Seattle City Council Pos. 8

Friends of Seattle strongly endorses Mike O'Brien.

Discuss the candidates for Seattle City Council Position 8 in the Member Forums.

Bobby Forch

Bobby Forch is running for Seattle City Council Position 8.

Table of Contents

 

Analysis

Bobby Forch is a Strategic Advisor in the Major Projects Division of the Seattle Department of Transportation. He rightly supports the Bicycle Master Plan, the draft Pedestrian Master Plan, and the proposed backyard-cottage ordinance. To improve the multifamily housing zoning code, Mr. Forch suggests we hold a Portland-style design competition. There was much to like in Mr. Forch’s questionnaire and interview.

But we disagree with Mr. Forch’s position on the commuter tax (“head tax”) and his support for the deep-bore tunnel. He also disappointed on the issue of how to fund alternative transportation, retreating during his interview to the candidates’ favorite, “prioritize.” On funding bike and pedestrian infrastructure, Mr. Forch unfortunately had no more ideas than, “This should be part of the Transportation Budget.”

Mr. Forch is affable and seems as if he would be a collegial member of the City Council. But this is an election when we need change in city government (Mr. Forch, again, is a city employee) and innovation. We recommend not voting for Mr. Forch.

 

Interview

 

Video:

 

Questionnaire Responses

Table of Contents:

General Questions

 

Friends of Seattle's Mission

I believe we have much of the same philosophy and perspective on what Seattle needs to be an even better place to live and work.

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 believe I have the experience to get results on these issues. I am a Strategic Advisor in the Major Projects Division of the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). I am especially proud that in the last three years, the City's contracting with disadvantaged businesses increased by more than 40 percent.

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?

My experience here is very relevant. I have worked on inter-agency committees to achieve mutual goals on contracting measures related to both the state and the city. I would continue to keep the lines of communication open and make sure we make decisions that benefit Seattle.

City Council Committees

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

Economic Development, Public Safety, Youth Violence, and Transportation.

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?

Yes. It just makes good sense.

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?

    • Yes. In reality, though, the state has made a decision, and now the issue is managing that project appropriately.

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

    • I think we need to give some of that responsibility to the businesses in the Central Business District, to reduce the burden on the residents. I would also insist that there be better accountability with the State to ensure the minimization of cost over-runs.

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

    • N/A

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?

Rework city bus service so it integrates with light rail and work with the new county administration to reduce costly Metro overhead and focus on service for riders.

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?

    • No.

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

This should be part of the Transportation Budget.

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?

    • No, I think it's an excellent plan.

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

Again, this should be in the Transportation Budget.

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

These proposed housing plans need a design review commission, including neighbors and developers to ensure the quality of the neighborhoods are maintained. The developers should aim to bring value to the neighborhood.

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?

    • I like the concept of the way Portland approached this issue. I think we should set a design commission of neighbors and developers that pre-approve design plans. Developers who choose to implement those plans will receive priority permitting. This ensures neighbors know what they're getting in their neighborhood, and developers save on costs.

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.

We are in the toughest economic times in a generation.

I am running because I believe the Seattle City Council can do more to turn around our economy while supporting the values we believe in as a city. If we are going to improve basic city services, our first priority needs to be getting this economy moving again. Our city needs to invest in strong public safety, new sidewalks, transit that connects to light rail, new parks and open spaces, human services and other basic infrastructure needs. However, our city is facing large deficits that leave us with little money to move this city forward.

We can't make those investments by taxing people out of Seattle. Here's what I will do:

  • Create a new Small Business Division within the City's Office of Economic Development to work with our small businesses to create jobs
  • Protect our industrial base along our waterfront to protect those living wage jobs and preserve our fishing industry.
  • Eliminate the employee head tax that encourages city businesses to locate elsewhere
  • Ensure new infrastructure projects are on-time and on-budget
  • Rework city bus service so it integrates with light rail and work with the new county administration to reduce costly Metro overhead and focus on service for riders
  • Reduce the wastestream (such as petroleum products and harmful chemicals) from major construction projects to protect the environment
  • Reduce Seattle stormwater runoff going directly into Puget Sound by 5% by leveraging new technology such as porous concrete

I believe I have the experience to get results on these issues. I am a Strategic Advisor in the Major Projects Division of the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). I am especially proud that in the last three years, the City's contracting with disadvantaged businesses increased by more than 40 percent.

I've helped our small businesses. I've made city government work smarter. I've championed our city's kids. I believe I have the experience and commitment to results to be one of your next Seattle City Councilmembers.

I live in Seattle's central district with my wife and son. I have been a board member for Northwest Children's Fund and am a current member of the 37th District Democrats. I am committed to ensuring Seattle continues to be a world-class city.

David Miller

David Miller is running for Seattle City Council Position 8.

Table of Contents

 

Analysis

David Miller was President of the Maple Leaf Community Council. We admire the work he did on the 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Citizens’ Advisory Committee, and we agree with his support for the green bag fee.

Mr. Miller’s positions on the issues aren’t always clear, because although he is known by some as a policy wonk, his questionnaire was sparse and his campaign website says almost nothing about his policy positions. Still, we learned enough to be very concerned, particularly with regard to his transportation policies. Mr. Miller supports spending $4.2 billion to replace the Viaduct with a tunnel, and he is incorrect when he asserts “a well-designed tunnel can be repurposed for NW-to-SW rail." As the Seattle Transit Blog has noted, the deep-bore tunnel actually forecloses a West Seattle to Ballard light-rail line from going underground, and with cost pressures on the state, a flexible tunnel design allowing a retrofit for transit use is impossible.

In an interview with the PhinneyWood neighborhood blog, Mr. Miller seemed to summarily reject the idea of expanding the streetcar network to neighborhoods beyond South Lake Union. Mr. Miller is right that Seattle needs more bus service. But we need more in-city rail too, and we should be investing in both. For the Bicycle Master Plan, his only idea for improving it was the always-bland “better communication outreach,” and he responded to our question about how the city should fund bicycle infrastructure with only, “This is a transportation plan, so with dollars we use to fund transportation programs.” That’s already how it's funded (see pages 379-490 of the city’s adopted 2009 budget in this PDF); the real question is how we get the amount of dollars needed. We expected more ideas.

Mr. Miller’s positions on land use are a mixed bag. He is right to champion a new cottage-housing ordinance, and we share his skepticism that giving architects and developers more design discretion (“floor area ratios”) through the multifamily housing zoning code is a good thing. But we question whether he has a flexible enough approach to zoning to make fair and equitable decisions next year (the City Council will be considering how to revise the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to accommodate 140,000 new residents by 2040) as the Council considers possible upzones or changes to the land-use map.

In the “Creative Response” portion of our questionnaire, Mr. Miller proposes, “Work with the City Neighborhood Council to create a formal program and 'bench' of neighborhood experts on different issues that can be used on boards, commissions, and informal work groups." We agree with Mr. Miller that more citizen participation in government can be a good thing, but we hesitate to embrace Mr. Miller’s proposal; it smacks of too much process.

In short, we commend Mr. Miller for his passion for Seattle and his prior work on the parks levy, but we recommend not voting for him.

 

Interview

Friends of Seattle offered David Miller an interview, but he declined to participate.

 

Questionnaire Responses

Table of Contents:

General Questions

 

Friends of Seattle's Mission

I bring to the table the broadest base of support of any candidate in the race. Neighborhoods, Labor, all Democratic orgs who've endorsed, business, environmentalists, affordable housing activists, and more. We cannot create the Seattle we want without having everyone at the table.

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've worked with two state legislatures and regulators across six states in my career. Most importantly for the Council position, I've written and helped pass strong environmental legislation that directly and positively impacts quality of life and Seattle's in-city environment. My successful work in neighborhoods, business operations, business creation, and on environmental issues makes me well prepared for the Council position.

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?

Current Seattle efforts to these groups suffer from an attitude problem. I've written and passed legislation at the state and local level and I don't care how "right" you are or how "deserving" you are of a legislative body's help, you have to be humble. There is no quick fix for eight years of bull-in-a-china-shop behavior, but we can start repairing the damage right away. We need to pick one or two issues each session that benefit a broad region and participate in getting those passed. Council needs to set an internal agreement that if a vote goes a certain way on an issue in front of the Legislature, Councilmembers on the losing end of the vote don't go an testify or lobby against the rest of Council. A few years of this, and the situations can be repaired.

40-40-20 is a different animal altogether. Democrats, Labor, and environmental groups have to step up during elections and find someone to run and win in a suburban district willing to be the fifth vote to get rid of it. There are other alternatives I've spoken about on the campaign trail.

City Council Committees

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

Planning, Land Use & Neighborhoods and a committee that works on energy, technology, and economic development. The environmental committee might be a logical third seat.

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?

Yes, because it makes at least some sense environmentally and the impacts will not be as terrible as some predict.

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?

    • Yes. We have to open up our waterfront AND support freight mobility. The only way to do this is to have a tunnel with a North Portal in a position that serves freight mobility. Over a 20-year period, the benefit to cost ratio is about 10:1 and I'm comfortable with that ratio - especially considering a well-designed tunnel can be repurposed for NW-to-SW rail if we succeed in removing enough commuter trips through better transit service that freight traffic can move more easily on surface streets.

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

    • The state mandate appears to be illegal. Regardless, we need to do the proper prep work like drilling test bores every 50 feet instead of every 250 feet in order to understand what we're going to be drilling into. We can offload other overrun items in the contract with the construction company. The best way to handle cost overruns is to have information necessary so the chance they happen is small.

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

    • n/a, though the theme of those who do is to make false promises that the "money saved" from not doing the tunnel can be used for schools, sidewalks, and transit. This is false and pandering of the worst kind. Because of the funding source and the requirement we do something about the viaduct and the seawall, money not spent on the tunnel will be used for other roads elsewhere, a new elevated structure, and/or the street option.

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?

Find more dollars for transit hours, hopefully by breaking 40-40-20 or by federal dollars for Seattle bus service. Improve rider experience by sidewalk construction and better signage. Work with Metro to change in-city routes to more logical configurations. I am not against Seattle using dollars to buy bus service, but I think that is a last resort because it means taxing citizens twice for the same service.

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?

    • Better communication outreach, particularly to north end riders who don't always know the best way to get across the Ship Canal safely.

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

This is a transportation plan, so with dollars we use to fund transportation programs.

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?

    • Focus more on creating sidewalks in the north and southeast where there is a deficit of sidewalks.

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

The Mayor screwed up on sidewalks, the latest in a five-decade debacle on this issue. We should have had plans in place for far more sidewalk projects. There is, after all, no shortage of requests and there is no excudse for SDOT to not have more developed plans. If we had plans in place, we could have applied for stimulus dollars. The Mayor decided he wanted $7M for solar panels atop Qwest Field Exhibition Center instead of funding the dozens of planned sidewalks that are on the books awaiting money.

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.

I reject the premise of this question that housing in urban villages is undesirable ("noisy and dirty") and I think it is irresponsible on a number of levels to suggest we should depart from the urban village strategy we agreed upon as a city in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

[Editor's Note: Miller mis-read our question; the correct reading is that arterial streets---not urban villages---are noisy and dirty. Further, we do not argue that the "urban village strategy" (see this PDF file, which contains the "Urban Village Element" of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan) should be abandoned, but we have a sense that Mr. Miller's view of the urban village strategy is wrong. As the city's urban village strategy says on pages 1.22: "Modest growth will also be dispersed, generally at low density, in various areas outside centers and villages." In accordance with this goal, the Comprehensive Plan's urban village strategy calls for 16% of Seattle's anticipated growth through 2024 (that's 7,670 households) to be distributed outside of urban centers and villages (see figure 8 on page 1.23). The point of our question was to educate voters and candidates about our current land uses and to discern whether a candidate would be flexibile in accommodating Seattle's planned growth outside urban villages. Mr. Miller's responses here and below tell us that the answer is "No."]

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

    • Detached dwellings increase impermeable surface and reduce tree canopy in the only areas we have left that have an abundance of both. This creates significant cost-of-living expenses down the road. I favor attach ADUs and a real cottage zoning experiment. [Editor: We interpret this answer as a “no.”]

  • 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]

    • I favor contract upzoning on a parcel or multi-parcel basis in our urban villages and urban centers.

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

In our urban villages and urban centers.

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]

    • If the MFU update was only focused on townhomes, this would be an easy answer. Unfortunately, the Mayor has decided to suggest a suite of proposals that, among other undesirable things, makes it easier to depart from the urban village/center land use model that Seattle has benefited from for most of two decades.

    The FAR proposals that are most closely tied with townhomes are interesting, but I want to see a team of architects try to design truly atrocious examples under the proposed code to see where we can plug holes of unintended consequences.

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

    • Implement a design competition and rapid permitting process similar to what Portland has accomplished. I actually believe this would be a more straightforward solution which, combined with other changes to the existing code, is likely to result in fewer ugly townhomes.

City Governance

[Editor's Note: No answer given.]

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.

1. Give Council Staff the ability to do their own SEPA reviews. 2. Require developers to submit documents in paper and electronically, and link the electronic versions from the permit page on the existing DPD site. 3. Bring neighborhoods into the process earlier. Work with the City Neighborhood Council to create a formal program and "bench" of neighborhood experts on different issues that can be used on boards, commissions, and informal work groups. 4. Streamline the permitting process for simple and green projects. 5. http://publicola.net/?p=8221

Mike O'Brien

Mike O'Brien is running for Seattle City Council Position 8, and we endorse him enthusiastically.

Table of Contents

 

Analysis

Mike O'Brien for Position 8 is perhaps our most important endorsement in this election. Mr. O’Brien will be a visionary leader on City Council---someone who is politically courageous and well-equipped to deal with the practicalities of budgeting and policymaking (Mr. O’Brien has an economics degree from Duke University, has a MBA from the University of Washington, and was the Chief Financial Officer of a major Seattle law firm).

Mr. O’Brien’s positions exhibit an understanding of what it will take to make getting around Seattle easier. We like his approach to redefine SDOT's mission as moving people and goods (as stated in his interview) and to increasing our investments in bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure to better match their growing mode share. He was fluent with the details too, offering the most concrete ideas of any candidate for improving the Bicycle Master Plan (e.g., “the city should experiment with different models for grade separation of bicycles on busy roadways”). As a businessman, he offers smart ideas for funding – including transportation benefit districts and per-mile-driven tolling (as stated in his interview).

Mr. O’Brien’s position on the deep-bore tunnel reflects Friends of Seattle’s stance more than any other candidate for Position 8. He convincingly argues that the mobility structure needed for the 2020s and 2030s and beyond does not include a multibillion tunnel that will divert resources from other more important transportation, housing, and educational investments. In his interview, Mr. O’Brien pointedly criticized elected leaders for presenting false choices and bad options to the voters (the tunnel and the 2007 Roads and Transit measure being prime examples), and he pledged to give Seattle the better transportation choices we need.

Mr. O’Brien’s approach to land use is equally as impressive. Taking a common-sense approach, he suggests we need to better define our land use and housing goals to create a more affordable and diverse housing stock that matches the composition of Seattle’s workforce. In other words, he wants to ensure that the residents who make Seattle’s neighborhoods unique and enjoyable can continue to live there. On the Council, Mr. O’Brien will work to adjust zoning and land use policies shift toward performance-based criteria as opposed to prescriptive regulations to foster denser and even better neighborhoods.

We appreciate O’Brien’s upbeat style and ability to work with others, accompanied by his realistic approach anchored by a background in business. He lives with his family in Fremont and has worked in the community, notably serving as the Sierra Club Cascade Chapter Chair during its successful effort to defeat the 2007 Roads and Transit measure, which led – with his help – to the landslide victory of the transit-only measure in 2008.

In short, Mike O’Brien’s intelligence and vision make him the best candidate for Position 8, and for Seattle.

 

Interview

 

Part 1 of 4:

 

Part 2 of 4:

 

Part 3 of 4:

 

Part 4 of 4:

 

Questionnaire Responses

Table of Contents:

General Questions

 

Friends of Seattle's Mission

Two of my biggest priorities are transportation and housing, which will both be crucial as we work to keep Seattle great in the coming years. Specifically, I want to focus on creating affordable housing within the city that corresponds to jobs at all income levels, so that everyone who works in Seattle will have a viable housing option in the city. As we work to create this housing, we need to be creative about zoning and land use so that we evolve compact, pedestrian-oriented communities that are well connected to a robust transit infrastructure, encourage interaction between neighbors, and can accommodate varying family sizes and needs across the income spectrum.

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).

In 2007 and 2008 I helped lead the effort to defeat the flawed roads and transit package (RTID) and then return with a transit-only package. The pressure to go along with most local leaders, who insisted that roads were politically necessary to get transit, was immense. By being willing to fight the status quo, I showed that not only was there a better way, but that the public agreed. This chapter was finished last fall when I collaborated with many of the people we were fighting in 2007 to bring back a mass transit system without road expansion which passed with overwhelming public support. Having the courage to fight for the best that we are capable of in a manner that allows for collaboration later is a skill often lacking in elected officials.

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?

There is a tendency to assume that Seattle's priorities are at odds with other parts of the region and the state. But it's not really a zero sum game where meeting the budgetary and policy needs of one area means another has to give something up. We all benefit when the communities around us are strong. So what is needed is more dialogue between Seattle and King County, the region, the state legislature, and the governor that is based on mutual respect and the assumption that we can craft solutions that reflect everyone's needs and priorities.

City Council Committees

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

I am most interested in serving on the land use and transportation committees, and would love to leave office someday knowing that I had left Seattle more environmentally sound, economically sustainable, inclusive, and healthy than I found it. I hope to establish a track record of making major, measurable progress on reducing our environmental footprint, making it feasible for people of all income levels and backgrounds to live here, and creating safe, vibrant neighborhoods for these people to live in.

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?

Yes. Ireland's experience with a bag tax shows that plastic bag usage is clearly a behavior that we can easily change if we decide to do so. Pollution and litter create costs for all of society, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to establish an economic mechanism to help cover those costs and encourage more responsible behaviors.

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?

    • I do not support the tunnel, and would prefer the surface/transit option recommended by the Stakeholders' Committee, which I served on. We as a city need transportation solutions that are cost-effective and in line with our vision of the future that we want to create. The tunnel doesn't meet either of these criteria, so I think we should focus our effort and money on improving our public transit system, fixing the inefficiencies on I-5, managing traffic intelligently, improving connections between urban centers, and adding bike lanes - all integrated with compact growth strategies. We probably have enough pavement already if we use it more efficiently and give travelers better choices.

  • 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?

    • As a council member, I would not vote to approve funding for the tunnel's construction and would work to persuade the rest of the council to do the same. At the same time, I would advocate for alternatives like those mentioned above.

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 to look at ways that the city can use its control of the streets to improve throughput for people and freight, rather than cars. This means exploring possible solutions like granting signal priority for buses, dedicating lanes along critical corridors, and re-evaluating on-street parking in areas where additional free lanes could significantly improve traffic flow. The city should coordinate with Metro to develop "pay-on-the-platform" systems and consolidate stops in some places. We should also consider establishing a Transportation Benefit District in the city to improve our ability to fund our own transit.

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?

    • I support the Bicycle Master Plan as a great start, but we have underfunded our bike infrastructure for so long that we have a lot of catching up to do. Specifically, the city should experiment with different models for grade separation of bicycles on busy roadways. Especially downtown, we should ensure safe routes to schools for all kids and safe commuter routes for workers. Car facilities like on-street parking should be gradually but steadily shifted to bike and pedestrian use-- Copenhagen had great success with an incremental approach like this, and there are many useful lessons there. We also need to increase the education and outreach component of the plan. As new transit facilities come on line (light rail and bus rapid transit), neighborhoods along the corridors served by these should receive heavy outreach and investment to encourage biking and walking to the stations to expand their reach without costly and problematic park and ride lots.

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

The city should look at different tolling models to help manage road demand. In addition to road maintenance, the tolling revenue should be used in part to support expanding transit, bike and pedestrian investments. The city also should look into a transportation benefit district (TBD), either alone or in combination with adjacent jurisdictions, to expand funding for transportation alternatives.

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?

    • I think we should experiment with turning retail corridors like 45th St. in Wallingford into pedestrian, bike, and transit-only zones. The Pike Place Market and our local farmers' markets show what a street can become, whether temporarily or permanently, when cars are excluded or given lowest priority, and I think there are opportunities to do this in various parts of the city.

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

Same as for the bike master plan - tolling and TBD.

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 - absolutely.

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

We need more housing almost everywhere, but I would start in corridors with robust transportation alternatives. This includes Light Rail, Rapid Ride BRT, and major bike facilities. I would also support more housing near job centers.

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?

    • Moving to a floor area ratio (FAR) is a good start as it allows more units that are smaller (and more affordable) in a given lot. We need to shift to performance-based criteria as opposed to prescriptive regulations. The city should lay out some broad goals such as: drastically increasing the amount of affordable market rate housing; better interaction with the street and neighborhood; design and amenities that encourage alternatives to a car dominated lifestyle; sustainable design elements to lower the long term cost of operating the building. Then we give designers maximum flexibility to meet these goals in creative and unique ways that work best for particular sites and neighborhoods.

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.

N/A

Robert Rosencrantz

Robert Rosencrantz is running for Seattle City Council Position 8.

Table of Contents

 

Analysis

We strongly recommend not voting for Robert Rosencrantz, who has campaigned dishonestly.

And we simply cannot accept his policy positions. He is anti-light rail. He opposes fixes to Metro's budget deficit.

He supports the tunnel to replace the Viaduct, and if the tunnel plan falls apart, he believes the existing Viaduct should be retrofitted. He rightly believes bus service should be increased, but he opposes investments in more streetcar lines. Mr. Rosencrantz told us he is an avid bicyclist but said he is not familiar enough with the Bicycle Master Plan or Pedestrian Master Plan to express any opinions on them. With respect to land use, Mr. Rosencrantz is stingy, opposing the backyard-cottages ordinance, the transit-oriented-communities bill proposed in the state legislature last year (as stated in his interview), and any rezone---ever---of a single-family-zoned parcel (as stated in his interview).

Of course, Mr. Rosencrantz is right to have a hard-nosed approach to budgeting (he thinks the City Council should do “zero based-budgeting”) and to preach the necessity of setting priorities. But he did not tell us enough about what his own priorities are, other than to say he doesn’t support two-way Mercer Street or the South Lake Union streetcar.

We recommend not voting for Mr. Rosencrantz.

 

Interview

 

Video:

 

Questionnaire Responses

Table of Contents:

General Questions

 

Friends of Seattle's Mission

My goals for Seattle largely mirror those of Friends of Seattle; a green, livable city with great urban design, plenty of open and public spaces, and the highest environmental standards. I'm a founding member of Seattle Great Cities Initiative, which demonstrates an alignment of our interests and values.

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).

My wife Terry and I own four apartment building totaling 36 units in Seattle. We bought our first building in 1986, and do all management ourselves. We know housing from the inside out.

I have been at the forefront of efforts to create housing that is affordable to working families. Over the past 20 years I've worked with King, Snohomish and Pierce counties on implementing purchasing policies that leverage market forces to increase stocks of low-income housing. In this and other roles, I've helped create or preserve over 1000 units of low-income housing. In 2005 I completed an assemblage of properties for King County Housing Authority that gives them ownership of 37 contiguous acres 1 1/2 miles from Microsoft Headquarters. Currently 550 units of affordable housing, someday it will be redeveloped to provide 1000's of units of affordable housing. I had the vision for this assemblage in 1991, and over the course of 14 years stuck with it until completion.

I've also used my knowledge of and advocacy for low-income housing to assist people living in rural Washington. In 2004 I served as Executive Director of Northwest Association for Housing Affordability, a state-wide non-profit organization. In just a year, I restructured the organization and expanded its acquisition program.

Active Volunteer and Community Leader

I've served many civic organizations and worked on many community efforts. Presently, I'm one of the key leaders of a group that is working with the State of Washington on a bold alternative to rebuilding 520 that would create a direct link between 520 and Sound Transit's Light Rail station at Husky Stadium. This proposal is steadily gaining support from key transportation leaders.

I served three years on the Boards of the Montlake Community Council, followed by two terms as President. I've been on the Board of the Thornton Creek Alliance, the Friends of the Cedar River Watershed, and Seattle Tilth, which promotes organic gardening.

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?

First, by building stronger relationships with elected officials outside of Seattle.

I have already improved relations between Seattle and the rest of the state. State Senator Steve Hobbs of the 44th Legislative wrote me the following on May 26, 2009, regarding legislation I proposed [since passed unanimously as Council Bill 116550 on June 15, 2009, with the Mayor supporting the legislation] by the Seattle City Council regarding giving Honorably Discharged Veterans the same protections under City of Seattle law that they have under State law: "My thanks to everyone in Seattle government who worked on this and to Mr. Rosencrantz who raised the issue. It makes me feel good for the vote I took on the tunnel and other issues Seattle loves but my constituents in east Snohomish County might cringe about."

On the Council I will continue to improve the relationship between Seattle and the rest of the State.

City Council Committees

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

As Finance & Budget Committee Chair I would want funding for the tunnel included in my portfolio.

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?

No, I don't support this fee. We should work to eliminate the need for landfills and for petroleum-based products by encouraging alternative means of production and disposal, such as plastic bags made from algae biomass [it's already happening right here in Seattle!].

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

    • After discussing the bored with tunnel experts including Dick Robbins, Harvey Parker and engineers that are doing the test borings, I have come to conditionally support the tunnel. I support the bored tunnel only as long as payment for Seattle's portion of its cost is borne by those Central Business District developers and property owners who stand to most directly benefit from it. There's about 50,000,000 square feet of commercial [40mm] and residential space in the Central Business District [not including housing affordable to people with incomes less than Area Median Income, which would be exempt from the LID assessment described below]. That will increase over the next two decades to around 100,000,000 square feet. In order to raise one billion dollars, a Local Improvement District would need a twenty to twenty five-year assessment rate of about 5 cents per square foot per month [with a catch-up provision for properties that come on-line after the assessment goes into effect]. Two billion dollars would require an assessment rate of about 10 cents per square foot per month.

    If the above-described funding doesn't happen, I'd go back to my 2003 position: a retrofit of the current Viaduct. In 2003 I said "I'd rather spend millions to repair something that already works rather than billions to build something that might not work".

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?

By making sure our transit systems connect, such as at Husky stadium where light rail and bus can feed off each other. By putting money into expanding bus service instead of into additional trolley lines.

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]

    • Haven't studied it enough to say.

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

    • Yes, integrate it better with the streets design and maintenance plan.

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

Out of its capital budget.

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]

    • Haven't studied it enough to say.

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

    • [Editor's note: No answer given]

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

[Editor's note: No answer given]

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]

    • No.

  • 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]

    • To broad a question.

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

Proximity to transit & not currently zoned Single Family Dwelling.

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]

    • Most, but need to study it more.

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

    • [Editor's note: No answer given]

City Governance

No.

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.

A stronger City Council will go a long way towards improving Seattle City Government.

I'm running for City Council to create opportunity, to rebuild a job-growing economy so everyone in Seattle can thrive. Opportunity abounds even in these tough times, but it's unrealized because our city government is out of balance. There's one dominant voice; the Mayor's. He roars, while the City Council whispers. It doesn't have to be that way; Seattle deserves a Council that's the people's voice and not the Mayor's echo. I'll restore the balance of power at City Hall.

The bottom line is this: I'll put the roar back in the City Council.

Jordan Royer

Jordan Royer is running for Seattle City Council Position 8.

Table of Contents

 

Analysis

Jordan Royer did not submit an endorsement questionnaire or participate in an endorsement interview, and so we know little about him other than what appears on his website and in the media. On Mr. Royer’s website, he is supportive of transit-oriented development, smart growth, and alternative transportation. He also rightly urges the city to do more about polluted stormwater seeping into our lakes, rivers, and Puget Sound.

Still, Mr. Royer’s most significant civic experience appears to be as a City of Seattle employee; he was a policy advisor to Mayors Paul Schell and Greg Nickels, leaving city government in 2007. We’re looking for something different this year---a time when we need fresh perspectives and new leadership on the City Council. And without interviewing him, we got little sense of his positions on other issues, his analytical abilities, or his values. So we recommend not voting for Mr. Royer.

 

Interview

Friends of Seattle contacted the Royer campaign multiple times to invite Mr. Royer to participate in our endorsement process. We never received a response.

Questionnaire Responses

Friends of Seattle contacted the Royer campaign multiple times to invite Mr. Royer to participate in our endorsement process. We never received a response.

Rusty Williams

Rusty Williams is running for Seattle City Council Position 8.

See his official campaign website and his campaign-finance disclosure reports with the Seattle Ethics & Elections Commission.

Table of Contents

 

Analysis

We appreciated that Mr. Williams completed our endorsement questionnaire. He rightly points out that Seattle’s transportation budget allocates too little to sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure, and we agree with his support for the green bag fee. Mr. Williams, however, not only wants a tunnel to replace the Viaduct, but a tunnel with three lanes in each direction---and who knows how much that would cost. Further, Mr. Williams does not have much of a track record in Seattle’s civic life, as far as we can tell. We recommend not voting for Mr. Williams.

 

Interview

Friends of Seattle chose not to interview Mr. Williams.

 

Questionnaire Responses

Table of Contents:

General Questions

 

Friends of Seattle's Mission

I consider myself a political Progressive. I fully support the 2008 Democratic Platform. I might even enhance it.

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 am both a business and community leader in this city. As a businessman I have worked within budgetary and time constraints to accomplish my goals. As a community organizer with the Friends of Magnuson Park Liaison Committee, I have worked with the Seattle Parks Department and our neighborhoods to see that Magnuson Park sees its highest and best use.

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?

Many of these issues are plain logic and/or common sense. For example, the 40-20-40 Rule's inequities can be explained mathematically. The most effective course of action is to clearly communicate the facts so that a complete understanding is made.

City Council Committees

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

I am a natural fit for two committees. One is the Technology Committee. My degree is in IT. I have spent the last 12 years a computer and Internet developer and executive. I have several technology ideas but we must see what the budget can handle first of all.

The other committee is Land Use. My work as a commercial real estate broker has provided me with an intimate knowledge of the City zoning codes as well as urban development in general. Another great fit.

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 support the fee. Everyone pretty much agrees that we must work to be more "green and sustainable". But much of it is just talk. This bill provides the financial incentive for people to walk the talk. I would have preferred a positive incentive (rebate for bringing a reusable bag) but this bill will have to do for now.

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?

    • The deep bore tunnel is the least/worst solution to the viaduct replacement. Creating another monstrosity would not only create havoc downtown for years and years, it eliminates the opportunity to create a truly fabulous waterfront area. But if we think in the long term, a deep bore tunnel makes sense.

    But the tunnel plan is flawed. It effectively cuts of the northwest quadrant of Seattle from smooth access to US 99. SDOT's solution is laizes faire at best. More creative work is needed to see that Market, Nickerson, Mercer and the waterfront are able to take up the slack. The tunnel will also have less capacity than the current viaduct.

    A third lane in the tunnel would solve a lot of these problems. Did anyone even look into that?

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

    • Before we can even address that, we need to determine the legality of the cost-overruns verbiage.

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

    • N/A

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?

Specifically, we need to increase off-hour transit for retirees. This should also be done with smaller more gas-efficient vehicles. Bear in mind that this part of the population will continue to grow as the baby boom ages. Route restructure is an ongoing situation.

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?

    • There is entirely too much controversy and ambiguity surrounding bicycling in Seattle and its rules of the road. I propose that we gather a panel of various interests - a “Bicycle Summit” including the Cascade Bicycle Club, Bicycle Alliance of Washington, Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board, .83, Critical Mass (that's right) SDOT, SPD, DMV, AAA and others to create a comprehensive bicycle code for Seattle. The code would provide the necessary guidelines to provide much needed bicycle safety. It would be go a long way in clearly defining the relationship between bicyclists, drivers and pedestrians. The goal is to ensure the safety of everybody. It would be as much for drivers as it would for riders.

    a bike-sharing program

    The best way to increase ridership is to increase bicycle safety. Bicycle lanes are nice but they are not very reassuring. The City should consider creating more of a boundary than just paint. One idea would be to install "road turtles" to help define the left edge of a bicycle lane.

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

Take a look at the SDOT budget. Notice that

 

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?

    • It needs a greater focus on safety.

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

I generally look to associated uses for funding. In this case any revenues derived from the transportation sector.

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.

I reject the premise of this question that housing in urban villages is undesirable ("noisy and dirty") and I think it is irresponsible on a number of levels to suggest we should depart from the urban village strategy we agreed upon as a city in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

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

The criteria should be based upon neighborhood character, identity, scale and density.

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?

    • Underground parking (increases open space)
    Shed roofs (better sight lines and interior lighting

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.

Vote Clean Seattle combined with the proposal to create geographic districts for City Council seats are both an improvement over the existing system.

I suggest we increase Seattle's tree canopy by identifying government owned land where trees can be planted. Acres and acres of such land exists. I further suggest that we contact Weyerhaueser and Plum Creek Timber to provide these trees as an effort to improve their tattered public image. Just one idea.