gdp's Comments

http://publicola.com/ : How Much Density is Too Much for Roosevelt? | PubliCola ThinkTank

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:52:07 +0000

Trevor, I don't disagree with the idea that we should "encourage the most equitable rather than the most profitable forms of economic growth." But last I checked the rules of basic math are still in full effect: division by zero still doesn't work. We can't share the wealth if there is no wealth to share. I don't think that all density in all circumstances increases affordability. All housing is affordable to someone and if it isn't the price goes down. I really think you're arguments against TOD and density would bare up a lot better if they had a better foundation. Simply demanding proof that density has decreased rents or arguing that density is the same thing as gentrification doesn't help the basically good idea that one outcome of new development should be accessibility to broad segments of the economy. Usually your arguments seem, instead, to be based on the idea that the only way to make a profit is to displace people. How about the idea that we do things like increase the minimum wage and reduce health and child care costs rather than strangle housing supply with more limitations and requirements. It doesn't always follow that increasing supply isn't beneficial to the end user anymore than demand side solutions will bankrupt employers. We ought to consider what outcome we want and combine both supply and demand side solutions to housing affordability. More density in Roosevelt is good for a lot of reasons including affordability.

http://publicola.com/ : How Much Density is Too Much for Roosevelt? | PubliCola ThinkTank

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:02:43 +0000

Trevor, Your characterization of the situation is not accurate. The neighborhood and everyone agrees the properties are not serving anyone right now. Many of them are boarded up awaiting an out come of this discussion. There's not much debate over whether those properties can and should be improved. Your idealism is troubling. It leads you to automatically assume things like "sweetheart deals" are in the mix. That isn't helpful. We're talking here about a neighborhood that is planning for it's future as significant infrastructure is being built. The idea that its bad that someone is going to benefit from up zones is naive at best and demagoguery at worst. Of course an up zone adds value to property. Should that value be subsumed by the state and for what? Lastly, density is better. That's just a fact that really isn't up for debate. It's better for water (see the Partnership for Puget Sound's report), it's better for green house gas emissions (less emissions per capita), more efficient (less energy use), better for transit (Newman and Kenworthy found density aggregates demand, support for, and use of transit), safer (more people means more folks looking out for each other), and yes, it's more affordable (see the Center for Neighborhood Technology). The days are gone when we should be debating density. The verdict is in. I love taxes and I love government. I think more good government makes us free. But we'll having nothing to tax and nothing to redistribute if we squash private efforts develop what I've just shown is a GOOD thing in and of itself.

http://publicola.com/ : How Much Density is Too Much for Roosevelt? | PubliCola ThinkTank

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:29:35 +0000

Up front let's get a couple of things clear on the Roosevelt discussion. None of us who have asked for intervention by the Mayor's office and City Council on proposals for zoning and land use in Roosevelt have suggested abrogating the Roosevelt Neighborhood Plan nor even the neighborhood's most recent proposals. Rather, we've asked for another look a specific set of properties held by an errant land lord. Nobody wants to do away with Roosevelt's plan, either of them. Second, there have been a lot of, frankly, stupid things said in comments and elsewhere about who should be able to speak to this issue. Light rail infrastructure--and all transit--makes us Roosevelt neighbors whether we live in West Seattle or Rainier Valley. And, I would add, it makes people in Roosevelt West Seattle and Rainier Valley Neighbors. I'd like to see the ridiculous arguing about who can weigh on this issue stop: this is a regional discussion in which we all can should be involved. Third, there is not (and nobody that I know is suggesting) a massive uptick in density from what has been broadly proposed in the RNA plan. We're talking about something between 40 feet--which ensures that the Sisley properties stay bombed out blight--and the 120 feet proposed in the contract rezone. Neither the Barriers Report nor the Futurewise TOD Blueprint prescribes any set density or development pattern. There isn't indicated, and nobody is proposing, a massive up zone for greater Roosevelt. We're talking about a very specific set of lots. My point is simply that more conversation about those properties on the "Sisley Panhandle" should happen with everyone involved with an outcome of more development capacity there. The current plan seems like it would ensure one thing: that those properties would remain a blight for the neighborhood. I think everyone's interest (yes, including the property owner and developer's) is served by considering something less than the contract rezone and more than leaving it the way it is. That's the discussion. Not a huge ideological debate about density in general or even TOD. Simply put, this is about a key set of lots in a neighborhood that will, in the not too distant future, be more closely linked to the wider region with millions of dollars is public investment. Now's the time to talk. And that's what we're doing.

http://publicola.com/ : Whose Neighborhood is Better? | PubliCola ThinkTank

Tue, 7 Jun 2011 19:09:23 +0000

Trevor, Perhaps you and I ought to have a Think Tank top of the comments set of posts about this issue. One need look no further than our own Erica C. Barnett and her rundown of the Center for Neighborhood Technology to shed light on the topic. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/the_true_cost... I'd direct you to my own article on the Residual Income Model for calculating affordable housing: http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/20... Without indulging in a screed (thank you Blue Light for keeping me in line!) I'd say our first problem with "affordability" is defining it. Second, we seem to think the basic rules of supply and demand don't apply to housing. What many advocates of this thing called affordable housing fail to see is that the more demands and costs they place on the production of housing in the name of affordability, the more they contribute to lack of supply. We aren't building lots of new single family housing in Seattle. So the only option is more multifamily and clustered housing. But because of the fear of gentrification (most often given voice by middle class single family home owners) we slow down production of the very kinds of housing that would increase supply, and lower price. This is part of the problem on Beacon Hill. There is very little housing being built there.

http://publicola.com/ : Whose Neighborhood is Better? | PubliCola ThinkTank

Tue, 7 Jun 2011 16:35:09 +0000

I love Beacon Hill. There was a time when I thought I'd never live anywhere else. It's a peculiar place, however. There was a dedicated group of neighborhood advocates who begged, pleaded, and agitated Sound Transit to build a light rail station under Beacon Hill. "Too deep," said Sound Transit. "Too expensive, too." Eventually a shell was promised with a station off in the future. They fought on. All of a sudden, it seemed, we had a station. But the group fought on, and one of the successful arguments was that Beacon was a uniquely diverse neighborhood both ethnically and economically. What followed was bizarre. A different group of neighbors appeared, ready to fight the station. "You're destroying the character of our neighborhood," they said, "Save Perry Ko's South China Restaurant." Suddenly the quaint Chinese restaurant that had served many generations of local residents became an icon of ethnic diversity and local business. It isn't that those things weren't true, but like Mr. Thompson's characterization, South China wasn't a "national chain." Unfortunately the belated love for South China coincided with difficult decisions about developing the HIl in a way that reflected the investment in light rail. Sadly, the group of neighbors who felt that the diversity of the Hill was somehow incompatible with Transit Oriented Development. Never mind the fact that more housing at the station area would increase the kind of housing that would make things more affordable for younger Hispanic, Asian, or African families that can't afford a single family home on Beacon Hill. Oddly too, many of the opponents of more density and mixed use development on the Hill are white, single family home owners. The most telling culture clash from years ago was over the golf course. Some saw the golf course as a bourgeois imposition or impact on the neighborhood. But remember, it is a fantastic public course. On any given day golfers of many ethnic backgrounds--often fewer white folks--play golf and use the driving range. But somehow, some in the neighborhood couldn't disentangle their view of golf with the reality of daily life on Beacon Hill's awesome community resource. The golf course, far from being a burden to locals, is a huge benefit. In the end, the day will come when Beacon Hill grows. I have every confidence that not only will the Hill's diversity be preserved, but it will be enhanced. Family owned business and families of all kinds will benefit from more housing on the Hill. The station is a huge boon for the Hill. It's time to take advantage of it.

http://publicola.com/ : Is Light Rail on Track? | PubliCola ThinkTank

Wed, 1 Jun 2011 17:12:08 +0000

Trevor, Fortunately I'm not in a position to have to "win over" opponents of light rail. I strongly suspect that that opposition is rooted in something deeper than ridership or financial performance. And there are many assumptions to untangle in your response (like that TOD would be a gentrification machine) that are probably beyond the scope of this little box. Let's pretend that every criticism leveled at light rail is true. There are some simple facts that are also true about local government: it isn't helping. Local concerns about alignment, station sighting, zoning, and, yes, gentrification are making light rail's job harder not easier. If we want to start all over I guess someone could propose that. But as long as we've got an agency that is tasked with creating a comprehensive system that is going to cost billions of dollars it seems to me that we ought to get out of their way. As a region we can't simultaneously decide we want regional transit including light rail and debate whether it makes sense. That won't produce a good outcome.

http://publicola.com/ : Is Light Rail on Track? | PubliCola ThinkTank

Wed, 1 Jun 2011 04:49:06 +0000

I think Link Light Rail works great. The trains run, they're clean, well lit, and they sometimes even go where I want to go. But the train is leaving the station on Light Rail in our region. Simply building and running the choo choo is not enough. We need a hearty TOD program that can generate the density around light rail stations to off set flagging ridership. We're investing billions of dollars in infrastructure but allowing small time City Council politics to monkey wrench the land use. The folks at Seattle Transit Blog were good enough to point out that we need a super agency to do TOD right so we can get the concentrations of demand for transit we need. Building a train to flat, empty, low-rise urban villages (Seattle), bickering about who's going to make money(Bellevue), fighting about whether light rail is a good idea(Vancouver), and generally failing to zone appropriately is what might kill light rail. The legislature needs to act as soon as possible to take land use decisions around transit stations away from local cities and towns and give that power to people who know what they're doing. City Council's in the region are just about to completely goof up a good thing. If we want to prove people like John Niles right let's keep listening to local NIMBYs and allow City Councils to run the show. But the train truly is pulling out of the station here. It's time to get the land use right. The purpose of transit investments is to shorten the distance between people and where they want to go. Aggregating demand through good planning and land use is what will get this train back on track.

http://publicola.com/ : Is the Referendum About the Tunnel? | PubliCola ThinkTank

Wed, 25 May 2011 01:57:50 +0000

I agree. More important things to talk about. Let's get a vote (I say vote "no") and then move on. Many of us think the tunnel proposal will fail once voters consider it. Keeping it off the ballot is a sure way to keep the fires burning. Glad to see people ready to move seattle forward....with a vote.

http://publicola.com/ : Is the Referendum About the Tunnel? | PubliCola ThinkTank

Tue, 24 May 2011 21:55:06 +0000

The referendum is really about whether Seattle wants to close what I call the Sustainability Gap (http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2010/02/25/falling-into-the-sustainability-gap), the distance between what we say and what we actually do about sustainability. Building more highways at a time when we are supposed to be, by state law, working toward reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a bad idea. Building more highways when the CIty Council has declared itself in favor of carbon neutrality is a bad idea. Building more expensive highways that won't pay for themselves (tolling revenues are questionable) when budgets are being cut for basic services is a bad idea. Building the tunnel won't create long lasting jobs, at best it is economic meringue; we'd be better off filling bottles with twenty dollar bills, bury them under the waterfront, and sell the rights to dig them up (thanks Keynes!) The referendum is about whether we are going to talk like green urban progressive democrats and act like suburban republicans or whether we are going to put our policies where are rhetoric is on sustainability. The world won't end if we build the tunnel. But if we build it, Seattle will have a tougher time trying to claim the mantle of being a sustainable city no matter how many pygmy goats, and chickens we put in our yards. The time is now to say no to talking big about sustainability but acting like it's 1981 instead of 2011. Finally, we have a long way to go to make our land use and transportation policies true up to our sustainable aspirations. Spending billions on a tunnel doesn't help us get there. We've wasted enough time and money on this project. Let's move forward toward discussing the things that really matter. Let's do the right thing and vote no.

http://publicola.com/ : Should Seattle Relax its Street-Food Rules? | PubliCola ThinkTank

Sat, 21 May 2011 16:09:26 +0000

Councilmember Bagshaw, Thanks for your comments and addressing what you characterize as my concern that Council might "over-legislate" on this issue. My concern is broader than that. I've watched the Council in action long enough to know two troubling trends in Council Culture. First, the Council seems to lead--taking positions and holding them in spite of angry people who happen to show up in chambers--when Council feels a common enemy. Taking the tunnel as the most obvious example, Council has pushed ahead, like Aguirre searching for Eldorado, in spite of rafts of evidence that show this project is a bad idea. I admire the persistence and the determination even while I detest the tunnel project itself. Second, the Council tends to look out for it's own. Councilmembers tend not to challenge committee chairs for example. And, in the case of the Pioneer Square rezones, Councilmembers who disagreed with the direction of the majority voted with that majority in order not to appear to be un-collegial. One final point. Councilmembers too often give lots of credence to opponents of an effort simply because they take the trouble to show up at a Council meeting or write an e-mail to Council. This can work to my advantage or to the advantage of a small cache of neighbors opposing rezones with regional implications. As a rule, it's a bad idea. So my concerns extend beyond and go more deeply than "over-legislation" on this issue, but rather, on a culture that persists at Council in which individual members give in to momentum on issues for no other reason than not wanting to cause a fuss. A culture that tends to favor tentative, small, and hesitant steps when big, bold leaps are needed. And a culture that locks down when there appears to be opposition or deep concern from serious people about big issues. Councilmember Bagshaw, I guess a consolation for me would be to see you and your colleagues come together on street food --a noble and good thing for sure-- with the same determination and force that you have come together on the tunnel. Make street food work at all costs! But what I'd really rather see is the Council come together on a broad range of issues affecting sustainability, land use chief among them, and lead this city forward so that we can accommodate growth in our city in a way that welcomes and sustains it, nurtures it, and makes our city livable, walkable, and transit focused. That means up zoning in such a way that will outrage some small number of single family neighbors and advocates of industrial land protection. And yes, some preservationists. In the meantime, just keep street food simple, affordable for entrepreneurs, putting health and safety first. Then let the market work its magic. Leadership isn't easy. Many of us disagree with each other on the tunnel. But we agree on so much more. And many are ready to follow and support your efforts on getting food in parks. But there is a lot more we can work on together.

http://publicola.com/ : Should Seattle Relax its Street-Food Rules? | PubliCola ThinkTank

Thu, 19 May 2011 16:28:26 +0000

First of all, the answer is "yes." But this is kind of a solution in search of a problem. Too often folks in Seattle take a jaunt to some other city and see something like street food and conclude, wrongly, that the reason why that city is so awesome is because it has street food. In the case of Portland, street food isn't the reason why Portland is moving in a more sustainable direction than Seattle. They have a stronger planning department, Tax Increment Financing, and they have a smaller city council. Seattle has a tendency to think that if we create a big street food scene we'll be cool like Portland. That's not gonna happen. First, it isn't about street food. Second, as will become evident in this Big Street Food debate, we'll kill this with process. Mark my words: the Council will create a pilot program, issue a limited number of permits with too many rules and reporting requirements, and then when the Street Food Program has problems they'll say "we tried but it doesn't work." Street food is great. If the Council want this to happen then they should just do it. Let the market decide what happens next. And then start developing a vision for land use and transit in the city so we get dense, walkable neighborhoods where we can enjoy our taco from a truck.

http://publicola.com/ : Should Seattle Mandate Paid Sick Leave? | PubliCola ThinkTank

Thu, 5 May 2011 02:34:29 +0000

I agree with Councilmember Licata. Let's face it, restaurant workers are among the hardest working and lowest paid employees in our city. Yet they do much of the work that can make our city a densely populated, livable, walkable, and transit oriented city. The business arguments here are just thawed out from their rhetorical freezer. "You'll put us out of business!" It's the same argument every time. Right next to the restaurant and bar worker, is the local entrepreneur that puts her life and savings and soul into making their venture work. I don't want to eat into that person's margin either. One solution to look at might be a sick leave bank that workers and employers could contribute to. Maybe the restaurant association could roll up it's sleeves and work with, say, Group Health or some other health or insurance provider to create and manage a pool. What this might do is create a manageable system for businesses and workers. What it also would do is create some predictability and accountability. Working in the restaurant and service sector can and should be a viable career choice. We need people to choose these careers if we're going to have the sustainable city some of us dream of. Let's create the pool with public, private, industry, and worker contributions and try it out.

http://publicola.com/ : Has President Obama Failed Democrats? | PubliCola

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 01:04:44 +0000

Sorry, but I told you so. I didn't go out in public and say it much given the hoopla and changie talk. But to friends that I could trust I always said "Obama is a novelty act. This is not going to turn out well." It was, at the time, quite compelling. Here was a young, intelligent, person of color running for the highest office in the land. But see, I remember Jesse Jackson. I'd seen it before. Jackson was a powerful speaker, smart, but he was angry. He was aggrieved. Americans saw the Jackson effort as a novelty. It really wasn't. Jackson was, in his time, the real deal. He addressed the fundamental issues with legitimate anger. Oh, but he wasn't electable. It was Obama that was always politics as usual. "Why couldn't people see that?" I wondered to myself. Just look at the facts. The guy had barely served 4 years of his term in the US Senate. He was a great speaker, but compared to what? Before that? He'd written a book and been a state senator. It was all fluff. But the craziness continued. Obama eked out a win over Hillary Clinton (just look at the total votes and delegates) and suddenly, except for a burst of Palinmania in the late summer, it was his. The answer to the question is "yes, he did!" But why is anyone surprised. Obama is just another politician and one that isn't particularly suited to the troubled times we live in. We have what might be a major economic reshuffle going on--maybe a structural change. The world is still a dangerous place. We need leadership, not political expediency. I am tired of being told, when I criticize a Democrat at any level, that I have to accept that Democrat over a bad Republican. I'm fed up with all the Obama's the Democrats have produced over the years that simply adopt the Republican agenda (mostly) and run things so they can hold onto power. Democrats these days always say "yes, but if we do X, we'll lose power." With X being raising taxes, or passing a reform, or trying to restructure politics that pretty much leaves us with business as usual. And you'll see below lots of comments about abortion, judicial appointments, and this or that other thing that is a binary question at the national level: there is a right or wrong answer to it. For Democrats, the choice has become getting something acceptable on a narrow set of items in exchange for a system that is not challenging Americans to change the way they live. Obama is the apotheosis of the electable Democrat: looks like a liberal-progressive but is really a status quo politician. But we should've known that.

http://publicola.com/ : Are Teachers Unions Blocking Education Reform in Olympia? | PubliCola

Tue, 19 Apr 2011 05:46:56 +0000

Where should I start with the structural problems in school finance? (Here's a rundown on the subject if you are interested in digging in: http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/20... ) A big part of the problem rests right here, with how we pay for education. We also can't ignore the fact that, indeed, seniority, not performance, has become the basis for teachers keeping their jobs. The problem is that even if we were to start some kind of merit pay system we have to balance equity with local control. Let's say we allow local school districts to determine how and what they pay their teachers. One district, say Bellevue, can afford to pay teachers more. Tacoma can't afford to pay as much even though they are allowed to use local levy money for salaries. What happens? All the best teachers wind up in Bellevue and Tacoma struggles to keep the best teachers, even if there is a merit based system. It is a real problem and one the legislature has struggled with for years. If we allow local districts maximum flexibility we get winning districts and losing districts. That's great if we're talking about software companies battling in the market place. The better companies innovate and make more money while the other companies go away. But this isn't software or widgets, it's kids. That's why there isn't a solution to this problem that doesn't take us back to school finance. Part of the answer might be two opposite directions: standardization and decentralization. Let's change the role of local school districts which are actually local governments with their own taxing and bonding authority. instead let's have something closer to what the Governor (OMG! I am agreeing with the Governor) has suggested, a Department of Education. All the funding could be allocated equally across the state without local inequities created by local property values and voter willingness to pass excess levies or support construction bonds. But also, more charter schools should be permitted with approval from local school boards that answer to the local communities. Charter schools have shown promise in dealing with the challenges of social and economic inequities and meeting diverse student needs. Uniform standards for funding but more local options for how to use that funding would be the right direction. A centrally funded school system with strong standards combined with flexibility on HOW to use the funds might be what we need.

http://publicola.com/ : Should Seattle Go It Alone On Light Rail? | PubliCola

Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:54:06 +0000

Better late than never? Never late is better? Anyway, to echo Mr. Scholes and to agree with the underlying thought behind his earlier comment about land use, I'd say we ought to focus on land use rather than technology or mode. I think Mr. Engineer said something similar. Put lots and lots of people in one place and wonderful things happen. I guess it's the Burning Man theory of land use and transportation. We spend way too much time dinking around with arguments about whether we build light rail or BRT or whatever. Things with wheels or tracks seem to capture our imagination. What's important, though, is what is under our feet. What is under your feet right now? Under my feet are three floors of people. Above me two more. I just took a walk down Summit Avenue and talked with the guys opening Analog Coffee. If I need caffeine between Arabica and Top Pot that's where I'll stop. Summit can support these small and growing businesses because there are scads of people on Capitol Hill. Let's stop fretting over how we get from place to place. That'll take care of itself once we're all there. And once we're all there, we'll realize, well, it's all there, we don't need to go anywhere at all.

PubliCola : Is There a Lesson from Wisconsin for Washington State? | PubliCola

Tue, 5 Apr 2011 04:51:30 +0000

Dian Palmer says that Wisconsin Governor "Walker and Republicans know that they have sparked a national debate about the future of the middle class in this country." That's true. And they have sparked a debate here in Washington too, but it might end up being about what our Democratically dominated legislature does when they run out of money. Here in Washington, as elsewhere, state and local governments are strapped. Democrats have boxed themselves in. Local elected officials (hoping for state and federal office) have made huge concessions to employee unions, knowing they need their political support for elections. But they haven't been willing to raise taxes, fretting over a possible backlash. I made promises to labor when I ran for the Washington State Legislature years ago when I said I would not to vote for a budget that didn't include an increase for state workers. That earned me a dual endorsement from AFSCME with my labor backed opponent in a contested Democratic primary. But here's the important point: I also said I'd fight for an income tax, a better tax system, and more revenue. Today, Democrats want it both ways, resisting raising taxes and making big promises to labor. The debate is really about what Washington Democrats are going to do now that the state is broke. Will they bash unions while saying they kept taxes low or make the tough tax votes. Otherwise they'll have to make big cuts and that means jobs and benefits. Let's hope they're learning something.