Senate Bill 6347 and House Bill 2725 are clearly titled, “Undoing recent changes to the estate tax.” By reversing the increases in tax rates on the very wealthy, especially the billionaires, this proposal would result in a revenue loss to the state of almost $200 million a year starting this July. That revenue is supposed to go into the Education Legacy Trust Account – a crucial funding vehicle for early childhood education.  

Last year, the Legislature’s actions exempted almost 45% of estates that would have been taxed from paying the tax altogether, and reduced the tax on another 40% of estates. The loss was made up for by increasing rates on estates valued at more than $15 million. That is literally a couple of dozen estates each year.  

By reversing these rate increases, SB 6347 and HB 2725 are simply a gift to the children of the uber wealthy, children who did nothing to gain this wealth – a bow to the intergenerational and antidemocratic transfer of income, power, and political influence.

This isn’t a proposal from a right-wing corporate backed backbencher. It is sponsored in the House by Joe Fitzgibbon (D-Seattle, 34th LD), the Democratic Majority Leader, along with other Democrats (and no Republicans) and in the Senate by Vandana Slatter, who ran and won a special election as a progressive Democrat in Legislative District 48. 

This estate tax cut just passed 38-11.

[image or embed]

— Ryan Packer (@typewriteralley.bsky.social) February 16, 2026 at 5:52 PM

SB 6347 was voted through the Senate Ways and Means Committee, with support from Chair June Robinson (D-Everett, 38th LD) and Vice Chairs Derek Stanford (D-Bothell, 1st LD) and Yasmin Trudeau (D-Tacoma, 27th LD), and all Republicans. The only Democrats who voted no in committee were Noel Frame (D-Seattle, 36th LD) and Bob Hasegawa (D-Seattle, 11th LD). On Monday, the legislation passed the full Senate in a 38-11 vote. 

The tally.

[image or embed]

— Ryan Packer (@typewriteralley.bsky.social) February 16, 2026 at 5:52 PM

How do the Democrats, allegedly trying to fill a multi-billionaire deficit in the state budget, decide to relinquish half a billion dollars every biennium to billionaires? It really doesn’t take much – a phone call, an aside at a celebration, a quiet visit to elected officials. It is hard to track – but it happens. 

The result is that the legislative leadership is rewarding the billionaires and centimillionaires, including those who covered up their relationships with Jeffrey Epstein. Our state leaders are more comfortable stooping to these billionaires and begging them for money, for services like early learning, rather than actually taxing them like the rest of us.

After George Bush and the Republican Congress pretty much leveled the federal estate tax in 2002, Bill Gates Sr. helped to develop our own estate tax, understanding that wealthy individuals have an obligation to pay back into the society that provided them with the infrastructure to succeed. This is especially true in our state, with wealth accumulating over decades without paying one dollar in state income taxes. The people understood this. In 2006, Washington state voters endorsed the estate tax by a two-to-one margin.

Regarding the proposed giveaway to the already wealthy – there is a solution for Democrats: Don’t do it. Don’t vote for it. Don’t fall for it. If you do, you are doing the biddings of the ruling elite, not the children and the people of this state.

The post Op-Ed: Washington Legislature, Don’t Reverse the Estate Tax first appeared on The Urbanist.

The idea goes, in part, that investors, banks, government, and other powerful actors are intentionally leaving homes vacant to inflate prices, and that those units could be put to use nearly right away if we wanted to solve homelessness and affordability challenges. Ray Delahanty of CityNerd, however, debunks this popular conspiracy with data, explaining why America doesn’t have anywhere close to 15 million homes readily available to fill the national housing shortage.

The post Sunday Video: The 15 Million Home Vacancy Conspiracy Theory Debunked first appeared on The Urbanist.

Mayor Bruce Harrell’s 2026 City budget proposal involved several new revenue sources but has failed to address Seattle’s long-term structural deficit. The City projects the 2027 deficit will exceed $127 million, and economic turmoil and increasing chaos and hostility from the federal government further undermine the future financial stability of the city. 

As the Seattle City Council nears the finishing line for the city’s 2026 budget, some councilmembers seem determined to limit Mayor-elect Katie Wilson’s options once she takes office in January.

Harrell’s budget proposal used two direct new revenue sources: a 0.1% “public safety” sales tax increase and a business & occupation (B&O) tax restructure, dubbed the Seattle Shield Initiative and just greenlit by voters. Additionally, the new Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise (FEPP) Levy, recently approved by voters, more than doubles the amount of money the City will be collecting compared to the levy’s previous iteration.

Some of this new funding has been allocated in such a way as to free up General Fund, JumpStart payroll tax, and sweetened beverage tax dollars for other purposes. According to a Central Staff memo, these sources created an additional $148 million of new resources for the General Fund, some of which was used to backfill a Jumpstart tax shortfall and some of which was used for new spending priorities, including more money for the Seattle Police Department (SPD), the Community Assisted Response & Engagement (CARE) department, and the Downtown Activation Plan (including another boost to the City’s graffiti abatement program).

Wilson will have to grapple with a future budget deficit that grew in spite of the amount of new resources identified this year.

Budget Chair Dan Strauss’s balancing package, introduced earlier in November, included an additional $45 million in new spending, divided between each councilmember’s priorities. For his part, Mayor Harrell proposed $53 million in new spending, layering on top of about $100 million in new spending approved in his previous budget. 

The balanced 2026 budget relies on a one-time $141 million fund balance left over from 2025, as well as a permanent assumed $10 million annual underspend. Many of the items funded in 2026 utilize one-time funding only, including some of the Seattle Shield funding going to backfill federal cuts. If Wilson wants to continue any of these one-time investments in 2027, the deficit will increase. 

Central Staff called this approach “inherently unsustainable” since one-time funds create fiscal cliffs for ongoing programs:  “While the use of these new resources is a well-intended effort to support priorities that enhance the community, it must be made clear that few clear options, other than potentially drastic and immediate cuts, remain to respond to future fiscal challenges.”

Putting it more bluntly, PubliCola’s Erica Barnett described the budget as balanced only by accounting “tricks” and short-term patches, handing his successor a mess to clean up in an economic environment that is likely to be more challenging.

While Seattle’s most recent revenue forecast was more favorable than was expected, it included a high amount of uncertainty about the city’s economic trajectory. In October, Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi said that states representing one third of the nationwide GDP are either in a recession or at high risk of one, including Washington state. 

The risk of the artificial intelligence (AI) technology bubble bursting is another concern. The seven largest tech giants, accounting for 37% of the S&P 500’s total value, are all heavily invested in AI technologies. Their spending spree has temporarily propped up the economy, but fears are growing about the possibility of the AI bubble bursting, causing painful economic fallout. 

In Seattle, such an occurrence would particularly impact the JumpStart payroll tax, since tech giants are the biggest payers of the tax. When passed, JumpStart was mainly intended to fund affordable housing, but Harrell has taken to using it to backfill the General Fund. 

Federal overreach darkens outlook

Earlier this month, in the shadow of the continuing federal government shutdown, both community members and local governments were working to try to mitigate the potential suspension of the SNAP food aid program, which would have led to many in the region going hungry. States are bracing for the SNAP and Medicaid (Apple Health) eligibility changes rolling out over the next year and struggling to keep up with policy changes that impact funding to a variety of different programs. 

A recent federal policy change that is likely to lead to deep cuts in King County’s housing and shelter programs–especially permanent supportive housing – illustrates both the caprice and the cruelty behind the federal government’s approach. 

Late last Thursday night, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released its latest Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for its Continuum of Care (CoC) contracts. Seattle and King County receive $65 million in these contracts every year, of which about $60 million is used for permanent housing, per Jennifer LaBrecque from Seattle’s Office of Housing, who spoke to the budget committee last week. 

Rinck underscored the devastation these cuts would cause to social programs already spread thin, and pointed out that the idea came out of Project 2025, the 920-page ultra-conservative policy manifesto hatched by the billionaire-backed Heritage Foundation and embraced by the Trump administration. 

“After months of delay, the NOFO has finally been released late last night, after hours, and under the sweeping changes, it is estimated that 170,000 people across the United States could fall into or in many cases, back into, homelessness,” Rinck said. “To be clear, this is directly out of the Project 2025 playbook. The federal CoC program plays a major role in housing people who may not otherwise be able to house themselves, including families, veterans, people with disabilities, youth and older adults.” 

About $42 million of the CoC funding goes to permanent supportive housing throughout the region, which houses people with serious behavioral health issues that need extra assistance to remain housed. LaBrecque said 17 permanent supportive housing projects in Seattle currently receive $17 million of these dollars every year. 

The new NOFO only allows 30% of federal funding to pay for any kind of permanent housing, including permanent supportive housing. This new rule creates a gap of $23 million in the region’s spending on permanent supportive housing.

In addition, the NOFO has been released late, meaning current funding will lapse before new grants are awarded, causing a funding gap that will also jeopardize people’s housing. Less of the funding will now be available year-over-year as a stable basis of funding for programs and projects, instead being put through a competitive process every year.

The new rules also state that permanent supportive housing should only be provided for those who have physical disabilities and/or are elderly, even though this model of housing is specifically designed for people experiencing serious, and often permanent, behavioral health conditions. 

The New York Times reported that the new rules allow HUD to reject applicants that used criteria and policies to explicitly help transgender and specific racial groups, “previously or currently.” 

It is possible the new CoC rules might be delayed until later next year, and regardless, local officials will shift their applications for CoC grants to try to be competitive within the new rules. But uncertainty abounds as to how successful such an attempt will be. 

In order to meet this new funding threat, as well as others that loom on the horizon, Rinck proposed putting a proviso on $11.8 million in the Human Services Department, currently earmarked for a new short-term shelter program proposed by Harrell. The proviso prevents the money from being spent, creating a potential reserve of funds for addressing the CoC changes. Councilmember Bob Kettle whittled that number down to $11.1 million, but the amendment did pass. 

The budget already includes investments to backfill federal investments in shelter, emergency housing, and food. Strauss also added $1.06 million for a Federal Response Reserve last week.

Meanwhile, King County Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda added an amendment to the county budget that requests the Executive create a county contingency fund to address the CoC shortages. 

Councilmembers try to exert budgetary control over new mayor

In the latest phase of the Seattle budget process, councilmembers have added many amendments to the proposed budget that seem designed to limit Wilson’s options once she enters office. 

Perhaps the most striking attempt is Councilmember Rob Saka’s amendment to proviso $29.9 million in several different departments for Unified Care Team (UCT) activities. The UCT performs the City’s homeless encampment sweeps and cleanups and has been one of Harrell’s signature priorities. The proviso would prevent Wilson from spending these funds for other purposes. 

The UCT amendment passed on a 5-1 vote; Saka, along with Councilmembers Debra Juarez, Kettle, Sara Nelson, Maritza Rivera, and Mark Solomon voted yes, while Rinck voted no and Strauss and Joy Hollingsworth abstained.

Strauss said he abstained in order to avoid coloring the waters between himself and the new mayoral administration. 

“I look forward to working with the next administration to continue and improve the Unified Care Team and how it operates because there are some process improvements. Like anything we do in life, there’s always opportunity to improve, and there’s some good ways that we can,” Strauss said. “So I’m going to abstain from this because I don’t want to muddy those waters without starting into the conversation with the next administration.”

Outgoing Council President Sara Nelson introduced three successful amendments, seeking to dictate policy direction in her absence next year: 

• A proviso of $289,000 in the Seattle City Attorney’s Office to continue outgoing City Attorney Ann Davison’s Drug Prosecution Alternative,
• An amendment that prohibits the CIty from using funds for harm reduction supplies for people suffering from substance use disorder (with the exception of needles), and 
• A proviso of $4.1 million in SDOT solely for use for graffiti abatement. 

Kettle introduced two noteworthy provisos related to SPD spending that were included in the balancing package. One proviso earmarks $26 million of SPD funds to be spent for new sworn staffing, and the other sets aside $4.9 million in SPD for the “Technology Assisted Crime Prevention Program,” aka SPD’s surveillance program that includes CCTV cameras and the real-time crime center. 

While Nelson and Wilson’s terms won’t overlap, Saka and Kettle will be working with Wilson next year. Their amendments suggest possible concern that the new Executive has different policy priorities in mind when it comes to encampment sweeps and surveillance.

While the council holds the power of the purse, in practice, provisos only have so much power. Provisos prevent a mayor from spending certain dollars for other purposes, but the mayor can simply refuse to spend the money, full stop, a strategy that might be particularly appealing to Wilson given the unspent money can then be used to address the 2027 budget deficit. Former Mayor Jenny Durkan deployed this strategy on numerous occasions.

Even with budget guardrails via proviso, the Mayor has the ability to set department priorities, hire key personnel, and develop key policies. 

With two new councilmembers taking their seats soon – Dionne Foster replacing Nelson and Eddie Lin replacing Solomon – there is also a chance of 2026 budget provisos being lifted next year. 

When Wilson takes the helm next year, she has announced that she intends to address the city’s structural budget deficits through a combination of new progressive revenue and targeted cuts. 

“I’m very committed to making sure that we’re using our existing resources as effectively and efficiently as possible,” Wilson said at her victory press event last week. “So we’re going to be reviewing the ways that the city is spending money, and I think we’re going to have to do that given the size of the budget deficit. And I am not averse to ending spending on programs that were maybe well-intentioned when they were first implemented but aren’t fulfilling their goals. So we’re going to be doing our very best to be the best stewards of public resources we can.”

Wilson played an important role in passing the JumpStart payroll tax in 2020 and later served on the Revenue Stabilization Workgroup. On the campaign trail, Wilson was an enthusiastic proponent for more progressive revenue. 

“I do think that we will need to pursue new progressive revenue in order to fund our priorities and make sure that we’re delivering services to the people of Seattle,” Wilson said. “And you know, there’s several progressive tax options I proposed as part of my platform, and so we’re going to have city staff looking into developing those into legislation.”

Most progressive revenue proposals would either need some lead time to take effect (such as a city-wide capital gains tax) or need state law to be changed in Olympia. Wilson’s timeline will be important in determining the degree to which future budget woes will be able to be addressed via new revenue as opposed to cuts.

The post Katie Wilson to Inherit Seattle’s Budget Woes first appeared on The Urbanist.

These moves have created obstacles for funding the massive undertaking and finding a path to cross-border collaboration with the Canadian province of British Columbia, which would be needed for the rail line to cross the Canadian border to Vancouver. If that wasn’t enough, large infrastructure projects — from freeway expansions to light rail — are facing massive increases in construction costs, which is likely to greatly impact high-speed rail projects as well.

Conference talks remained high-level and largely sidestepped the issue of how to finance the project. A 2017 feasibility study commissioned by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) estimated Cascadia “ultra-high speed rail” would cost between $24 billion and $42 billion — and that was before the era of high construction cost escalation hit.

The two-day conference, held in Downtown Seattle at the Sheraton Grand Hotel, included many top state and local officials and several senior corporate executives in attendance. Several speakers hinted that a public-private partnership was the way to go and would be able to leverage private investment to surmount funding challenges, but nobody unpacked exactly how that would work at this preliminary phase.

Many speakers stressed that the need for a high-speed rail was still acute, given the traffic gridlock common on I-5. Those issues are only likely to snowball as the Cascadia megaregion grows. Defined as stretching from the Portland metropolitan area to British Columbia’s Vancouver metro area and the swath of Western Washington in-between, the Cascadia megaregion is a fast-growing area with a population of nearly 10 million. The region is expected to grow by 3 to 4 million residents by 2050.

The 315 miles (507 kilometers) between Vancouver and Portland could be spanned in as little as two hours with high speed rail, depending on the number of stops and the maximum speeds achieved. Unlike adding another freeway lane on I-5, high-speed rail can scale more efficiently under increased demand, rather than quickly succumbing to congestion issues and getting trapped in a cycle of induced demand.

Pierce County Executive Ryan Mello stressed that high-speed rail could free many of his constituents from soul-crushing long commutes.

“Nearly a quarter of [Pierce County workers are] coming to King County every day to seek a better paying job. Some even have to go as far as Snohomish County for work. These commutes often take 60 minutes, 90 minutes and a little bit of your soul every single time,” Mello said. “Imagine building something today that offers your children a new world of choices about where to go to school, where to work, and where to live, because non-polluting high-speed rail can quickly connect them, not just between Tacoma and Seattle or Seattle and Everett, but all the way to Portland, or all the way to Vancouver, British Columbia.”

Washington Governor Bob Ferguson had a program slot, and former Washington Governor Chris Gregoire had several, acting as the de facto master of ceremonies.

For most of her time since leaving elected office in 2013, Gregoire has led Challenge Seattle, a corporate supergroup that describes itself as an “alliance of 23 organizations who represent some of the Seattle region’s largest employers and most successful innovators.” One of Challenge Seattle’s major focuses has been high-speed rail, which the group has pitched as advancing the economic competitiveness of Cascadia as compared to other mega-regions around the globe. Challenge Seattle was the organizing force behind the conference, with Gregoire also chairing the Cascadia Innovation Corridor steering committee.

Her work with Challenge Seattle has allowed Gregoire to remain highly influential, even more than a decade removed from elected office. Ferguson said Gregoire was a mentor to him and that he valued her counsel, and advised business and governmental leaders to treat her as a conduit for feedback to him.

“Governor Gregoire has me on speed dial, I can assure you,” Ferguson told conference goers. “I talk to her frequently, and so feel free to go via Governor Gregoire as well, if you’re trying to get a message to me.”

Ferguson also credited Gregoire with working with him to pass housing legislation earlier this year. He said housing remained his top priority as governor. Gregoire highlighted that a Cascadia high-speed rail line was also a housing intervention — though she steered away from earlier messaging hyping the idea of building new cities from scratch at intermediate stations between the three high-cost metro areas.

“High-speed rail is a housing strategy,” Gregoire said. “That’s what we’ve thought of it all the way along. It will spark new walkable communities around stations where people can live closer to where they work, where small businesses can thrive, and where families can spend more time together and less time in commuting and traffic. This isn’t just a train. It’s an investment. It’s an investment in our people, in our families, in our neighborhoods that make this region extraordinary. It’s a down payment on a more connected, more vibrant, more affordable Cascadia, one that gives every resident more choices, more opportunity and more time for the things that truly matter.”

Former transportation secretary Ray LaHood (an Illinois Republican appointed by President Obama) stressed the importance of keeping the project moving in hope of capitalizing on a more friendly federal administration down the line.

“If you lay your plans now and you’re all involved and things aren’t quite right, maybe with the national government, we know that’s going to change,” LaHood said. “And if you’re well-positioned, when the next president comes along and has high-speed rail as a priority, boom, you’re first in line.”

LaHood was highly critical of Republicans who spurned rail investment, pointedly calling former Florida Governor Rick Scott (a fellow Republican) an “idiot” for turning down $2.4 billion in federal grants to construct high-speed rail in his state.

The Cascadia project appears to be many years away from the construction grant phase. Chelsea Levy, project manager for Cascadia high-speed rail at the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), updated attendees on where planning stood. WSDOT secured a $49.7 million federal grant in December 2024 — the waning days of the Biden Administration — to fund the creation a service development plan for Cascadia high-speed rail. WSDOT is leading project development, since the majority of the proposed railroad would be on Washington soil.

“We’re currently in project planning,” Levy said. “We’ll need not only approvals, but additional funding to advance the environmental review processes, both in the U.S. and Canada in the future, and similar to other large megaprojects, large-scale projects, high-speed rail would pursue final design and construction once funding is secured and the environmental review is complete. Specific to high-speed rail, these are the major activities of the service development plan to be completed by 2028.”

Levy laid out four phases for the agency’s service development plan. Those four phases would narrow down corridor options, but not get so far as landing on a final alignment with specific station locations. “A future step after this process, will identify and evaluate potential station locations and further evaluate route options,” Levy noted.

The Trump administration not only dealt a blow to transit funding, but also to the fundamental premise of cross-border collaboration. Rob Fleming, Former British Columbia Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, flagged this issue during his remarks on October 29.

“So we’re not in a great place to be having this discussion on our side of the border. Canadians are, in fact, busy making contingencies with new trade markets all over the world, and some of this pivot is happening pretty fast. For example, in just nine months, Canadian trade with the United Kingdom is up 75% and our trade with the European Union is up 38% and I don’t know how much of that comes from the Cascadia corridor region. I suspect some, but not overly a lot.”

While Cascadia leaders appear to hope the Trump tariffs are a blip that the next president or a more strident Congress could undo, other obstacles for high-speed rail will outlast Trump. One central tension of the conference surrounded the fact that many of the business leaders lobbying for high-speed rail have also pushed back hard against tax hikes on corporations or the wealth they create for shareholders and executives.

Raising the billions necessary for building high-speed rail will be difficult in such an environment. For his part, Governor Ferguson noted for now he remains tax-averse in a press scrum after his conference appearance — after he also fought tax-the-rich efforts during a chaotic spring session.

“I’m skeptical of additional revenue at this time,” Ferguson told the Washington State Standard.

Correction: The original version had a transcription error in a Chris Gregoire quote, incorrectly replacing commuting with community in this sentence: “It will spark new walkable communities around stations where people can live closer to where they work, where small businesses can thrive, and where families can spend more time together and less time in commuting and traffic.”

The post Cascadia Forges Ahead on High-Speed Rail Despite Headwinds first appeared on The Urbanist.

The post Sunday Video: How Did We Create the Housing Crisis? first appeared on The Urbanist.

Whenever I asked what was blocking progress, the conversation consistently turned to the giant rail companies which own most of the state’s rail infrastructure – Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF). These companies, known as Class I railroads because they earn more than $500 million in yearly revenue, have immense leverage over the state because they own the tracks. This has led to a whole host of conflicts not simply about how to run a railroad, but for whom our railroads are being run.

Private rail ownership is far from the international norm: most countries recognize that allowing profit-driven organizations to control critical infrastructure results in systems that prioritize shareholders over the communities railroads serve. Not only has the United States also recognized this, nationalizing the country’s railroads during World War I when they couldn’t effectively support the war effort, but Washington State has done this with the Palouse River and Coulee City system (PCC). 

By international standards the PCC is still relatively privatized: the tracks are owned and maintained by the state, which then leases service operations and maintenance to small private rail operators. This incentivizes the government to focus on the system’s functioning holistically, while the operators focus on delivering services effectively to keep their lucrative contracts with the state. 

The PCC’s results are appreciated across the aisle in Olympia: both Senator Marko Liias (21st LD, Mukilteo), a Democrat chairing the Senate Transportation Committee, and Representative Andrew Barkis (2nd, Lacey), a Republican on the House Transportation Committee, acknowledged the PCC has been a staggering success when I spoke with them in the fall of 2024. 

Though the Republican Barkis said he sees the PCC as a “one-off,” Democrats Liias and Representative Alex Ramel (D-40th, Bellingham), who serves on the House Transportation Committee, were both receptive to the idea that this model could be useful in the future.

To understand how it’s possible that Republicans and Democrats could support state-ownership of rails, it’s necessary to understand how the PCC came into existence. The system was acquired by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) because Union Pacific (UP) Railroad had neglected maintenance and sold off the system to a company that had planned to abandon the system once it realized the extent of the system’s neglect. This would have bankrupted farmers across Eastern Washington, as the inefficiencies of trucking make it cost-prohibitive for long-haul grain shipping.

In an interview, Mike Bagott from Palouse Grain Growers, a small grain co-op on the PCC, said he had noticed UP “were more interested in storing excess cars on the line… there were times when we’d have hundreds of empty chlorine cars just sitting there on the tracks.” 

When it came to using trucks for grain shipping, Bagott laughed at the question. 

“Long haul trucking grain all the way to Portland or Vancouver: that makes no sense, forget about it,” Bagott said. “The overarching thing is that if things move forward as they seem to be going with the river system, we can’t wait very long on a macro scale to start putting a ton of money into the rail system. We’ve got some of the best farmland in the world out here, and if we can’t ship by rail then that just might mean the end of grain farming in Eastern Washington, and that’d be a shame.” 

This is why the state stepped in, and has committed to spend $3.4 million a year rehabilitating the system through 2031 and has received $5.3 million in federal grants. This on top of the initial $27.7 million cost of acquiring the railroad, is hardly a drop in the bucket when compared to the billions the state is devoting to single sections of highway upgrades. 

These investments aren’t just about shaving off a few minutes off commute times, they have ensured a vital pillar of the state’s agriculture did not collapse due to the mismanagement of Union Pacific. The most committed socialist could hardly invent a more perfect example of a case for economic interventionism: short-term profit seeking caused an enormous private corporation to so severely neglect infrastructure investments that it threatened the food supply.

The PCC isn’t the only government-controlled railroad in Washington, as Representative Jake Fey, who chairs the House Transportation Committee, highlighted that Tacoma Rail’s municipal rail service is financially self-sufficient and has supported the functioning of the Port of Tacoma. 

However, I wouldn’t use Tacoma Rail as a model specifically because it’s expected to be financially self-sufficient. We don’t expect air companies to build, maintain, and upgrade airports, we don’t expect trucking companies to build, maintain, and upgrade highways, and we don’t expect shipping companies to build, maintain, and upgrade ports. There is no reason we should arbitrarily single out railroads to do these things, especially when the state is actively seeking to decarbonize and increase efficiency of transport. Continuing to single out rail will lead to more situations of deferred maintenance and abandonment of lines, sabotaging industry and ultimately the wider economy.

In Western Washington, reacting to market preferences has caused the state to invest billions of dollars in expanding the least efficient form of land-based freight without even investigating the feasibility of rail connections when it chose to run with the Puget Sound Gateway project. Relying on privately-owned rail infrastructure nearly led to a collapse of grain farming because UP was more interested in leasing out track space for unused cars than running a railroad.

On top of all that, the state’s tolerance of neglect and dismissiveness by the Class I railroads – BNSF and UP – continues to cause outrageous passenger service delays, limits the ability of Sounder to extend service, and has seen millions of public dollars invested into privately-owned assets with absolutely no accountability mechanisms or changes in ownership. In the corporate world, one typically acquires ownership when investing in a company — except with public investment, which often drops down like manna from heaven. 

Asked what BNSF gives in exchange for the money the state invests in its infrastructure, Ramel shared that he was fretting with the same question. 

“I think that’s a really really important question, and I’ve not gotten a clear answer,” Ramel said. “I asked questions at a hearing last year and the answers did disturb me.”

During this March 5th hearing, Ramel asked WSDOT’s director of the rail, freight, and ports Jason Biggs whether the state’s investment to increase passenger capacity on BNSF’s tracks was “proportional to what, on a per-car or per-train basis, what the railroad is paying into the system that they own and profit from?”

“I understand your question,” Biggs answered. “We don’t have any insight into what the costs are that the railroad pays into its own system.” 

This level of detachment from BNSF is reflected in WSDOT’s strategic rail plans. Short-term profit seeking sabotages the state’s ability to plan an effective system because the private operators prioritize short-term profit seeking with swings in the market. As WSDOT states plainly in its strategic 20-year plan: “Rail investments are costly, and railroads must coordinate investments in response to changes in political and market forces. As such, freight railroad planners typically plan projects on a two- to three-year horizon.” 

So while WSDOT is trying to make 20- to 50-year rail plans which account for climate change, decarbonization, and population shifts, BNSF and UP are stuck chasing short-term market trends, ready to abandon vital economic and strategic systems due to a dip in the market as UP did with the PCC system.

“I think they sort of have this perspective that we make investments in the rail system to try to bring passenger service up to speed, so we’re responsible for having a rail system that can carry passengers,” Ramel continued. “Whereas I would look at this and say ‘hey, we have a faster and better rail system, and Amtrak’s are eight cars four times a day’ It’s the lightest cars, four-car trains, then maybe a dozen hundred-car [freight] trains. Why are we assuming all that additional cost? I think that model is not to the benefit of the taxpayers and probably is to the benefit to the owners of the railroads. It is a concern that I have.”

WSDOT acknowledges that rail is three to four times more efficient than trucking. Politicians from both major parties in the state of Washington acknowledge that state-owned railroads have been a major success. They have also noticed logistical trends are moving towards transferring large quantities between large warehouses and terminals, which is a niche rail specializes in fulfilling. 

In spite of public investment in their assets, BNSF and UP have demonstrated willful neglect of their responsibility to maintain a safe and functioning rail network which accommodates passenger services. The state has already proven that it is a better steward of tracks than BNSF and UP: it should start filling the gaps which they’ve neglected.

The post Op-Ed: PCC Provides Model for State Rail Ownership in Washington State first appeared on The Urbanist.

Lately, I’ve been volunteering in policy areas like worker’s rights and immigration advocacy. Through those advocacy spaces, I learned that our state had a huge budget deficit. We were told it was unlikely that we would pass any of the policies we cared about this year unless our representatives passed progressive tax reforms to make the wealthy pay a little more of what they owe.

By spring, it became clear that this would not happen, despite lawmakers initially rallying behind the wealth tax and several bills to close corporate tax loopholes. In the end, we didn’t get many taxes on rich people. Instead, we got regressive taxes that impact small businesses more than big corporations. We got sales and sin taxes that only worsen our upside-down tax code, balancing the cost of running our state on those who can afford it the least.

Organizers shared why the much-needed reforms didn’t pass, and it wasn’t just Governor Bob Ferguson threatening to veto many progressive bills. It was also big tech. 

Because of their lobbying this year, Washington is cutting funds for public health services, childcare and early learning programs, and higher education. While families are struggling financially, we won’t see the needed increases in funding for our most basic social supports.

I started the Tech4Taxes coalition this year out of a strong sense of injustice. I knew those tech lobbyists were telling legislators the same threats they always do: “We’re so poor! If you pass these taxes, we’ll lay off your constituents, then write an op-ed blaming you!” And so far, their threats have been working.

But tech workers like me don’t enjoy being a bargaining chip to protect our CEO’s bottom line. And we know better than anyone else that their claims are false. They can absolutely afford to pay all the taxes that were proposed this year, and more. 

The CEOs of Meta, Microsoft, Uber, and Lyft are all making yearly compensation in the tens of millions – and that doesn’t even cover their other assets and wealth that we allow them to hoard tax-free. They are constantly spending billions on new hardware, just to serve more ads or create more sketchy artificial intelligence (AI) applications. It’s hard for the average person to understand just how small a dent that local tax changes would make in the bottom line of these global corporations.

The threat of layoffs also doesn’t ring true to us. Tech corporations lay people off all the time. Microsoft just laid off a bunch of workers recently for no good reason, as the company’s net income was up 18%. Washington choosing to make our state resilient and better for all of us is not going to affect how these big corporations operate.

In fact, making our state a better place for working people is actually in these corporations’ best interests. They can’t survive without a workforce, and we are simply not going to move. We want to live in a state where there are public parks, beautiful nature nearby, and progressive social policies – that’s why corporations are still operating in states with much more progressive tax codes like California and New York. 

It is sometimes easy to accept being a cog in the corporatocracy, but I find hope when other tech workers realize that we have much more in common with other working people than with the CEOs and lobbyists at our own companies. We work hard, and then we get arbitrarily laid off because the company wants to depress wages. We don’t have a union, and we’re often forced to work on projects that clash with our personal values and morals.

We are the actual people who work every day to keep enormous technical systems running – systems that are super critical to the entire world. Tech workers don’t understand our own leverage and political power, and our companies take advantage of that. Only our boss’s boss’s boss’s boss is actually benefiting from the lobbying that is happening “for us.” 

In general, it hurts your ego to be told you don’t deserve to live here, or that the tech autocracy is your fault. The truth for most of us is that we live here not just because of our company, but because we feel connections to the people and the land, the natural beauty of the Northwest, and our neighbors that share our values. In the face of our current federal administration, more and more tech workers are trying to figure out what we can do to help. Having more tech people stand up for a just economy, and having non-tech people hear that, is important for building solidarity. 

Advocates will continue doing our work because we care about making Washington a resilient state that doesn’t just tax our poorest people. Like always, there will be resistance from the tech lobby and the Governor. But we voters protected childcare funding when the capital gains tax on the wealthy was challenged at the ballot. Coalitions of people made sure it stayed. And if we want a state that works not just for tech workers, but for all people who live here, we have to face these challenges together.

The post Op-Ed: Tech Workers Must Challenge the Political Power of Their Bosses first appeared on The Urbanist.

On Monday, the Seattle City Council voted unanimously to send the Seattle Shield Initiative, a new progressive revenue proposal, to Seattle voters this November. 

Championed on council by new Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck and with support from Mayor Bruce Harrell, the initiative would restructure the city’s Business & Occupation (B&O) tax in such a way that 75% of the city’s businesses would no longer have to pay the tax, with 90% paying less than they do today. The remaining 10% of businesses, those that generate more than $2 million in annual gross revenue, would pay more. 

The Seattle Shield Initiative will raise an estimated $81 million in new annual revenue. The proposal calls for spending $60 million to backfill the city’s General Fund in various specified categories, while up to $20 million will be used to address the financial impacts of federal funding reductions and policy changes. 

“This legislation began with three simple goals in mind,” Rinck said at a council meeting last week. “First, to shield critical city investments from cuts in a very challenging budget environment. Second, to shield small businesses from the impacts of rising costs to ensure they can continue to fuel our region’s vitality. And third, to shield our community from massive cuts in federal funding that are coming our way that will increase demand on city services from the most vulnerable of our constituents.”

As originally drafted, the initiative was intended to guarantee continued funding for emergency shelters and homelessness prevention, food access, addressing gender-based violence, and supporting small businesses and workers’ rights. 

Council adds more buckets, decreases funds collected

Last week’s meeting saw council adding a host of amendments to the initiative that both increased the number of allowable uses for the funding and reduced the total amount of funds available.

During public comment, Hali Willis, the community policy manager for the Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness, expressed worry at such a strategy. 

“We need to prepare ourselves for an influx of people relying on homelessness shelter and homelessness services when they lose their emergency housing vouchers and an influx of people relying on food banks and meal programs when they lose their SNAP benefits,” Willis said. “I’m so glad that we have this $90 million progressive proposal on the table today, and I urge you to send it to the voters, but frankly, I’m really scared of what will happen if this revenue proposal is reduced or further peanut buttered across many different worthy causes.”

Councilmembers proceeded to do exactly what Willis warned against. 

To the bucket of allowable uses for the dollars backfilling the general fund, Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth added public health, arts, and culture, and Councilmember Maritza Rivera added workforce development and job readiness training. 

To the bucket of allowable uses for the dollars used to offset federal fund reductions, Council President Sara Nelson added substance use disorder treatment, Councilmember Rob Saka added transportation, and Rivera added immigrant and refugee services.

Some of those programs have steadier funding in existing sources. Seattle voters passed a record-breaking $1.55 billion transportation levy last year and are being asked to vote for a new Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise (FEPP) levy this November that more than doubles the previous levy’s investment.

Rivera also clawed back nearly $10 million of the B&O restructure’s additional revenue by adding exemptions that were specifically tailored to benefit Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and Seattle Children’s Hospital. 

“Both organizations are experiencing federal impact impacts, as we have said, due to cuts to research and severe Medicaid cuts,” Rivera said. “It is critical that we ensure we are taking care of cancer research and patients, including those who can’t afford care, and for children who need dedicated, specialized care, in the face of federal research and Medicaid cuts. This is the very problem this bill is claiming to address — that is impacts to our residents, including our kids, based on federal cuts and policy changes.”

Because Rivera introduced these two amendments late in the process without earlier disclosing them to her council colleagues, Rinck was not able to easily adjust the B&O tax rates to make up the difference in revenue, meaning the expected $90 million from the legislation was whittled down to $81 million.

“I would note that between these two amendments we’re creating carveouts for two organizations only, and the amendment sponsor, as well as all of us on the dais, will have to answer to why every other hospital and nonprofit in the health space, why they’re not getting the same treatments,” said Rinck, who abstained from the votes. “I would argue that if this body wants to support the entire health sector, we should do so in a comprehensive way and separate from this legislation.”

Councilmember Dan Strauss attempted to add a tax credit for stevedoring, which he said would stabilize commerce coming and going from the port. Central staff estimated this credit would reduce the B&O tax revenue by another $1.5 million. However, the amendment failed to pass, with only Strauss, Saka, and Councilmember Mark Solomon voting in favor. 

Councilmember Bob Kettle offered a successful amendment that removed the initiative’s sunset clause. Instead, the tax break for small businesses would be permanent while maintaining the current tax rate for seven years. In 2033, the tax rate would be reduced to an intermediate level that would no longer generate the extra $81 million in revenue but would still be able to cover the cost of the tax break for smaller businesses.

While all the councilmembers voted in favor of the final bill, some had more misgivings than others, with Nelson lamenting the possibility of “unintended consequences” and the change’s impact on the overall economy. 

New budget forecast and its political ramifications

“This is a significant win for Seattle’s small businesses and our broader community. By reducing taxes for 90% of businesses, we are helping local entrepreneurs thrive and compete while ensuring they can continue to contribute to the fabric of our neighborhoods,” said Harrell. 

Harrell held a bill signing ceremony directly after the council vote on Monday, conveniently timed to take place a day before the primary election.

Harrell is facing an unexpectedly strong challenge in this year’s mayoral race. Transit Riders Union General Secretary Katie Wilson, who played a key role in the passage of the major progressive JumpStart payroll tax in 2020, entered the race in March.

Recent polling showed the two candidates in a statistical tie, putting pressure on Harrell to deliver tangible results to win over voters.

The Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, traditionally one of Harrell’s supporters, opposed the Seattle Shield Initiative. 

“Raising the B&O on any employer right now is a bad idea – especially given the economic facts presented last week by the City of Seattle itself,” Rachel Smith, president and CEO of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, said in June. 

However, Smith has endorsed Harrell’s mayoral run.

Harrell also benefits from the slightly rosier budget forecast delivered on Monday, which downgraded the estimated 2025-2026 deficit from April’s $240 million forecast to $150 million. 

The Office of Economic and Revenue Forecasts (OERF) recommended the baseline scenario for the new budget forecast, as opposed to the pessimistic scenario, which was their recommendation in April. Harrell will be able to base his proposed budget, due on September 23, on the improved outlook. 

Harrell also has the option to exercise the 0.1% public safety sales tax with the new authority granted by the state legislature. Last week the council passed Nelson’s resolution preempting up to 25% of the proceeds of the tax, should it be implemented, for addiction treatment services. 

However, Harrell might have to tread lightly, as a regressive sales tax increase might prove less popular with swing voters.

The last economic forecast of the year, scheduled for later in October, is still the source of much uncertainty. 

“When developing a budget, decisions should recognize that the risk is really high there will be a downward revision, not necessarily to the extent of a pessimistic scenario, but somewhere

in between,” said interim OERF director Jan Duras. 

Sales tax revenue has been weak for more than a year, at least partly due to a downturn in the construction sector. Demand for commercial space in Seattle remains the lowest among tracked cities, and fewer international visitors are expected in Seattle in 2026 due to the volatile political climate. 

The new tariffs announced on July 31 and the recent weak employment numbers add additional risk to an uncertain economy. At the same time, the Jumpstart payroll tax is sensitive to the stock prices of tech companies that are currently growing due to the promise of artificial intelligence (AI) software, which some observers think is a bubble due for a correction.

However, any downgrade to the revenue forecast in October will become the problem of the council, who will be responsible for any additional cuts or layoffs that may need to be proposed to balance the budget. 

The council would also need to fill the subsequent budget hole should the Seattle Shield Initiative fail to pass in November. 

Still, this initiative represents a major victory for progressive newcomer Rinck, who was able to garner Harrell’s support and build enough momentum to achieve a unanimous vote on a progressive revenue proposal.

New councilmember Debora Juarez remarked on how impressive an achievement Rinck’s policy was “out of the gate.”

In contrast, former Councilmember Cathy Moore’s proposal last November to institute a city-wide 2% capital gains tax narrowly failed to pass, with a close 4-4 committee vote. At the time, Harrell didn’t support the proposal.

Voters will get their chance to weigh in at the ballot box on the Seattle Shield Initiative on November 4.

“Collectively, with a vote for this, we’ll have shown that local government can step up when federal leadership steps back,” Rinck said. “This is our opportunity to show that Seattle remains a city that chooses collaboration over division, that invests in each other, and that builds a future we all deserve. And I believe that when we give Seattle voters the choice they deserve, they will choose to shield our city and protect what matters most.”

The post Seattle Council Greenlights Rinck’s B&O Tax Overhaul first appeared on The Urbanist.

Since 1947, Everett’s Funko Stadium has held everything from AquaSox games to grade school baseball games – but times are changing. The AquaSox are the High-A minor league affiliate of the Seattle Mariners and due to pressure from Major League Baseball to upgrade minor league facilities, AquaSox ownership says now it’s time for a stadium revamp. The league’s new amenity requirements include larger locker rooms, umpire accommodations, more parking, and enhanced seating. The 3,682-seat Funko Field does not meet these standards. 

The city had three options: renovate, build a new stadium, or do nothing. 

Everett chose the second option. On the eve of the new year, December 2024, the Everett City Council unanimously chose a site east of Angel of the Winds Arena — at the corner of Broadway and Pacific, right next to the Sounder rail line. 

As of June 2025, the project is in full swing and hoping to break ground in early 2026. The city is planning to tap Bayley Construction to build the new stadium. 

“The Outdoor Event Center is a key piece of our plan to grow Everett the right way – with more housing, better access to transit and a more vibrant, walkable downtown. It’s about bringing people together, creating new opportunities and growing our local economy to support the quality of life and robust public services our residents deserve,” Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin said. 

The City plans on spending $4.8 million to advance the (OEC) Outdoor Event Center stadium project to the shovel-ready stage. The City forecasts contributing a total of about $8 million toward construction and has budgeted an additional $20 million to acquire 15 properties needed to clear room for the facility. It’s likely some business relocation assistance and possible eminent domain will be needed, the City said. 

Some opponents of the new stadium are using a “No Frogs Downtown” slogan, referring to the AquaSox mascot. Legend says iconic mascot Weebly is a cross between a Pacific Tree Frog and a Central American red eyed tree frog. In a port town that can be soggy and gray, the logo is a nod to Everett’s amphibious identity.

Proponents argue the city risks losing the AquaSox team to another city with a newer stadium if they do not build the new stadium. And the transit-rich location helps Mariners fans from across the region see prospects play before they reach the big leagues. Fans can also see the franchise’s more advanced minor leaguers at Triple A team Tacoma Rainiers, the last stop before the majors.

With a price tag projected at $82 million or more, will the benefits of a brand new stadium outweigh the costs and how does the public feel about the project? And is it the best use of the land chosen, among the most transit rich areas of downtown Everett?

City promises revitalization and year-round activation 

The Franklin administration is all in on the stadium.

“At its core, this is an economic development project. Losing the AquaSox would have a negative economic impact on our community. A new facility downtown that can host baseball, soccer, concerts and other events, plus include a public park, has significant positive benefits – not just economically but also for the quality of life of our residents.” said Simone Tarver, spokesperson for the City of Everett. 

For the City of Everett, this is more than a passion project; it’s been their mission for the last several years. “It’s what we think about when we wake up,” said Dan Eernissee, economic development director at the City of Everett. 

To its backers, the proposed ballpark would be an investment in the future, contributing to downtown revitalization. The City is also hoping to use the new stadium to attract a minor-level pro soccer team, potentially both men’s and women’s. “The United Soccer League already is intending to be a big part of the project,” Tarver said. 

Everett council envisions over 100 days of annual use, including concerts, soccer matches, and festivals.

“106 outdoor events will dovetail well year-round,” Eernissee said. He added that the stadium will serve as a public park and community space, potentially including a dog park on the edge of the property. “tThe OEC will most definitely have a park element” Tarver says, “As density increases so do people with dogs.”

 “Do you know how many people in Everett have dogs?” Eernissee said. “50% of people in multifamily housing developments have a dog these days!” 

For businesses near the proposed site — between Hewitt and Pacific Avenues — the stadium means potential foot traffic, tourism, and a new wave of investment.

“It’s going to make Everett an all seasonal destination,” Eernissee said. “Now these businesses can provide pizza all year round, like Broadway Pizza could even start seasonal specials.” 

But where is the money coming from to fund such a venture? 

Questions about cost, transparency, and displacement

The stadium’s projected cost — budgeted at $82 million — has raised eyebrows. Everett’s Stadium Fiscal Advisory Committee released a report that said the downtown site would be the “most fiscally beneficial option” in the long-run, despite greater upfront costs, pegged between $102 million to $133 million.

The funding for the new Everett stadium is set to come from a mix of public and private sources and use a public-private partnership model. The plan suggests transferring project delivery to a third-party non-profit facilitator and recommends using Public Facilities Group as that facilitator.

The City’s “target budget” projects a $82 million, but they admit that a full picture of costs will not emerge until the design is finalized. The higher earlier estimate could indicate costs will rise.

• $42 million for hard construction costs.
• $20 million for soft costs (e.g., design, permits, taxes, fees, and contingency). 
• $20 million for property acquisition.

The City of Everett is committing around $7 million, potentially from capital improvement and park impact fees, while state and county support may include a $7.4 million infrastructure grant from Washington State and a $5 million contribution from Snohomish County. The AquaSox have pledged $10 million to the new stadium, and the City is hoping to secure $10 million from the United Soccer League. 

“Until design is closer to complete, we won’t have the final cost. The most recent approvals from Council provided funding to get design to 60% at which point we will have a more complete picture of the costs to share with the Council as well as our community,” Tarver said. 

To cover the majority of construction costs, it’s likely that the City will issue revenue-backed bonds, with repayment tied to stadium-generated income such as leases and ticket surcharges.

Eernissee says that the stadium is part of a larger marketing strategy for the future, while also trying to get ahead of the real estate bubble itself. 

“This is likely an area where there will be a lot of market pressure to develop,” Eernissee said. “Before the market rates get too high we’re trying to get a high enough facility that it’s appropriate for an urban center.”

Transit complement or impediment? 

The City contends that the new stadium aligns with Everett’s overall strategy of increasing public transport and development within the downtown area. 

“Sound Transit will work hand in hand with our city team,” Tarver said. “We anticipate this area will be close to a light rail station in the future.” 

And while the Everett Link extension isn’t expected until 2037 at the earliest (or 2041 if Sound Transit cost control and realignment efforts don’t go well), the city is already taking steps to prepare for it. 

“We’re still in the planning phase, so those specific decisions haven’t been made yet. Right now we are in the middle of Everett Transit’s Long Range Plan online open house to solicit input from the community on how transit services should evolve between now and 2044. Public input is such an important part of that,” Tarver said.

Downtown Everett’s future light rail station is expected to be sited near the existing Sounder station, which would put the light rail stop in close proximity to the proposed stadium. Sound Transit’s preferred option is just west of the existing transit center, but Alternative D would overlap with the stadium site. If light rail is ever extended farther north, having two stadiums bookending Broadway could prove to be an obstacle for siting a path for the extension.

Transit boosters have argued that high-density housing should be the top priority within a short walk of light rail, given the huge investment the region is making and the incredible transit access those areas will have.

Everett upzoned its downtown core in 2018, allowing 25-story towers in some areas — though highrises have yet to materialize and Everett’s population has grown slowly compared to its peer cities in the region. The proposed stadium site is in that 25-story highrise zone with a buildable square footage of 3 million. 

While the stadium would negate the site’s housing capacity, the City seems to be banking on the project being a catalyst to spur redevelopment elsewhere in the downtown core.

Property acquisition and displacement

The land the stadium is set to build upon is currently the site of some retail businesses, but most of the site is made up of older auto repair shops and specialty businesses. 

Of the local businesses still operating there, most owners are actually in support of the plan, even if it means possible displacement. 

“Stadiums are always good,” said John, a cashier at Chevron. He was made aware of the city’s plans when they did a survey, and he said his coworkers are in support. 

Eernissee says they plan to offer all of the businesses displaced leases elsewhere in Downtown Everett. 

“There’s a process to follow here. We are doing our part in following that prescribed process,” Eernissee said.

This process typically includes feasibility studies, environmental reviews, public meetings, and formal approvals from city and state agencies. It also involves finalizing funding agreements — such as bonds, grants, and private investments — alongside competitive bidding for design and construction. 

Criticism of stadium subsidies 

As a publicly funded economic development tool, stadiums have drawn criticism for often falling short of their economic promises. In 1997, two Brooking Institute researchers — Andrew Zimbalist and Roger G. Noll — wrote a book raising the alarm that publicly funded stadiums were a bad investment and failed to live up to their rosy projections, but the practice has persisted relatively unabated.

“A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment,” they wrote. “No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.”

Even when stadiums spur significant redevelopment, they have drawn criticism for furthering displacement and siphoning money away from social infrastructure. For example, Nationals Park in Washington, D.C., was a publicly funded MLB stadium that ultimately cost $693 million by the time it was completed in 2008. Built to anchor redevelopment in the Navy Yard, it did spur real estate investment and boost tourism, but it also drew criticism for relying heavily on public money and failing to address housing affordability or racial equity concerns. 

Located in a retail and warehouse area, Everett’s stadium will not directly displace residents. “The good thing about this project is that there’s no residents affected,” Eernissee said. 

The City has pledged to uplift existing communities and support local businesses, promising it could be a massive boon for the city. 

As a minor league stadium, the scale of investment is smaller than big league parks, but similar risks exist. If the stadium and associated redevelopment only results in benefits for sports team and rich investors, or if it becomes a long-time liability sapping City resources, it may go down in history as a boondoggle. 

What community members are saying

Residents have raised a few different arguments against the new stadium build, the most prominent being relocation of small businesses. 

“I’m incredibly annoyed that the stadium isn’t being entirely privately funded. Who asked for this? It’s fine where it is. Meanwhile we don’t have any park rangers in the city and our library services have been cut,” an Everett resident complained on Reddit. 

But Tarver says that these are misconceptions. 

“There are some major misconceptions about this project, like what funding the City would be using, the idea that this funding could bring back park rangers (it couldn’t), that this adds to the structural deficit (it doesn’t), and why Funko Field isn’t a viable option,” said Tarver. 

Some Everett residents shared the fear the new stadium could ramp up displacement pressure and change the neighborhood. 

“The proposed site is in the middle of a historic district.” said Louley, an Everett local, when asked in an online poll about the community’s idea of the new project. “In the past 20 years, this neighborhood has completely turned itself around. We are a tight-knit community that looks out for each other, as well as the large unhoused population that travel through on a daily basis.”

“Putting a sports stadium in the middle of our neighborhood is going to undo EVERYTHING. North Everett has really been leading the positive changes in the city, but because historically this was a ‘slum,’” Louley added. “The entire county wants to raze us to the ground.” 

On the other hand, some Everett residents back the project and favor out with the old, in with the new. Sverre is one such Everett resident. 

“I think long term it will be great for the city,” Sverre said. “The current facility is owned by the school district, and its priority is for student use. Players have to cross the football then up the hill to even get to the locker room or trainers offices, which are the EHS football team locker rooms. They haven’t been updated in 50 years, and are massively outdated, even for high school sports use, let alone professional athletes. It would cost way too much to upgrade Funko field to meet new MLB standards, and it still wouldn’t be owned by the team or city.” 

Beyond improving the stadium experience, Sverre sees the project as furthering the revitalization of downtown: “This new stadium is going to connect downtown Everett’s core, with the east side of Broadway, which has fallen in disrepair and is mainly older manufacture type buildings and old warehouses. It will bring a large amount of new urban housing and commercial spaces that will link up with the Everett Transit Center. This is also where the downtown light rail station will be built. I know future development will follow.” 

Looking forward

As Everett pushes forward with its vision for a modern, multipurpose stadium, the project stands at a crossroads between transformation and tension. For some, it represents long-overdue progress—an investment in economic development, public amenities, and city pride. For others, it raises concerns about displacement, equity, and whether the return will truly match the cost.

At the end of the day, one thing is clear: this isn’t just about baseball. It’s about identity and the kind of future Everett wants to build. With construction slated to begin in 2026 and a completion date eyed for 2027, the stadium is beginning to look like a done deal, but it will be a test of the city’s planning prowess and commitment to inclusivity, transparency, and thoughtful urban growth to ensure it’s a success.

The post Everett Forges Ahead with Downtown Stadium for Minor League Sports first appeared on The Urbanist.

Washington state will lose at least $3 billion in federal funds for Apple Health each year going forward. As a result, 177,000 low income children and their families in our state will lose SNAP food stamp benefits, and the state will have to come up with $88 million a year just to administer the slimmed down program. 

These cuts don’t include the $137 million in public school funding for after-school care, summer learning, and education for children of working immigrants, all of which the Trump administration has just refused to distribute to the states. They are also on top of the cuts that our own legislature made this year, completely defunding early child care for low-income kids, shrinking the number of working class and low income students who will get college grants for tuition, delaying expansion of high quality child care for the kids of working parents… the list of cuts goes on and on. 

Some legislative leaders, like Jamie Pedersen (D-43rd, Seattle), the Senate Majority Leader, just want to wait and see. This should be no surprise, as Pedersen is a corporate attorney as well as Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary for the McKinstry corporation. With his family income between $460,000 and $1.1 million (according to public disclosure records), Pedersen will benefit from the tax breaks for the affluent which are embedded in the Trump legislation. 

The state and local tax (SALT) deduction provision alone, allowing affluent people to deduct an extra $30,000 from their income, could save Jamie over $9,000 in taxes. One out of ten tax returns in our state include the SALT deduction. That’s about 450,000 returns. It is hard to believe, but that adds up to over $4 billion of new money for these already affluent residents of our state.  

Governor Bob Ferguson and the Legislature could connect the dots between those who are gaining even greater wealth thanks to Trump and the hundreds of thousands of people who are losing health care, food stamps, child care, and K-12 educational necessities. The Governor should convene the Legislature in special session and vote through progressive funding to maintain, rebuild, and expand these public services and many others. Plus, there are relatively simple measures already drafted that, when implemented, would do just that:  

• An excess compensation tax on the biggest winners in the federal budget, already written and sponsored by State Senator Rebecca Saldaña (D-37th, Seattle). That would raise over $2 billion a year, with a 5% payroll tax paid by employers for individual compensation exceeding $176,000. 
• Close the Microsoft and Amazon loophole which exempts these global behemoths contributing their fair share of funding for the Workforce Education Investment Act. Representative Julia Reed (D-36th, Seattle) tried to eliminate this loophole, but while the Legislature raised the B&O surtax to pay for higher education and apprenticeships, they again capped Microsoft’s and Amazon’s contributions, depriving students of $1 billion a year which would have gone to lower tuition and increased college grants. 
• Trump has now exempted $30 million in estates from taxation, so that the children of the uber wealthy gain even more money when their parents die. The Legislature could take the bill they passed in April and increase the tax rate for estates valued in excess of $12 million and close the family foundation loophole. That loophole enables the wealthiest individuals, like Steve Balmer, Bill Gates, Howard Shultz, and Craig McCaw, to redirect their estates to the control of family members and avoid the estate tax altogether. Closing this loophole would dedicate billions of dollars from the uber wealthy to education and health care for Washingtonians.
• Enact a wealth tax on intangible assets exceeding $50 million, as proposed by Senator Noel Frame (D-36th, Seattle). That half of one percent tax on wealth would result in about $1.5 billion a year of new revenue, enabling the Legislature to meet its paramount constitutional duty to provide for the education of all children. The proposal would tax 4,300 of Washington’s wealthiest residents, who altogether make up five one-hundredths of the state’s population — ensuring they pay at least part of their fair share, rather than just celebrate Trump’s massive tax cuts for the megarich. 
• Pass a state version of Seattle’s income tax, which the Seattle City Council passed unanimously in 2017. This would have created a 2.25% tax on total income above $250,000 for individuals and above $500,000 for joint filers. The council’s action was confounded by the courts, but if the Legislature were to pass such a bill, using the language of the capital gains tax (defining the tax as an excise tax), then the legal pathway could be clear for at least $3 billion a year for education and health care. 

The Governor and the Legislature don’t have to behave like deer caught in the headlights. In a special legislative session they can immediately pass some or all of these proposals into law. Then our state would have the funds to make up for the billions in federal cuts, as well as restoring and expanding state services for education, child care, foster care, and health care for the people of our state. 

The money would come from those who benefit from the graft of the Trumpian budget. The more we tax their outsized wealth and privilege, the better for our state and our wellbeing. We don’t have to grovel for crumbs out of the federal budget. Instead, when we put to work these billions in revenue from our own wealthy denizens, we can build our shared economic wellbeing. We can realize a true democracy.

The post Op-Ed: How to De-Trumpify the Washington State Budget first appeared on The Urbanist.