David Ginsberg

Friends of Seattle's picture

David Ginsberg is running for Seattle City Council Position 2:

Table of Contents

 

Analysis

David Ginsberg shined during his endorsement interview, offering thoughtful ideas on economic opportunity, affordable and safe neighborhoods, and transportation solutions. He has many priorities that are in line with Friends of Seattle's mission; we agree with his sense of urgency: “We must create a city that is sustainable, comprised of dense, walkable communities interspersed with plenty of inviting open spaces and served by fast, frequent and reliable transit.” We disagree with his opposition to the green bag fee, but we appreciate that he supports an outright ban on plastic bags (leaving paper as the only option for folks who don’t bring their own bags).

Mr. Ginsberg has an appealing vision for the city. In his interview, he urged Seattle to see "the writing on the wall" when it comes to transportation modes and act now to implement a more sensible balance between transit, biking, walking, and driving. On the $4.2 billion plan for a deep-bore tunnel to replace the Viaduct, Mr. Ginsberg said: “I think we need to be focusing our transportation investments on transit infrastructure that moves us toward a more sustainable city, not on the transportation technology of the last century (automobiles).” We couldn’t agree more. His aggressive expansion plans for rail-based transit and his stated prioritization (and willingness to fund) bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are perspectives we can support.

Mr. Ginsberg shares our interest in density done right. He supports aggressive transit-oriented development and the backyard-cottages ordinance, and he understands the necessity of abolishing the dreaded “four pack” townhomes that dot too many neighborhood landscapes. We were intrigued by his argument that the city should seek more moderately sized 5-6 story residential buildings in many areas instead of towers.

Reforming parking policies are another appealing plank in Mr. Ginsberg’s platform. For instance, in downtown Seattle and some neighborhood business districts, he believes some street parking should be removed to make way for wider sidewalks, separated bike lanes, and streetcar lines.

Mr. Ginsberg understandably wants to improve Seattle’s economy, and so he wants to eliminate the commuter tax (“head tax”) and seems to want to do the same for the square-footage tax. We don’t agree that cutting the commuter tax would do much to stimulate job growth, and we believe the $5 million in annual revenues are essential for improving Seattle’s transportation infrastructure. Yet Mr. Ginsberg told us that he thinks cars should be taxed more to pay for transportation investments. We appreciated his ready reply.

In sum, Mr. Ginsberg is thoughtful and informed, and he seems ready to change the status quo. We look forward to hearing more from him during this campaign season as he promotes the right priorities for Seattle.

 

Interview

 

Part 1 of 3:

 

Part 2 of 3:

 

Part 3 of 3:

 

Questionnaire Responses

Table of Contents:

General Questions

 

Friends of Seattle's Mission

My candidacy is about two things: urgency and political courage. I see a lack of both on the Council today, and the problems we face as a city and as a society are tremendous and cannot be put off. We must create a city that is sustainable, comprised of dense, walkable communities interspersed with plenty of inviting open spaces and served by fast, frequent and reliable transit. The tiny steps and half-measures the city has been taking are simply not enough-we once led the nation and the world in the race to create a clean, green world, and it's time we did so again.

Qualifications

  • Please describe any professional accomplishments that demonstrate your effectiveness as an elected official (if you are an incumbent) or would demonstrate your effectiveness as an elected official (if you have not yet held office).

I spent the past 6 years as a Solutions Architect at Washington Mutual, where I gained a reputation for being able to see the big picture, for being able to articulate that in a clear vision and bring divergent groups together around that vision to deliver on it on-time and on-budget. Vision is something that's been lacking from City Hall since Peter Steinbreuck left the Council, and it's something we desperately need in order to make the transition to a more sustainable society.

Representing Seattle

Background: Seattle is the most populous city in Washington and is the state's economic engine. At the same time, Seattle cannot address many of its problems without working with King County, regional entities (Sound Transit and the PSRC), and the state government. Yet many observers believe that Seattle's interests are represented inadequately at those levels. For example, the Muni League has criticized the 40-20-40 rule for allocating new Metro transit funding. Further, transit advocates note that the state's current tax system disadvantages transit. And the Legislature refused to allocate federal stimulus dollars for road projects in Seattle.

  • As an elected official representing Seattle, how would you work with King County, regional governmental entities, the state legislature, and the governor to ensure their budgets and policies address Seattle's needs?

The first thing we need to do is show up. How did the 40-40-20 rule come to be? According to Ref Lindmark of Metro it's because our Councilmembers stopped attending the regional planning meetings "because they were tired of being beat up by their suburban counterparts". Similarly, why did the legislature refuse to allocate federal stimulus dollars for projects in Seattle? According to Senator Jacobsen nobody from the Council bothered to contact our delegation to Olympia to lobby on behalf of the interests of Seattle. If I'm elected I'll build those relationships (I've already begun), and I'll show up or send a proxy to every meeting to make sure our interests are represented.

City Council Committees

  • If you are elected, which issues would you like included in your portfolio as a committee chair?

Transportation, Housing & Economic Development and Planning & Land Use

Issues

 

Waste Reduction

Background: Rather than build an expensive new transfer in Georgetown to handle the growing volume of trash generated in Seattle, the City of Seattle adopted a "Zero Waste Strategy" centered on reducing waste. As part of that strategy, the City Council adopted a 20-cent "green fee" for disposable shopping bags.

  • Do you support the green fee? Why or why not?

I don't think this is the correct approach. I live in High Point and live close to people whose budgets are tight enough that paying this fee could mean they don't buy an apple for their kids. I'd prefer another approach that the big chemical companies will like even less than the 20-cent fee-banning the use of plastic bags altogether as San Francisco and South Australia have done.

Alaskan Way Viaduct

Background: Governor Gregoire signed a legislative bill ordering the Washington State Department of Transportation to design a bored tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. This bill contains language allocating cost overruns to Seattle citizens, although some question whether the language has legal significance. Notwithstanding that provision, the City of Seattle committed $930 million and the Port of Seattle $300 million to finance the tunnel. Although the exact tax consequences of these commitments are not totally clear, it is safe to assume that the Port's contribution would result in higher property taxes for Seattle property owners, and the City's pledge would be funded with increases in property taxes, City Light utility rates, and possibly other taxes and fees.

  • Do you support the plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a bored tunnel? Why or why not?

    • This is an unfortunate decision. I thought the votes we took on the Viaduct sent a clear message that people wanted a different solution, which seemed to my mind to be the surface and transit option. This is something that San Francisco and Portland have done with great success, and the costs were much, much lower. I think we need to be focusing our transportation investments on transit infrastructure that moves us toward a more sustainable city, not on the transportation technology of the last century (automobiles).

  • If you support the tunnel, what would you do to address the cost-overruns issue?

    • N/A

  • If you oppose the tunnel, what would you do to prevent its implementation?

    • First I'd make sure that cost over-runs for this state highway are not borne by Seattle alone. It's unfair and it sets a dangerous precedent. Second I'd argue until my last breath that this $4 billion dollars would be better spent building a rapid transit line to serve the Western half of the city, which is currently left out of transit planning.

Transit

Background: The City of Seattle already contributes to local transit. The City put together the financing package to construct the South Lake Union streetcar line, and the City and King County Metro share the ongoing operating costs for that line. Further, the Bridging the Gap tax package finances some Metro bus service within Seattle, and Bridging the Gap also pays for street improvements designed to expedite bus travel.

  • If elected, how do you intend to improve the in-city transit system?

We need rail-based service that connects our urban villages and urban centers to each other and to the downtown core. Rail offers advantages over bus service that permit longer-term investments by businesses and help them get funding from banks. I'll be a strong advocate for building out a real rapid transit system (e.g., grade separated) that will make it possible to get around quickly and efficiently without a car, and for making sure that we re-purpose our buses to circulator routes to get people from their homes to our transit stations. We need better integration among our transit options to make transit the first best choice for Seattleites.

Bicycle Infrastructure

Background: The City of Seattle has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan, which provides a vision for improving bicycling facilities in Seattle.

  • Do you support the Bicycle Master Plan? [Yes/No only please]

    • Yes.

  • If you support it, do you have ideas for improving the plan?

    • Yes-we need our bicycle routes to be safe and separated from both traffic and parked cars. I want to see routes that are safe for Seattlites of all abilities, routes that I'd be okay with my 7 year-old kids and/or my 72 year-old mother riding on.

  • If you support it, how do you suggest the City fund the plan?

The plan should be funded as much as possible with Complete Streets. I'd support putting a levy to the voters once the economy recovers to fund whatever can't be covered by Complete Streets and existing revenue sources.

Pedestrian Infrastructure

The City Council is considering whether to adopt a draft Pedestrian Master Plan.

  • Do you support the Pedestrian Master Plan? [Yes/No only please]

    • Yes.

  • If you support it, do you have ideas for improving the plan?

    • Yes-I'd like to see pedestrian-centric main streets throughout the city, in each business district and downtown along both 1st Avenue and Pike Street from the market to the Convention Center. Widen the sidewalks and add planters and benches to make the areas more inviting, put streetcars in along these routes to make it easy to get to and from them without cars, and remove street parking, replacing it partially with the wider sidewalks and partially with separated & safe bike lanes.

  • If you support it, how do you suggest the City fund the plan?

Like above, I would fund it as much as possible with Complete Streets and would support proposing a levy to the voters to fill any gaps in funding.

Land Use and Multifamily Housing

Background: According to U.S. Census data cited in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, about half of Seattle's households live in multifamily housing. Further, according to the Plan, approximately 40% of Seattle's total land area is set aside for residential use-35% for single-family residences but only 5% for multifamily dwellings. That 5% dedicated to multifamily housing tends to be concentrated in "urban villages" or along arterial streets, which are noisy and dirty. However, "backyard cottages" (also known as "detached accessory dwelling units) are also allowed in singe-family zones in Southeast Seattle.

  • Would you support legislation to allow backyard cottages to be built in all single-family zones? [Yes/No only please]

    • Yes.

  • Would you ever support a contract rezone or a broader rezone allowing for more housing to be built on a site? [Yes/No only please]

    • Yes.

  • If you support the basic concept of rezoning, what criteria would you use in deciding on specific locations where more housing should be built?

    • Transit-oriented development, with the greatest density achieved close to transit stations/business districts. I would not support rezoning for greater density in purely residential zones not close to transit stations, with the exception of backyard cottages.

  • If you support the concept of rezoning, what criteria would you use in deciding where more housing should be built?

I'd support greater density in zones around transit stations. This doesn't need to be (and rarely should be) done with towers, European cities achieve very high densities with 5-6 story buildings, and this is the model I'd look to in proposing changes to our zoning laws.

Many newly built townhouses in Seattle are architectural atrocities, and site plans tend to be car-dominated. Most townhouse developments are exempt from the City of Seattle's Design Review Program. It is also difficult to find attractive new condos and apartment buildings. To address some of these problems, the City Council is considering a package of revisions to the zoning code.

  • Do you support the proposed revisions to the multifamily housing zoning code? [Yes/No only please]

    • Yes.

  • If you support the revisions, do you have ideas for improving the proposed revisions?

    • Not yet, I like the Design Review component and the streamlining of approvals for designs that fit within guidelines. I'd allow the new rules to go into effect and see what the results are before proposing any changes.

City Governance

Yes.

Creative Response

  • If you have additional thoughts on how to improve Seattle's city government or to make Seattle a more livable and sustainable city, please note them here.

The PSRC tells us that 140,000 people will move to Seattle over the coming decades. If we're going to house them without pricing our own young people out of the market we need to build enough housing, of the right types, to meet demand. We're also faced with a problem in that too many young families are leaving Seattle for the suburbs, due to high costs, poor schools and safety concerns. At the same time, we're faced with our portion of the global and generational challenge presented by climate change and oil depletion. Wise development, with a focus on transit, and higher density around areas served by transit can help us to deal with all of these problems at once. By setting aside open spaces and improving the public spaces on our city streets as we create dense, walkable communities we can ensure that our neighborhoods remain great places to live, work and hang out. Then by connecting our urban villages together and urban centers to each other and to the downtown core with fast, frequent & reliable transit.