When I was reading Seattle’s Land Use code I pointed out how helpful it would be to have a “superagency” to make Transit Oriented Development happen. I even suggested a charter amendment that could make the Planning Commission that agency. I think putting a charter amendment on the ballot soon to create what I called the Seattle Planning and Development Commission would facilitate a healthy debate on TOD and development in Seattle and, if it was successful, create an agency well equipped to start work now and benefit from changes at the state level that, hopefully, are forthcoming. Portland, for example, has the Portland Development Commission (PDC). I’ve heard a lot of PDC envy in Seattle over the last few years.
But why do we need a super agency? First, the City Council has a tough time doing the right thing when it comes to land use. Fear of change has a vocal constituency, and strong majorities in neighborhoods. It’s tough to listen to hundreds of people saying, as they have in Roosevelt, “we’ve taken enough density” and then impose more anyway. These are taxpaying voters after all, and one could argue that even if the Seattle City Council wanted to max out development in Roosevelt they shouldn’t: it’s not what most people there want.
Second, many of the financing tools are lacking right now for a hefty TOD program. While most of these problems—especially the lack of Tax Increment Financing and prohibitions against the lending of public credit—are state level problems, a Seattle Planning and Development Commission could function as a Public Development Authority (PDA). In Washington PDAs have some unique and appropriate tools, the most important being the ability to issue bonds. While PDAs are expressly prohibited from using eminent domain, that power could be added with a suite of constitutional amendments and legislation in the future.
Lastly, I love my friends at the Seattle Planning Commission, but they don’t have enough power. And even though I don’t always agree with them, the Planning Commission is the right place to work out the future of Seattle’s land use. An amendment could transform todays Commission into something approaching a “superagency,” immune from the influence of both fearful neighbors and smart growth land use fads. Giving the new agency the power to legislate zoning could save us from the incremental and piecemeal approach the City Council always seems to take. More after the jump.
How would the Seattle Planning and Development commission work? The new Commission could issue a Request for Proposals from developers and the community for new development 6000 feet around the Beacon Hill Station, for example. Following a review of those proposals the Commission could approve substantial zoning changes. The City Council could have the last word, but only with an up or down vote with no amendments. I’ve called this zero based zoning.
Front loading the process of big land use changes would encourage developer and neighborhood collaboration, but not stalemate. The City Council would have to have very good reasons to veto the commission. And the commission could support the construction of some public infrastructure to support the plan, with some debt service coming from value captured from the project. That would mean some shared debt service by developers and perhaps even neighborhood businesses. But if enough profit is generated it would make sense.
Later, with changes at the state level, the Commission could get powers to do TIF, lend credit, and exercise eminent domain to assemble parcels for TOD. But much of what the Commission would lack at first without these tools, would be offset with enhanced powers to push aggressive, sustainable land use soon.
Wouldn’t such a powerful and unelected body be undemocratic? I don’t know. But today’s governance model is breaking down. Nobody has ever been to the future, so making decisions about it is hard, especially when we’re afraid to take risks. Land use democracy now favors people who show up today, not people coming in the future. Big land use changes are about as popular as someone coming to your house and totally rearranging your furniture for a houseguest that’s coming for a visit in 10 years.
Discomfort and shared sacrifice don’t usually win votes but they are necessary. We need a different way of making decisions that favors compromise and planning, not who can mobilize the most aggrieved people to show up at a meeting.
But the time is now to make changes in the way we decide land use. The system suggested here wouldn’t impose solutions, but it would more adequately balance the strongly motivated interests of today with the poorly represented interests of the future. The public debate created by the campaign would allow many of the questions now being fought out neighborhood by neighborhood to be settled for the whole city.
I was coming home on link the other day, and there were two guys who work for the city, and they were talking about how somebody had solicited plans for something at the Beacon Hill Station, and for that area west of the Rainier Ave QFC,
Ive always thought that planners should do the planning. Anything that takes power away from folks who value their views and yards over the affordability of future generations’ housing stock is wonderful news to me.
Love it.
A few minor points:
1. I don’t see this as anti-democratic at all. I assume you’re not going to farm this out to Vulcan, it will of course be city employees hired by city leaders. This is no less democratic than our Parks Dept. If as a city we don’t like the direction they’re going, we pressure our city council or mayor to replace the people at the top. The important distinction is that we don’t have direct power over any one decision – that’s called a representative democracy, a concept I’m highly in favor of.
2. How do you know a majority of Roosevelt residents don’t want to densify? Surely the planning meeting was attended by self-selected residents, it wasn’t a democratic process.
3. Even if it was a majority, I don’t think I’m ready to concede that the council shouldn’t densify anyway. We’re talking about a long-overdue 10% increase in zoned population for the area around a regional mass transit station. I’d argue each neighborhood should upzone to double the density we have now.
The important distinction is that we don’t have direct power over any one decision – that’s called a representative democracy, a concept I’m highly in favor of.
We had direct power to bring ST2 into existence, the “representative democracy” leaders couldn’t do that!!! And no, that agency isn’t a representative democracy, but hey, the appointees on that board are technical wonks and that’s who you want building out train lines.
You get that, don’t you Matt? Sound Transit is NOT a representative democracy. People only can vote three of ST’s boardmembers onto or off of that board (the three county executives). I know you are a big ST fan — I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply you ONLY are “highly in favor of” representative democracies.
Dilbert, I think you’ve misinterpreted Matt’s post.
He is in favor of the concept of representative democracy, an example of which would be the appointment of commissioners by elected city leaders. Matt claims this is superior to direct democracy, which would put decisions up to a vote of the entire electorate.
Yes, ST2 was an act of direct democracy. But thankfully it granted Sound Transit the authority to oversee the project, rather than leaving all decisions up to the people. Still a far cry from a truly representative approach, but that’s the reality of politics in our region.
@ Kyle: “He is in favor of the concept of representative democracy, an example of which would be the appointment of commissioners by elected city leaders.”
Think you’re a little confused here, Kyle . . .. A better example of representative democracy (that is, what the term truly means) is how our city councilmembers are directly elected by people who reside in the city. Those councilmembers are the representatives we democratically elect. The term representative democracy has nothing to do with appointments that the electeds may or may not make.
I was distinguishing between plans enacted under the authority of an elected council vs. being voted on directly by the people.
You are just flat-out wrong. 17 out of 18 ST boardmembers can be voted out.
Aaron Reardon, elected by the people of Snohomish County as their County Executive
Fred Butler, elected by the people of the Issaquah to their City Council
Claudia Thomas, elected by the people of Lakewood to their City Council
Claudia Balducci, elected by the people of Bellevue to their City Council
Richard Conlin, elected by the people of Seattle to their City Council
Dow Constantine, elected by the people of King County as their County Executive
Joe McDermott, elected by the people of King County to their County Council
David Enslow, elected by the people of Sumner as their Mayor
Jake Fey, elected by the people of Tacoma as their Deputy Mayor
John Marchione, elected by the people of Redmond as their Mayor
Joe Marine, elected by the people of Mukilteo as their Mayor
Mike McGinn, elected by the people of Seattle as their Mayor
Pat McCarthy, elected by the people of Pierce County as their County Executive
Julia Patterson, elected by the people of King County to their County Council
Larry Phillips, elected by the people of King County to their County Council
Paul Roberts, elected by the people of Everett to their City Council
Pete von Reichbauer, elected by the people of King County to their County Council
And the one boardmember not directly elected by the people:
Paula Hammond, appointed by Governor Gregoire as Secretary of Transportation
Lack Thereof: Depending where you live in one of the three counties, you have the right to vote for only one individual who would serve on ST’s board (the County Executive).
You may live somewhere where a county councilmember or a mayor now serves on ST’s board, but even if you vote against him or her when they run for reelection to their “real” position you wouldn’t be assured that the next individual in that office would be appointed to replace the person you voted against.
Looking at that list I’ve never heard of a bunch of those individuals. Why was “Jake Fey” appointed to ST’s board? I sure as hell can’t get rid of him – I’ll never get to vote for a Tacoma Deputy Mayor (God willing).
ST’s board is controlled by political appointees (15 of the 18 spots). It was designed that way, after old-Metro was struck down as an unconstitutional representative government). ST has an appointive board, not a representative board. Hope this helps!
Well the decision by Sound Transit to run that rail line where it did was wrong . . . it adversely impacts far too many homes in established neighborhoods around here. It should have used the less populated abandoned rail corridor. I’m going to vote to replace the Sound Transit boardmembers who made that decision. Oh, wait . . . I didn’t get a chance to vote for any of the following whack jobs, and I sure can’t vote against them now:
Aaron Reardon, elected by the people of Snohomish County as their County Executive
Fred Butler, elected by the people of the Issaquah to their City Council
Claudia Thomas, elected by the people of Lakewood to their City Council
Richard Conlin, elected by the people of Seattle to their City Council
David Enslow, elected by the people of Sumner as their Mayor
Jake Fey, elected by the people of Tacoma as their Deputy Mayor
John Marchione, elected by the people of Redmond as their Mayor
Joe Marine, elected by the people of Mukilteo as their Mayor
Mike McGinn, elected by the people of Seattle as their Mayor
Pat McCarthy, elected by the people of Pierce County as their County Executive
Paul Roberts, elected by the people of Everett to their City Council
Paula Hammond, appointed by Governor Gregoire as Secretary of Transportation
In addition to the three County Execs the Mayor of the largest city in each county is given a spot. Not exactly equal representation since Bellevue is bigger than Everett. The real issue is that even though the King County Council is fairly balanced the County Exec is virtual assured to be whoever Seattle votes in and they make all the appointments for the whole county. If you’re not a King County Democrat you’re not getting on the board. It’s “the machine” at work.
Bernie, last I checked Pete von Reichbauer was a Republican.
[Dilbert] By saying I’m in favor of a representative democracy, I mean I’m in favor of being at least one step removed from a direct democracy. Basically, the more intelligent and detailed the decisions, the further removed from the electorate those in charge should be. Having technical wonks controlling zoning rules and fire codes is exactly what I want – not ex-actors and lawyers that have a direct interest in gaming the system.
To be clear, I feel anything we have control over – no matter how many layers away from a direct vote – is representative democracy. These positions all stem from the consent of the governed, and we elect those with the power to make the rules and change the rules.
B.R.:
One city should not have veto power over a regional system. People in Tacoma, Issaquah, Seattle, Redmond, and all those other constituencies have a say in this, for good reason.
To argue otherwise is to say that federal laws aren’t legitimate, because you only got to elect 3 out of 535 congressmen.
“In addition to the three County Execs the Mayor of the largest city in each county is given a spot.”
No, it’s the mayor or a city councilmember from the largest city. Get your facts straight.
“Basically, the more intelligent and detailed the decisions, the further removed from the electorate those in charge should be.”
I’ve been saying this for years: GE and Monsanto and Warren Buffet should appoint the president of the United States. NOBODY makes more intelligent and detailed decisions than the POTUS — that means he should be really removed from the electorate.
Roger Valdez writes:
“. . . . Fear of change has a vocal constituency and strong majorities in neighborhoods. It’s tough to listen to hundreds of people saying, as they have in Roosevelt, “we’ve taken enough density” and then impose more anyway. These are taxpaying voters after all, and one could argue that even if the Seattle City Council wanted to max out development in Roosevelt they shouldn’t: it’s not what most people there want.”
No matter how many times you portray the Roosevelt Neighborhood “anti-density” it is still NOT going to be true. This was easily demonstrated at the public meeting you attended a couple weeks ago.
Of the 80 or so speakers who offered comment at that meeting, maybe 3 or 4 said that they wanted absolutely no up-zoning, no increase in density. Everybody else (75+) spoke in support of one plan to increase density, or a different plan to increase density — and this seemed to also represent the proportions of the 500-600 in attendance . . . .
So that makes what? About 90%+ of at that meeting were supporting up-zoning, density, and development.
Yeah, its not as much density as some people want.
But, the discussion in Roosevelt is NOT about WHETHER OR NOT there should be an increase in zoning/density — That seems accepted and embraced by the vast majority. The difference of opinion in Roosevelt concerns HOW MUCH of an increase in density, and WHERE best to plan for growth in the community.
The Neighborhood’s current proposal –developed with as much consensus as they could– calls for MORE density than the City’s current plan; and it calls for the growth to be concentrated around the business-district crossroads of 65th + Roosevelt Way.
There is nothing wrong or anti-density about this– it is simply a different plan. A proposal which reflects a set of priorities to accommodate growth in a way which works with the community’s historic patterns, geographic landforms, and urban planning work.
Great idea, Roger! It should be a county position though, not a city position. You should be appointed planning czar for 20 years by the county council. The state legislature could designate your TOD projects as projects of statewide significance, allowing you to trump local land use laws. That will allow you to put as much density around all of Sound Transit’s planned stations as you see fit. No more NIMBYism!
I’m a bit cynical in my old age. I think appointing someone to a 20 year position leaves them wide open to co-option by corrupt forces. We’ve already seen how money and power corrupts political processes with the DBT. Nothing personal Roger. ;-)
um . . . . i’m the biggest transit booster in my “family & friends” circle, and even i would have some problems with that
…honestly I support having Roger as the density czar. Maybe not for 20 years! Maybe for a 4 year term? That’s enough for projects to be built.
I would prefer POT.
People Oriented Transportation.