Tag Archives: seattle

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

Occupy Seattle, the Protest Music Video

2 Comments

YouTube is not short on footage of the ongoing Occupy Seattle protests, which has, to those observing from a distance, become bogged down in a wonderfully Seattle way in argument over the process of protest. You can read all about it on the Slog, whose writers have taken up alternately cheering and deriding the protest.

Confronted by a mayor who welcomed them to City Hall, the protesters have had to weigh the significance of their presence in Westlake Park, even though nothing of any significance has ever and will ever happen in Westlake Park. Even when the protesters bring traffic on Pine to a standstill, they’ve simply managed to revert the park to its ’90s-era pedestrian-only self.

There is also the knotty issue of putting up tents as an act of civil disobedience–again, playing right into the city’s hands.

Still, this feels like a moment with import, just as the Tea Party’s early “days of racist rage” did. That’s not to assert some kind of equivalence, just to note that you don’t have to be coherent or plausible to have a political impact. It’s not necessary, as protesters, to have a 100-point plan or unified leadership.

You just need to be willing to gum up the works while hoping yours is a righteous cause that will draw support. In a democracy, sheer numbers often reframe the debate better than reframing the debate. All Occupy Seattle needs is a few nice days, a band to headline an impromptu concert, and some stiltwalkers.

News, Transportation, Travel

A Seattle-Port Townsend Passenger Ferry by 2013?

4 Comments
Puget Sound ferry trips are an scenic excursion in themselves. (Photo: MvB)

Ah, Seattle! Gateway to getaways! (Take it, Seattle tourism department, I give it to you free.)

Peninsula Daily News reports that the Port of Port Townsend has won a $1.3-million federal grant for construction of a new passenger ferry, to run between Port Townsend and Seattle. Best of all, it’s got to happen fairly quickly: “Sea trials must be finished by the summer of 2013 or the port will not be reimbursed for the construction of the vessel,” the newspaper quotes Port Director Larry Crockett as saying.

Regular readers of The SunBreak know our stance on this issue: Genius! Port Townsend is a lovely seaside village, with plenty of amusements (i.e., brewers and brewpubs). Also, there’s a castle. But as it takes some two-and-a-half hours to get there from Seattle by car, I haven’t been back since a trip via a temporary passenger ferry in 2008. With the new boat, the crossing should take about 75 minutes, says the Seattle Times. Better.

The Port of Port Townsend still needs a private company to operate the boat, which will likely sail more occasionally than a full-time ferry. (For one thing, there’s only the one boat, and it will need to be maintained and repaired.) “The initial plan is to run the service once or twice a day with a 49-passenger capacity, since a greater amount would require a larger crew and cost more to operate,” reports the PDN.

Even with suggested fares ranging from $20 to $25 one-way, the ferry would make only $1,225 per trip at the most. The idea is to keep the boat “no frills,” but already there’s been push back. What can’t ferry passengers live without? Coffee and Wi-Fi. Conflictedly, the Port of Port Townsend sees the ferry as primarily tourist-driven: 80 percent tourists and 20 percent commuters.

Not since Gilligan’s Island have tourists plumped for “no frills” when they’re considering what’s close to a three-hour tour by water. Instead of $40 to $50 round trip, tourists may be interested instead in Bremerton, the “Port Townsend that’s closer than Port Townsend,” especially once Bremerton, too, is served by passenger ferry. A trip to Bremerton is just over $7, round trip, since the run is operated by the Washington State Ferries.

That said, 2013 is a ways off yet, and Labor Day weekend is fast approaching. If you’re stalled on getaway ideas, Gogobot.com has a few Labor Day outings for you, in and out of town:

  • Whidbey Island: Close to Seattle, but feels like another world, with top notch dining and shopping stops.
  • NorthWest Outdoor Center: Kayak on Lake Union and check out the houseboat communities, a superb view of the space needle, and tie up to enjoy clams and chowder at Ivar’s.
  • Rosario Resort & Spa: Grand hotel from the ‘30s and ‘40s, with gorgeous marina views, surrounding forests, and spa complete with indoor pool.
Business, News, Politics

Seattle Doesn’t Trust Costco to Hold Its Liquor

All this could be Costco's...then yours. (Actually, it's the bar at Still.) (Photo: MvB)

Publicola (natch) tips you off to the latest Elway poll on Initiative 1183 (aka “Costco’s liquor-privatization initiative”), which shows a full 50 percent in support of I-1183 statewide. But not so fast.

First, as Publicola cautions: “It’s worth noting, though, that most pundits say a measure needs to initially poll at around 60 percent so it has a cushion to withstand the inevitable negative campaigning of an election.”

And secondly, as the Seattlepi.com’s Chris Grygiel adds, 54 percent of Seattle respondents were opposed.

Predictably, law enforcement and religious groups have looked askance at a proposal whose success is based on increasing total liquor sales in Washington. They’ve been joined in this by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents some 1,000 workers currently employed by the state in its liquor stores. (The UFCW argues, persuasively, that union employees running state liquor stores are more stringent about not selling alcohol to minors than private enterprises.)

I-1183 calls for the closure of state liquor stores and the liquor distribution center; private sellers would then be licensed, with the state still collecting a 17 percent vig from total liquor sales. To forestall corner booze emporia popping up, the initiative requires stores to have 10,000 square feet of retail space. But there’s no denying that the hope (or fear) is that greater convenience and “non-uniform wholesale pricing” would tend to increase liquor sales.

The state’s Office of Financial Management agrees, and offers this rosy prediction for a state beleaguered by deficit, should Washington adopt I-1183:

…total State General Fund revenues increase an estimated $216 million to $253 million and total local revenues increase an estimated $186 million to $227 million, after Liquor Control Board one-time and ongoing expenses, over six fiscal years. A one-time net state revenue gain of $28.4 million is estimated from sale of the state liquor distribution center.

So what’s Seattle’s problem? Democrats. We’re loaded with them, and 62 percent don’t seem to care for anything with “privatization” in the name. Seattle Republicans and independents, by contrast, are in favor 57 and 54 percent, respectively. It’s a little strange, in that initiative sponsor Costco is beloved by Democrats, at least those running for office. Maybe the emphasis should be on “de-socializing” liquor, instead?

News, Transportation

Why Don’t We Tell People Not to Drive All The Time?

"Traffic on 520" from our Flickr pool's Great Beyond

You know what’s being compared to Y2K? Los Angeles’s Carmageddon-that-wasn’t. Big hype, not much to worry about. The Los Angeles Times writes:

Life without the 405 Freeway to connect the San Fernando Valley and Westside was remarkable only for what didn’t happen. The canyons of the Hollywood Hills did not become giant parking lots. Hospitals did not go unstaffed. Stranded motorists did not abandon their cars and stagger down the freeways in search of food and water.

The sound of silence wasn’t just on 405. It was everywhere, the paper reports. Enough people stayed home that fans who turned out for the L.A. Galaxy v. Real Madrid soccer match got there “with time to kill.” Cyclists raced–and beat–JetBlue flights from Burbank to Long Beach in #FlightVsBike. “In fact,” recounts Seattle Bike Blog, “the people riding bikes arrived in half the time it took to go through security, fly, then take a cab.”

Seattle, of course, had its own version of Carmageddon in 2007. 19 days of a partially closed I-5, not just a weekend. But at the end, out came the Y2K comparison: “Traffic got a little worse later in the first week — but remained far better than average, despite slowdowns through the construction zone. […] Now that we know how the story turned out, it’s tempting to poke fun at all the dire predictions,” wrote Clark Williams-Derry in the Seattle Times.

Williams-Derry works for Sightline, the lovable gang of wonks who hold forth on transportation policy issues, among many other things, and naturally Sightline has connected the dots on this latest example of “carhead“–the mindset that cars drive people, rather than the other way around.

"mercer mess" from our Flickr pool's Chris Blakely

They are quick to emphasize that Los Angeles only had to garage their cars for a weekend–no one is claiming that cars are unnecessary. It’s just that people drastically underestimate how many car trips are unnecessary, and how flexible our roadway system actually is. That’s why it’s not surprising to read in the Seattle Times, the same paper that chronicled the non-event of a two-weeks-plus bottleneck on I-5: “Constantine warns of gridlock if tunnel, light rail projects are blocked.”

Seattlepi.com argues the gridlock  counterpoint:

Tunnel proponents say without the project, tens of thousands of cars will clog downtown Seattle streets. Opponents, who favor a surface option with transit improvements, say the same thing, pointing to studies that show drivers will avoid the tunnel because of tolls and make downtown a mess.

But here’s the thing about such assertions – more often than not, they are overblown.

To my mind, it’s not enough to learn that given time and guidance, people can adapt–if indeed you needed to learn that. It’s more important than ever, given the skyrocketing cost of new transportation projects, to learn that conservation is the cheapest way to get capacity back. It’s true of our energy grid, it’s true of our transportation grid. For more than a decade, Seattle has been falling behind on maintenance of its existing road system while spending money on new projects and “fixes.” But even shortchanging maintenance until bridges are closed has not been enough.

To fill the gap for new projects, government has turned to tolls. You could call the next decade in Seattle “The Decade of Tolls” if you wanted–just about every project calls for tolling, and tolls will likely be implemented elsewhere than on new projects to keep people from clogging older roads. (Deep-bore tunnel boosters are in the difficult position of trying to work out how much toll is enough to pay for the tunnel while not sending so many drivers onto I-5 and city streets that enough money is still not raised.)

But what if people were simply told–not tolled–not to drive if they didn’t have to? What if driving aimlessly, or frivolously, was viewed the same way as leaky faucets and leaving the fridge door open? (I, too, get a little shiver just thinking about how radical this is.)

I think it’s likely that we will still find some projects pencil out and deserve to be built. But I think it’s also true that (as you read in “Dude, Where Are My Cars?”) that people are driving less, and younger people are organizing their transportation less around cars (Williams-Derry again! He’s everywhere!).

If you could save billions of dollars right now simply by asking people to drive less, billions you could use to make sure existing roads are safer, last longer, would you bother? So far, no one in political leadership seems to think it’s worth trying, despite the sometimes astonishing results. For the last word, here’s Albert Brooks on Twitter:

Breaking News: S.F. now considering tearing down Golden Gate to ease their traffic.