1. Durkan was able to peel some support off the urbanist coalition.

The Urbanist endorsed Moon, as did Seattle Subway, Seattle Transit Blog, and Seattle Bike Blog. While editorial endorsements are nice, the urban-focused group with some real money, T4WA (the political action committee offshot of Transportation Choices Coalition) endorsed Jenny Durkan. Former TCC Executive Director Jessyn Farrell and fourth place finisher in the mayoral primary didn’t endorse but said she voted Durkan when KIRO7 asked on election night.

On the other hand, the splitting of the transit advocate vote isn’t all bad. Mayor-Elect Durkan announced this week that TCC’s Executive Director Shefali Ranganathan would be one of her two deputy mayors. It’s reassuring to have a transit advocate at a top Durkan administration position where she presumably can fight for transit priority and investments. Arguably investing in transit isn’t controversial. The Sound Transit 3 ballot measure passed in Seattle with more than 69% of the vote in 2016. So it’s safe to say Seattleites want to see big transit upgrades and are willing to pay for it.

2. NIMBYs lose again. Pat Murakami failed to hit 30% of the vote.

After running on an anti-tenant, protectionist platform, Murakami got absolutely crushed by Councilmember Lorena González. While Murakami did a little bit better than Bill Bradburd (who managed only 21.4% against González in 2015) all indications are housing concern trolls (who oppose the city’s housing affordability agenda) have very little base of support in the electorate. Let’s start acting like it as we plan our land use policy.

3. Jon Grant tacked to single-family home votes and lost big.

Grant sought to follow Kshama Sawant’s path to the council, but ultimately his opponent, Teresa Mosqueda, was a more captivating candidate. To me anyway, Grant’s signature campaign plank of 25% inclusionary zoning–likely counterproductive–ended up sounding hollow next to Mosqueda’s more nuanced housing policies. Where Grant shook his fists at developers, Mosqueda championed ways to constructively harness Seattle’s boom for good and expand housing options in every neighborhood.

4. Class divisions: Durkan dominated along Puget Sound and Lake Washington shorelines.

How did Durkan jump out to a big lead? Precinct results map showing Durkan ahead in virtually every waterfront precinct on election night. These view homes tend towards some of Seattle’s spendiest, suggesting this election broke along class lines. See also Durkan’s 90% plus finish in Broadmoor.

MAP: See where Durkan dominated Moon on election night as she won race for mayor (w/ @JustinAMayo @Emily_M_Eng) https://t.co/dUeNw1xZiM pic.twitter.com/mKbFAR8aoH

— Daniel Beekman #timeforchange (@DBeekman) November 11, 2017

5. Amazon entered Seattle politics in a big way.

Amazon invested in this election like never before, and their candidates did well. Amazon’s $325,000 money drop suggests progressive-wing candidates will need to contend with an even larger financial disadvantage in the future. Meanwhile, Seattle Times columnist Jon Talton said we should lick Amazon’s boots and thank our lucky stars for their corporate benevolence.

6. The Democrats took back the State Senate and now control Olympia.

Democrat Manka Dhingra handily defeated Republican Jinyoung Lee Englund in a special election in Legislative District 45. Olympia’s newest state senator will bring the Democrats from a one-seat deficit to a one-seat majority. That Democratic control should slow the tide of anti-urban bills coming from the state capital. It might also open the door for a McCleary education funding fix and a carbon tax (or cap and trade). However, don’t get your hopes too high since it’s still state Democrats we’re talking about. Things like a state income tax are probably too controversial for our current caucus.

7. Homelessness was a major wedge issue.

The majority of voters don’t seem to have come around to the Stop the Sweeps campaign, which opposes clearing homeless camps in favor of using the millions it takes to administer sweeps to administer outreach and services. Durkan exploited this wedge with campaign mailers and debate talking points. The catch is that now Durkan has to get results on homelessness or it will look like a broken campaign promise. If Durkan gets to roll out her plan, we may get a chance to see just how effective (small) vouchers can be in housing low-income folks in Seattle’s red-hot housing market.

8. Durkan convinced voters she was more pro-HALA than Moon without it being so.

One common election take is that Jenny Durkan embraced the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) more wholly than Moon, which contributed to her victory. That was the spin heading into the election, but is it really true? Moon’s call to improve neighborhood outreach in the next phase of HALA was read as capitulation to NIMBYs–a knee-jerk reaction Durkan campaign exploited in their messaging and mailers. But back in the primary the roles seemed to be reversed with Durkan more tepid on changes to single-family zones and praising neighborhood character. Meanwhile, Moon gave a clear yes to our question about allowing missing middle housing in single-family areas. Durkan’s answer was a non-answer.

The takeaway from the HALA wrangling is that Durkan will likely carry out the Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program as laid out. However, she doesn’t appear likely to push the envelope by pressing for bigger upzones and MHA percentages, or by re-opening the single-family zoning conversation. But I’d love to be proved wrong and see Mayor Durkan broaden the boom.

Broaden the Boom: How to Rezone Single-Family Seattle

The post 8 Takeaways from Seattle’s 2017 Election first appeared on The Urbanist.

Measures

King County

King County Proposition 1 (Veterans and Human Services Levy): Yes (e) 66.06%, No 33.94%

East Bellevue Community Municipal Corporation Continuation: Yes 79.62%, No 20.38%

Houghton Community Municipal Corporation Continuation: Yes 76.12%, No 23.88%

Pierce County

University Place Proposition Fireworks Sale, Possession, and Discharge Ban: Yes 67.52%, 32.48%

Snohomish County

Mukilteo Transportation Benefit District: Yes 52.68%, No 47.32

City of Snohomish Advisory Proposition on Allowing Marijuana Businesses: Yes 29.71%, No 70.29%

Candidates

State

45th Legislative District (State Senator): Manka Dhingra (D) 55.42%, Jinyoung Lee Englund (R) 44.58%

Court of Appeals Division 1 Position 1: Michael Spearman (Incumbent) 74.51%, Nathan Choi 25.49%

King County

Executive: Dow Constantine (D, Incumbent) 75.4%, Bill Hirt (R) 24.6%

Snohomish County

County Council District 5: Sam Low (R, Incumbent) 57.60%, Kristin Kelly (D) 42.08%

City of Seattle

Mayor: Cary Moon (e) 39.38%, Jenny Durkan 60.62%

City Council Position 8: Teresa Mosqueda (e) 61.51%, Jon Grant 38.49%

City Council Position 9: M. Lorena González (Incumbent) (e) 67.68%, Pat Murakami 32.32%

City Attorney: Pete Holmes (Incumbent) 72.81%, Scott Lindsay 27.19%

Port of Seattle Commission

Position 1: Ryan Calkins (e) 48.52%, John Creighton (Incumbent) 51.48%

Position 3: Ahmed Abdi 33.21%, Stephanie Bowman (Incumbent) 66.79%

Position 4: Preeti Shridhar (e) 37.12%, Peter Steinbrueck 62.88%

One race to watch: Ryan Calkins is down 3 points for Port Pos. 1 but might be within striking distance with a progressive finishing kick. pic.twitter.com/ypXyFEKkhp

— The Urbanist (@UrbanistOrg) November 8, 2017

Seattle Public Schools

Director District 4: Herbert J. Camet, Jr. 14.03%, Eden Mack 85.97%

Director District 5: Omar Vasquez 38.83%, Zachary Pullin DeWolf 61.17%

Director District 7: Chelsea Byers 34.89%, Betty Patu (Incumbent) 64.11%

City of Bremerton

Mayor: Patty Lent (Incumbent) 46.2%, Greg Wheeler 53.6%

City of Bellevue

City Council Position 2: Conrad Lee (Incumbent) 69.46%, Randy Grein 30.54%

City Council Position 4: Jared Nieuwenhuis 54%, Karol Brown 46%

City Council Position 5: Janice Zahn 59.37%, Phillip Yin 40.63%

City Council Position 5: Lynne Robinson (Incumbent) 55.31%, Steven Fricke 44.29%

City of Everett

Mayor: Cassie Franklin 44.28%, Judy Tuohy 44.83%, Write-In 10.89%

City Council Position 1: Leland (Lee) Dart 32.81%, Paul Roberts (Incumbent) 66.47%

City Council Position 2: Alex Lark 44.81%, Jeff Moore 54.60%

City Council Position 3: Jennifer Hesse 32.69%, Scott Murphy (Incumbent) 66.80%

City of Issaquah

Mayor: Mary Lou Pauly 65.24%, Paul Winterstein 34.76%

City of Kent

Mayor: Jim Berrios 47.43%, Dana Ralph 52.57%

City of Kirkland

City Council Position 7: Uzma Butte 25.32%, Jon Pascal (Incumbent) 74.68%

City of Tacoma

Mayor: Victoria Woodards 51.98%, Jim Merritt 48.02%

Image courtesy of Washington Secretary of State’s website.

2017 General Election Endorsements

The post 2017 General Election Results first appeared on The Urbanist.

The Urbanist Elections Board evaluated eight eligible candidates for endorsement for Port of Seattle, Seattle City Council, and Mayor of Seattle. We also considered the King County Veterans and Human Services Levy. From this pool, we have endorsed five leaders who both share our urbanist values and have presented clear plans to enact those values into tangible policies. We are proud to present our 2017 general election endorsements.

Mayor of Seattle: Cary Moon

We endorsed Cary Moon in the primary, and we couldn’t be more excited to carry that over to the general and see her in office.

As a urban planner with decades of experience, she understands urbanist concerns far better than her opponent, Jenny Durkan. At the Growing Seattle Forum, Moon expertly answered the Vision Zero and mode hierarchy questions, putting people walking and biking at the top of her list, whereas Durkan put pedestrians last on her list. While this may seem academic, the rankings are a solid indication if increasing safety for the most vulnerable street users will be a priority for a candidate. Durkan seemed more interested in the car-centric status quo.

Moon would go to bat for municipal broadband while all indications are that Durkan would not. Moon has been adamant about using legal tools at the city’s disposal to curb the increase in housing speculation that is contributing to higher prices in Seattle. Durkan has made attempts to smear those ideas before eventually coming around on them. Moon champions missing middle housing types in single-family zones while Durkan has signaled that she is much more hesitant to touch sanctified bungalow-land, as we pointed out earlier in the election season.

Moon has a strong platform on public transit. While every candidate promised to speed up the delivery of Seattle’s Sound Transit 3 projects, Moon uniquely came forward with a funding source, pledging to look into using municipal bonding to start construction faster, as Seattle Subway has proposed. Streamlining process and permitting can only go so far if Sound Transit doesn’t have enough money in the bank to bid out the contracts and begin building the lines.

We trust Moon to get busses moving by fighting to add dedicated lanes, queue jumps, and signal priority. We also trust her to take on safe infrastructure for pedestrians and people on bikes as a major priority. 

Rather than strengthen her own transit plans, Durkan has sought to draw attention to Moon’s husband as a potential source of conflict of interest in serving on the Sound Transit Board. Moon’s husband is an architect at a firm with a few Sound Transit contracts. We don’t buy Durkan’s scare tactic. Moon may have to recuse herself on issues that directly pertain to her husband’s work, but we’d rather have Moon representing Seattle’s light rail interests knowing she may have recuse herself once in a blue moon rather than a full-time Durkan.

Moon will bring a collaborative style to bear on the many problems facing Seattle. While some have criticized Moon for calling for more community outreach as we carry HALA forward, we believe Moon would be much better at listening to legitimate concerns and selling the much-needed zoning changes than either Mayor Ed Murray was or Durkan would be.

Don’t miss this golden opportunity to put an inspiring urbanist in office. Vote Moon. Scream it from the mountaintops.

Read Cary Moon’s questionnaire.

Seattle City Council, Position 8: Teresa Mosqueda

The Urbanist is retaining our primary endorsement of Teresa Mosqueda and asking you to give her your vote again in the general election. In our primary endorsement we emphasized many of her strengths. Mosqueda’s professional background is in social justice, labor, and public health, and she’s quickly adopted detailed urbanist positions such as expediting Sound Transit 3 and unequivocally supporting dense housing types in single-family zones. She also easily drops urbanist catnip on the campaign trail, highlighting the value of things like Barcelona’s superblocks. Further, Mosqueda’s lived experience as a woman of color and a renter would add critical perspectives to the council. While 42% of Seattleites rent, the council currently has no renters.

Many urbanists have outright repulsion for Jon Grant, Mosqueda’s opponent. It’s hard not to characterize that repulsion as over-the-top. In some instances, it gives urbanism a bad name. The urbanist political movement needs grassroots tenant advocacy and should be more influenced by renters than developers. However, some aspects of Grant’s platform pose a real risk to urbanism. Grant’s speaking truth-to-power is muted when it comes to wealthy homeowners that continually stand in the way of needed changes, such as single-family rezoning and street improvements. Seattle’s housing, transportation, and safe streets needs all hinge on creating a coalition that overcomes wealthy landowners seeking to maintain the status quo. Urbanism needs candidates that will hold the powerful accountable and that starts with landowners.

Mosqueda’s support is also remarkably broad. She has won endorsements from nearly all Seattle’s labor organizations, most notable elected officials, and a number of urbanist advocacy groups, including Transportation for Washington, Washington Bikes and Seattle Subway. These and other factors have resulted in people lobbing the label establishment at Mosqueda, even though she received the critical non-endorsement from The Seattle Times, whose editorial board likely supported Jon Grant to further its agenda of single-family preservation.

Overall we believe Mosqueda will be able to stand up to backlash on critical urbanist issues because her support is broad and deep. We also believe her lived experience brings the values we need in electeds to push for even more ambitious housing, transportation and land use changes. Mosqueda is an exceptional candidate and The Urbanist strongly encourages you to vote for her. Vote Mosqueda.

Read Teresa Mosqueda’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

After endorsing her in 2015 and in this year’s primary, The Urbanist supports incumbent Lorena González for Seattle City Council Position 9 (at-large) in the general election. In her nearly two years in office she’s demonstrated a grasp of major policy issues and has sponsored key pieces of legislation for a more affordable and equitable city.

In her questionnaire, González noted her personal experience is helping her lead: “The city has much more work ahead of it to continue strategically planning our urban footprint and, as the second youngest person on council and one of two who relies on public transportation, my perspective on these issues is necessary to advance the city in its planning goals.”

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. One nuanced policy position she discussed in the interview is her preference for transportation impact fees rather than a possible congestion fee. She is fully supportive of Vision Zero and building a complete bicycle network.

Having worked as a civil rights attorney and serving as President of the Latina/o Bar Association of Washington, she has a strong interest in equity-based solutions to homeless and the housing affordability crisis. “I continue to believe that the city and its housed and unhoused residents remain best served by evidence-based, people-centered strategies that are widely believed to effectively move people from outside to inside,” she said. “I will continue to ask questions about any policy that falls short of that principle.”

She 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. During her short time in office she has taken the lead on moving towards real police reform.

Her challenger, Pat Murakami, has not matched González’s civic experience nor made a convincing case to unseat her after less than two years in office. By the way, Murakami proposes to raise Seattle’s inclusionary requirement to 30%, seemingly in a bid to stifle growth. We are proud to continue supporting Lorena González in Position 9 and look forward to seeing her make strides on important urbanist policies. Vote González.

Read Lorena González’s questionnaire.

Port of Seattle Commission, Position 1: Ryan Calkins

Port commissioners might not sound like exciting races, but they exercise considerable power and influence both directly–overseeing the ninth busiest airport and the fourth busiest seaport in the country–and indirectly with their influence on transportation policy. The Port of Seattle has an annual budget of $650 million and is one of the largest landowners in the region. The leadership of the port has enormous impacts for the entire region.

In the primary, The Urbanist endorsed Ryan Calkins for Port Commissioner Position 1, and, fortunately, he made it through the primary. We’re proudly maintaining that endorsement. Calkins has appropriate business experience (he works at a nonprofit that supports low-income entrepreneurs as they start and grow their businesses) and shows a real willingness to make the Port of Seattle an organization that advances the public’s values, rather than narrowly advancing business interests.

The case for voting Calkins has grown even stronger since the primary. His list of endorsements is powerful. It includes The Stranger, Seattlish, The Seattle Weekly, the Seattle Sierra Club chapter, many local unions, Seattle Councilmembers Mike O’Brien, Debora Juarez, and Lorena González, and he received the key non-endorsement from The Seattle Times.

Calkins endorsement from the Sierra Club is especially important because he’s running as an environmentalists against a candidate that has been rightly criticized for supporting the Shell arctic oil rig. Calkins has called on the port to strengthen ties to LGBTQ businesses, an effort that would promote our ideals of inclusion and reinforces his previous claims that the Port of Seattle should be a public servant.

Calkins would be a breath of fresh air since his opponent, John Creighton, that has held his seat for over 10 years. During his opponent’s tenure, the Port of Seattle has not only had scandals but also promoted many anti-urban solutions, such as the Puget Sound Gateway Project and the Alaska Way Viaduct replacement tunnel. Calkins understands the power the port can leverage for the public benefit and sees the connections between its interest and a more prosperous and sustainable region. Vote Calkins.

Read Ryan Calkins’ questionnaire.

Port of Seattle Commission, Position 4: Preeti Shridhar

The Urbanist is excited to endorse Preeti Shridhar for Port Commissioner Position 4. Shridhar brings a strong commitment to equity and sustainability at the Port of Seattle.

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 also spoke at the protests at Sea-Tac following Trump’s Muslim ban. As Port Commissioner, she would ensure that freedom of expression is protected and provide oversight of the Port of Seattle Police Department.

Shridhar’s opponent is Peter Steinbrueck, a former Seattle city councilmember. Steinbrueck has lobbied against upzones and other proposals in HALA. In contrast, Shridhar wants to ensure that port workers can live close to where they work. Shridhar brings the right experience in regional partnerships and working with local governments to increase affordable housing options for port workers.

Additionally, while both Shridhar and Steinbrueck want to focus on environmental sustainability, Shridhar’s positions stand out. She wants to reduce the carbon footprint of the port by investing in biofuels for airplanes and converting cargo drayage trucks to natural gas. Shridhar is open to tolling Sea-Tac’s airport drive to reduce congestion and fund alternatives and also is willing to go on the record to oppose Port of Seattle 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.

King County Proposition 1 (Veterans and Human Services Levy): Approve

It’s shameful that anyone in our wealthy county is unsheltered. It’s doubly shameful that anyone who sacrificed to serve our country goes unsheltered. This is a solvable problem and the Veterans and Human Services Levy is a step in the right direction. The Urbanist strongly recommends a ‘yes’ vote on the ballot measure.

The tax is a small increase falling mostly on wealthier folks. The levy will add an additional five cents for every $1,000 of property value compared to the current levy, which expires in December, and will generate up to $51 million per year. For families that have around $650,000 of wealth in their homes, they will be asked to pay about about $65 a year. The current much smaller levy only raises about $18 million a year but has been documented as saving the county money over $7 million on emergency medical and criminal justice costs.

The money has also been well managed. There are regular oversight committee meetings and the county has extensive documentation on the impacts and who the money services. For example, in 2015 it helped over 1,000 people access or remain in stable housing. If this levy isn’t passed, all families that are served will have those services cutoff.

Passing the levy will directly impact many lives in a dramatically positive way. The Urbanist implores you to vote ‘yes’ on the Veterans and Human Services Levy.

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. 

The post 2017 General Election Endorsements 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 and next week, concluding with our official primary election endorsements in mid-July.

The following questionnaire was submitted by Pat Murakami, running for Seattle City Council Position 9.

Short Answer

Do you consider yourself an urbanist? Why/Why not?
I’m an urbanist. I believe this city can grow and become a better and less costly place to live for everyone. I think that if we force people to the suburbs via high property values, we’re undermining livability with the eventual traffic problems, affordability, and environmental trauma. We need to do our best to prevent that.

I believe that not all roads can do all things. We need to start planning the city in a way that focuses on maximum efficiency and safety: cars sharing roads with cyclists is asking for problems, and it slows down the flow of traffic for everyone. In conjunction with ST3, we should be building a more Seattle-focused transit network; one that will effectively connect the city when this project is done.

I believe it is also important to house more people near major transit hubs, within reason, and especially with the involvement of the community. We should not be allowing developers to build superblocks of concrete, but rather encourage public spaces so that we create a livable, walkable community.

Do you support the King County Center and Family Justice Center as designed?
While I have not studied the proposed new center in depth, there is no question that we need a new facility. I was in the first contingent of the Guardian Ad Litem program (where community members replaced attorneys to represent the best interests of the child during custody hearings), now called CASA. The building in no way made families feel safe and comfortable (as much as possible, given that they are there under stressful circumstances) – and that was in the 1980s. Provided the staff members who provide services to, and care about children and families had impactful input in the design, I would be comfortable with the outcome. We need a new facility. That being said, I believe that this center needs to be an integral part of working against the school to prison pipeline. It must include extensive family counseling and education services, and needs to focus on bringing families together instead of ripping them apart.

What do you envision as a solution for the current North Precinct building?
We should not build an overly expensive fortress. The North Precinct should be split into two precincts (each with a more functional and cost-effective building), enabling officers to be more connected to the community they serve. SPD should continue their ongoing comprehensive reform, make efforts to demilitarize, and focus more on being effective ambassadors to the community.

Are there reforms that you would make to the street vacation process to ensure that adequate public benefits are provided to city residents from vacated rights-of-way? 
It depends on the specific vacation in question. If it is an unused dead-end street, the developer should create a park of comparable size near the vacated site. In the case of the proposed arena in SODO, we need to think outside the box. The developer could pay for a lowered street that runs under the arena (without impacting access to other businesses in the immediate area) and absorb all costs associated with the rerouting of traffic. A lowered street would retain the street as a public asset and we could ask for other benefits in exchange for vacating the air space above the street.

What changes do you think are needed for the city’s current policy on unauthorized homeless camp removal?
Sweeping people from location to location is a tremendous waste of City and police resources. We need to focus more on fixing the problem, not a symptom. There is no excuse for not creating a campus environment with needed shelter, medical, mental health, social services, and job counseling on-site. The campus would provide a warm, safe place to stay, with showers, laundry and 3 meals per day.

In our current homelessness state of emergency, what actions can we take right away to address this issue?
First, we need to know the people who need services–is their situation due to financial stress or are other factors involved, such as mental health challenges or drug addiction? Next, we need to effectively and efficiently spend our tax dollars by funding those non-profits that are able to address the needs of our homeless population with services that produce measurable results. The City is funding over 100 non-profits that are supposed to be addressing the homelessness issue. We need to fund far fewer, reducing needless overhead, and redirect those funds to the clientele that are served by the proper service provider. We should also support non-profits such as Seattle Made which focuses on local manufacturing and job training.

In the immediate future, we must make sure to provide health and addiction services to our homeless population, as well as a reformed shelter system that allows for families and promotes job development. Shelters must allow for jobs at non-traditional hours, and give residents 24/7 access if they have jobs at unusual hours.

What would be your strategy with the remaining Mandatory Housing Affordability rezones? Would you push for higher/lower affordability or density levels?
The blanket up-zones have failed to make housing more affordable. We don’t have true inclusionary zoning when developers are able to pay for credits to place the affordable housing outside of their development. We should consider reducing maximum heights in desired development areas and then offer greater heights to developers as a reward for building an agreed upon percentage of affordable units in that specific project.

Many neighborhoods have global up-zones that don’t do much to solve the problem. LR 1, a type of zoning that has already resulted in massive amount of expensive town home development, and is only getting a 10 foot increase in large swaths of the city. After speaking with many architects and urban planners, I have learned that this will result in taller, more expensive town homes that do little to make neighborhoods more affordable. We should work on up-zoning neighborhoods in ways that make sense, and develop livability as well. Inevitably, we will have taller buildings along arterials and hilltops, but with the use of effective FAR legislation, more public spaces.

I think we should put people over profits, and make sure that developers pay their fair share for infrastructure and public spaces.

Would you support efforts to raise additional revenue in Seattle directed towards speeding up construction of ST3 projects? If so, what revenue source would you target?
Yes. Developer impact fees–we are the only municipality in the area that doesn’t require and charge developer fees. I think that, with more dense neighborhoods that provide services more efficiently, we can also afford to build more extensive traffic independent public transit using our existing property taxes.

What are your preferred strategies for increasing multi-modal transportation (e.g., walking, biking, public transit) in Seattle?
I believe bike boulevards and major bus stations should be constructed hand-in-hand with our new light rail stations. We need to make sure that we have the first and last mile covered by transit, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure.

Transit stations need to be located near schools as well, to provide our children and teenagers more urban mobility to access after school programs. Schools should also have greatly expanded crosswalks that ensure that our students are safe.

I also support expanding the Sounder service to Everett and Tacoma, and working with BNSF and Sound Transit to try to acquire ROW for these trains during peak operating hours. The Link Light Rail will eventually reach Everett, Lynnwood, and Tacoma, but, realistically, the Sounder has far greater potential to provide rapid transit to and from these areas into the city.

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? 
I think a big part of that is separating bikes and pedestrians from cars in an effective way. Not all roads can do all things, and it’s important to provide safe streets for other uses. When we have cyclists riding in streets where cars are driving 35 to 45 miles per hour, we are simply asking for trouble.

I support the creation of additional neighborhood greenways, but also the expansion of their capabilities. In many parts of the city, non-residents are driving through these greenways, not necessarily because it’s a faster route, but because they are impatient in peak hours. We should certainly ban non-residents from driving on streets that are effectively community promenades.

I support the pedestrianization of streets with such high pedestrian traffic that allowing cars does not make sense. We really should not allow for non-delivery and non-emergency vehicles to drive down streets such as Pike Place at the Market.

Yes/No

Do you support permitting triplexes, rowhomes, townhomes and cottages, in single-family zoned areas across the city?
No

Do you support adding a local income tax in Seattle?
No

Do you support adding a head tax in Seattle?
No

Do you support adding a congestion fee in Seattle?
No

Do you support the creation of a Seattle municipal bank?
Yes

Do you support the creation of a municipal broadband service in Seattle?
Yes

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

The post 2017 Endorsement Questionnaire: Pat Murakami 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 and next week, concluding with our official primary election endorsements in mid-July.

The following questionnaire was submitted by Lorena González, running for Seattle City Council Position 9.

Short Answer

Do you consider yourself an urbanist? Why/Why not?
Yes. Our city is absorbing about 1,000 new residents every week. It is imperative that City Council remain committed to density and transit-oriented development. As a sitting Councilmember, I have consistently voted to support the mandatory housing affordability legislation and other zoning changes to better align with urbanist policies. The city has much more work ahead of it to continue strategically planning our urban footprint and, as the second youngest person on Council and one of two who relies on public transportation, my perspective on these issues is necessary to advance the city in its planning goals.

Do you support the King County Center and Family Justice Center as designed?
No.

What do you envision as a solution for the current North Precinct building?
I am committed to reviewing the proposed new North Precinct facility to better meet concerns around equity, cost and community needs. The Executive is currently engaged in performing my request for a Racial Equity Toolkit on this capital project and I am awaiting those results along with the Chief’s and Executive’s recommendations based on that review and a renewed assessment of the actual precinct needs for the North End officers and residents.

Are there reforms that you would make to the street vacation process to ensure that adequate public benefits are provided to city residents from vacated rights-of-way? 
Yes. I have been supportive of Councilmember O’Brien’s preliminary work in this area. The current criteria is too rigid and is not reflective of the evolving realities of our economy and City.

What changes do you think are needed for the city’s current policy on unauthorized homeless camp removal?
As you know, the City is currently involved in litigation regarding these policies. Because I’m a speaking agent for the City, I am unable to answer this question. As a matter of principle, however, I continue to believe that the City and it’s housed and unhoused residents remain best served by evidence-based, people-centered strategies that are widely believed to effectively move people from outside to inside. I will continue to ask questions about any policy that falls short of that principle.

In our current homelessness state of emergency, what actions can we take right away to address this issue?
As a current councilmember, I have been a staunch supporter of increased density coupled with mandatory housing affordability requirements (both commercial and residential). I continue to support many of the HALA’s recommendations, including changes to zoning laws to support growth in neighborhoods served by mass transit. In addition, last year, I was the prime sponsor of three critical housing investments. The first was funding a $400,000 feasibility study that would assess publicly owned land that would be immediately available for affordable housing development. This investment is expected to produce five new affordable housing projects (approximately 1,000 additional affordable units) that the City could partner with non-profit developers to build in the next two years. The second and third were investments to evaluate and produce clear strategies to producing affordable housing for LGBTQ seniors and youth. These are the types of investments I want to continue championing if re-elected to the City Council. With regard to extremely-low income and very-low income housing needs, I am grateful to Seattle voters who overwhelmingly supported the doubling of Seattle’s housing levy to $290 million. The passage of the housing levy means we are on track to produce and preserve 2,150 affordable housing units and assist 4,500 homeless families and individuals.

What would be your strategy with the remaining Mandatory Housing Affordability rezones? Would you push for higher/lower affordability or density levels?
I fully support the MHA principles, including changes to zoning laws to support strategic growth in neighborhoods served by mass transit. This program will apply to both commercial and residential developers and I believe is key to the City’s strategy for collecting millions of dollars for building affordable housing for those in the 60% AMI category. It is clear that we need more affordable options for lower income families throughout the city and I am committed to using all tools available to us to make that a reality. That includes increasing density in targeted areas. With regard to the levels, I am persuaded by the feasibility study results which divided us with an evaluation of where to place the percentages to maximize construction. There are some unique neighborhood concerns and realities that I will continue to take into account specific displacement needs and adjust percentages, if needed and feasible.

Would you support efforts to raise additional revenue in Seattle directed towards speeding up construction of ST3 projects? If so, what revenue source would you target?
Yes. There will be much discussion on how we can possibly devote city resources to help speed up these important infrastructure investments. The City is, for example, currently exploring a transportation and parking impact fee. I look forward to seeing the results of that study. I have hope that the Legislature will meet its education funding obligations which may free up some funding sources. I remain open to the discussion and moving forward

What are your preferred strategies for increasing multi-modal transportation (e.g., walking, biking, public transit) in Seattle?
I am open to the idea of incentivizing carpooling, ridesharing, transit use and other alternative forms of transportation to get as many people as possible out of their cars. But our strategies in this regard need to be multimodal so people can easily access a transportation option that is best for them. This can range from expanding the amount of bike lanes in the city for more convenient use, or expanding our public transit routes to serve locations that are deprived of this access.

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? 
I fully support working toward zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries.  Some ideas to help move us toward this objective include working with our legislative delegation to accelerate Safe Routes to School (SRTS) funding and working to prioritize SRTS projects using equity as primary factor. Trying to expedite building the Center City Network while making key connections from downtown to the rest of Seattle. My main goal is maintaining the city’s commitment to Vision Zero and holding SDOT accountable on all projects that adhere to Vision Zero goals.

Yes/No

Do you support permitting triplexes, rowhomes, townhomes and cottages, in single-family zoned areas across the city?
Yes

Do you support adding a local income tax in Seattle?
Yes

Do you support adding a head tax in Seattle?
No

Do you support adding a congestion fee in Seattle?
No

Do you support the creation of a Seattle municipal bank?
Yes

Do you support the creation of a municipal broadband service in Seattle?
Yes

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

Photo courtesy of Lorena González campaign.

The post 2017 Endorsement Questionnaire: Lorena González 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 and next week, concluding with our official primary election endorsements in mid-July.

The following questionnaire was submitted by Teresa Mosqueda, running for Seattle City Council Position 8.

Short Answer

Do you consider yourself an urbanist? Why/Why not?
I do. I want walkable, bikable, livable communities around transit hubs, greenways, parks, small businesses, good jobs, and schools. This is part of how we create a healthy community, healthy economy, and healthy population. When we add affordable housing options to our already existing housing inventory, make communities more walkable, create public options for transportation, and do what we can to get cars off the road, we invest in a healthy community.

Our city is transforming rapidly and I want to be there to help guide the city to make it more affordable for those who work, retire, study, and live here in Seattle. One of the biggest ways we making sure we have safe routes to connect our city, investing in child care, investing in good jobs with benefits in our city limits, and making sure more people can afford to live here in our city limits.

Do you support the King County Center and Family Justice Center as designed?
I don’t support more beds and a jail. I support our public dollars going to expanding non-detention services, so that there is a safe space for families and youth while in crisis. I want to help expand services for family intervention & restorative justice programs in partnership with the City of Seattle and King County. Instead of sending youth to detention, we need to have a safe place with services to help serve youth and families until they can be reunited with family or guardians. I want our public investments to build more community and family based services, prevention programs, and counseling. I want us to invest in preventing youth from getting arrested, interrupt the school to prison pipeline, and create more jobs for working families in this city.

What do you envision as a solution for the current North Precinct building?
I think we need to listen to the community’s needs and find the solutions that help rebuild trust with community members. I don’t think the North Precinct, as it currently is proposed, is a solution that helps our community. We need conversations with community members, youth leaders, and front line workers with the city to have a conversation about ways to rebuild trust and create community-driven policing and community-oriented buildings.

Are there reforms that you would make to the street vacation process to ensure that adequate public benefits are provided to city residents from vacated rights-of-way? 
I am committed to making Seattle more walkable, bikeable, and safe – this means slowing down traffic in certain neighborhoods, and vacating streets to create more space for safe routes, community events, and social cohesion. When reviewing new proposals to streets, neighborhoods or buildings, I will champion the use of Social Equity Impact Statements to look at the public benefit to our community, safety, traffic flow, infrastructure, and make sure it benefits the residents of our city.

Elections’ Board Note: Teresa submitted an amended answer to this question before publication. We agreed to print both the original and amended version. Below is the amendment:

Permanent street vacations that create public parks and walkways help promote the health, mobility and social cohesion of our city. I support promoting the health and safety of our community, slowing down traffic, and encouraging more folks to get out of their cars and instead walk or use public transit. When streets are turned into public areas for gathering or made safer for pedestrians, it’s good for local economies and the health of our population. I will promote vacated streets where we have the opportunity to reroute cars, promote walkable communities around public spaces and small businesses, and incentivize public interaction and cultural gatherings. We need to streamline the process to use permanent street vacations where there is an opportunity to create more walkable/bikable public areas in our city. While I will also be conscious to ensure we mitigate against any negative impacts on local industries by providing viable alternative routes around the vacated streets, I am interested in opportunities to create small public-park areas and wider walkways instead of parking and roadways.

I am eager to take lessons learned from the permanent street vacation examples already implemented throughout our city that are promoting social interaction, healthier environments, and a more connected community. I’d like to see more areas like the one by Horizon House – public sitting areas where there used to be parking near senior living and in front of an urban park, or such as the wider pedestrian walkways like the area converted along Bell Street in Belltown–near local restaurants and locally owned small business shops and transit. I would also like to look at other cities like Barcelona–where they have created “Superblocks”–large 9 square city blocks as an intentional urban mobility plan to reduce traffic and cut pollution. These Superblocks have led to greater social and cultural opportunities, slowed traffic, and allowed for more pedestrians in dense urban areas throughout their growing city. That is the type of innovation we can create in our city–and I will work with the Urbanist and city planners to move forward with innovative urban planning models that utilize permanent street vacations to promote our city’s health, economic vibrancy, density, mobility, and social cohesion.

What changes do you think are needed for the city’s current policy on unauthorized homeless camp removal?
As a public health champion, I look at the issue of homelessness as a public health crisis for the individuals and families living unsheltered in our streets. I support efforts to expand access to low-barrier shelters and permanent supportive housing. Many who are homeless and unsheltered are dealing with years of trauma. We need to couple safe housing with holistic services–such as enhanced case management, substance abuse treatment, and mental health counseling.

We need to stop the sweeps. Sweeps cause a tremendous human impact on those being kicked out, as well as being a financial burden for the city. The solution must be multi-dimensional–making sure we address the systemic causes that led them to be unsheltered in the first place. This also means looking upstream to enhance services that support youth in foster care, prevent domestic violence and support those who are victims, and provide greater opportunity and economic stability especially for women, the LGBTQ community, veterans, immigrants, and communities of color. I will bring a holistic approach to this issue through the public health lens that looks upstream at the causes of homelessness to help address the crisis in our streets.

In our current homelessness state of emergency, what actions can we take right away to address this issue?
The Homelessness State of Emergency is a public health crisis in our city. As one of the wealthiest city in America, it is unacceptable that more than 5,500 people, many of them young adults and children, sleep on the streets every night–and have a total homeless population of over 11,500 people. We need to invest in rapid “Housing First,” low-threshold options that get members of our community into temporary and permanent housing. I will champion efforts to increase resources to fund additional medical providers, case managers, mental health providers, and substance abuse treatment to help individuals get the care they need. This is not just about getting people a door or a roof, it’s about making sure that people have the services they need to treat the trauma they have lived through and address the health needs that may have caused them to be unsheltered in the first place.

What would be your strategy with the remaining Mandatory Housing Affordability rezones? Would you push for higher/lower affordability or density levels?
I will push for the highest levels of mandatory housing affordability in all new development in rezones and continue to push for more development to voluntarily opt in (which has already yielded $25 million in additional funds to the city). This alone is not enough. We must make sure development is done right, which means ensuring those who are most at risk for gentrification and displacement are at the table driving the process so development and MHA requirements meet community needs–including childcare, community spaces, small retail space for women and minority business owners, and more. To do this, I also call for:

• An immediate conveyance of City-owned, developable land parcels to public development authorities or non-profits to be developed into affordable homes, with affordable retail or community facilities on the ground floor.
• Expand investments in community land trusts, affordable co-housing projects, affordable housing co-ops, and incentivize accessory dwelling units where possible to create community and civic partnerships and win-win solutions to solve the crisis.
• Expand assistance for low-income homeowners and seniors so they can stay in their homes, increase access to low-income and senior property tax exemptions or deferrals, and create more senior housing throughout our community.

Would you support efforts to raise additional revenue in Seattle directed towards speeding up construction of ST3 projects? If so, what revenue source would you target?

I think we need to expedite ST3 as much as possible–as more people move to our region, traffic will not get any better and costs will never be as cheap as they are now. Specifically, I think we need to look at whether or not it’s feasible to use local bonds and levies to speed up the process, as well as seeing whether or not a local income tax is possible for expanding transportation revenue including ST3, as well as affordable housing solutions that are linked to ST3.

We already have vital funding in the cross hairs of the Trump administration and we need to Trump-proof our budget so our region doesn’t lag behind.

What are your preferred strategies for increasing multi-modal transportation (e.g., walking, biking, public transit) in Seattle?
Transportation is one of the biggest issues facing our region. Traffic is gridlocked and we need to do everything we can to get cars off the road and get people using alternative transportation solutions such as light rail, cycling, public transit, and walking. I want to invest in community transit hubs and transit oriented housing to create more walkable communities in Seattle. This is an incredible opportunity to build communities around public transportation and create economic hubs that are walkable and get our workers to where they need to be. I like the investments in ST3 for transit hubs that also include affordable housing solutions, but I believe we can do more to create more transit hubs for underserved, low-income populations, and those most at risk for gentrification.

We need to make sure we have safe, connected sidewalks, safe routes to school, dedicated, protected bike lanes, greenways, smart transportation grids that holistically address traffic and gridlock. We can do more in Seattle to create a comprehensive system that connects our communities to where we need to be.

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? 
I support Vision Zero. This is a smart public health campaign and would be honored to champion this effort. I believe zero bicycle deaths in our city is possible but we need to make sure we implement the right policies and continue support to make it happen. We should connect Seattle’s bicycle grid with a combination of grid-separated bicycle lanes, greenways, a completed Burke Gilman Trail, diverting cyclists away from train, light rail, and street car tracks, as well as grid expansion in North and South Seattle, and retooling dangerous intersections that put cyclists in harm’s way.

Yes/No

Do you support permitting triplexes, rowhomes, townhomes and cottages, in single-family zoned areas across the city?
Yes

Do you support adding a local income tax in Seattle?
Yes

Do you support adding a head tax in Seattle?
Yes

Do you support adding a congestion fee in Seattle?
Yes

Do you support the creation of a Seattle municipal bank?
Yes

Do you support the creation of a municipal broadband service in Seattle?
Yes

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

Photo courtesy of Teresa Mosqueda campaign.

The post 2017 Endorsement Questionnaire: Teresa Mosqueda 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 and next week, concluding with our official primary election endorsements in mid-July.

The following questionnaire was submitted by Jon Grant, running for Seattle City Council Position 8.

Short Answer

Do you consider yourself an urbanist? Why/Why not?
Yes, I consider myself a social justice urbanist. I believe that ‘social justice urbanism’ must guide growth to promote equity and inclusion, ensure neighborhoods get investment, and prevent displacement of long-standing communities. I believe that we must rapidly increase the supply of affordable housing, preserve existing affordable housing and invest in equitable development.

Do you support the King County Center and Family Justice Center as designed?
No. I strongly oppose the Youth Jail proposed in the Central District, and have regularly participated in No New Youth Jail and Black Lives Matter protests against its construction. We should not be spending over $200 million on failed “solutions.” Data show that jailing non-violent youth puts our entire community at risk because those same youth are more likely become violent offenders as adults. Young offenders who are incarcerated are 67% more likely to be in jail again by the age of 25 than similar young offenders who were not incarcerated.

Additionally, according to the Seattle Youth Violence Prevention Initiative’s December 2015 assessment, only 16% of crimes committed by youth were designated as “violent.” The majority of violent offenses committed by youth were assaults, which is a misdemeanor. As a community, we can do better. States and communities across the nation recognize that finding alternatives to incarceration reduces recidivism, reduces crime rates, and saves municipalities money. We should take the $225 million earmarked for the Youth Jail and instead invest it on community-led, restorative justice based programs.

I strongly support alternatives to youth-detention, including restorative justice strategies. We should expand city grants to organizations like Ending the Prison Industrial Complex (EPIC) who are already doing excellent, community-based work to rehabilitate youth who offend. Schools all over King County and in Seattle are starting to invest in restorative justice programs. I support expanding access to these programs while reducing reliance on punitive discipline strategies in schools. In Seattle Public Schools, black students are 18.6% of the student population and are suspended at a rate of 12.9% while white students make up 43.2% but are only suspended at rates of 3.8%. I support ending out of school suspensions in favor of restorative justice practices.

What do you envision as a solution for the current North Precinct building?
I strongly oppose the construction of the new North Precinct building. For $149 million, we can radically invest in community-based policing and restorative justice methods. I am responsive to concerns from the community about slow-response times to 911 calls in the North Precinct. However, I am skeptical of the argument that constructing a newer, larger building would be sufficient to resolve that concern. I believe that we need to critically examine the community’s concerns about 911 response as well as police accountability and identify solutions other than constructing the nation’s most expensive police precinct building.

Are there reforms that you would make to the street vacation process to ensure that adequate public benefits are provided to city residents from vacated rights-of-way? 
There a several key reforms we should make to the street vacation process to ensure better community involvement and increased public benefits. First, we must clarify that public benefits must achieve race and social equity goals, including provision of childcare, affordable housing, or access to training and job opportunities. We must require that entities seeking a street vacation develop a community engagement plan that engages both the immediate neighborhood and the broader community. The best way to ensure on-going community engagement would be to create a community-based committee that reviews proposed projects. Finally, we should engage City Council earlier in the process to guide the public benefits process.

What changes do you think are needed for the city’s current policy on unauthorized homeless camp removal?
The city’s policy of sweeping our houseless neighbors like garbage is inhumane, illogical and unjust. We must immediately cease the practice of forcing homeless residents to relocate themselves and all of their belongings every few weeks or even every few days. My campaign has spent the last few months working alongside residents of unauthorized homeless camps and it is clear that the city has failed in nearly every regard to serve these residents. The city disobeys its own protocols on storage of personal belongings and timely posting of removal notices. The city has ignored repeated requests from residents for trash removal and fire extinguishers, easy investments to improve livability and safety at unauthorized camps. The policy of sweeping people around and around only serves to further destabilize vulnerable people by making it far more difficult to stay connected to a case manager, mental health treatment, a job or drug treatment.

In addition to rapidly expanding the number of sanctioned encampments (see below), I propose the city identify publicly owned land parcels (whether city-owned, SDOT land, WDOT, or otherwise) and designate these areas as authorized places to camp. These locations would not have the same investment as a sanctioned encampment but would be provided with a minimum of trash pickup, fire extinguishers, sharps containers and portable toilets to address immediate needs for sanitation and safety.

In our current homelessness state of emergency, what actions can we take right away to address this issue?
First, we must expand the number of sanctioned encampments, especially low-barrier encampments, all over the city. Many NIMBY activists decry public urination or finding sharps in their neighborhoods, yet actively oppose sanctioned encampments to temporarily house houseless neighbors. We must take a strong stance against these groups and require that all neighborhoods in Seattle share space with homeless residents. Additionally, we should increase the number of low-barrier encampments to serve more residents. Many homeless neighbors I have met during our campaign suffer from drug or alcohol addiction, or have other barriers to access traditional encampments. We need more low-barrier sites like the Licton Springs encampment. As I mentioned above, we should also expand access to city-owned land for people who are unable or unwilling to be served by sanctioned encampments.

Over the long term, we must rapidly scale up construction of deeply subsidized housing in Seattle to provide permanent housing to 8,000+ homeless residents in Seattle. My platform proposes raising the corporate tax rate, while raising the exemption for small businesses, to raise millions of dollars per year for deeply subsidized affordable housing.

What would be your strategy with the remaining Mandatory Housing Affordability rezones? Would you push for higher/lower affordability or density levels?
It’s time for a new approach to Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) in Seattle. The current “Grand Bargain” that undergirds the Housing Affordability and Liveability Agenda (HALA) framework requires as low as 2% MHA in some neighborhoods, with most neighborhoods receiving 3-7% MHA requirements. A central component of my campaign’s platform is a 25% MHA target for all new development. Twenty-five percent MHA is a practical demand as well as a values statement about the kind of the city we want to live in. Our goal as a city must be to build as much new housing possible for the 100,000 plus new residents moving to Seattle in the next twenty years while at the same time aggressively protecting against displacement of our neighbors.

In practical terms, a 25% target is on par with what other growing cities have demanded, from large cities like New York and San Francisco to growing suburbs like Issaquah and Tysons Corner, VA. A recent overview of inclusionary policies nationwide found targets ranging from 15-30%, far above Seattle’s current framework for 2-9%. The city should conduct feasibility analyses to assess whether neighborhoods can meet or exceed the standard and adjust the MHA requirement to maximum affordability possible. Currently, not every neighborhood or project in Seattle will be able to absorb a 25% requirement. Some neighborhoods may need to increase building heights in order to build 25% affordable units. Most importantly, limiting MHA in Seattle to less than 10% means that we are potentially missing out on construction of thousands of affordable units.

Certain proponents of lower MHA requirements focus on increasing the supply of market-rate housing as the primary means of preventing displacement and lowering rents, relying on a process called filtering. However, a recent study completed by researchers at UC Berkeley found that subsidized housing has over double the impact of market-rate housing in reducing displacement pressures at the regional level. Additionally, those researchers found that filtering is insufficient or ineffective in strong-market cities like Seattle and San Francisco in increasing supply of affordable housing. We know that we cannot rely on supply-side economics to solve our housing crisis. Instead, we must implement robust demands on market growth to fund affordable housing.

Other critics of the 25% MHA standard point to San Francisco as a cautionary tale. In 2015, San Francisco passed Proposition C, which increased the inclusionary zoning (MHA) requirement in San Francisco from 12% to 25%. In response, the city convened a Technical Advisory Committee to review the policy. The TAC ultimately suggested reducing the MHA to 14-18% for rental projects, with a fee option set at 18-23%.

However, we find two points of disagreement with this critique. First, two members of the TAC released a letter of dissent criticizing the working group for ignoring feasible alternatives that would increase MHA requirements further, using an incorrect methodology and mishandling legal issues. They note that the TAC was comprised of five for-profit housing financiers/developers, one “mega-national” non-profit developer and two local affordable housing developers, which obviously tilts the final recommendation toward a proposal which maximizes profits and provides the least inclusionary housing.

Second, even given the improper methodology and tilted make-up of the TAC, the reduced MHA requirements suggested are up to quadruple the MHA requirements for Seattle. It’s clear that Seattle has room to operate in increasing MHA. Limiting our goals for MHA to the HALA framework prevents us from asking for more.

Ultimately, the data and experience of other cities show that Seattle can and should ask for more. Setting a 25% MHA target will unlock thousands of additional affordable units in a time of housing crisis.

Would you support efforts to raise additional revenue in Seattle directed towards speeding up construction of ST3 projects? If so, what revenue source would you target?
Yes, especially given the recent vote in the legislature to cut Sound Transit funding by over $700 million. One option for increasing revenue would be to reinstate the Employee Hours Tax. The original EHT required businesses to pay a modest $25 per full-time employee per year to supplement Bridging the Gap transportation levy funds. Unfortunately, the EHT was repealed in 2009. We should bring back the EHT to invest in transit infrastructure that provides an alternative to congestion city-wide. Every year we wait to pass the EHT, we lose another opportunity to raise vital funds for public transportation like ST3. The EHT can be a progressive tax that charges businesses in high-congestion areas (like South Lake Union) more per employee.

What are your preferred strategies for increasing multi-modal transportation (e.g., walking, biking, public transit) in Seattle?
Access to public transportation is an equity, environmental and affordability issue. Everyone in our city deserves access to affordable, accessible and safe transportation options. As our city adds more than 100,000 people in the next 20 years, investing in a multimodal transit system, including light rail, bus rapid transit (BRT) and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is crucial to creating a livable city for all. Seattle has led on many transit issues, yet there is still much work to do. We need to fully fund the Bicycle Master Plan, invest in Vision Zero, identify more progressive funding sources instead of continually relying on regressive property taxes and invest in racially equitable transit-oriented development.

Rates of bicycle commuting are essentially flat from two years ago, even as the share of commuters taking public transportation continues to rise. To increase bicycle commuting, we must get the Bicycle Master Plan back on track and ensure that future cycling projects address disparities in access (over the next five years, South Seattle will receive 23.2 miles of bike facilities while North Seattle will receive 28.6 miles). We must also implement the Basic Bicycle Network in downtown Seattle.

We need to invest in Vision Zero, with an eye toward equity (explained in detail in next question).

We need to identify progressive funding sources for transportation improvements like impact fees on new developments and the Employee Hours Tax, as well as requiring community benefit agreements like the Community Package to address pedestrian and cyclist safety.

Finally, we must invest in racially equitable Transit-Oriented Development. All residents in our city deserve access to good schools, parks, grocery stores and quality public transportation. As the light rail and transit expands to new neighborhoods across Seattle, we must be proactive about placing a high value on racial equity outcomes when planning TOD.

There are several key ways we can promote racial equity alongside TOD. The first is requiring that family-size affordable housing is included in TOD projects. Too often, TOD housing includes only market-rate options and comprises largely studios and one-bedrooms, which do not serve most families’ needs. Second, we must focus on creating living-wage jobs in communities and in areas served by transit so that low-income communities can afford to stay in the city. Finally, we must prioritize community-driven development by providing affordable commercial space to community organizations. All communities in Seattle deserve access to affordable housing, good public transportation options and living wage jobs. Taking a racial equity focus toward density and TOD will help achieve those goals.

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? 
Over the past decades, Seattle has left hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for safe streets improvements on the table by neglecting to implement impact fees for new development. As our city adds more than 100,000 new residents over the next 20 years, impact fees are a crucial source of new revenue to pay for basic walkability projects. We can use impact fee revenue to fund programs like Safe Routes to Schools. More than 80% of Seattle students live within walking distance to school, so it is crucial that we provide safe pedestrian infrastructure like sidewalks and crosswalks for those students to walk to school.

We also need to ensure that Vision Zero policies and practices are incorporated into major transit infrastructure changes happening downtown and along the waterfront. Currently, the One Center City plan does not include metrics to assess pedestrian safety, such as deaths at crosswalks. We must ensure that Vision Zero goals are incorporated into all transportation infrastructure plans.

Yes/No

Do you support permitting triplexes, rowhomes, townhomes and cottages, in single-family zoned areas across the city?
Yes

Do you support adding a local income tax in Seattle?
Yes

Do you support adding a head tax in Seattle?
Yes

Do you support adding a congestion fee in Seattle?
Yes

Do you support the creation of a Seattle municipal bank?
Yes

Do you support the creation of a municipal broadband service in Seattle?
Yes

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

The post 2017 Endorsement Questionnaire: Jon Grant 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 and next week, concluding with our official primary election endorsements in mid-July.

The following questionnaire was submitted by Peter Steinbrueck, running for Port of Seattle Commissioner Position 4.

Short Answer

Do you consider yourself an urbanist? Why/Why not?
I am a passionate urbanist! I’ve studied urbanisms extensively, traveled and learned from the great cities of the world, advocate for, and have made green urbanism central to my professional consulting practice!

What meaningful and specific commitments will you pursue to create safe cycling facilities for people commuting by bike to the port and its surrounding industrial facilities, as well as through the areas adjacent to the port?
One of my three primary goals as Port Commissioner is to Green the Port, including promoting safe cycling, and other alternative modes of travel (to SOV) for all port employees, customers, and communities adjacent to the Port facilities. To this end I fully commit.

What commitments as a commissioner will you make to fight climate change? 
The port strives to be the “greenest port in America” but there’s still is much more that can be done. SeaTac airport has a carbon footprint as large as the city of Seattle and growing, mostly from jet take-offs and landings. I want to accelerate the use of bio-fuels for aviation by partnering with the Port’s major airlines and Boeing to reduce CO2 emissions. I will pursue other opportunities to reduce fossil fuels by partnering with the drayage businesses (short haul truckers) to convert to electric powered vehicles built locally by PACCAR.

How do you see the Port’s role in incubating new industries through collaboration and innovation among existing industries?
I will encourage the Port and small incubator businesses to work with the city of Seattle to revise the land use code (such as I have promoted in the past when I was land use chair on the city council), to establish vertically-oriented, innovation zones to accommodate more compact, innovative start-ups and light industrial-manufacture-sales businesses that integrate their activities and work product, and don’t require a large horizontal footprint for their functions and shops.

How would you work to reduce sprawl? 
This is a key priority for me! One important way to reduce sprawl is to advance the Port’s core mission as a living wage job creator so maritime and other port industry workers can afford housing closer to and within Seattle. This can be through the Port’s Quality Jobs initiative, Internships, and partnering with port tenants and businesses. Protecting urban industrial lands from conversion to other uses (such as large scale retail and commercial) is another way to curb sprawl, as Seattle is uniquely located with a deep water port to be the center of the international trade in the Pacific, vital to our state’s economy.

How can housing and public transit policies be better crafted to benefit workers at the port and its surrounding industries? Please provide specifics.
In Seattle and at SeaTac airport, the Port could provide its employees with transit vouchers and employer-assisted housing options for its workers to encourage living closer to work, support alternative travel modes, provide electric powered shuttle services, etc., to reduce travel time traffic congestion, and curb sprawl. The Port can work to encourage its business partners to do the same.

What solutions will you pursue to prioritize light rail, bus, biking and walking access to the airport, mitigating the long walk from the SeaTac Link station?
It was a missed opportunity that the light rail station was not located closer to the terminal. The LR connection at SeaTac should be made more user friendly all, including for cyclists, people with disAbilities, and others who have to carry their luggage nearly a quarter mile, exposed to the weather and navigate the vast parking garage to the terminals. Better wayfinding and signage, improved weather protection, moving sidewalks, and by offering free/discount luggage carts would be a good start.

Yes/No

Are there any circumstances in which you’d support an arena in SODO?
Yes

Do you support the creation of physically protected bike lanes–without cuts for driveways–on East Marginal Way, from The Elliott Bay Trail to the West Seattle Bridge?
Yes

Do you support ending contracts with companies that import and export of fossil fuels through the Port of Seattle?
No

Will you commit to opposing investment in transportation projects that only benefit motor-vehicles without benefits for other modes?
Yes

Photo courtesy of Peter Steinbrueck campaign, with credit to Maite’ Guadarrama.

The post 2017 Endorsement Questionnaire: Peter Steinbrueck 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 and next week, concluding with our official primary election endorsements in mid-July.

The following questionnaire was submitted by Preeti Shridhar, running for Port of Seattle Commissioner, Position 4.

Short Answer

Do you consider yourself an urbanist? Why/Why not?
Yes. In my current role with the City of Renton I work closely with our planning department and Planning administrator to develop plans that create livable mixed use urban areas maximizing amenities and minimizing transportation challenges.

What meaningful and specific commitments will you pursue to create safe cycling facilities for people commuting by bike to the port and its surrounding industrial facilities, as well as through the areas adjacent to the port?
First, we must make sure that bicyclists have safe trails to use within the city. There are too many bike-truck accidents, especially around the marine cargo terminals on the waterfront. This requires the Port to provide coordination between SDOT, the drayage truck drivers, and bicyclists. We can do more in that area, review the designated bike paths and any issues with truck traffic nearby.

The Port owns and maintains Centennial Trail, just north of Myrtle Edwards Park, as well as other shoreline parks that are destinations and points along the path for cyclists. We can review these trails as well and work with SDOT to make sure they are as safe as possible. We hear almost every day about new bike share programs coming to the city, so we must make sure that both locals and tourists are safe while riding around the waterfront. I will support a comprehensive bicycle friendly and safety program and efforts for the safe use of bicycles on city roads, sidewalks, and paths.

What commitments as a commissioner will you make to fight climate change? 
The Port has a unique opportunity to have the only airport to provide biofuels for airplanes. I will work hard to make that a reality. I will also strongly advocate for hybrid or CNG for drayage trucks and fleet. I will encourage a strong overall commitment to the environment. With 15 years of experience promoting Seattle’s environment programs including Seattle’s Climate Protection Initiative, I’m the right candidate to make this a reality.

How do you see the Port’s role in incubating new industries through collaboration and innovation among existing industries?
This is an area where the Port is already supporting other cities in their efforts to provide business incubators–in fact, holding a celebration of one in the City of Auburn last Thursday. I will continue the economic development grants that made that possible. Kent has also benefited from using a grant to boost a food business incubator. The Port has significant real estate holdings and those need to be put to work as business incubator sites. Fishermen’s Terminal and the surrounding area are the perfect place for a fishing and ship-related incubator. But even the uplands of Terminal 91 could be a great place for small businesses to blossom: clothing, food, etc.

With my experience with economic development in the region, building relationships and partnerships, I will opportunities for the Port to help create opportunities and grow various businesses.

How would you work to reduce sprawl? 
We need to with our regions transit and transportation agencies to encourage public transportation and access- especially to and from the airport. The Port can also work with the cities, SCA on zoning and looking at ways to encourage communities to live close to where they work. For instance, 20% of people working in Sea-Tac live in airport communities. Also looking at options of renovating rather than building new help reduce sprawl.

How can housing and public transit policies be better crafted to benefit workers at the port and its surrounding industries? Please provide specifics.
Port must continue to provide its employees commuter benefits, such as subsidized ORCA card, participate in Guaranteed Ride Home program. Port should expand vanpool options while encouraging carpool, bike, or walk to work programs. Port should work with the state and cities on zoning and affordable housing policies to best serve port workers and the community at large.

What solutions will you pursue to prioritize light rail, bus, biking and walking access to the airport, mitigating the long walk from the SeaTac Link station?
We need to break down the barriers that keep people from riding light rail to the airport. It’s definitely cheaper than any other option. I think it will skyrocket once the light rail is connected to the Eastside. Again, very recently, the Port has made improvements to make it a little easier and a little more pleasant to get from the light rail station at the airport to the terminal. It’s still not very easy, but, my understanding is that the Port looked into a moving sidewalk to help get people in to the terminal and it would be extremely expensive. The work around is to have a human being with a cart drive people to the terminal, which isn’t bad. When I saw that I also saw someone who has a steady job and seemed like he had great customer service skills. I will advocate for the Port to work with Sound Transit to promote light rail options to and from the airport–it is still relatively unknown as one of the better options.

Yes/No

Are there any circumstances in which you’d support an arena in SODO?
No

Do you support the creation of physically protected bike lanes–without cuts for driveways–on East Marginal Way, from The Elliott Bay Trail to the West Seattle Bridge?
Yes

Do you support ending contracts with companies that import and export of fossil fuels through the Port of Seattle?
Yes

Will you commit to opposing investment in transportation projects that only benefit motor-vehicles without benefits for other modes?
No

Preeti submitted an amended answer to this question before publication. We agreed to print both the original and version. Below is the amendment:

Yes

Photo courtesy of Preeti Shridhar campaign.

The post 2017 Endorsement Questionnaire: Preeti Shridhar first appeared on The Urbanist.