Votes on Once and Future Bond Issues

Advice to Emperors of Large Projects: Keep it Simple, Stupid!

The fate of the Seattle Commons is a case study on how not to construct and sell a project. When most people first heard about the idea for the Commons, they were wildly enthusiastic. A large green space in the midst of what was a rather nondescript industrial and retail zone was immensely appealing. Yet as time went on skepticism grew and grew as the project expanded in immensity and complexity, and more and more questionable practices surfaced.

First it was a park. Then it was a park plus very large traffic improvements and the re-routing of large chunks of highway. Craig McCaw weighed in with some cash, and with a strange idea for using the area as a telecommunications experiment. Then the planning area was extended to encompass a huge part of the South Lake Union neighborhood. The whole thing had metamorphosed into a yuppie, high-tech vision of Napoleonic proportions. As the project grew, support for it shrunk. The project went down.

There seems to be a cycle developing for these large bond issues. Elite planners concoct a gold-plated wish list which if approved would be beyond their wildest dreams, which voters then promptly vote down. Projects are then pared down until voters find them digestible.

It took five tries for the Seattle school bonds to get through (more than it probably should have). The transit system is on round two. We may see the Commons again. Some new version of the stadium is likely to emerge again, although politicians and the Mariners seem to have tired of democracy, and want to concoct a new way to pay for this big playpen.

The moral of the story is this. First, prioritize. By far the most important upcoming vote, which will probably occur next Spring, will be for rapid transit. The reason for this is simple: Local design and planning expertise will almost certainly be lost if the issue goes down again. The Republican-controlled state House is already extremely hostile, and the RTA will almost certainly be completely dismantled in the next legislative session if the system is voted down again.

The second priority is affordable housing. The housing levy on the November ballot is a very reasonable request and should be supported (see below). The third priority are things such as open space. A new version of the Commons might fit this bill.

So, Commons backers, if you try it again, think about being a little more modest next time. First, stick to the park. Let the city planners and the Cascade neighborhood plan for the surrounding streets and housing. Skip the "sports fields." Build the park incrementally, and pay for it incrementally - a patchwork of small parks will start providing the greenspace we need without the disruption of mega-planning. Keep the public/private money at 50/50 so the public feels it is getting its money's worth. Make a promise not to utilize eminent domain, allowing businesses to relocate voluntarily. Make a firm committment to keep Cascade businesses within the city limits, and to manage business and housing relocations. Equally important, make a firm committment to a no net-loss policy for affordable housing.

Our last priority is buildings for overpaid gladiators. Despite all the overblown rhetoric about the importance of baseball, study after study show that professional sports teams just don't provide that much to a local economy. Instead, sports arenas have about the same net positive impact on a city as a single department store. The same amount of money put into computers in the high schools would probably have a much larger positive efffect. If you like sports teams and think the symbolic or entertainment benefits are worth the money, then by all means support a stadium. But let's all be grown-up about it. It's just a game.

Endorsements by Free Press staff

Housing Levy

Here's an issue we don't hesitate to support. Housing is a top priority for the city; the levy is modest in scope; it builds on demonstrated sucess; and it won't even raise your taxes. Yes, that's right; this vote will be for a reauthorization of an existing levy, not a new one. So nobody's taxes will go up if it passes. Also, the levy will be changed to also help first-time home buyers. While it is true that the City and region are tending to overcommit, this levy is not part of that problem. Don't let the anti-taxers snow you on this one.

Vote YES




Seattle City Council



Position 7
This is an interesting match-up: Tina Podlodowski, Microsoft millionaire, civic do-gooder, fund-raiser and organizer for gay and lesbian causes. Jesse Wineberrry, long-time state representative, social justice activist, businessman, and, in some minds, an excessively mercurial politician.

While it is safe to say that Podlodowski's volunteerism makes her an asset to the community, her limited experience makes her really not quite ready to handle the job at the council. Her profile matches that of the current council almost to a T. She's likely to be the same sort of Seattle liberal who is so easily taken to the cleaners by the hardball tactics of the Nordstroms and the Ackerleys.

In contrast, Wineberry has the sort of experience that will give him ballast to counter the unmistakable trend toward the Los Angelesization of Seattle social policy. He has been forthright in listing his priorities for the city, putting transportation, education, and housing ahead of other issues. He's recently spent time spearheading the development of an organization to retain affirmative action in Washington. Recently, he pointed out the discriminatory removal of bus stop seats in the poorer areas of Seattle. While this is a small beginning, we believe that Wineberry will be a fresh voice concerned with both sensible planning, and social justice.

Vote WINEBERRY




Position 5
In some respects, Margaret Pageler has not lived up to people's expectations. She came in with strong neighborhood credentials, but in office ended up aligning herself too often with downtown interests she once opposed. Most tellingly, as head of the council's public safety committee, she supported and then voted for all of the laws concocted by City Attorney Mark Sidran to harass the homeless and other "undesirables, " thus revealing the steel claw within the velvet glove of Seattle liberalism. Nevertheless, Pageler had the courage to go against the Nordstrom package, and her knowledge of planning issues is exemplary.

Charlie Chong has run a spirited if underfunded campaign. His team-up with Jordan Brower into a reform slate makes it possible that the council would receive a powerful one-two punch.

Yet Chong's close ties to the West Seattle neighborhood movement make us extremely leery. Their extreme opposition to the comprehensive plan smacked not of neighborhood rights, but of a reactionary movement to keep out low-income housing. The comp plan, and yes even its urban villages component create a process that needs to be hijacked by democracy, not something that can be dispensed with.

Vote PAGELER




Position 1
When we hear "fiscal responsibility," we usually think of politicians stripping money from social services to pay for various forms of corporate welfare. But candidate Jordan Brower's effort to rein in city spending has a different cast to it. While we don't agree with his position against the housing levy, we do believe he'll keep his word when he says he'll put housing at top priority in the city budget.

Sue Donaldson is a solid councilmember but shares the generic faults of her counterparts. The council needs an independent voice.

Brower is likely to be something of a gadfly on the council , but that's exactly what it needs. He showed his tenacity by fighting Barry Ackerley's illegal posting of billboards, even enduring a harassment campaign led by Barry Ackerley's son. His bulldog determination showed again in his campaign to keep the Nordstroms and other development interests from using HUD money for the upscale Pine Street project. Brower will go after corporate welfare first to make sure the city is on sound footing.

Vote BROWER




Position 3
Sherry Harris versus John Manning

No endorsement




King County Council



District 12
The Free Press Sleazy Campaigning Award goes to the Master Builder's Association, which thought it could help bump off maverick Republican Brain Derdowski by running a phantom eco-campaign for his one Democratic opponent. The plan was to siphon green votes from Derdowski in order to allow his Republican primary opponent to sneak by, and then on to win the general in this heavily Republican district.

The Master Builders, more accurately known as the Suburban Sprawl Lobby, are about as interested in environmental preservation as the NRA is interested in gun control. Praise to George Foster of the P-I for doing the spadework which brought this to light.

Derdowski, while not always showing the best judgment when it comes to his personal life, has managed to irk the major media and large development interests with his principled stance on various issues, and his unwillingness to go-along-to-get-along. Most important, he has also managed to pioneer methods of defusing property rights hysteria by troubleshooting for small landowners with various planning bureaucracies.

Vote DERDOWSKI




District 8
Another case of strange bedfellows developed in the King County Council, where the same interests that were trying to knock off Derdowski were also trying to get incumbent Greg Nickels. Mike Heavey, a neoconservative-type Democrat and lawyer who represents many in the development industry, tried to capitalize on discontent in West Seattle to clip Nickels in the primary. Heavey ended up being supported by Republicans and land development interests. Not surprisingly, he went out of his way to criticize the Seattle Comprehensive Plan (which is not even on the King County Council's agenda) in order to inflame the ire of West Seatteites, and to push for more sprawl in suburban King county.

Having survived a close bout with Heavey, Nickels faces a runoff against Republican Gene Goosman, who got 13 percent of the vote in the primary. Nickels has compiled a solid environmental, education, transportation, and growth managment record and deserves to be reelected.

Vote NICKELS




In Other King County Races
Larry Gosett, Larry Phillips and Cynthia Sullivan are all running unopposed.





Vote No on Referendum 48!!!

The campaign over Initiative 164/Referendum 48 seems anticlimactic. Property rights activists teamed up with the clearcutting and asphalt lobby to put before the legislature the most extreme anti-environmental measure this state has ever seen. Enviros in turn mobilized one of the largest and most rapid counter-organizations and were successful in using the referendum process to get Initiative 164, which was approved by the legislature, on the ballot.

It is now called Referendum 48, and since it put 164 on the ballot, you need to vote against Ref. 48.

This one is not over by any means. The campaign will be hard-fought, and the proponents of raze and ruin will have quite a bundle of cash at their disposal.

Given the seriousness of this measure, we can wholeheartedly recommend you call 233-3728 to get involved in the campaign.

Vote NO





Proportionally Better

Although the district elections proposal which has qualified for the ballot would bring city councilmembers closer to their constituents, and lower the amount of spending necessary for a campaign, it doesn't promise to deal with the class issues that are facing our city and country. Indeed, the initiative has received much of its financial support from a wealthy West Seattle donor with real estate interests - enough support to pay petition gatherers.

Meanwhile, the less funded and comparatively grass-roots drive for proportional representation (PR) did not gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot this time around.

PR offers hope of getting a tenant candidate or a green candidate elected, and generally introducing more meaningful discussion to the city council, as opposed to debates about dog leashes. If the district initiative fails, the drive for PR will be able to collect more signatures in an attempt to qualify for next year's ballot. If the district initiative wins, the signatures already gathered for PR will be invalidated.

ABSTAIN or vote NO



[Home] [This Issue's Directory] [WFP Index] [WFP Back Issues] [E-Mail WFP]

Contents on this page were published in the October/November, 1995 edition of the Washington Free Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- WAfreepress@gmail.com
Copyright © 1995 WFP Collective, Inc.