Category — Mayor

Wow, what a sad day for the city, we lost the Sonics and found out that Seattle can be out-hustled by a group that wants something really badly and isn’t afraid to fight for it.

I wonder if losing the Sonics will be to Mayor Nickels what the WTO was to Mayor Paul Schell - the straw that broke the mayor’s popularity. 

Of course, the $45 million cash settlement the city will receive makes my spidey-sense tingle - because the best thing to do would be to use it to pay off the remaining $37 million debt on Key Arena - but you know our mayor and city council, they like to ’invest’ in ‘interesting’ programs.

In fact, based on some prior decisions they’ve made - here are some things I wouldn’t be surprised we ended up with; Seattle could buy 57 high tech toilets (previously bought and maintained 5 high-tech toilets for $6 million)

Could build another 1.3 mile streetcar line. Maybe this time from Pioneer Square to the Sculpture park - oh wait, that would mean using existing tracks to service a streetcar line that successfully used to shuttle people around the waterfront. Never mind, stupid idea, that won’t happen. 
 

They could provide developers who build ‘affordable’ housing with 28 additional kinds of tax breaks like the one they gave this week. 

 Or maybe hold some more advisory elections, how about some more viaduct advisory votes?

Anyway, since I’m bummed at the Sonics’ passing - here’s something to brighten your mood - a clip from Game 7 of the ‘96 NBA Western Conference Finals when the Sonics stuck it to the Jazz (and in this game they especially stuck it to Malone and Stockton). 

Oh yeah, and here’s one more thing - at least we all don’t have to follow the team to Oklahoma - living there would be the biggest bummer of all.)

This article was written by Geof 

Parks and Green Spaces Levy: SAM hijack update
Here’s how bad an idea it is to give the Seattle Art Museum 11 million dollars out of the Parks and Green Spaces Levy, just submitted to City Council last week.

Even the PI Editorial Board, long a supporter of “big money” institutional public funding, opposes SAM funding in the levy, for good reasons.

Among the better quotes:
“The museum’s inclusion feels forced, lacking any true tie to the levy’s overarching themes of a green city, healthy communities and vibrant neighborhoods.”

Absolutely correct.

The PI also, rightly, cites a rapidly sinking local economy as a good reason to keep the levy as realistic and efficient as possible, thus helping November passage. It offers reasonable alternatives for SAM funding – there are several more that bear mentioning later.

Personally, I prefer the 11 million go to restoring those many projects cut citywide for SAM’s truly grotesque power play. SAM’s efforts demonstrate “old Seattle politics” at it’s worst: At a time when many on Council are allegedly embracing the new “Obama” era of transparency, accountability and hope.

Aren’t voters sick and tired of back room deals for special interests at great cost to the public? That’s exactly how the SAM funding apparently came about – from some very surprising sources, as I’m beginning to discover. Obama voters will rightly vote for Barrick, but likely will not vote – if informed – for very old ways of doing things.

The SAM deal sounds so very “Bush/Cheney” to many of us!

With Council telling everyone not to expect new funding in the upcoming city budget, shouldn’t this levy be as focused and efficient as possible, particularly if Council and greenies want it to pass?
So why should we tax ourselves for SAM, short change the rest of the city, while Council and Mayor cut services in the next budget?

“Do as say, not as we do?”

There are many, many more reasons to get this very bad idea out of the levy: Here are just a few.

11 million is by far and away the single biggest specific project funded in the levy - a levy advertised to fund parks, recreation and green spaces - for a building that just happens to be in Volunteer Park yet serves no park functions.

For a building housing the laudable but private non profit, fee to enter, Seattle Asian Art Museum, operated by SAM, but has nothing to do with Parks, Green Spaces, or Recreation.

The 11 million was intended to fund at least a dozen other relevant parks, recreation and green space projects in a dozen other neighborhoods city wide. Now those projects, benefiting 10’s of thousands of people won’t happen - because SAM’s Mayor, some Council and even “green” supporters allowed SAM to bully their way in.

Great way to build city wide support. Giving money from a levy originally advertised for parks citywide to a private, non profit, wealthy cultural organization, acting like a bully, for a non parks use building.

The PGSL made a big deal out of “equity” in distributing levy proceeds. How is 11 million for SAM demonstrating commitment to “equity”? The biggest losers in this levy are - you guessed it - low income communities.

Why has there not been, up to now, a public debate and discussion on why, how and what the best means are for funding the publicly owned SAAM building? Why are SAM and a few insiders not only determining the fate of our building, but how it will be funded? You remember getting any say on this?

There must be better, more appropriate ways to do this, and it should be done, the City should honor what ever legal, contractual commitments made to SAM (if they are indeed legal and contractual):
Why this way, why now?

Perhaps it’s time to revisit the issue of whether the Volunteer Park facility should be a museum at all; if there are better, more public uses for our public property; whether having a museum there represents the best economic, parks, recreation and/or cultural return for the public; or question as to how all this fits into both Volunteer Park’s and SAM’s long term plans.

Shouldn’t the new Museum Director, yet to be hired, weigh in on this? Why rush to judgement by committing 11 million now before we have a chance to publicly debate alternatives?

SAM has threatened to “walk away” from the Vol. Park building. Let them – allow them to take the massive PR hit, as clueless to that as to the equally big PR hit they are already taking for this – and it’s only going to get worse for them. Is this what the SAM Board really wants, or do they know the whole story? Perhaps someone should tell them how they’re being represented.

Too many questions unanswered in the rush to judgement. Too few reasonable solutions unconsidered. Doubts equal “no” votes in times of economic difficulty.

The SAM funding unnecessarily jeopardizes the needed continuation of the current parks levy - and for the worst of reasons. There is no defense of this funding that passes any smell test I’m aware of - and, frankly, would not want to experience.

I won’t even discuss for now – as I have before - the complex , political machinations that brought what was a simple, well meaning “parks and green spaces for all” levy, with little accompanying controversy - and a good chance of passing in a tough economy - to the edge of defeat.

And how the Green Legacy Coalition - who pushed levy as a means to circumvent the Mayor - were actually used by him to his advantage. They thought they were players - turns out they didn’t know they were played, and by some they thought were their allies!

Nor discuss in depth the levies second biggest funded project at nearly 5 million: Renovations for – you guessed it – still another non parks and recreation building: Langston Hughes. Seems the Committee had so little contact and outreach to the Central District communities that they put this n the list at the last moment for lack of community articulated alternatives: How patronizing to that underserved neighborhood, in dire need of real parks and recreation facilities.

The two biggest project line items in the levy at this moment fund renovations for two cultural buildings – simply because the City doesn’t know where else to get the SAM money nor is able to otherwise address the parks and green needs of the Central District.

This whole process, as the Editorial points out to a degree, shows a real failure of leadership across broad fronts.

The only think I disagree with the PI on is the quality of the process that created the levy: It’s becoming obvious that this was anything but an open, public process, and more like another insider, deal cutting debacle, in spite of the sincere efforts of a minority of Committee Members to prevent this from happening.

However, it’s not to late for some on Council to show some backbone, and kick this money out, and soon; restoring public trust and faith, thus proving, as some newer Council Members are claiming, that it’s no longer “business as usual” at City Hall.

We shall see: Say vs Do.

Never to late to exercise quality leadership.

Time to exercise yours: Email/Call Council and tell them to take the SAM and other non parks money out, thus assuring a fair, equitable true parks and green space levy that the voters will pass.

If Council can’t muster the relatively minor courage required to that, then tell them at least to keep it off the ballot until ‘09, giving more time to find answers to the questions - and more - previously mentioned.

Like to see Mayor Greg “Green” Nickels, up for re-election, be directly confronted with the option of publicly opposing a green parks levy with out SAM funding, instead of manipulating it behind the scenes as he is doing now.

Regards,

Geof

Yesterday Mayor Nickels announced his latest pro-environmental initiative - asking Seattleites to give up their car for the summer and drive less. Not such a big problem for me - I’m fortunate now that I can shuttle with others to work, that I live really close to services (ie…a grocery store, drug store, and most importantly - pubs!) and with gas being $4.00/gallon I’m not so inclined to drive as much.

But what about our mayor, the guy who is spearheading this effort, will he reduce his driving this summer? Here’s what he said in today’s Seattle Times.

For his commute and official duties, Nickels says he needs a car because of security concerns. The city provides a hybrid sport-utility vehicle.

But he intends to drive less in his personal life: “We drive to the supermarket. Now we will try walking.” The supermarket is about a half-mile from his home.

Seriously, that’s a pretty lame ass response. And I say it’s lame ass because he’s not getting creative by coming up with other solutions. Here are two I thought up - he could move closer to his office downtown and walk (that’d save daily commuting trips), or he could even vanpool.

But perhaps those aren’t secure enough ideas - so what kind of solution could we come up with for the mayor that would both help him feel secure (ex-Mayor Schell once got popped in the face with a blowhorn) and help him not look hypocritical.

I saw this idea on ‘EnjoytheEnjoyment.com’, where Seth has created a petition called ‘Fans provide rides for drunk athletes‘ that would give professional and collegiate fans the opportunity to signup and provide safe rides home for any athlete who might have had too good of a time out with friends.

So, I’ve created a similar petition, this one’s called, ‘I will carpool with Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels‘. Of course you’ll probably want to live in West Seattle (where the mayor lives) and work in downtown, but hey maybe if he has an event to attend elsewhere in the city you could help him out here. Oh yeah, and about the security thing - you also would need to agree to undergo a security clearance.

Anyway, see what a little creativity can come up with.

Click below to volunteer your services.

The ‘green’ world of Mayor Nickels continues to amuse me. He likes to issue edicts condemning small environmental transgressions, while at the same time ironically overlooking his own.

Here’s the latest ‘green’ admonishment from the Mayor, the Seattle Times today reports about his latest efforts to inspire Seattlites to curb their use of bottled water.

When Mayor Greg Nickels drives in his car, he carries a plastic container filled with tap water.

He says it’s his small effort to save the environment.

Thanks for the leadership here, Mayor Nickels. You’ve inspired me to curb my anti-environmental ways in a way similar to yours - I have now stopped clubbing baby seals with disposable pre-filled water bottles and instead club them with reusable plastic containers filled with 100% Seattle tap - ‘the finest-tasting, purest-source water in the world’.

Anyway, how about building some more drinking fountains then. I know these kids would appreciate it.

Thanks Mayor Nickels for your leadership!

The times I’ve published information from neighborhood groups about the multi-family zoning updates in progress, I generally tend to get one or two responses saying, “Whoa, this process has been 2-3 years in the planning, how can it be a surprise to you?” And my response back is, “Hey, cut me a break, I wasn’t paying attention to land use issues in Seattle 2-3 years ago, I was busy with other important stuff - do you think that 6 seasons of ‘The Sopranos’ were just going to watch themselves?”

But now that I do care (and that ‘The Sopranos’ has ended) I thought it would be fun to read through the entire MF Update…until I saw that it was 94 pages long. And if it took me 2-3 years to watch an entire TV series… 94 pages in one sitting is probably not a realistic goal.

So…I thought, what to do? Should I just skim through the document and focus on a few items, like a City Councilmember would do? But then I thought, ‘Hey, I bet some of you haven’t read through this document either, so why don’t we have some fun and read it together with you, chapter by chapter?’

Sounds fun, yes? So, if you’re game, your homework is thus, grab a copy of the MF Draft Proposal (you can grab it for FREE here) and read the ‘Introduction’ on pages 2 and 3 for tomorrow’s discussion.

And if you don’t want to read the update, that’s cool, I’ll just keep posting some more land-use photos for you (I’ve got some super-awesome Wallingford thermoplastic ladder crosswalk photos just waiting to see the light of day).

In the meantime, here is something fun I did with the update. I searched on a few key words to see how many times they were repeated within the MFZ document.

1) ‘Children‘ are mentioned 3 times in the 94 pages.
2) ‘Parks‘ are mentioned 4 times
3) ‘Condo‘ was mentioned 6 times
4) ‘Schools‘ are mentioned 10 times.
5) ‘Mayor Nickels‘ is mentioned twice, ‘Mayor’ is mentioned 11 times
6) ‘DPD‘ mentioned 15 times
7) ‘City Council‘ is mentioned 16 times (that’s 1.78 mentions per council member)
8 ) ‘Townhouses‘ are mentioned 47 times.
9) ‘Urban village‘ mentioned 55 times
10) ‘Affordable‘ mentioned 56 times
11) ‘Single Family‘ was mentioned 59 times
12) ‘Zoning‘ was mentioned 71 times, ‘Zoned’ mentioned 75 times
13) ‘Green‘ was mentioned 90 time
14) ‘Neighborhood‘ was mentioned 133 times
15) ‘Multifamily‘ mentioned 270 times

So…taking the top terms in their category (’Multifamily’ beats out ‘Single Family’), dividing by 2, carrying the 1…and we get this…

Multifamily Neighborhood Zoning for Green, Affordable Townhouses

It should be interesting to see whether at the end of this exercise, if this is what the document is about.

Last month Seattle Metropolitan published and article talking about development in Wedgwood and Phinney Ridge. In it DPD director Diane Sugimura was quoted as saying, “We hear a lot of concern about what is happening with neighborhood character.” and “Change is hard to accept.”

In the article this comment was actually directed at neighborhood activists like myself, but in reality, Sugimura is the one most resistant to change. And what she’s resistant to changing are the broken elements of our zoning code which permit really bad infill development. (And this goes beyond just townhomes and condos, our land use code is being abused to allow bad single-family development too).

So…what does this change that the city is avoiding look like? Well..the good news is that a group called ‘Livable Seattle’ has done this work for us by publishing a 21-page commentary on the Multifamily Update draft that Mayor Nickels is using the Department of Planning and Development to push forward. (quick note: this was first reported on the Seattle Community Council Federation’s blog)

Why this update is bad for Seattle is because it expands (and doesn’t fix) the scope of our current zoning problems while also significantly removing neighborhoods’ voices from the discussion table. And removing these neighborhoods from the discussion takes out an important element of the process which has had some success at preventing many more of the kinds of problems detailed in Livable Seattle’s report.

Anyway…getting back to change, maybe the change that Sugimura should start making starts with accepting what the City Auditor wrote last year and was reported by the Seattle PI as neighborhood neglect.

“The City made a commitment to the neighborhoods when it adopted the Comprehensive Plan – that in exchange for accepting growth and density, the neighborhoods would be engaged to participate in designing mitigating measures to make their communities more livable. This kind of engagement requires an ongoing City commitment to provide the resources to draw all interested community members into the process.”

Visit Livable Seattle and grab a copy (or you can click here and grab it).

Here are just a few visual examples and comments from the Livable Seattle’s report where broken zoning codes are causing problems:

There used to be yards, and kids, and trees. Then the code writers decided that townhomes would make affordable “starter homes” for young families, and now yards, kids, and trees are gone.

Where’s the back door? Instead of using alley access to put the parking in the back, the developer used stock plans, tried and true, and fenced off the unpaved alley. No gates. Developers are allowed to reduce the rear setback to almost nothing when facing the alley. Maybe the City can plant trees or make a playground in this now useless city-owned alley for some real open space.

Ballard’s pro-park group Groundswell NW will be hosting its annual meeting on Tuesday at 7pm, and will feature Mayor Greg Nickels as the featured guest speaker.

The choice is a little bit ironic since Mayor Nickels doesn’t appear eager to renew the expiring Pro Parks Levy, but instead wants to focus his political capital on fundraising this year for the never-ending money pit that is the Seattle Center and our civic treasure, the Pike Place Market.

The elected official who is getting aggressive about parks and would probably be more sympathetic to Groundswell NW’s efforts right now is Seattle Council President Richard Conlin.

Yesterday night I had the opportunity to attend a North District Council meeting with 40 other folks at the Lake City Library. The guest speakers were Diane Sugimura of the Department of Planning and Development and Mike McGinn of Seattle Great City Initiative.

Mike’s talk was interesting. He showed photos of what the Seattle area might look like in 100 years (very scary) and presented ideas for building smart sustainable urban development. All were great ideas, but I feel like Seattle Great City is more of a theoretical, ‘wouldn’t it be nice’ kind of organization, instead of the in-your-face dog-fight politicking group needed in this city to actually change our zoning and land use laws.

Then Diane Sugimura spoke. And after presenting the DPD’s roles within the city, opened it up to the floor for questions. And boy, she was grilled (especially by a North Seattle audience who wasn’t too happy to begin with since most of them had just been flooded out). And to her credit, Diane handled all the questions with grace and patience. The audience peppered her about ‘crackerbox’ style development, houses built on wetlands and unstable slopes, and developers that level all the trees on the property to build even bigger single family houses. However, while listening to bad development story after bad development story I had a profound thought - the DPD is just a bureaucratic entity and nobody is leading any kind of land use planning within Seattle’s neighborhoods.

In fact, the DPD’s role in city planning is actually pretty small - they’re here to make sure that the pipeline of permits, complaints, and various questions are efficiently processed. Although they may actually think they have some influence, don’t look to Diane or the DPD to propose the kind of updates to the zoning code that these neighbors and others are demanding. Instead, look to the mayor who is choosing not to invest in fixes to our broken zoning codes and to conduct important neighborhood planning.

Sadly, unless you fall within one of the following areas I’ve listed below - you’re pretty much on your own. And if you don’t have the backing of a strong community council, you’re going to have to build up your coalition to fight any bad projects in your neighborhood.

The areas where the city of Seattle is actually devoting its urban planning attention.

• The city is demanding more from it’s own buildings in terms of environmental and community sustainability.
• The city is actively planning growth in South Lake Union and the Downtown area. (note: the Denny Triangle area is strangely outside this area)
• The city is will retain the 65%+ portion of the city that is zoned single family (note: and this is old school thinking too, there are plenty of single family areas that would be ripe for improvement if they could be zoned multi-family. What is important here is to manage the transition between single and multi-family zones)

Anyway, I now believe more than ever that to get the kind of land use planning attention throughout Seattle that the city deserves, that we’re going to have to either change our mayor’s attitudes, or get a new mayor.

I was down at the South Lake Union Discovery Center today checking out all the displays about the upcoming South Lake Union redevelopment and had a thought, “what if the city spent as much time thinking about neighborhood development in other neighborhoods throughout Seattle as it is doing in South Lake Union?”

I have a feeling that if the city did spend time carefully looking at developing neighborhoods as a whole instead of piecemeal, I don’t think you’d see bad development like we’re seeing in:

• The Denny Triangle neighborhood, where the city is permitting a high-rise to be built just 16 feet away from a neighboring residential high-rise?!? This kind of close-in high-rise development has not been successful in any major city and is terrible urban planning. 
• The Pinehurst neighborhood (North Seattle) where Kohary Construction has pretty much ticked off the neighborhood by using a loophole to avoid the DPD’s Design Review Process and using this lack of review to build dull, characterless townhomes that push most of their development’s traffic issues into the surrounding neighborhood.
• Wedgwood (again in North Seattle) where Murray Franklyn wants to build a huge mixed commercial/residential property that is only 8 feet away from single family homes and is going to really screw up traffic on 35th Ave NE.
• Summit and Belmont on Capitol Hill where Murray Franklyn is planning to put in a less than dynamic mixed use building leased out to even duller tenants.
• Dearborn Street just south of downtown where there are plans to build a major shopping complex, which the neighborhood feels will have a devestating Walmart effect on their neighborhood businesses.

Anyway, this is just a list of problem developments I’ve learned about while working on this blog, and I’m sure there are many more out there. Perhaps what we need is the DPD to put together a ‘South Lake Union Discovery Center’ that covers the entire city and lets us think about development holistically. Or perhaps what we need is a mayor or city council to realize that this is the major issue facing Seattle neighborhoods.

South of Safeco Field and north of King County Airport, a tug-of-war is brewing between the city and property owners who want to convert their properties from industrial use to office-retail. The reason for this? Developers feel they can make alot more money from office-retail space than they can from industrial space.

What’s really surprising here is the mayor’s position on this, he actually wants to preserve the industrial zoning! And this is actually a good thing for Seattle because it protects an important sector of our economy, international trade and the businesses that support it.

Working in the high tech field myself, I’m always happy to see the tech business sector do well, but it’s never wise to put all your eggs in one industry basket. And, it’s kinda nice to know there are parts of town where development doesn’t equal mixed-use condo/retail buildings with coffee and burrito shops on each corner.

What’s not surprising in this debate is the position the city council is taking, which is to take no position. The Times reported,

Steinbrueck said he is considering alternatives to the mayor’s plan, such as increasing the amount of industrial development allowed on a lot, rather than decreasing other uses.

Whatever. This is just par for the council. Do they even know how to take a stand on a controversial issue anymore? Anyway, it’s just fortunate in this case that the mayor (who generally tends to ignore them anyway) is on the right side of a land use issue.

When the City Council took a pass on the Seattle Nightlife Ordinance a little over a week ago by deciding not to decide, I didn’t actually realize that the City Council passed this as a bill. Today, Mayor Nickels vetoed this ordinance and sent it back to the City Council. It should be interesting if they even take a vote on it again, or just do nothing.

Unlike their earlier pass on an important vote earlier this week (the nightclub ordinance), the city council did decide to vote on whether to replace the vacated barracks at Fort Lawton with open space or affordable housing. Their decision, bring on the open space.

However, in addition to receiving criticism from housing advocates, the city council was also called to task by the Port for a different decision the city made on a similiar project. The Times reported, 

Officials with the Port of Seattle and the city of Burien said Seattle’s plans are hypocritical. Seattle officials had intervened when the Port wanted to tear down 162 affordably priced units at the Lora Lake apartments in Burien this summer.

Port Commissioner John Creighton said Wednesday, “I find it disappointing that they raise this issue and request that another jurisdiction [Burien], that has a higher percentage of affordable housing, go to bat to save housing when they’re not prepared to do the same.”

Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis responded,

City officials said the Capehart housing is inappropriate for low-income residents. “It’s isolated in the park and there are no services or transit,” said Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis.

Wow, Tim doesn’t get around much. Believe it or not, there are even low-income residents in suburban and rural areas who obviously find ways to get around.

The DPD yesterday published the mayor’s recommendations to the city’s comprehensive plan.  I don’t see any recommendations that focus on neighborhood issues and am very interested to see how the mayor plans to support, “Sustainability goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing green canopy, reducing solid waste, managing transportation demand, supporting affordability in all respects, and measuring the number of healthy years lived.”

To date, financial support for these environmental issues hasn’t been available to support these lofty goals.

The Comprehensive Plan is the City’s primary policy document that governs how the City will accommodate and respond to the challenges of growth and change over time. The Comprehensive Plan annual amendments cycle provides everyone an opportunity to propose amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to address changing conditions or to address emerging issues.

[Read more →]

I was pleased to see on Seattle’s Department of Neighborhoods site that there is a whole section built out to the upcoming Fort Lawton redevelopment project. And I was really pleased to see this quote from Mayor Nickels. (Perhaps Wedgwood and other less-interesting Seattle neighborhoods should change their names to ‘Fort Lawton’ to get a share of the Mayor’s attention).

“I’m delighted to add 24-acres to Discovery Park. This is a win for everyone, especially the Magnolia community. It’s been a collaborative, respectful process, and I could not be more pleased with the result.”

–Mayor Greg Nickels