“In our administration we are not going play small ball,” Harrell said. “This is not the time for small ball. This is the time to be creative and bold.”

In his speech, Harrell sought to back up that claim with initiatives like a health care for all plan to close the gaps in health care insurance coverage among Seattle residents. He also highlighted mentorship program for kids and increased programming at community centers. Branding his vision as “One Seattle,” Harrell said love, kindness, and collaboration would prevail over fear, mean tweets, and division, allowing the city to accomplish big things.

“In One Seattle, we’ll have affordable housing for all,” Harrell said. “We’ll support our seniors and those on fixed income and vulnerable people. That’s why I’ll be issuing an executive order demanding a full review of the approval process, policies, and implementation to expedite construction of affordable housing.”

Some of this work was already taken up and completed this past spring by the Seattle City Council via Councilmember Andrew Lewis’s legislation which streamlined permitting and code requirements for permanent supportive housing. Harrell’s full review could well find ways to expedite affordable housing production further and perhaps cast a wider net and fast track more types of affordable housing, not just the below 50% area median income projects under the purview of the Council’s ordinance.

The zoning question

Harrell briefly broached on the subject of zoning, although, like on the campaign trail, the specific commitment was fuzzy.

“We’ll fill in the gaps where zoning is already available for housing and construction and density,” Harrell said. “And our chief operating officer Marco Lowe, who not only has deep experience in City Hall but also actual experience in the housing industry, we will lead this critical effort. So as we embark on a citywide master plan update, as many of you are aware about, we’ll look at opportunities to address every neighborhood to address the shortage of quality housing at every income level.”

While still in campaign mode, Harrell attacked his opponent Lorena González to phase out single-family zoning across the city, as other cities like Minneapolis, Portland, Sacramento, Olympia, and other have done. Painting her housing plan as extreme, Harrell said he opposed abolishing all single-family zoning. His campaign surrogate Tim Burgess, a former city councilmember and fill-in mayor who is now Harrell’s Director of Strategic Initiatives went a rhetoric step further and accused González of promising “to abolish all single-family neighborhoods.”

Whether his inaugural speech represents a pivot on zoning policy is hard to parse. I have a question in to his office for details, but “addressing every neighborhood” could end up meaning a wide range of options, including rather incremental changes at the low-end.

Despite delays from the Durkan administration, the Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development did deliver a racial equity analysis of Seattle’s growth strategy to Seattle City Council as requested by Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda. That analysis found single-family zoning was at odds with racial equity and housing choice and affordability, and Mosqueda has suggested it should guide the City’s approach to the Comprehensive Plan update, which is due in 2024.

Whether his inaugural speech represents a pivot on zoning policy is hard to parse, since “addressing every neighborhood” could end up meaning a wide range of options, including rather incremental changes at the low-end. For now, Harrell’s office declined to reveal any more details about his every neighborhood strategy. “[Harrell] remains committed to ensuring the City is rapidly growing housing supply, thoughtfully increasing density, and identifying and filling the gaps in areas zoned for higher density that are underutilized,” spokesperson Jamie Housen said.

Mayor Harrell mentioned grappling with the legacy of redlining and racial exclusion in his remarks, but it’s not clear if he’ll make the same connections to zoning policy carrying forward the legacy that Mosqueda and González have made, nor to climate action.

Aspiring climate leader

“We will be a national leader in coordinating citywide climate policies towards net zero emissions,” Harrell said in his speech. But with an early focus on electric cars rather than more fundamental changes to streets and land use, the climate math may not add up — at least without bolder initiatives not yet laid out. On the other hand, Harrell did extend an olive branch to progressive advocates, such as those working on issues like climate and housing justice.

“My plea to people who self-proclaim to be the progressives: Give me a chance,” Harrell said. “I’ll work with you.”

Transportation emissions make up nearly two-thirds of Seattle’s climate inventory, so tackling that problem will be paramount to the mayor’s net-zero aspirations. The city’s climate action or lack thereof will go hinge on what happens at the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). Mayor Harrell fired SDOT Director Sam Zimbabwe, suggesting the department needs a new direction and a vision that “recognizes the role of cars” in addition to “increasing safety and decreasing travel times by bolstering transit, improving sidewalks, [and] protecting bike lanes.”

Harrell still weighing eviction moratorium extension

Harrell made affordable housing, reducing homelessness, and clearing parks of encampments a focal point. But he also declined to promise an extension of the city’s eviction moratorium, which expires on January 15th, despite the cresting omicron wave showing the Covid pandemic is hardly in the rearview mirror. Failing to extend that moratorium could lead to spike in homelessness and exacerbate suffering from the pandemic. To explain his hesitancy for an extension, Harrell expressed worries about vulnerable landlords who might lose their home with rental income and said he’d announce a decision in the next week.

Police Chief Diaz to remain — for now

In a media availability following his speech, Mayor Harrell left open the possibility that Interim Police Chief Adrian Diaz could become his pick to lead Seattle Police Department (SDP) long-term. He suggested he’d have the job on a trial basis, but may launch a national search if it doesn’t work out.

During his speech, Harrell stressed gun violence prevention and more resources for SPD while also eliminating racial bias, which has been persistent issue for the department for a long time. Harrell has been highly critical of efforts to defund SPD and made it a major campaign issue.

This week Harrell said he would double down on recruitment and retainment efforts at SPD to increase the ranks. Former Mayor Jenny Durkan set a goal of hiring 125 officers in 2022 and slowing separations to 90 for a net gain of 35 officers, a plan which was funded by Council.

The post Harrell Pledges Bold Agenda in Inaugural Speech first appeared on The Urbanist.

The Durkan administration cited equity concerns in its “pivot” away from downtown decongestion pricing, but those concerns and possible solutions to them have been widely covered since her administration embarked on the plan. We at The Urbanist suggested a few in our initial coverage. The congestion pricing study that Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) released in May 2019 found that most people who drive Downtown are high-wage earners and stressed the need for an equitable design to the program.

The study found that pricing works. “In every case, congestion pricing has reduced vehicle trips, reduced CO2 emissions, and lowered travel times,” study authors wrote. They also suggested a host of ideas to promote equity through the program, such as discounts for low-income motorists.

Very little happened next. The Durkan administration didn’t turn the study into an actual policy proposal, and then quietly informed the Seattle City Council they were pivoting away from the idea in fall 2020, KUOW’s John Ryan reports. The news wasn’t really a surprise since Mayor Durkan had neither mentioned decongestion pricing in her brief state of the city speech in January nor her previous 2020 agenda-setting speech nor really much at all since the initial push in 2018 and 2019.

“One policy that never got a mention in the speech was congestion pricing, which Mayor Durkan had previously presented as a first-term priority key to her climate strategy,” I wrote after her February 2020 state of the city speech. “Inevitably, congestion pricing will face a tough political fight to pass, but that fight is made tougher by the Mayor’s plan to run it as a ballot initiative before voters ever get to see it in action and reap the benefits. The City will be conducting outreach this year to craft the specifics of the proposal and build support, but it seems unlikely that it’ll be on a ballot before 2022 — unless the Mayor is ready to stake her reelection campaign on it in 2021.”

That reelection campaign never materialized after Mayor Durkan’s popularity nosedived in 2020. Durkan faced criticism as she stood by her police department as it tear-gassed and blast-balled Black Lives Matter protesters, medics, nurses, journalists, and bystanders alike, and oversaw the abandoning of the East Precinct building when the protesters persisted. The Mayor drolly declared it “a summer of love,” simultaneously alienating the Left and the Right in one masterful stroke. In December, the Mayor announced she was not running for re-election, arguing this would allow her to focus on executing on policy in her final year. Road pricing was no longer on her mayoral bucket list, though the Mayor said road pricing would still be considered as part of broader equity-minded reforms.

“Given recent community feedback and the evolving nature of the dual crises of COVID-19 and systemic racism, the staff leading this effort are pivoting the conversation from specifically addressing ‘Congestion Pricing’ to instead focusing on how best to fund the transition to a more equitable transportation system,” the Mayor’s Office wrote to council members according to KUOW. “Pricing will be considered, along with an exploration of other progressive funding tools that can support [greenhouse gas] reduction and invest in a more equitable transportation system.”

In its place, her administration released an “electrification blueprint” last week, which we would spend more time covering if it wasn’t so likely to end up in the dustbin like the pricing scheme that preceded it. The blueprint’s goal of creating an emissions-free zone is a good one, but the Durkan administration’s track record delivering even on the intermediate steps to get there is not good. Progress on new walking, biking, and transit infrastructure has slowed.

When Durkan first announced her congestion pricing push, it was the same week she delayed the rollout of several key protected bike lanes Downtown. Delaying or canceling bike lanes, RapidRide projects, and the Center City Connector streetcar has become a hallmark of her administration. Without a steady pace of walking, biking, and transit improvements, it’s hard to imagine how an emissions-free zone or a pricing system would thrive, let alone get off the ground. Ryan Packer highlighted the dearth of progress on the bike network under Durkan in their writeup in Seattle Bike Blog.

“That goal actually comes directly from a commitment the City made in 2017, when then-Mayor Tim Burgess signed onto a declaration along with eleven other cities from around the world to ensure that a major zone in their city is zero emission by 2030,” Packer wrote. “At the time, Mayor Burgess was quoted alongside Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo as saying, ‘Responding to climate change’s threat requires big thinking and bold action.’ Paris has proceeded with a fundamental reshaping of the city’s streets, with around 30 miles of pop-up bike lanes added in just 2020 that will likely all remain permanent. Seattle built around 2 miles of protected bike lanes last year.”

Visionary mayors like Hidalgo were rapidly pedestrianizing streets and deploying protected bike lanes before the pandemic and ramped up the pace after declaring Covid emergencies in order to give residents more options to safely recreate and get around their neighborhoods. Mayor Durkan did greenlight the Stay Healthy Streets program that topped out at about 25 miles worth of open streets. The method was primarily to deter through traffic on existing neighborhood greenways with temporary signs and barriers. The greenways should have been designed this way from the jump, but it was a welcome change.

There was a problem though: Stay Healthy Streets mostly snaked through single-family areas and never reached mostly avoid apartment-heavy areas and business districts. We argued for greatly expanding the program and focusing on the densest neighborhoods, where the lack of open space was most acute and physical distancing to limit Covid spread most challenging. By fall though, SDOT had begun to dismantle parts of the open streets program, such as the highly popular segment on Lake Washington Boulevard, rather than continuing to expand it. While Mayor Durkan pledged to make 20 miles of open streets permanent, she did not fund it in her subsequent budget. That put SDOT in the awkward situation of proposing to shelve some more bike projects in order to scrape together money to continue the open streets program.

All this is to say big visions are well and good, but an administration also needs to take all the smaller steps to get there — sometimes in the face of fierce resistance from some neighbors and business owners. Fewer cars polluting Seattle would be good. Emissions-free zones would be great. The path is paved in smaller, less sexy projects like repairing and adding sidewalks, protected intersections, road diets, and a complete network of protected bike lanes and frequent bus lines.

The pandemic has given us a temporary respite from the severe congestion that has plagued Seattle — if not the deadly crashes. But we can’t take it for granted or let it go to waste. Now while traffic volumes are lower would be the perfect time to add dedicated bus lanes, pedestrianize streets, and pilot protected bike lanes. If we start now, we might not find ourselves chasing the next fad in four years’ time in an effort to rebrand the last four years of spinning our wheels.

The post Mayor Durkan ‘Pivots’ from Road Pricing to Electrification Blueprint first appeared on The Urbanist.

Seattle Peoples Party candidate Nikkita Oliver finished third with 16.99% of the vote, close behind Moon but outside the margin for a recount. Oliver conceded at a Tuesday press conference and later revealed she would personally vote for Moon. Oliver said the Seattle Peoples Party would not endorse in the mayoral race, but would host a debate between Moon and Durkan. Moon has accepted the invitation, while Durkan is still considering it.

Former 46th District State Rep. Jessyn Farrell finished fourth with 12.53% of the vote. Farrell has not yet endorsed but may after Labor Day, apparently. Closing out the top six, State Sen. Bob Hasegawa took 8.39% of the vote and former mayor Mike McGinn took 6.5%–neither of whom have yet endorsed in the mayoral race.

Path To Victory

Since the top two candidates accounted for just 45.5% of primary votes, where the other candidates’ votes end up is anybody’s guess. That said, it does seem Moon would benefit from the General Election’s larger, younger, and more progressive electorate. Additionally, Ben Anderstone highlighted what could be a crucial factor helping Moon in his Crosscut election analysis: Durkan has already come close to maxing out her potential in her strongest neighborhoods, but Moon has more room to grow.

Durkan did better in her top neighborhoods than Cary Moon did in hers. Durkan, after all, shared the primary’s center lane with only minor candidates. Moon, on the other hand, heavily split the left lane, especially with the apparent third-place finisher Nikkita Oliver. But what’s notable is how little head room Durkan has for improving in her strongest neighborhoods come November. In the primary, she received 65 percent in Broadmoor, 64 percent in Washington Park, and 57 percent in Madison Park. With those 21 candidates on the ballot, that’s impressive. It’s also bad news for the leader: It means Durkan won an impressive share of her “gimme” general election voters in the primary. Cary Moon, by contrast, maxed out at only 28 percent in her top neighborhood (Fremont).

Anderstone also noted that Durkan’s top-performing neighborhoods are Seattle’s three wealthiest: Broadmoor, Washington Park, and Madison Park. Beyond these elite mansion enclaves, Durkan tended to do better with wealthy homeowners citywide.

Stark Differences On Urbanist Issues

On the issues some sharp divides are already apparent. We’ll dive into those more as the election progresses, but already the list includes:

• Cary Moon supports municipal broadband. Durkan does not.
• Cary Moon put pedestrians first in her mode hierarchy for prioritizing street space. Durkan put them last.
• Cary Moon led the charge against spending $4 billion on the risky Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement project commonly known as Bertha. Jenny Durkan is endorsed by Mayor Ed Murray, who was the lead sponsor on the Senate bill funding Bertha, and most of the people in this who to blame for Bertha article.
• Cary Moon is an ardent supporter of missing middle housing in single-family zones. Durkan is “exploring” the option. Maybe she’d form a task force to think about it?
• Cary Moon supports Seattle’s tax on incomes above than $250,000, and her platform includes capital gains tax and a luxury real estate tax. Durkan is a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

2017 Endorsement Questionnaire: Cary Moon

The post Cary Moon Heads to Election Showdown with Jenny Durkan first appeared on The Urbanist.

By longstanding policy, The Urbanist focused our endorsement on Moon’s positive attributes and policy positions, rather than making a case against her opponents. Considering everything that Oliver and the Seattle People’s Party (the independent party that is supporting Oliver’s campaign) represent, I personally would have had a hard time telling people to vote against Oliver.

In her interview with The Urbanist‘s election board (of which I’m a member), Moon impressed us with her policy knowledge and nuanced vision for the city. We regret that we didn’t get a chance to interview Oliver, though we understand that candidates–particularly those who have to keep their day job to pay the bills–have a hard time fitting in all the interview requests they get from publications and political groups.

Like The Urbanist, the Stranger endorsed Cary Moon. Charles Mudede, who co-authored a series of articles on the housing crisis with Moon, offered a compelling case that Moon stands out because of her cutting economic analysis:

The good news is there are many other ways of thinking about how wealth is generated and distributed in a society, in a city, in a lifetime. And only one candidate in the current mayoral race has a grasp of this fact, knows about and carefully considers the economic ideas that have been banished from almost all prestigious economic institutions. That person is Cary Moon. She knows that economics is not economics, but neo-classical economics, and applies this understanding in her solutions to the housing crisis. It’s not only what separates her from other candidates, but market urbanists, who have no idea that they are regurgitating a law, Says law, that’s not only old but was dismantled by economists of the Great Depression, but returned in the form of the efficient market hypothesis—a key concept of neo-classical thought.

Some critics have tried to reduce Moon’s housing ideas down to curbing real estate speculation and taxing vacant units. In reality, she offers a detailed housing policy, with nuanced proposals on affordable housing incentives, zoning, and everything in between. It’s true that Moon’s proposed speculation taxes set her apart from the other candidates in the field. It’s also true that this policy is not a silver bullet, and may not even be the primary solution to Seattle’s current housing woes. But the fact that Moon even proposes them shows an admirable willingness to think outside the box, a trait that many Seattle mayors have lacked.

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/890974232775016448

As an educator, lawyer, poet, artist, and activist, Nikkita Oliver has a résumé unlike anyone who has run for mayor of Seattle in a long time. As a queer black mixed womxn and a renter, Oliver represents many communities that have never been politically powerful in Seattle’s history. In a city where stalling is so common that we call it the “Seattle process”, Oliver’s supporters hope that she can shake Seattle from its establishment mooring, and get to work on issues like reducing homelessness and making housing more affordable with the urgency they deserve.

Oliver has promised to alter the city’s budget so that addressing homelessness is the top priority, even if it means taking money away from other worthy projects. One such project that Oliver identified was the Missing Link of the Burke-Gilman Trail, a mile-long gap in the grade-separated trail that shunts bicyclists and pedestrians onto busy roads.

Bike lanes and trails make an easy target. Turn on conservative talk radio and you likely won’t have to wait long to hear a rant about them. Yet bicycling infrastructure makes up a tiny fraction of the city’s budget. For example, closing the Missing Link is expected to cost $12.5 million, out of the city’s $1.2 billion annual general fund spending. The Missing Link has been the site of numerous collisions that resulted in serious injury, and closing the gap has long been a mission of Seattle’s bicycling community. With a solution so close at hand, many urbanists criticized Oliver for what they saw as a hasty dismissal of a cheap and effective way to save lives.

It’s important not to miss the forest for the trees. Oliver’s instincts are right; Seattle’s homelessness crisis is an emergency, and many other things the city spends money on are not. While I think cutting hard-fought bicycling safety spending is off-base, plenty of projects are riper targets. The Washington State Convention Center Addition will easily cost $1.6 billion if the City of Seattle lets it go ahead. The Lander Street overpass in SoDo is expected to cost $140 million. Both projects cite wildly implausible economic studies to justify their existence. Neither will save lives. We could build quite a bit of housing with $1.6 billion.

For Oliver’s urbanist critics, none of this will assuage their fears that she is not “one of them”. But, as Seattle Bike Blog’s Tom Fucoloro argues, urbanists share responsibility for not selling our ideas to a broader audience. For all that urbanists talk about affordable housing and transit, the Seattle urbanist community is disproportionately white, male, and middle-to-upper-class. Urbanists and homeless advocates share a common cause; the fact that we’ve failed to forge that alliance is on us as much as anybody.

When writing about why she’s running, Oliver stressed the value of collaboration and bottom-up movement building: “I cannot end the affordability crisis or the state of emergency around homelessness alone. I cannot fully fund schools and transform the Seattle Police Department alone. We have to do it together.” For our part, urbanists should make sure the Seattle People’s Party does not feel alone in those fights.

Check out these takeaways from the Growing Seattle forum we co-sponsored (includes a link to a video of the forum) for more on the mayoral candidates.

2017 Primary Endorsements

The post Mayoral Race Is Seattle’s Chance To Get Our Priorities Right first appeared on The Urbanist.

We endorse Prop 1: Access For All, the King County proposition with the goal of increasing art, science and heritage funding.

The measure continues our state and region’s unfortunate habit of relying on regressive taxation, adding to our already high sales tax. Specifically, it would raise the county’s sales tax 0.1% or by one cent per $10 spent. Essentials like food and prescription drugs would be exempt from this tax.

The campaign supporting Prop 1 addressed the tax equity issue: “Until both the Washington constitution and authorizing legislation are changed, we are limited to the sales tax to raise money for needed programs like Access for All.”

An equitable program with an inequitable funding source… Such is the life in Washington state, at least until we win the legal and political fights to pass state and local income taxes. We anxiously await the day King County can use an income tax to fund its progressive priorities–such as the homelessness levy ultimately kept off the ballot until over the protests of King County Councilmembers Gossett and Dembowski.

That said, it’d be unfair to deny the promising programs Access For All funds because of our state has royally screwed up its tax system. The benefits are many and targeted at disadvantaged communities.

#AccessForAll means all students across KC get field trips that will inspire them to see our amazing world in new ways. (:@SeattleAquarium) pic.twitter.com/QZRvjoIGZu

— Inspire Washington (@InspireWashing) July 18, 2017

The measure would make it easier and more affordable for low-income people to attend cultural performances, and it would replenish funding for music and arts programs at public schools that have been under considerable strain since the recession hit.

We can’t turn our backs from these critical needs, nor should you. Vote yes on Prop 1.

2017 Primary Endorsements

The post Vote Yes On Prop 1: Access For All first appeared on The Urbanist.

The Urbanist Elections Board evaluated 19 eligible candidates for endorsement for Port of Seattle, Seattle City Council, and Mayor of Seattle. From this pool, we have endorsed five leaders who both share our urbanist values and have plans to enact those values into tangible policies. We are proud to present our 2017 primary election endorsements.

Mayor of Seattle: Cary Moon

The Urbanist is proud to endorse Cary Moon for Mayor of Seattle. Cary Moon brings a nuanced understanding of the issues facing Seattle, and a bold, innovative approach to solving them. As the only candidate with a masters degree in urban planning, Moon has dedicated her career to the improvement of Seattle’s urban fabric. Electing a progressive urbanist like Cary Moon would set Seattle apart on an international level as a city that values smart planning.

Her past work as executive director of the People’s Waterfront Coalition shows that Moon is able to stay true to her urbanist ideals about what makes a good city despite outside pressures and interests. We believe that the strength of character exhibited during those policy debates will benefit Seattle as we tackle the myriad of challenges facing our city now and in the years to come.

She has solid, progressive ideas around affordable housing, transportation, and land use. She is distinguishing herself in this campaign by bringing up innovative policy proposals that get at the root of Seattle’s affordability crisis, such as taxes on speculation and corporate investment. Seattle needs a mayor who is on board with the policies outlined in HALA and realizes the need to go further. She has set an ambitious but attainable goal of expanding Seattle’s affordable housing stock to 24%, using tools like community land trusts and surplus public land.

She has proven herself capable of working effectively with a range of stakeholders, from government leaders to neighborhood groups. She has also shown a commitment to ensuring that the Seattle of the future is open to all residents regardless of income, race, or background.

From issues around homelessness to transportation access and education, she has shown an ability to clearly articulate a way forward.

In a crowded field of qualified candidates, many of whom share similar perspectives, Cary Moon has set herself apart through her clear vision for what an equitably built city and accessible city government looks like and can be. Her bold, visionary platform truly sets herself apart in a field where every candidate is trying to make the case that they are the most progressive.

We believe that a Seattle under the leadership of Moon would be a revolutionary step on the path toward an equitable, innovative, and inclusive Seattle for all. Vote Moon.

Read Cary Moon’s questionnaire.

Seattle City Council, Position 8: Teresa Mosqueda

The Urbanist is excited to endorse Teresa Mosqueda for Seattle City Council, Position 8 (at-large).

Mosqueda comes to the Council race with a long history of successful public service and social justice advocacy (such as her leadership of the campaign to raise the state minimum wage), and an impressive list of endorsements from across the Seattle political spectrum. Like us, Mosqueda worries that Seattle’s prosperity isn’t being shared, and she offers a dizzying array of detailed, sensible proposals for how to fix it–everything from expanding urban villages and densifying single-family zones, to expediting Sound Transit 3 with local revenue, to providing affordable childcare for all.

If elected, Mosqueda would be the only renter on the Council. Even beyond the symbolism, it’s clear that Mosqueda understands the interconnected challenges that marginalized Seattleites face in a way that many progressive leaders do not. Mosqueda talked with the Elections Board at length about the importance of low-barrier housing, and how navigation centers need to be placed near medical and social services, rather than just wherever there is cheap land. To many, this would be a minor detail. But Mosqueda clearly realizes that these details are the difference between a policy that sounds good on paper, and one that actually works.

We believe that Mosqueda will be an effective and powerful advocate for making Seattle a fairer, greener, and more vibrant city. Vote Mosqueda.

Read Teresa Mosqueda’s questionnaire.

The Urbanist would also like to give an honorable mention to Hisam Goueli. As a geriatric psychiatrist at Northwest Hospital, Goueli brings a wholly unique perspective to the race. Goeuli’s public health lens centers a critical and often forgotten equity aspect of urbanism. We were intrigued by his ideas around multi-generational shared housing, physical, and financial access to neighborhood health clinics and emergency preparedness. His nuanced understanding of the multiple system adjustments needed to address our obligation to provide housing for all people is one we hope will inform policies now and in the future. We sincerely hope that this isn’t the last we’ll see of Goueli.

Read Hisam Goueli’s questionnaire.

Kate Brunette, a member of the Elections Board, recused herself from this race due to her role as campaign manager for Jon Grant, an eligible candidate in this race.

Seattle City Council, Position 9: Lorena González

The Urbanist supports incumbent Lorena González for Seattle City Council, Position 9 (at-large), after previously endorsing her in 2015. Raised as a migrant farmworker in the Yakima Valley, she comes to her position having worked as a civil rights attorney and serving as President of the Latina/o Bar Association of Washington.

In her year and a half in office, González has demonstrated a commitment to urbanist principles. She correctly links homelessness to the affordable housing crisis, and has consistently supported the Mandatory Housing Affordability program. She is a strong supporter of increasing density in transit-served neighborhoods, and is open to revisiting the opportunity for missing middle housing in single-family residential zones. She has sponsored Council legislation that will invest in new housing on publicly-owned land and has directed City staff to refine strategies for creating housing welcoming and affordable to the LGBTQ community. While there is still much work to be done in the area of real police reform in Seattle, she has already moved the city forward on that issue, taking the lead during her short time in office.

On transportation, González is willing to use City resources to speed construction of Sound Transit 3 projects and to further incentivize carpooling, ridesharing, and transit use. Rather than supporting a congestion fee in Seattle, she says she would prefer transportation impact fees on development. She is fully supportive of Vision Zero and building a complete bicycle network.

While her challengers have brought some interesting policy ideas to the table, none have matched Lorena’s civic experience nor have they made a convincing case to unseat her after less than two years in office. We are proud to continue supporting her for Position 9 and look forward to seeing her make strides on important urbanist policies.

Read Lorena González’s questionnaire.

Port of Seattle Commission, Position 1: Ryan Calkins

The Urbanist is endorsing Ryan Calkins for Port Commissioner Position 1. We believe Calkins presents an opportunity to break with the past and chart a new path for the port. The Port of Seattle has been plagued with scandals, most recently resulting in the CEO’s resignation. Calkins is running against an incumbent who has overseen Port operations for the last 10 years. The incumbent’s experience is valuable, but he also bears some responsibility for these problems.

Calkins has spent ten years running a business that imports through the port and currently works at a nonprofit helping minority and lower-income folks start and grow businesses.

Calkins says he was prompted to run because of the Port’s decision to allow the arctic maritime drilling rig to take a lease through Foss Maritime at Terminal 5. He says the Port is there to serve a public good not just turn a profit, and that public agencies can think long-term in a way private business can’t. Unlike others running for the Port Commission, he doesn’t see a SoDo arena as a non-starter, and believes it is an opportunity for negotiation that might benefit the Port in the long-run. The same thinking goes for unused Port property across Seattle and King County that might be better utilized with non-industrial uses, like addressing our state of emergency around homelessness.

Calkins also unequivocally answered that he would support connecting West Seattle protected bike lanes to the SoDo trail. While the incumbent has answered the same, progress has not occurred on this issue. Calkins also openly criticized one of the largest highway expansion projects in the state, the Puget Sound Gateway, stating that it is not essential to moving freight to and from Port facilities. More generally, he showed a higher level understanding of mobility issues, connecting the movement of freight to the decreased prioritization of single occupancy vehicles. He has stated he generally supports tolling, and would specifically support tolling on the main airport drive at Sea-Tac.

Overall, we believe Calkins brings the necessary experience and will usher in a change of values that ultimately will benefit the Port and the region. Vote Calkins.

Read Ryan Calkins’ questionnaire.

Port of Seattle Commission, Position 4: Preeti Shridhar

In a crowded race for the open seat for Port Commissioner 4, Preeti Shridhar stood out for her commitment to equity and sustainability at the Port. Shridhar would bring twenty years of civic experience to the office, whether in environmental programs at the City of Seattle or working with the Renton mayor’s office of public affairs.

It is clear that Shridhar would focus on equity as Port Commissioner. In her interview, she repeatedly highlighted the growing immigrant communities in South King County and discussed job programs and small business incubation in South King. She recognizes the unique role that the Port plays in providing good-paying, middle class jobs and brings specific experience in regional partnerships and working with the state legislature to fund apprenticeship programs.

Shridhar would also bring both considerable experience and a commitment to sustainability at the Port. In her questionnaire, Shridhar identified specific strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of the Port, particularly investing in biofuels for the airplane fleet and connected her work with hybrid and compressed natural gas fleets at the City of Renton to converting cargo drayage trucks. She is open to tolling Sea-Tac’s airport drive to reduce congestion and fund alternatives. She also is willing to go on the record to oppose Port funding for car-only transportation investments.

We feel that Shridhar’s environmental background combined with her commitment to bringing jobs and small business opportunities to the South King County community make her uniquely qualified to serve as Port Commissioner. Vote Shridhar.

Read Preeti Shridhar’s questionnaire.

Voting members of the Elections Board consisted of Scott Bonjukian, Kate Brunette, Ben Crowther, Aleksandra Culver, Alex Hudson, Ryan Packer, Owen Pickford, and Doug Trumm. 

2017 Primary Endorsement Process, Explained

The post 2017 Primary Endorsements first appeared on The Urbanist.

How Can I Register?

Glad you asked! You can register online or by mail (print-outs available in 19 languages) by July 3rd.

Miss that deadline? Have no fear. You can register in-person at your county elections department by July 24th.

Miss even that deadline? That’s some serious procrastination. Contact your county elections department and see what they can do.

Have any questions? Contact the Secretary of State’s office using the information below:

Phone: 1.800.448.4881
Email: elections@sos.wa.gov

Am I Registered To Vote?

If you’ve moved since the last time you voted, you are not registered to vote. You must register every time your address changes. 

Take 30 seconds to check online.

Can I Vote?

Check out the Washington State voter requirements:

• Be a US citizen
• Be 18 years old by Election Day (August 1st)
• Live at a Washington address 30 days before election day
• If convicted of a felony, not be in jail or community custody
• Not currently judged incompetent by a court
• Not claim the right to vote in another state

When Does Voting Start?

The 18-day voting period begins Friday, July 14th when ballots are mailed out. You’ll have until Tuesday, August 1st to get your ballot postmarked or in a drop box to be counted.

Why Should I Vote?

Questioning whether you should even vote? Stop that. Races are often determined by close margins. Every vote matters.

Put your vision for our City, region, state, and country into action by voting. But first, get yourself registered!

Keep an eye out for our endorsements piece, being released soon.

The post Register To Vote By July 3rd first appeared on The Urbanist.

This year we are considering 19 candidates running for Seattle City Council positions 8 and 9, Seattle Mayor, and Port of Seattle Commission positions 1 and 4. We are publishing the questionnaires in full this week, concluding with our official primary election endorsements in mid-July.

The following questionnaire was submitted by Nikkita Oliver, running for Mayor of Seattle.

Short Answer

Do you consider yourself an urbanist? Why/Why not?
By definition an “urbanist” is an advocate or expert in city planning.

By definition I am not an “urbanist” rather I am an “urban dweller” and have been for my entire life. I was born in raised in Indianapolis, IN, a midwestern city, and have lived in Seattle, WA for nearly 14 years. I am not an expert in city planning, though I am advocate for evidenced strategic planning that serves the overall goals of our city of affordability, equity and justice. These goals must be achieved in all facets of our city; including our urban planning. I do also have significant experience in research, community development, and systems transformation work. I am deeply impacted in my daily life as a renter by city planning.

Additionally, when I first moved to Seattle I did not own a car and exclusively used public transportation. Now, I work with youth who almost exclusively use public transportation and use public transportation personally when I need to go downtown because I cannot afford to park. I moved to Seattle because I love city-life, the green, the sound, the rain, and the culture. I know our city is growing rapidly with sometimes 1,000 people moving here per a week. I have a vision for our city that not only allows us to grow, have strategic density, and stop displacement, but that also preserves the character and culture of the many neighborhoods that make Seattle an incredible place to live.

What is your strategy for making housing more affordable both for very low income and middle-class workers?
We cannot depend solely on the private market to solve this issue. We need a multi-faceted strategy which feeds into a vision of an affordable, accessible and equitable Seattle for all. Nikkita and the Peoples Party are for pro-strategic and equitable density policies and support policies which prevent displacement.

This includes:

1. partnerships with the private market (developers) and non-profits to build housing;
2. market intervention strategies such as rent stabilization and speculative capital taxes;
3. reworking HALA;
4. leveraging public lands and city properties to build public housing, 24/7 storage, and temporary housing;
5. building public housing that is exclusively for workforce housing and the lowest income residents of our city;
6. re-zoning for mother-in-laws;
7. incentivizing landlords to rent to residents with section 8 vouchers;
8. ordinances to prevent housing discrimination for old foreclosures and evictions; and
9. ordinances to prevent housing discrimination for older criminal records.

We have to strengthen HALA. Funding has to be increased for our low-income and affordable housing development. 20-25% must be the on-site affordable housing inclusionary requirement for all apartment and condo developments over 10 units. We should also explore a similar affordability inclusion for multi-dwelling townhome developments–the city can provide subsidies to make the numbers work. This would actually cut costs when compared to having to build entire developments from scratch. While rent stabilization would require some legal challenges, it is worth the work. We need to find ways to ensure that residents are not pushed from their homes by skyrocketing rents. (We must pair rent stabilization with other market intervention strategies and thoughtfulness about how rent stabilization is constructed in order to insure that small landlords are able to remain functional and profit at the level they require to effectively manage their properties.)

Additionally, we should explore, as other cities are beginning to, the expansion of community land trusts where residents, tenants, and communities can be self-determined in owning property to maintain affordability. Community Land trust ownership programs keep families in their affordable housing and create paths to equitable/co-operative ownership, which successfully curbs gentrification.

What strategies would you adopt to address the homelessness crisis?
Low Barrier Shelters/Transitional Housing (Housing First):The evidence shows that Housing First strategy, with immediate, permanent, low-barrier, supportive housing to chronically homeless people, yields high rates of housing retention, vis a vis continuum-of-care or linear residential housing. We are always open to new and better evidence, however there is no question that getting rid of the moral policing that accompanies many non-Housing First models produces better outcomes for our homeless populations.

Build More Housing of all types–shelters, transitional, and permanent. Simply put, there needs to be more accessible housing.

Coordinated care is not working effectively for us. It is unfortunately bottlenecking the resources. We need to re-assess how we get people connected to housing and support. Navigation Centers. The San Francisco model for Navigation Centers, which are places where people can take a shower, use the bathroom, access laundry and dining facilities, and store their belongings, will improve the lives of people living outside in Seattle. Importantly, Navigation Centers include round-the-clock case management, mental and behavioral health services, and connections to benefit programs and housing. In order to ensure success, it is imperative that neighborhoods understand and agree that Navigation Centers should become part of their communities. Ultimately, there must be neighborhood buy-in in order for Navigation Centers to successfully serve people in need.

Stop sweeps and divert those funds to providing resources to encampments including garbage removal, water, compost toilets, on-site mobile units with case managers, etc. I have personally met with members from the encampment communities and with case managers and all say that the City has been entirely unwilling to effectively work with them. In fact, they City has made deals with them and failed to deliver what they agreed to and all while continuing the sweeps.

Funding Sources:

There are a myriad of multiple funding sources for these programs. For example, the proposed (and rescinded) $275 million mortgage levy is one possible way (though we recognize the continued leveraging of property taxes is and will effectively put some seniors and families out of their homes and as a result is not a sustainable revenue generating option).

Another is with a progressive luxury tax on earners over $200K per year.

The Peoples Party supports the Trump Proof Tax, led by the Transit Riders Union, and actually believe it a fair and progressive idea to also possibly address the homelessness crisis in Seattle. We recognize 1) the levies based on property taxes are not sustainable revenue sources and harm cash-poor communities; 2) it may take 3-5 years to effectively institute a progressive tax structure given the high likelihood of suit due to the restrictions of Washington state law; and 3) we must explore a luxury tax on the super wealthy of our city, as a handful of other cities have implemented and were successful in creating equitable revenue for their respective cities.

What is your strategy for equitable development in Seattle? 
We like healthy growth. Healthy growth is natural, growth theoretically can go hand in hand with a more equitable city. We appreciate the larger corporations within Seattle. That said, with no disrespect to Amazon or other big businesses, those companies are here because there are compelling reasons to locate a corporation within Seattle–the environment here, both ecologically as well as technologically and creatively assures that they will be fine. We need to make sure that they are likewise being good neighbors and civically engaged in the city they are calling “home.” To be at “home” in a place is to also contribute and invest in that place.

We must make sure that these corporate neighbors are mitigating the impacts that they create within the neighborhoods, schools, parks, streets and environment; which includes asking for impact fees and additional investments from developers (such as revamping HALA/MHA to ask for more when it comes to affordable housing). Ultimately, there must be a balancing of the equities to see what they owe for developing in such a rich City. Equity means that if one has more, one contributes more. Otherwise, the growing income inequality gap in this city will continue to grow.

Moreover, as Mayor I will look into creating a community/city committees that are formed in each neighborhood to facilitate the process of negotiating benefit packages as well as expanding the Public Development Authority program so that every neighborhood has one. The more input our community members have in deciding what is being built in their community, the more inclusive our communities can become. That said, every neighborhood, where ecologically sustainable and geologically possible, should take on the some of the weight of development and density. Equity means we all bare the costs and the weight at the label we are capable.

Further, only responsible contractors should be hired to execute projects for the city. It never slips my mind that the people of Seattle entrust us, as public servants, with the responsibility to transparently and efficiently utilize tax dollars for the greatest benefit of our communities. Therefore, the standard must be higher when it comes to the contractors we solicit. Not only should good jobs, living wages, benefits, and access to a grievance process should be a part of the discussion; but we must also consider pressures of gentrification and the widening income gap for locals, long-term residents, and people of color when compared to wealthier transplants. I would empower my team and departments to look into a regional local hire requirement for contractors–that would withstand legal scrutiny–to make sure our neighbors and communities have access to these good jobs and aren’t given to people who are being imported only for the work. We have amazing talent and people in Seattle capable of doing the work needed, and they should have priority to the work.

What tax policies would you advocate for in Seattle? 
It is becoming more clear that an increasing sales taxes and property taxes are just increasing regressive taxes on the cash-poor. We believe that every Seattleite wants to invest in an equitable Seattle with services for everyone. We believe that our wealthy neighbors have just as much interest in equity and opportunity for everyone as the most cash vulnerable Seattleite and understands that regressive taxes put an asymmetrical burden on the poor. Therefore, in order to effectuate a more equitable taxing structure we would enact:

a) Luxury sales tax. For goods purchased above $100k, there should be an escalated sales tax. As the price of goods increase above $100k, the tax should steadily increase as well.

b) Luxury real estate tax. There should be a tax on the absurd amount of money being spent on purchasing homes, which almost zero middle-class and low income residents can afford. For any home sold over $1MM, there should be an escalating tax.

Both of these proposals would bring significant amount of revenue to the cit for the priority of creating affordability

We should also explore a corporate capital gains tax, allowing the the city to create revenue from corporations that are benefiting from the city infrastructure, transportation, schools, and people.

We need a comprehensive tax reform that moves towards a comprehensive progressive tax structure. We need our wealthier residents to be willing to contribute more equitably to our city. If one has more, one should contribute more.

What are your preferred policies to improve access to public transportation? 
With an ever increasing population, at an alarming rate of over 3,000 new residents per month, we must look at the industries that are attracting these new residents and how they, the companies can contribute to the infrastructure of our whole city to help offset costs and maintain an affordable transit system. We must explore how tech companies and other similarly situated companies can pay a share of the burden to meet the demands of the population influx they are attracting.

Impact fees can help in the expansion of our very necessary transportation system which needs to be ineffective not just for the riders but to also ensure we can decrease the City’s overall environmental impact and carbon footprint. Outside of impact fees we can also partner with corporations and businesses to develop employees and business incentive programs to encourage investment in and use of public transportation. That said, we must acknowledge that if our transportation system is not effective and user friendly people will not use it. This will require some additional upfront investment on our end, but it will inevitably pay off for our City and the environment.

Additionally, continuation, and hopefully expansion, of the youth orca program is essential to ensuring all youth can get to school safely and on-time. The current 3,000 first-come first-serve orca cards is not enough and will continue to not be enough as our city grows. Asking the corporations and developers to invest in our public transportation infrastructure is going to be a must if we are to keep up with transportation needs as density and population increases.

Finally, we have to be diligent in serving our low-wage and poor populations that rely on public transportation as an everyday necessity. It is not a just a benefit for them, it is a way to achieve a livelihood and a form of self-determination. We cannot invest entirely in the light rail, without investing in expanding our bus routes that serve the south end and west side, where many of our working class and cash-poor communities live.

How will you balance community input with effective and equitable policy-making? 
The two are not mutually exclusive. We cannot have effective and equitable policy-making in a democratic society without community input. Additionally, in a city with one of the highest (and most racialized) income inequality gaps in the country making the two mutually exclusive will effectively exclude those who lack power and privilege in Seattle currently.

Grassroots democracy is what has proven to be the most true and effective form of democracy. A democracy of direct input and consensus. A democracy of accountability, humility, and transparency. With this campaign and the Peoples Party, Grassroots Democracy is the underpinnings of what we stand for. We do not make decisions without the collective. We hold each other accountable, while still uplifting the power of our autonomy and individual cultures.

The main goal and purpose of the Peoples Party and this campaign is to decentralize power and create a participatory democracy where Seattle residents know their ability and power to effect change. We must be clear, this work is not easy. We stumble, make mistakes, and sometimes make the wrong decisions, but what is more important is that there was a collective process that allows everyone involved to be held accountable.

Accountability is not what we currently have in our city politics, even though we deserve it. The only way to achieve this accountability is through Grassroots Democracy. I look forward to working with the GPWA to further this vision of Grassroots Democracy. We must have participatory budgeting and policy making. We must have a government that actually serves the people.

Seattle’s Vision Zero plan aims to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030. What policies do you support to work towards this goal?
In 2015, the City of Seattle launched Vision Zero. Vision Zero is a plan to end pedestrian deaths and serious injuries by 2030. That goal would be accomplished by smarter street design, targeted enforcement, and thoughtful public engagement.

The fact is that the vast majority of the planners who made city streets were not originally concerned with pedestrians and bicyclists. They were concerned with automobiles. Obviously times have changed and circumstances require that, especially in dense cities, there be a plan that contemplates pedestrians, bicyclists and moped users.

The Seattle Peoples Party is concerned with measures that have been proven to work for both 1) life-saving, but also 2) economical reasons. There is substantial evidence regarding what sort of measures will work in highly pedestrianed areas. For example, there is a wide body of evidence that shows lowering traffic speeds decreases the frequency of crashes. Lowering traffic speeds also decreases the rates of fatalities and injuries due to vehicle collisions irrespective of whether those collision happen on urban and residential roads. Therefore, lowering default speed limits in Seattle makes sense. It works.

Moreover, “traffic calming” measures likewise have been shown to work. Speed humps in residential neighborhoods, concrete bump-outs (curb extensions) in the road and pedestrian islands (or refuges) have been shown to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. Regarding enforcement, the presence of signs that show the drivers’ speeds, and/or an officer being present are also considerations. There are a battery of tools and mechanisms which will likely save lives”.

Yes/No

Do you support the HALA Grand Bargain? 
No

Do you support allowing missing middle housing like rowhouses in existing single-family zones so all neighborhoods contribute to growth?
Yes

Do you support increasing progressive taxes (B&O, income or capital gains) to pay for affordable housing? 
Yes

Do you support construction of the Children and Family Justice Center (“youth jail”)?
No

Do you support construction of the new North Precinct station?
No

Do you support inclusion of the Community Package associated with Washington State Convention Center Addition’s street and alleyway vacation public benefits?
Yes

Will you push to make municipal broadband a reality in Seattle?
Yes

Do you support establishing a municipal bank?
Yes

Will you work to ensure the state and its contractors, not the City of Seattle, is responsible for all cost overruns for the Highway 99 waterfront tunnel?
Yes

Photo courtesy of Nikkita Oliver campaign.

The post 2017 Endorsement Questionnaire: Nikkita Oliver first appeared on The Urbanist.

This year we are considering 19 candidates running for Seattle City Council positions 8 and 9, Seattle Mayor, and Port of Seattle Commission positions 1 and 4. We are publishing the questionnaires in full this week, concluding with our official primary election endorsements in mid-July.

The following questionnaire was submitted by Cary Moon, running for Mayor of Seattle.

Short Answer

Do you consider yourself an urbanist? Why/Why not?
Yes, because cities are my professional focus and personal passion. I switched careers in the mid-nineties to devote myself to urbanism, starting with a post-graduate degree in Landscape Architecture (focusing on planning) and a certificate in urban design. I believe cities are where societies define themselves: how we live in relation to one another, how we share the public realm together, how we inspire and learn from our mutual creativity, and how we structure and manage our economic system, and how our built environment, ecosystems, and social systems interact together. The right to shape our cities is one of the most fundamental human rights. Leading Seattle to be the place that reflects our progressive values and establishes a vision for healthy inclusive society is my central purpose.

I’ve spent these past 20 years focusing on solutions to some of Seattle’s biggest challenges. I have developed an analysis and solutions to housing affordability; advocated compact growth and expansion of walking, transit, and biking modes; planned and built public will for civic space and parks; developed processes for high involvement, vision-based planning; helped launch projects to get money out of politics so democracy can work in the public interest.

What is your strategy for making housing more affordable both for very low income and middle-class workers?
First, we need to expand affordable housing from only 6% of Seattle’s housing supply toward a goal of four times that. I would pursue new progressive taxes to fund affordable housing, perhaps using our bonding capacity to speed delivery; work with Olympia to increase the housing trust fund; encourage more philanthropists to contribute to non-profit housing providers, community land trusts; and more aggressively pursue using surplus public land for non-profit housing.

Second, we need to adjust the land use code and the permitting/SEPA/entitlement process to facilitate viable housing options for working people in the “missing middle” like duplexes, rowhouses, ADUs, congregate housing, and co-ops. The Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) inclusionary zoning and targeted upzones of HALA are a solid part of the solution, and should be continued.

Third, increase tenants’ rights and legal resources, and develop legislation that stabilizes rent increases.

Fourth, we need to understand how speculation in our housing market is escalating housing prices, and implement target taxes to deter this activity like a tax on non-resident and corporate ownership of housing, a vacant homes tax, and an additional REET on luxury properties.

What strategies would you adopt to address the homelessness crisis?
We need to address the root causes of our city’s surge in homelessness to truly get ahead of the problem. Our housing affordability crisis, the defunding of mental and behavioral health and addiction services, and the difficulty securing stable employment at a living wage are all contributing to this crisis. For long term and lasting solutions, these are the essential roots to strike.

We need to prioritize four things immediately:

• Develop a shared strategy, and a collaborative effort across agencies and service providers, to streamline and coordinate the process. We must focus our resources and efforts efficiently on solutions we know can work.
• Implement more pro-active solutions to preventing evictions, especially for families and households headed by women.
• Focus resources on increasing long-term supportive housing options.
• Aggressively expand housing first approaches like low barrier shelters and more self-governed Tiny House Villages hosted by churches and neighborhoods.

I will work with shelter providers to identify how to help long-term residents transition to more permanent housing. And I will ensure the budget adequately funds outreach and caseworkers; they are essential to helping folks choose more stable, more secure housing and the treatment they need.

What is your strategy for equitable development in Seattle? 
We’ve become one of the most expensive cities in the country. More than half of renters pay more than they can reasonably afford, and home-ownership is out of reach for more and more of us. If we don’t solve this problem with bold solutions now, in just a few years the majority of Seattle’s workforce will leave to chase affordable housing outside the city, cut off rom community and from services–and forced to drive.

We need to look carefully with a racial equity lens at how upzones and infill development can be pursued in neighborhoods with significant immigrant and POC communities to ensure we are identifying the right approaches to help communities thrive together, not be displaced or dispersed. Our healthiest communities have a diverse mix of folks at all ages, stages of their career, and depth of connections to community. The cultural life of historically oppressed communities is essential to honor and protect against thoughtless gentrification. I would establish a process for planners, advocacy groups, and neighbors to identify community priorities in advance of new developments and develop community development agreements that establish priority access to new spaces and housing. The Liberty Bank project is a great model.

What tax policies would you advocate for in Seattle? 
I strongly support a progressive higher earners income tax, especially if it is coupled with a decrease in regressive sales taxes. We need to go further, and also implement taxes on unearned wealth, like gains on selling stocks. I am proposing practical, immediate solutions to providing resources for affordable housing, transit, and homelessness crises including:

• Implement targeted taxes to deter corporate and nonresident real estate speculation and slow runaway price escalation.
• Institute an additional REET on luxury real estate.
• Implement a statewide capital gains tax on households earning more than $250,000.
• Close the most egregious tax loopholes for big corporations that provide zero public benefit.
• Increase estate and inheritance taxes for the wealthy elite.

I am continuing to reach out to other experts in our community with a range of perspectives on how we can work together to correct our regressive tax system and make sure we have sufficient money for schools, affordable housing, transit and other essentials. Seattle’s economy can and should work for everyone, and it can–if we all pay our fair share, and we tax unearned wealth, not just wages.

What are your preferred policies to improve access to public transportation? 
I support a funding model that helps Washington build a transit/transportation system that can keep up with our population growth, and allows regional and local jurisdictions to decide how to allocate investments by mode. When gas tax money is siloed for highways, and transit must be funded with only limited sources, it directs too much funding for travel by car. In the ideal scenario, funding sources should be more fungible and cities empowered to determine most efficient and cost effective investments according to local goals and conditions.

In Seattle, we need to shift the culture of SDOT more quickly toward pedestrian safety, expanding bike facilities, transit reliability and convenience, and freight mobility–and away from Level of Service metrics for cars. When transit is fast, reliable, and convenient, people will use it. We need to expand funding for Youth Orca and Orca Lift, to increase access. And we need to speed up delivery of Sound Transit 3 by optimizing design and planning process, and using our bonding capacity to help fund Seattle projects sooner. I am ready to guide Seattle to be a national leader in shifting to a 21st century sustainable, efficient transportation system.

How will you balance community input with effective and equitable policy-making? 
As Mayor, I will uphold these principles:

• Inclusive Leadership: I believe in an inclusive and welcoming Seattle, and I am committed to justice, equity and sharing power across race and class and gender. As Mayor, my leadership team will be at least half women, LGBTQ and people of color.
• Accountability: I will spend the first six months working in coalition with leaders inside and outside city government to develop a shared vision and action agenda and commit to reporting back to citizens on ongoing progress.
• Balanced Access: Only one day a week on my calendar will be available to big businesses. The others will be reserved for citizens, small businesses, and community groups.

In this time of transformation, Seattle needs a strong vision defining where we are headed, and a call to action across the city to work together toward a common goal. I am not accepting money from special interests, and as such, my administration will not be beholden. I believe Seattle is hungry for courageous leadership willing to do the right thing and not succumb to pressure from self-interested stakeholders. City leadership must be accountable to future generations and the public good.

Seattle’s Vision Zero plan aims to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030. What policies do you support to work towards this goal?
We need our streets to be safe for pedestrians, our neighborhoods walkable, and our bike network to be complete. Move Seattle was a great win, and we need to continue to invest this funding assertively toward the Pedestrian and Bike Master Plans and Vision Zero priorities. I plan to focus on making walking and biking more viable options with a complete network of protected bike lanes and safe sidewalks.

The culture of SDOT needs to shift faster toward the Vision Zero priorities. SDOT’s capital budget needs to prioritize safe visible crosswalks; adding sidewalks on priority streets that provide access to transit and safe routes to school; buildout of the complete bike network; slower speeds; narrow lanes and road diets on arterials that run through communities. Especially in the south end, where Rainier Ave and MLK are particularly dangerous. Vision Zero is about the physical design of our streets and transportation facilities to encourage slower speeds, greater awareness of other road users, and increased visibility and greater safety for pedestrians.

Yes/No

Do you support the HALA Grand Bargain? 
Yes

Do you support allowing missing middle housing like rowhouses in existing single-family zones so all neighborhoods contribute to growth?
Yes

Do you support increasing progressive taxes (B&O, income or capital gains) to pay for affordable housing? 
Yes

Do you support construction of the Children and Family Justice Center (“youth jail”)?
No

Do you support construction of the new North Precinct station?
No

Do you support inclusion of the Community Package associated with Washington State Convention Center Addition’s street and alleyway vacation public benefits?
Yes

Will you push to make municipal broadband a reality in Seattle?
Yes

Do you support establishing a municipal bank?
Yes

Will you work to ensure the state and its contractors, not the City of Seattle, is responsible for all cost overruns for the Highway 99 waterfront tunnel?
Yes

Photo courtesy of Cary Moon campaign.

The post 2017 Endorsement Questionnaire: Cary Moon first appeared on The Urbanist.

This year we are considering 19 candidates running for Seattle City Council positions 8 and 9, Seattle Mayor, and Port of Seattle Commission positions 1 and 4. We are publishing the questionnaires in full this week, concluding with our official primary election endorsements in mid-July.

The following questionnaire was submitted by Mike McGinn, running for Seattle Mayor.

Short Answer

Do you consider yourself an urbanist? Why/Why not?
Yes, amongst other labels including environmentalist, neighborhood advocate, and progressive. As a Sierra Club volunteer leader, and as Greenwood Community Council President I worked to support walking, biking, transit, parks, and housing in mixed use neighborhoods to improve the environment, our economy, social equity and quality of life. That work led me to form a non-profit, Great City, to build and demonstrate support for these goals. That work continued in the Mayor’s office and beyond, and informs my platform moving forward.

I was also committed to an inclusive vision of the city, in which low income workers, communities of color, immigrants and refugees, young people, indeed everyone, had a say in the future. Accordingly, I have been both pro-housing and pro-neighborhood engagement. I don’t believe lasting change can come from the top-down. The best policies and budget decisions (just like the best neighborhoods) come from bottom-up processes in which everyone can participate. If elected I would work to bring everyone to the table to discuss how we ensure sufficient housing, of all types, for the people who want to live here, as well as neighborhoods that respect our diverse communities.

I took a shot at defining urbanism here.

What is your strategy for making housing more affordable both for very low income and middle-class workers?
It is imperative that we plan for growth by building enough housing to address the present shortage and keep up with the influx of newcomers. To accommodate the diversity of needs, we need a wide spectrum of housing – dense transit-accessible housing, missing middle housing (backyard cottages, mother-in-law units, duplexes, and triplexes), congregate housing, subsidized housing for teachers and service workers, senior housing, and so on.

I also believe the city must expand public housing, and should consider taxes on our most successful large corporations, or an income tax if legal, to finance such housing. I do not support continued reliance on regressive taxes.

While I support many of the recommendations in HALA, I do not believe it will be sufficient to address rising rents and rising home prices once all its recommendations are accepted or rejected in the legislative process. If elected I would immediately start a broad based public process to identify how to address housing prices. This will included a discussion of how neighborhoods can accommodate housing growth, and how to accompany growth with appropriate investments.

What strategies would you adopt to address the homelessness crisis?
We need to systematically review existing spending on homelessness for effectiveness while simultaneously scaling our response to the growing magnitude of the problem. The number of people entering homelessness far exceeds the number moving out of homelessness. I believe the public wants to see bold action from elected officials to deal with the issue.

We have the ability and the obligation to fund both short- and long-term solutions. That includes family, low-barrier, and 24-hour shelters. It includes support for well-managed and regulated encampments in the short term. It includes housing policies that provide sufficient low-cost options for rapid re-housing. And it includes expanding options for those struggling with mental health or substance abuse issues. For example, we need citywide expansion of the law enforcement-assisted diversion program that provides treatment in lieu of punishment for drug users.

While dealing with individuals’ immediate needs has to be a priority, we also need to look at the root causes of homelessness as well. Many people have been pushed out of their homes due to a lack of housing affordability. By effectively outlawing mother-in-law units, backyard cottages, and micro-housing, we have guaranteed fewer units and less flexible options.

What is your strategy for equitable development in Seattle? 
Equitable development means ensuring growth works for us, not against us. That implicates tax, spending, housing, land use, and transportation decisions. Addressing displacement will take a wide range of policy solutions, including creating more market rate and subsidized housing citywide to reduce pressure on neighborhoods supporting our immigrant communities and communities of color. We also need to look at strategies to improve the financial position of these communities. That means jobs, minority-contracting, priority hire on city contracts, and support for business creation and growth.

I support the city’s Equitable Development Initiative, a set of strategies to advance economic mobility and opportunity, prevent residential, commercial, and cultural displacement, build on local cultural assets, promote transportation mobility and connectivity and develop healthy and safe neighborhoods. If elected I would work to expand this initiative.

I also support requiring new development to fund affordable housing (the “Grand Bargain”) but want to ensure we do not set affordability requirements in a way that discourages missing middle housing. I also believe we could have funded more affordable housing out of downtown commercial and residential development.

What tax policies would you advocate for in Seattle? 
The starting point is spending our money wisely. Because our local tax system is regressive, that means unnecessary spending is by definition regressive. We need to take the significant growth in the general fund (25%, $250 million over the last three years) and reprioritize it to our most pressing needs, including homelessness.

To the extent we need more revenue, I support progressive tax and/or fee policies. I support a high-earner’s income tax, was against eliminating (and have supported the reinstatement of) the Employee Hours Tax. When levies come up for renewal that we must renew I will also look at funding packages that include progressive sources.

In particular I believe we need to look at increasing taxes on our large successful corporations, while also reducing the burden on small businesses by increasing the exemption level of the business and occupation tax.

What are your preferred policies to improve access to public transportation? 
1. Support policies for reliability and frequency of transit, such as bus only lanes and expansion of “rapid transit” lines (with features as close to Bus Rapid Transit as possible).

2. Support renewal of Seattle’s 2014 ballot measure for transit. I would look for more progressive sources of funding

3. Continue and expand the City’s suite of commute trip reduction programs, and support and work with other entities like Commute Seattle. This would include encouraging more employers to offer Orca passes.

4. Champion rail transit, advocating at the federal and local levels for funding to expand rail as well as to look at local options to accelerate Seattle projects in ST3

How will you balance community input with effective and equitable policy-making? 
Community input is a critical component of equitable policy-making. During my administration I focused heavily on instituting communications practices that increased reach into underrepresented residents. Additionally, community input is essential for crafting policy that is community-supported. I learned from hard experience that when policies are are perceived as top-down, they run a much greater risk of being rejected.

Specific neighborhoods also need to understand that they are part of a larger region, and have to play their role in meeting regional needs. For example, multibillion dollar regional investments in light rail should be accompanied by changes to allow more housing near those stations. Planning efforts should include people representing those broader needs, and elected leaders need to have the courage to stand up for those objectives as well.

Seattle’s Vision Zero plan aims to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030. What policies do you support to work towards this goal?
The Road Safety Action Plan we adopted in 2012 stated a goal of zero serious injuries or fatalities and the subsequent Vision Zero plan was built on this work. It identified education, enforcement, engineering and evaluation as the key strategies.

Of these, I believe engineering our roads for safer speeds is the single most important action we can take to reduce collisions. Streets that are designed for higher speeds will encourage fast driving, regardless of the posted speed limit. Simple engineering changes such as road redesigns, narrower lanes, all-way stops, roundabouts, and traffic calming are the cheapest and most effective ways to do this. These engineering changes can also improve quality of life, equity, and the environment.

I also believe we need to implement the safety improvements identified in the Bike Master Plan. These are often controversial, but public safety should be the priority. As Mayor I responded to the demands for safety redesigns on our most dangerous streets and would do so again.

Finally, the speed cameras in school zones have funded numerous improvements and reduced speeding. We started this program, with 100% of the revenues dedicated to Safe Routes to School, and I would continue expanding it.

Yes/No

Do you support the HALA Grand Bargain? 
Yes

Do you support allowing missing middle housing like rowhouses in existing single-family zones so all neighborhoods contribute to growth?
Yes

Do you support increasing progressive taxes (B&O, income or capital gains) to pay for affordable housing?
Yes

Do you support construction of the Children and Family Justice Center (“youth jail”)?
No

Do you support construction of the new North Precinct station?
No

Do you support inclusion of the Community Package associated with Washington State Convention Center Addition’s street and alleyway vacation public benefits?
Yes

Will you push to make municipal broadband a reality in Seattle?
Yes

Do you support establishing a municipal bank?
Yes

Will you work to ensure the state and its contractors, not the City of Seattle, is responsible for all cost overruns for the Highway 99 waterfront tunnel?
Yes

Photo courtesy of Mike McGinn campaign.

The post 2017 Endorsement Questionnaire: Mike McGinn first appeared on The Urbanist.