. But it means we’ll have to keep coming back for the capital funding for transit, so that the Seattle Transit Master Plan does not become a pretty plan gathering dust on a shelf. And so that Seattle will realize its transit future.

Crime, News, Politics, Transportation

City Council Blogs: the Missing Jail, “Rubble Yard” Money & $80 License Fees

The Seattle City Council is all over this newfangled blogging thing the kids are always on about. No longer to they have to beg the Seattle Times for space on the op-ed page. Some are more prolific than others: Tim Burgess I think leads the way–he even has his own blog–but Sally Bagshaw is right in there. Nick Licata writes frequently, with a monthly round-up. Sally Clark writes once or twice a month, just ahead of Bruce Harrell. Jean Godden was last heard from in March, and the sporadic Tom Rasmussen has let six months go between posting.

City Council President Richard Conlin

Here’s Council President Richard Conlin on how “the tunnel project has wound up funding Seattle street repairs,” thanks to the city pocketing some $3 million from the sale of the “Rubble Yard.” As the city is some $578 million behind in arterial maintenance, that $3 million is less impressive than it might first sound. At least, notes Conlin, it’s not all going on quick fixes:

While some of this will be used to fill the proliferation of potholes, most of it is being used for longer term repairs, such as replacing concrete panels and repaving deteriorated asphalt streets.  While pothole repairs are important short-term steps, these more substantial repairs will address a number of major problems that are more serious than potholes, and will provide fixes that will last for many years.

Conlin also provides a short crash-course in why Seattle streets look the way they do, and what’s been done the past few years to remedy that.

Tim Burgess

For a bigger number of dollars saved, turn to Tim Burgess and his post on how “Seattle avoided spending millions on a new city jail.” It’s an interesting story, turning as it does on the Council uniting to refuse to spend hundreds on millions on a huge project whose necessity arose from a flawed usage forecast:

The Council will vote in early September whether to approve a new jail services contract with King County through 2030. If approved, the new contract will save Seattle taxpayers approximately $200 million in jail construction costs and multiple millions more in operation costs.

Burgess credits King County Executive Dow Constantine for changing the conversation: Constantine agreed that “planning for jail services should be an ongoing regional task with representatives of the County’s larger cities actively participating.” That kind of bottom-up planning would be a wonderful model to export to other areas, such as transportation.

Speaking of transportation, God love Mike O’Brien for sticking his neck out for an $80 vehicle license fee, while the King County Council remains deadlocked over a $20 version to fund Metro Transit.

Mike O'Brien

O’Brien’s politically cannier colleagues have staked out lower-cost fees, recognizing that the mood is ugly; he’s aware–“some of my colleagues on the Council feel like $80 is too high and that we need to look at a lower increase, maybe $40 or even $60″–but he wants to push ahead: “additional revenue is needed to not only maintain Seattle’s transportation infrastructure, but to expand it to provide improve mobility for all residents in Seattle.”

Perhaps, O’Brien says, there is a way to make the fee less regressive, in terms of its impact on “lowest-income residents.” His main point, though, is that there’s substantial overlap between low-income residents and not owning a car. So it’s not just a question of how this will affect the minimum-wager who drives a beater to work, but how it will affect the minimum-wagers who take transit.

If you’ll permit me the observation, this isn’t going to “git ‘r’ done.” I doubt that the populace is in the right frame of mind for anything but specifics. If you’re going to ask for $80, you need to show exactly how that money is going to be spent, and how it’s going to benefit Seattle. Squishily “maintaining” and “improving” isn’t going to win you votes, and bike paths will likely lead to your summary execution. (I do believe drivers would pay to keep bicyclists out of their way–I’d like to see Sally Bagshaw run up a few low-cost bike-boulevard flags and see if anyone salutes.)

You need to demonstrate that $79 is too little, and $81 is more than necessary. If you’re suitably Machiavellian, you perhaps go public first with an outer-bound number, to set an anchor point in people’s minds, and then let yourself be talked down. But for heaven’s sake, don’t let the discussion be about $80–any reasonable person would rightly prefer to keep $80 in their pocket. The discussion has to be about a tangible, concrete accomplishment (or example of a benefit).

To read Publicola’s recap of the Council’s discussion, no one else has reached that level of clarity either. It sounds like the Council is simply taking the temperature to see what people might be willing to pay, rather than building arguments from either necessity, or civic desire. That has been the usual approach of this Council as it cowers from the effects of the recession, makes ritual budget sacrifices, and hopes for brighter days.