Seattle Forward

City Budget Lobbying: Piling On

The Council is just three months away from beginning our work on the 2009-2010 city budget and we're already hearing from people who think we should spend more here, less there, cut taxes, raise taxes, save money for emergencies, and the like. We've held public hearings, invited comments, and generally started to get ourselves ready for what I understand can be a pretty fast-paced, strenuous, and contentious fall work schedule.

So, I decided to conduct a totally unscientific poll on my blog to measure what people thought was the city's number one budget priority. Well, as you can see from the results below, certain interest groups mobilized their followers to answer the single poll question. What we can discern from this exercise is that library users and supporters, as one example, are indeed very organized.

Priority/Percentage of Respondents Listing As Number One
Libraries 37.5%
Human Services 28.2%
Transportation 13.9%
Police and Criminal Justice 7.2%
Planning, Housing, Etc. 6.5%
Arts, Music and Culture 4.0%
Parks 1.7%
Fire Services 1.1%

Sunny Pride Parade Downtown

Here we are on our Segways getting ready to ride in the Seattle Pride Parade earlier today.  Councilmembers Jan Drago and Jean Godden (not pictured, they must have been away practicing their waves) also joined us. 

Two observations.  It was very hot!  And the crowd was diverse, jubilant, noisy, and fun.  Loved those with squirt guns along the way. 

Dan Savage of Stranger lore ran into the street from his reviewing stand perch to have his picture taken with me.  Hum.  Not sure what to think of that. 

New Police Contract

The Council's personnel committee has voted to recommend adoption of the new labor agreement between the city and the Seattle Police Officer's Guild.  I wrote an essay, published in The Seattle Times, that spells out the benefits of this new contract and related ordinances the Council will take up next week. 

Long Parks Levy Hearing Tonight

I just got home from observing a 5-1/2 hour public meeting of the city's citizens committee reviewing whether to renew the Pro Parks Levy and, if so, what projects to include. 

That's Gary Manca in the black shirt, president of Friends of Seattle, testifying before the committee at the Seattle Center's Lopez room.  The meeting was packed with families supporting more athletic fields for youth soccer, green legacy advocates, representatives of various neighborhoods arguing for their favorite park improvements, and those who want funding for additional park land acquisition. 

The committee is charged with making recommendations to the City Council about whether the current Pro Parks Levy should be continued, for what amount, and for what projects.

I enjoyed listening to citizens present their arguments.  But the committee discussion that followed for three hours was equally informative. 

I personally favor continuing the Levy at an amount somewhere between $120 million and $140 million and putting the proposition to the voters this fall.  I recognize there are others who feel otherwise and generally favor waiting until 2009 or 2010.  The committee will make their recommendations to the Council later this month. 

Body Count

Just because I know everyone is waiting eagerly for these numbers, here are the city employee position counts by department for 2008 as adopted by the Council yesterday:

Arts and Cultural Affairs  27
City Auditor  9
City Employee Retirement System  15
City Finance Office  40
City Light  1,831
Civil Service Commission 2
Dept of Planning and Development  448
Dept of Executive Administration 254
Ethics and Elections  6
Fire Dept  1,189
Fleets and Facilities  310
Hearing Examiner  5
Housing  43
Human Services  336
Information Technology  217
Intergovernmental Relations  11
Law Dept  164
City Council  88
Mayor's Office  26
Municipal Court  246
Neighborhoods Dept  97
Office for Civil Rights  24
Office of Economic Development  26
Office of Policy and Management  19
Office of Sustainability and Environment  7
Parks Dept  1,109
Personnel Dept  124
Police Dept  1,868
Public Safety Personnel Commission 1
Seattle Center  296
Dept of Transportation  785
Seattle Public Utilities  1,485
Grand TOTAL  11,108

The Future of Cities: Dramatic, Inspiring

I’m back in Seattle (and acting Mayor this weekend; Mayor Nickels is at the state Democratic convention in Spokane, Council President Richard Conlin is on vacation somewhere near the North Pole following caribou tracks, and Council President Pro Tem Sally Clark is in Portland.  All that makes me the go-to guy on Saturday and Sunday.  Keep your children inside!).

I flew back from Washington, D. C. late last night after participating in the Brookings Institution conference on the future of cities.  (You can read my earlier posts about the trip here and here.)

The conference was great.  We heard from a host of speakers, reviewed gobs of data, debated the best approaches to solving urban problems, and got a shot of inspiration from Bruce Katz, America’s leading metro guru.  (Katz is this professorial cool guy who can rattle off statistics and policy solutions like no one else I’ve met, and never seems to wear a tie.  He’s so metro.)

Here’s my biggest take-away from the conference:  we need a new, sweeping urban policy agenda in the United States.  Why?  Because we truly are a metro-driven, metro-fueled nation. 

According to Brookings' research, 75% of our gross domestic product is produced in our 100 largest metropolitan areas.  These same 100 metro areas hold 65% of our total population; yet occupy only 12% of our landmass.  Metro areas, including Seattle, drive our national prosperity. (Mayor Nickels had this opinion essay on the same theme last Thursday in The Seattle Times.)

One key factor I hadn’t really digested before this conference is that we don’t have a national economy; instead, we have approximately 300 city-based economies.  If one accepts this premise, then developing a national urban agenda is really important, and the quicker we do so, the better.

In one of his pep talks, Katz reminded us of previous times in our history when we adopted really large-scale, sweeping agendas.  To Katz’s list, I’ve added a few of my own:  Teddy Roosevelt’s dream for a national park system that became reality; Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal that pulled the nation out of a grinding depression; Harry Truman’s Marshal Plan that restored Europe and G.I. Bill that sent millions of young people to college; Dwight Eisenhower’s interstate highway system that propelled the country’s manufacturing and technological prowess; Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society that focused us on overcoming urban poverty, social injustice, and the decades-long remnants of slavery; John Kennedy’s “man on the moon” endeavor that unlocked our entrepreneurial spirit.  Add to this list the remarkable inventions, technological advances, and creativity of our business sector and you can see that when we put our minds together and focus on a common purpose we can truly do amazing things as a country.

So, if we have this solid track record of accomplishment, if we indeed are a metro nation that depends on the continued success of our urban centers, and if we indeed have vexing urban problems that cry out for solutions, let’s pull together and create a new urban policy agenda that will address what needs to happen in order to sustain our cities.

Our country needs an urban policy that is national in scope, but local in application.  National in magnitude, but local in specificity and flexibility.  National in funding, but local in accomplishment.
 
This new urban policy agenda—hopefully led by our new President and Congress in January and urban advocates across the country—is urgently needed to address our decaying infrastructure, our failure to educate many of our children adequately, the challenges of the shift to a knowledge-based economy, and environmental sustainability.    

Here are two reports from the new urbanists at Brookings:

Core argument:  Metro Nation:  How U. S. Metropolitan Areas Fuel American Prosperity

Next step solutions:  Shaping a New Federal Partnership for a Metropolitan Nation

There are a host of policy papers, including specific recommendations here.  (Scroll down to see list of report and policy briefs.)

 

Notes From DC

Here's a little mid-trip update from Washington, D. C.  (Here's an earlier post about my trip.)

I spent most of yesterday at the DC City Hall (photo left).  It's an impressive building, dedicated July 4, 1908, just three blocks from the White House.  Like Seattle, DC has a strong mayor/strong council form of government, but it's also very different.  DC government is essentially a state, county, and municipal government all rolled into one.  Their annual operating budget is $6 billion, more than six times Seattle's; they fund all municipal services, plus K-12 education, and health services for the poor.   

I spent the morning with Councilmember Phil Mendelson, chair of the Council's Public Safety and Judiciary Committee.  The current issues he's wrestling with include police surveillance cameras—there are just over 5,000 of them in DC, including those in public schools—and anti-crime checkpoints in high-crime neighborhoods.  The checkpoints just started last week, and I must admit they are of dubious legality.  Mendelson is working to create alternative crime-fighting strategies, especially for the high-crime districts of the city.  DC has approximately 4,200 police officers; Seattle has just under 1,300. 

I also visited with Philip Eure, director of the Office of Police Complaints.  In DC, individuals with police misconduct complaints can go directly to the police department or to Eure's civilian-led office where civilian investigators will look into the allegations.   This combination of both police and an outside civilian agency investigating misconduct is unusual in the United States.  I favor Seattle's hybrid system with direct civilian oversight of police-led investigations.  But my discussions with Eure are always helpful; it's good to hear differing opinions about how best to maintain police professionalism and accountability. 

Two-Way Mercer and Leadership

 

(Note:  Updated March 16, 2009.)  There has  been some controversy since the Council voted 8-1 to continue work on the two-way Mercer  Street project. Some see the project as a boondoggle designed only to benefit Paul Allen and his interests in the South Lake Union neighborhood. Others view it as a waste of money because the promise of traffic congestion relief is minimal at best.

Still others argue that competing projects, such as north end neighborhood sidewalks originally promised in the 1950s should have higher priority for the limited public funds available.

I voted  with the super majority on this issue and here's why.

First, the two-way Mercer Street project is about a lot more than just traffic congestion relief, although that certainly is a worthy justification. This project is one of several to improve our city's livability and it must be viewed within an overall strategic framework. The big picture goal is to reunite two important neighborhoods, South Lake Union and the Uptown neighborhood (lower Queen Anne, to many) while also creating a link or union between the lake, Seattle Center, and the central waterfront.  

Two-way Mercer is also one of several steps aimed at reconnecting the east and west sides of Aurora Avenue North and returning neighborhood cohesion to this important area of our city.  The other steps are re-opening three streeets across Aurora at Thomas, Harrison, John Streets and extending Sixth Avenue North all the way to Mercer Street. These moves would significantly improve the street grid throughout Uptown and South Lake Union and, along with two-way Mercer, improve traffic flow and access.

Another part of this overall strategic framework made possible by the changes described in the paragraph above is the addition of bike lanes on both Valley and Roy Streets, and the incorporation of the formerly-named "Potlach Trail" into the new street grid connecting South Lake Union to the central waterfront through the Uptown neighborhood.  

These street changes also need to be considered as part of the city's overall Urban Mobility Plan which is currently being developed in our effort to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bore tunnel and surface street along Alaskan Way that will allow us to remove the viaduct and revitalize the central waterfront.

Last, but certainly not least, two-way Mercer, along with the other steps I've described, allows the streets immediately adjacent to Lake Union Park to be transformed into a pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle friendly area serving as a gateway to the park.  

So, I voted in favor of continuing planning, financial feasibility studies, property acquisition negotiations, and other necessary work because the two-way Mercer project is just one element of a broader strategic plan to improve two neighborhoods (Uptown and South Lake Union) that will accept more density and jobs in the coming years. The project makes good urban planning sense,good environmental sense, and wise financial sense when viewed in the context of the larger strategic goals for the area.

Second, I  reject short-term, status quo thinking which is often a mask for a not in my  back yard or anti-growth mentality.  

We are well past the growth-no growth debate. Our region, and our city, has adopted a growth management plan that calls for Seattle to accept more residents and to cluster these new residents in our Urban Centers. The Uptown and South Lake Union neighborhoods are both Urban Centers. The Mayor and the City Council have taken a firm stand on this issue and it won't be reconsidered. Seattle is going to see an increase in population over the next 20 years. The issue is how to accommodate this growth wisely and efficiently.

I keenly remember several projects in our city's history that were opposed because they (a) would contribute to growth, (b) cost too much, or (c) seemed to favor developers and property owners.  

Remember the late 1960s when we twice rejected a light rail system because it would cause growth and damage Seattle's small-town atmosphere? You can ride our light rail system in Atlanta, Georgia today. City officials who fought hard for passage of the Forward Thrust transportation measure deserve kudos. Too bad we failed to follow their bold leadership!

Remember, too, the opposition to Pacific Place downtown? It was cast as a give-away to a private developer, a waste of city resources. Pacific Place is the single most important anchor development that contributed to the revitalization of our downtown business core.  

It's a great example of a public-private partnership that resulted in huge public benefits to our city, primarily strong economic transformation of our downtown. I appreciate the leadership Mayor Norm Rice and others demonstrated to win approval of that project.

Third, I'm grateful when property owners want to maximize their investments and contribute to the welfare of our city. Rather than detest Paul Allen and his colleagues, I appreciate the fact that he is willing to invest in our city and create jobs and wealth. His investments in South Lake Union will result in new residents living close to our downtown core in an environmentally sensitive manner, tens of thousands of new jobs, and a resurgence of an area that urgently needed it. Twenty years from now we will likely praise Paul Allen for his initiative and entrepreneurial spirit. Don't you wish he owned the Sonics instead of the Portland Trailblazers? (In the spirit of full disclosure, employees of Allen's Vulcan Northwest contributed $1,600 to my campaign for City Council last year, but not Mr. Allen himself. The Vulcan employee contributions represent four-tenths of one percent of the total amount contributed to the campaign.)

The Future of Cities

I just arrived at my hotel in Washington, D. C. 

I’m here for the next three days attending a special Brookings Institution conference on the future of cities, meeting with my counterpart on the DC City Council who chairs the public safety committee, and spending time with the civilian director of the agency that oversees police professional accountability here in the District.

I’ll try to keep you posted as the week unfolds.

The Brookings’ conference on cities promises to be the highlight of the week because cities drive the world’s and our economy, culture, and values.

Most of the world’s population will soon live in cities.  By 2030—just 22 years from now—60% of the world’s population, about five billion people, will live in metropolitan areas.  The percentage will grow to 70% by 2050.  As the Brookings’ researchers like to say, we live in a “metro world.”

In the United States, according to Brookings, our largest 100 metropolitan areas, take up just 12% of our total land mass, hold 65% of our population, and produce 75% of the gross national product.  Cities drive our economy and our national prosperity.  We live in a “metro nation.”

In Washington State, the greater Seattle metro area holds 51% of our state’s population, 58% of our state’s jobs, and drives 67% of the state’s economy.  We live in a “metro state.”

By the way, Seattle is the country’s 15th largest metro area in terms of employment.  Oklahoma City is 47th.  Their population and total number of jobs is about one-third less than ours . . . their GDP production on a per capita basis is 75% less than ours.  Tell me again why the Sonics want to move? Go figure!

Cities are economic engines, they are the drivers of economic growth and prosperity—that’s true globally, that’s true nationally, and that’s certainly true in Washington State.

Whether it’s the ancient cities of China, or the Greek city-states, or London, or Seattle, people have gathered together in cities for common purposes—safety and protection, cultural and social relationships, work and daily sustenance.

More thoughts later in the week on what I believe makes cities successful—a shared moral code rooted in justice and equality, a keen focus on sustainability, economic growth and wealth creation, strong and effective public schools, a vibrant arts and cultural scene, and a supporting infrastructure that handles mobility efficiently and effectively.  In all this, we have work to do for sure.

Police Surveillance Cameras

The Council's Parks Committee voted on protocols to guide use of police surveillance cameras in four center city parks: Cal Anderson on Capitol Hill, Hing Hay in the International District, Occidental in Pioneer Square, and Victor Steinbrueck adjacent to the Pike Place Market. All four parks generate frequent complaints about graffiti and other crimes.

You can  read newspaper coverage of the committee's action here and here.  The full Council passed the protocols on Monday, June 9th.

However, I believe a more significant issue was also decided when the city's information technology director agreed that future camera installations would be temporary, utilizing WiFi technology, instead of permanent. While nothing bars the city from permanently installing anti-crime cameras in public places where there is no assumption of privacy, I urged city officials to adopt a different approach.  

Police camera surveillance is a practice that raises reasonable concerns in people's minds about increasing government intrusion into our private lives. I believe we must acknowledge these concerns and address them in a manner that strengthens the social environment surrounding civil liberties.  I am leery of moving to quickly or aggressively down a path leading to widespread surveillance. I personally don't want to go that direction.

Temporary installations based on specific facts and circumstances that lead police to believe cameras could serve as deterrence or help solve crimes, instead of permanent installations, would significantly reduce civil liberty concerns. As someone has suggested to me, temporary installations are much like police emphasis patrols. Such focused patrols are used in specific places, at specific times, and are then removed when no longer needed. This should be our model for use of surveillance cameras, too.

Further Resources—The Constitution Project, a group composed of a wide range of political persuasions, has published extensively on the topic of police surveillance cameras.  Their materials are excellent, including model legislation.