Friends of Seattle chose not to make an endorsement in this race for the primary election.
Discuss the candidates for Seattle City Council Pos. 2 in the Member Forums.
Richard Conlin is running for Seattle City Council Position 2:
Richard Conlin, the incumbent, has a twelve-year list of accomplishments on City Council, and there's no denying that he has been a progressive and environmentally conscious leader. Councilmember Conlin created the Zero Waste Strategy to reduce waste generation, and the green bag fee is part of this program. He supports many things near and dear to Friends of Seattle: the backyard-cottage ordinance, expansion of in-city rail transit, the Bicycle Master Plan, and the Pedestrian Master Plan. During his interview, his knowledge of the issues was apparent.
But we aren’t yet confident that Councilmember Conlin, who would likely be Council President again if re-elected, will commit to a serious plan for funding transit, bicycle infrastructure, and pedestrian infrastructure. For instance, in his interview, he referred to the Bicycle Master Plan as a “long-range plan,” and suggested only that the Bridging the Gap levy (which funds bicycle infrastructure) should be renewed in 2015 and a portion of revenues from tolling of freeways---if it ever happens---should be dedicated to bicycle transportation. We were looking for a greater sense of urgency and a more serious commitment, as Bridging the Gap doesn’t provide even half of the money necessary to fully implement the Bicycle Master Plan (which is projected to cost $240 million through 2017), and the Pedestrian Master Plan calls for $800 million in investments but has only $60 million in funding from Bridging the Gap.
Councilmember Conlin is also a proponent of cutting the commuter tax (aka “head tax”), which raises $5 million per year for transportation investments. We sympathize with the need to improve the economic climate in Seattle. But we don’t think this symbolic gesture justifies the loss of funds, and we disagree with Councilmember Conlin’s assertions during his interview that the funding is “expendable” and the tax is “not making a significant contribution to the financial resources we have right now.” That money alone could increase investments in bicycle infrastructure by 50%. What’s more, the commuter tax ($25 per year per employee who drives to work alone in a car) is a fair and equitable way to ensure that certain employees---those who drive alone, and many of who drive into Seattle from outside the city---pay a share of the burden they impose on Seattle’s transportation system and the environment. This issue isn’t a deal breaker for us (Jessie Israel, whom we endorsed in Pos. 6, also supports cutting the tax), but we hoped for a firmer commitment to alternatives to the commuter tax to make up for the lost revenue.
On the other hand, Councilmember Conlin spoke intelligently about new methods for funding transportation at the state and local levels: mileage-based fees rather than the gas tax, freeway tolling, increasing the Seattle commercial parking tax, and a transportation benefit district (which could involve vehicle fees). But we are still unclear whether he will act on these ideas.
Councilmember Conlin’s position on the Alaskan Way Viaduct is that a new elevated highway would have been the worst outcome, and so he supports the tunnel. We wish that as Council President he had been able to push harder for an I-5+surface+transit alternative, but he has a sensible position: “I personally believe that the streets and transit option could work, and if costs escalate unacceptably for the tunnel or if the design proves to be unworkable as engineering continues, that would be the remaining option to consider.”
There is much more to like in Councilmember Conlin’s record and plans for the future. His Local Food Action Initiative would improve human and environmental health. The Council, in his view, should also take a more performance-based approach to budgeting—a reform that is long overdue. Further, Councilmember Conlin, who is always a source of innovative ideas, insists that the Bicycle Master Plan could be improved by adding European-style physically separated bike lanes and converting side streets into bike-only boulevards. And Councilmember Conlin clearly supports a plan to add more in-city rail transit (expansion of the streetcar network).
As his campaign continues through November, we look forward to working with Councilmember Conlin more.
Table of Contents:
The values and goals that Friends of Seattle articulates are my values and goals. My work on the City Council has been consistently driven by the urgency of developing a truly sustainable city that is vibrant, diverse, prosperous and environmentally responsible. My track record in moving forward the parks levy, the zero waste and local food action initiatives, legislation for compact communities, and transportation choices matches the efforts of Friends of Seattle, and I have demonstrated competence in getting things done to put those values and goals into practice.
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.
I will continue to build my relationships with key actors in all of those entities to seek common ground for the future. I have excellent relationships with most King County and suburban city leaders, and have successfully worked with them on numerous issues. To build a more positive relationship with the legislature, Seattle must be willing to engage in finding common goals and in creating win-win opportunities - too often Seattle is seen as asking for too much without acknowledging and supporting the needs of other parties.
I am intrigued by and involved with a wide variety of issues, and I can successfully Chair any Committee. I have a lot of priorities that I would like to continue with in my current Environment, Emergency Management, and Utilities - if I had a second choice, I would probably name Land Use as the field where there is a lot of opportunity to move the sustainability agenda forward.
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.
Yes. It is a modest step towards reducing the pollution from the proliferation of disposable bags, accurately reflects the cost of these bags to the environment and the City, and is a tested model that has demonstrated its success in other countries. If we can't take the modest step of curbing our use of a disposable product that has clear environmental problems and an easy alternative, how will we take the tougher steps of reducing automobile use and living in more compact, environmentally responsible communities?
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.
Yes, this plan has been adopted by the state and allows us to proceed with restoring the waterfront and creating future transportation connections. I personally believe that the streets and transit option could work, and if costs escalate unacceptably for the tunnel or if the design proves to be unworkable as engineering continues, that would be the remaining option to consider. However, at some point a decision has to be made, and further delay without extremely good reasons is not an acceptable course of action.
SR 99 is a state highway and the state must bear the responsibility for any cost overruns. I do not believe that the legislative language is lawful, and I also think that the legislature may very well repeal it as the implications for other areas of the state that have projects to consider become clearer. It should be noted that the funds proposed by the Mayor to be dedicated to the project are not specifically for the tunnel, but for the costs of utility relocation, of creating the Alaskan Way surface road, and of the waterfront park, among other things. My level of enthusiasm for these expenditures varies with the nature of the expenditure. For example, drainage system relocation will be combined with significant drainage improvements that will contribute to the health of Elliott Bay and Puget Sound, and would be worth doing even if there was not a Viaduct project. Some of the expenses for park and street improvements will benefit the City as a whole, but will have particularly large benefits for adjacent property owners, and we should consider whether a Local Improvement District might be a way to recapture some of that value.
N/A
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.
Regional cooperation and cooperation with King County are the most important ways to improve transit in Seattle. While the 40-40-20 formula is problematic, it is also an indication of how hungry suburban areas are for more and better transit service, and we should keep working to find ways to create opportunities for expanded transit for all. Metro Transit is a very successful and competent entity, and we must not abandon efforts to make it work well.
Our other critical asset is Sound Transit, and making sure that the expansion to the UW, to Northgate and beyond, and across the Lake are effectively completed will be a major task for me in my role as a member of the Sound Transit Board. Those connections will provide great service to Seattle residents.
I have also advocated for and supported a study of the possibility of extending light rail to West Seattle, as well as implementation by Metro of the Rapid Ride corridors to West Seattle, Ballard, and Aurora and Rainier Avenues. As you note, the City is a partner with Metro on those lines.
Finally, streetcars have worked well in many cities as a middle path between bus and light rail service (Portland is a great example), and the City has funding for a streetcar on First Hill in Sound Transit 2, as well as some funding to replace the Waterfront Streetcar with a north-south system through downtown and into the International District. Neither these nor the South Lake Union line will fully realize their potential until a true network is created and extended to other neighborhoods in need of service. My highest priority for this network would be to link the three funded lines together through downtown, and then to extend the South Lake Union line to Fremont and Ballard. I am also interested in the concept of extending the line to West Seattle and down Jackson Street into the Central District. Achieving those extensions will be dependent on securing external funding and/or persuading property owners to share in the construction costs, as they have for the South Lake Union line.
Background: The City of Seattle has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan, which provides a vision for improving bicycling facilities in Seattle.
Yes.
The key issue with the Bicycle Master Plan is setting priorities - the tendency has been to do the relatively easy projects, rather than tackle the challenging ideas that could create true alternative routes. I really like the Amsterdam/Copenhagen models for complete streets, where bicycles have separated lanes and traffic signals, with curbs that keep cars out of them. Another idea that I would like to see explored would be to take side streets that are parallel to busy arterials and convert a lane to bicycle use only, providing a way to move bicycles through difficult areas such as up the Rainier Valley, where Rainier and MLK are both challenging routes and difficult to convert for their full length (although I really want to see a road diet through Columbia City, as has been recommended by community members).
Significant funding was included in Bridging the Gap, and I support extending that levy. I also support continuing to expand the parking tax and dedicating the funds to alternative transportation. If statewide tolling of the freeway system becomes a reality, I would work to get a portion of that revenue directed to improvements in bike/ped infrastructure.
The City Council is considering whether to adopt a draft Pedestrian Master Plan.
Yes.
I have not reviewed the plan in detail. The key ideas that I am looking for are a strategy for extending the City's sidewalk network, using natural drainage models to reduce the cost of sidewalks where possible; implementation of woonerfs and other extensive traffic calming measures; and coordinated strategies for education and enforcement of pedestrian safety.
Again, BTG is the core funding, and the parking tax is the most appropriate way to secure additional funds, while tolling funds would be a great way to support non-motorized transportation.
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.
Yes.
Yes.
Within urban villages or urban centers, compatible with neighborhood plans and nearby communities, accessibility to transit connections.
See answer to previous question.
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.
Generally, yes.
Will work with the PLUN Committee to craft improvements.
Yes.
In the next four years, I want to:
David Ginsberg is running for Seattle City Council Position 2:
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.
Table of Contents:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Transportation, Housing & Economic Development and Planning & Land Use
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.
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.
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.
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).
N/A
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.
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.
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.
Background: The City of Seattle has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan, which provides a vision for improving bicycling facilities in Seattle.
Yes.
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.
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.
The City Council is considering whether to adopt a draft Pedestrian Master Plan.
Yes.
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.
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.
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.
Yes.
Yes.
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.
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.
Yes.
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.
Yes.
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.