Nick Licata, sponsor of the Council's paid sick leave bill
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.
A tent city packs up for a move at St. Joseph's on Capitol Hill (Photo: MvB)
Word power! Bête noire is a French expression meaning, literally, “black beast”–it’s a beast of burden, and it carries your most virulent detestation. For example, for the Seattle City Council, plastic bags are their bête noire. Back in 2008, in the depths of the recession, the Council looked around and decided that a $0.20 fee on plastic grocery bags was what was called for.
A year later, Seattle voters disagreed. (Now to some minds, right-thinking voters can dismiss this result, because it was “purchased” by Big Plastic. As with Costco’s funding of advertisements for I-1183, the results of the election are purely a matter of money, with Seattle’s avaricious voters swiveling to wherever the gravy train sets up. Well, you know, money in politics! What next?)
So it was fairly soon afterward that the Council started making noises about banning plastic bags outright. Last week I got a robo-poll call testing the waters on a plastic bag ban, and this week the Seattle Times reveals how the bag-ban conversation is percolating:
Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin said Bellingham’s ordinance seems to enjoy more widespread support in part because it is less complicated than the one passed by the Seattle City Council. In addition to banning plastic bags, it charges a 5-cent fee for paper bags that goes to stores to reimburse them for the costs.
Don’t get me wrong–I think that is exactly the right strategy. If plastic bags present the irremediable harm to the environment we are told, then a ban (not a sin tax) is what’s called for. It is simpler, and it is a straightforward demand for responsible behavior.
On the other hand, is this the best use of the Council’s time just now? Even if you want to weigh just environmental concerns? Times commenter Meinert (I’ll assume this is Dave Meinert) would argue no:
That said, this is not the biggest environmental or general issue in front of the Council. Transit and storm water and contaminated runoff are more serious problems. Add to that the open crack dealing and rising crime on downtown streets. And of course we have a horrible business climate, and need some solutions to health insurance (many of which could be handled locally). Much harder, less sexy issues for politicians to try to handle.
Should we ban plastic bags? Yes. Is this the most important issue in front of the City Council? No way. […] I’m sure there’s a German word for taking small steps on large issues and then congratulating yourself for being a leader. That would be a perfect word to use in local politics.
This Council, under Conlin’s leadership, consistently fails to communicate a sense of priority. I have had occasion to bang on about the city’s decaying infrastructure and the Council’s blind eye to the scope of the problem, but it’s also true of the Council’s response to homelessness.
But at least you can feel proud of the Council’s green credentials, if that’s the way your sympathies lie? Not if you take into account the Council’s support for the two largest public works projects in the area (the new, larger 520 bridge and downtown tunnel).
In both instances, the Council–with the beleaguered exception of Mike O’Brien–has decided not to push for replacing some car capacity with transit capacity. Conlin went so far as to argue that the tunnel was “the green alternative,” although only the I-5/Surface/Transit option helped lower greenhouse gas emissions, per WSDOT’s SDEIS study.
The only mitigating circumstance is that the state has made it clear it doesn’t care what Seattle thinks about these projects–we are going to get more cars come hell or high water:
Just as the federal government released its annual index of greenhouse gases, showing a steady increase over the past 21 years, the International Energy Agency warned that we are on the path to 11-degree warming if we don’t curb emissions now.
Do you see what I mean? One of the benefits of a bag ban, of course, is that it saves on the petroleum used to make them. In this case, with the Council amenable to spending billions of dollars to increase or conserve single-vehicle-occupancy capacity, it’s a bit like ordering milkshakes for every meal, but foregoing the whipped cream on top–just once, at lunch–because you’re on a diet.
The intersection of road maintenance and transit: a bus turnaround turns pavement to a gravel road (Photo: MvB)
With Prop 1 going down to defeat, 60 percent of voters against, a lot of political diviners were rummaging through entrails trying to figure out why Seattle had turned its back on a forward-thinking transit initiative. “Here’s the proposed breakdown,” said KING 5, listing out how the Prop 1 money would be spent:
roughly half the money, about $100 million, is for mass transit.
$59 million for fixing streets and potholes.
$23 million for pedestrians and bikes.
Publicola weighed in: too regressive, plus McGinn’s negatives. Seattlepi.com: pushback to McGinn’s extremist clique. Seattle Times: like we’ve been saying all along, McGinn is the Antichrist. Seattle Transit Blog had three takes: a) all of the above, b) weak messaging, c) no sexy win. McGinn: MOAR STREETCARS!
I don’t know what people were thinking, really, and I doubt anyone else does, either. It is true that both the city and the King County Council had already increased car tab fees to $40, so this latest $60 increase would have created $100 tabs.
But on the face of it, I’m happy enough that people said no, even it it does put a temporary stick in the spokes of new transit. Seattle’s political leadership has developed an unsettling fondness for an “Or the puppy gets it!” strategy when it comes to extorting money from taxpayers. Again and again, basic infrastructure is neglected until a crisis is reached, at which point a huge bill is presented.
That’s not responsible governance. But even worse, the huge bill isn’t the end of it. I’ve written before about Seattle’s Bridging the Gap levy, a $365-million, deferred-maintance catch-up that after four years has left us…with a $578-million backlog of road repair. Actually, you may want to sit down, because that’s just deferred arterial maintenance. Add in bridges and regular streets, and the bill becomes billions.
In that context, Prop 1’s $59 million doesn’t seem terribly proportionate, does it?
But our government is perfectly happy to look the other way on this. The cost of doing something about it is so massive that it’s become crazy to talk about doing something about it. Instead, you get Prop 1’s finger in the 17th Street Canal levee, as it were. Fixed!
Then win or lose, the conversation turns to strategy and messaging, and the looming, titanic failure of our city infrastructure goes undiscussed. Basic infrastructure is what city government is for–yet the City of Seattle consistently has tried to wriggle out of having to pay for maintenance out of its operating budget (it’s not just roads–it’s the same with parks, with the Seattle Center), preferring instead to use the ballot box as an ATM.
Nothing about ongoing maintenance requires this. These are line items, foreseeable expenses. I don’t doubt that the task of budgeting is an unenviable one, but everything else this city provides rests upon its infrastructure. A mayor and a city council that don’t realize that are worse than useless–they’re damaging to the future.
I don’t blame this mayor or this city council for the situation we find ourselves in, but the spending problem here is not going to be solved with Propositions.
UPDATE: Here is the City Council’s press release on their budgeting efforts. Just at a glance, what percentage of this deals with Seattle’s ailing infrastructure? Do you see any recognition that the city’s foundation is crumbling?
Seattle City Councilmembers present 2012 budget balancing package
Final budget vote scheduled for November 21
Seattle – Today the Seattle City Council presented their proposed changes to the 2012 budget with a balanced package of cuts that preserve essential services. The Council focused on maintaining funding for public safety, health services and food programs, and housing for the most vulnerable.
“Operating the leanest government possible while maintaining critical services was our overarching goal. We believe we have reached that goal,” stated Councilmember and Budget Committee Chair Jean Godden. “There is no doubt that we will feel the impacts of state budget decisions whatever they may be.”
Council utilized community feedback as a key indicator of programs and services to be preserved. For example, the Council will undo a merger of the Office of Housing and Office of Economic Development proposed by the Mayor, based on input from Community stakeholders. In their review of the Mayor’s proposal, the Council was able to identify staffing efficiencies that could be implemented that will result in ongoing savings of more than $400,000 each year while maintaining the two separate offices.
“We are reinventing government to be as efficient and effective as it can be,” said Council President Richard Conlin, Chair of the Regional Development and Sustainability Committee. “However, we cannot sustain this budget if the state cuts human services and public safety programs and leaves cities with the responsibility of picking up the pieces.”
Councilmember Mike O’Brien, Chair of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee added, “This budget presented us with many challenges and difficult choices, but I believe we reaffirmed the City’s commitment to Seattle’s neighborhoods. From the Safe Parking Pilot Program in Ballard to keeping community centers open to preserving support for our beloved p-patches, Council stands by our neighborhoods and their priorities.” Working with community partners, such as faith-based organizations and local food providers, Council was able to maximize opportunities through joint investments to fund these programs.
Throughout the budget review process this year, Councilmembers heard a steady request for additional funding to address a reported surge in the need for shelter and housing for homeless families with children in Seattle. Providers have reported increasing numbers of families seeking such assistance due to the economy and decreased support from other levels of government.
To meet this demand, Councilmembers agreed to a funding package that expands capacity along the spectrum of services, from shelter or temporary housing to permanent housing for homeless families with children. The intent is to review actual use of the money by the end of the second quarter of 2012 to evaluate whether the demand for family-focused support materialized at the level expected. The additional funding totaled $435,000 and will serve at least 47 families.
“The Council adopted Resolution 31292 in May which stated the intent to better meet the long-term housing and immediate survival needs of those without shelter or housing. In the Council’s budget proposal, we increased funds for shelter and housing services for homeless families with children by $435,000. This is a significant step toward the goal that no family be unsheltered by the end of 2012,” stated Councilmember Nick Licata, Chair of the Housing, Human Services, Health and Culture Committee.
To address neighborhood challenges, the Council designated $376,000 to a Precinct Liaison Program within the City Attorney’s Office. The precinct liaison attorneys will work closely with police officers and the Seattle Police Department leadership to address a variety of community and neighborhood problems, including nuisance properties, nightlife issues, graffiti abatement, alcohol impact areas, and crime hot spots.
“We focused on how we address public safety challenges in a time of very limited resources,” said Councilmember Tim Burgess, Chair of the Public Safety and Education Committee. “We beefed up early interventions to prevent crime by expanding the Nurse Family Partnership program to reach more low-income, first-time mothers. We joined with City Attorney Pete Holmes to reengineer the precinct liaison program to address chronic crime hot spots. We directed the Police Department to update the Neighborhood Policing Plan to match current officer staffing levels.”
“We funded a body-mounted camera pilot project for our police officers to enhance public safety and accountability, created a new office to assist the successful integration of immigrants and refugees into our City and provided additional help in the community for uninsured residents to receive medical and dental care,” said Councilmember Bruce Harrell, Chair of the Energy, Technology and Civil Rights Committee. “These actions help to ensure that our City continues down the path of achieving our social justice goals.”
Council is also responding to the growing concern regarding quality of life issues, such as improving health care accessibility for the uninsured, safety along Third Avenue and other pedestrian and transportation improvements.
“The City Council is committed to improving safety of transit riders and pedestrians in downtown Seattle. Since light rail began operations, the number of pedestrians and transit riders using Third Avenue has significantly increased. Through the Council’s Third Avenue Initiative, the City will develop a plan that may include more regular cleaning, improved lighting and development of a pilot ‘hot spot’ policing initiative for certain blocks along the Third Avenue Transit Corridor,” stated Councilmember Tom Rasmussen Chair of the Transportation Committee.
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw, Chair of the Parks and Seattle Center Committee stated, “I am very pleased with City’s effort to balance this budget. We have made cuts while addressing the needs of our neighborhoods, as well as caring for neighbors in need.”
“I’d like to thank Councilmember Godden and my fellow colleagues for crafting a budget that invests in what matters,” said Councilmember Sally J. Clark, Chair of the Committee on the Built Environment. “Budget challenges only get tougher from here, but I’m hopeful we can partner with our friends in Olympia to minimize the impact to Seattle residents.”
It’s an unsettling sign of the times that the King County Council needed to think as hard as it did about approving a $20, two-year, car-licensing fee to forestall a 17 percent cut in Metro bus service. As mentioned earlier, that’s a nickel a day to keep bus service going that carries over 340,000 people every day. People who can’t afford that have other, more significant financial problems that have little to do with Metro funding and car tabs.
The press release notes that King County Executive Dow Constantine thanked the members of the Council–“including Councilmembers Jane Hague and Kathy Lambert, who announced their support today based on a package of amendments.” With Hague and Lambert joining Larry Phillips, Bob Ferguson, Larry Gossett, Joe McDermott, and Julia Patterson, the Council has the supermajority needed simply to pass the charge without punting it to voters.
Creating the supermajority didn’t come without its own costs, of sorts. Passage of the “Congestion Reduction Charge” will likely come with these riders, according to the release:
Develop a Transit Incentive Program to provide eight bus tickets worth up to $24 for each car tab renewal. People can use the tickets for rides to work, play or special sporting events. They may also choose to donate the value of those tickets to a pool of nearly 150 human service agencies to provide mobility for those in need.
Phase out the downtown Seattle Ride Free Area in October 2012. The Council’s 2009 performance audit called for Metro to update its formula for collecting revenues in the Ride Free Area (RFA). When first established in 1973 as the “Magic Carpet Zone,” a city subsidy funded 100 percent of the fares Metro no longer collected in that area. Today the city of Seattle pays Metro $400,000 a year to support the RFA, which is about 18 percent of the $2.2 million annual cost for Metro to operate the RFA.
Increase the pool of funds that provides sharply discounted bus tickets to human service and homeless programs. Metro now discounts tickets worth nearly $2 million annually. The tickets are currently sold to human service agencies at 20 cents on the dollar. Metro will either increase the current ticket allocation, or further increase the discount while giving the public the option of donating their tickets under the incentive plan to those in need. Metro will seek the advice of human service agencies in how to best help those in need.
Implement right-sizing of service consistent with the Transit Strategic Plan. In communities where it makes sense, Metro will deploy lower-cost, more efficient Dial-a-Ride Transit service (DART), community access transportation services, Vanpools and vanshares, making service more efficient and responsive to our riders.
Consider routes that carry more riders due to the effects of highway tolling as candidates for added services. This language in the proposed legislation is consistent with the principles to enhance Metro’s productivity developed by the Regional Transit Task Force and adopted in the County’s Transit Strategic Plan.
Personally, I will cheer the end of the Ride Free Area. Not collecting payment from riders at the start of their journey creates a strange situation where you pay when you get on or when you disembark the bus, that leaves even drivers confused about when to take the fare. It’s also kept Metro from installing payment kiosks since the logical place to put them is downtown, where, with the Ride Free Area, they wouldn’t be used.
Further, while the idea was to promote “circulation” in the downtown area, the unintended result is that it promotes fare dodging as buses leave the downtown core (you can’t very well take a trip back from someone who refuses to pay), and also means buses double as mobile homeless shelters during inclement weather and alcoholic binges. That’s not, clearly, a true service for a homeless person, and it’s good to see that more money would be spent on discounted tickets for people who need buses for transportation.
