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.
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
Recent comments
5 weeks 4 days ago
30 weeks 1 day ago
30 weeks 3 days ago