Overview (25%): Next to the expedited vote to approve the tunnel, the Council's repeal of the Employee Hours Tax—also known as the "Head Tax"—is perhaps the most striking example of the Sustainability Gap. The "Head Tax" generated in excess of $4 million dollars for the City's efforts to improve pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, with very little impact on business ($92 per year for the average business). Revenues generated by the tax were an important part of the overall funding strategy for the voter-approved Bridging the Gap package of transportation improvements. These funds could have been leveraged to support bond-financed projects, and the funds would have created many jobs for construction workers and other trade professions.
Other cities, like Portland, are incorporating investment in sidewalks as a strategy to create walkable neighborhoods, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and support reductions in carbon emissions. Meanwhile, Seattle is giving away funds in the form of a tax break to businesses that will hardly notice the benefit, won't create new jobs, and now have one less incentive to encourage their employees not to drive to work. Councilmembers, as a group, failed terribly here, but there were a few exceptions we note below.

Tim Burgess (B/F)

Although Burgess was a champion of the repeal he must be credited with working with supporters of the tax to find dedicated, sustainable, alternative sources of revenue to equal or exceed the revenue generated by the tax. In spite of his promise to the business community to eliminate the tax, Burgess still supported the transportation benefits of the tax. And while the work Burgess did to find funding alternatives will be beneficial as the City continues to find sources to fund its commitments to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Sally Clark (D/F)

Clark's position on the tax was similar to her colleagues although she seemed to be studied in her resistance to the facts on the tax. In her newsletter she wrote, "removing this barrier to job creation outweighs retaining the tax." However, there is no serious consideration of the tax that would lead anyone to think a windfall amounting to $92 would result in job creation. Clark seemed to hew uncritically to the business organization line that this would help business. Repealing the tax, of course, not only didn't create jobs but has helped create a shortfall in the SDOT budget.

Richard Conlin (F/F)

Transportation and neighborhood advocates found Conlin's position on the repeal of the tax to be entirely at odds with his principles and a big disappointment. Conlin seemed to struggle when rationalizing his support of the repeal. Conlin was fond of calling the various aspects of the tax designed to discourage driving as "cosmetic," suggesting that the tax was "not a large enough amount to make it worthwhile for the employer to subsidize alternative modes, and does not go directly to the employee to encourage them to use alternative modes." Conlin should have urged an increase in the tax so that it would be big enough to make it worthwhile. His own logic is that if the tax were bigger it would be a disincentive for single occupancy drivers. Furthermore, if the tax didn't hurt, then why repeal it? Conlin could not reconcile his divergent views on sustainability and the repeal of the tax.

Jan Drago (C/F)

There was a moment during the summer when it appeared that Drago would be a voice in favor of keeping the tax in place. She expressed concerns about letting the voters down since they supported the tax as part of the Bridging the Gap measure, joining Councilmember McIver and Godden in expressing doubts about the repeal. But as the summer and her candidacy for mayor wore on, Drago ended up being firmly in the repeal camp.

Jean Godden (B-/F)

Godden began the summer publicly opposing the repeal of the tax. By the end of the budget process, however, she switched sides. It is unclear why she made the change, although some have speculated that it was because Godden might run for re-election in 2011. According to Publicola, Godden "'held her nose' and voted for it "in the interest of supporting a budget that the entire council worked together to pass." Godden's reasoning for supporting the repeal seemed to be "well, everyone else is doing it." That is not the leadership we expect from our elected officials.

Bruce Harrell (D/F)

Harrell sounded notes of support for alternative transportation and expressed concern about the loss of funds for bike and pedestrian infrastructure. But then, writing on his blog, he implied that sustainability requires ongoing support for people who have to drive: "many people will remain car-dependent in the near future because of their circumstances. I believe our strategies must be cognizant of this reality in order to achieve long-term environmental sustainability." Rather than giving people more transportation choices, his decision perpetuates car dependency and the patterns of the past. While we were happy to see Harrell speak approvingly of green transportation choices, his position exemplifies the gap between talking about sustainability and supporting policies that would actually lead to a sustainable outcome.

Nick Licata (C/F)

Like his colleague Godden, Licata expressed his opposition to the repeal early in the summer months. That position eroded over the summer. Like Burgess, Licata offered an idea to replace the tax with parking ticket revenue. Licata has consistently taken the issue of pedestrian safety very personally, arguing for prioritizing pedestrians over cars. That's what makes his vote in favor of the repeal all the more confusing. It is true, as he said in a newsletter, that he tried to push "the Council in a new direction to look at dedicating existing infraction revenue for pedestrian safety purposes consistent with the Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan." However, making an effort, not succeeding, then voting the wrong way on the final legislation that is inconsistent with stated values, is not the basis for a good grade on this issue.

Richard McIver (B+/A)

McIver was the only member of the Council, in the end, to vote no on the legislation to repeal the tax. He was the lone and consistent voice sounding the warning that the middle of a deep recession was not the time for the City to be giving up revenue. One can only speculate on why he took so principled a stand compared to his colleagues, but McIver was retiring from Council and was not running for reelection again in 2009.

Tom Rasmussen (D/F)

Rasmussen voted to repeal the tax along with other Councilmembers and for the same reasons. Rasmussen is now chair of the Council's transportation committee, and could work on undoing the repeal or at least finding a replacement for the lost revenue. He has made some comments publicly indicating his willingness to find a dedicated source of funds to replace the repealed tax. He could dramatically improve his 2010 score by moving forward on this.