Seattle Subway Primary Endorsements 2023

83 Replies to “Seattle Subway Primary Endorsements 2023”

1. I’m glad that the STB Editorial Board [Ed. Actually Seattle Subway. STB hasn’t endorsed.] is holding existing elected officials accountable for the recent awful WSBLE decisions when it comes to endorsements. I am also a bit heartened that some candidates have been involved in Seattle Subway too, as they too likely understand that the rider experience (an experience that will be fixed for decades to come) has to be given more weight than they give to a fussy property owner upset by a short-term street closure (and be compensated for that impact anyway).

   As a D2 resident, I have been frustrated by Morales giving her visible endorsement to a bad WSBLE design. Her lack of showing caring that DSTT2 directly affects most of her district — because it’s the 1 Line forced to move into that tunnel — says to me that she doesn’t get the hassle to her constituents that she’s endorsing. The DSTT2 operating plan she endorsed will make Link travel harder and take longer for most of her district to get to much of Downtown as well as UW and the region.

   Because it severs transit connectivity to SLU, Seattle Center, SE Seattle and SeaTac (among other destinations) from other parts of Seattle and points both north and east, WSBLE will affect everyone – including those who live miles away from the construction corridors. That’s not even mentioning the fiscal responsibility of overseeing ST. Every single candidate that is running inside the ST district should be probed by the WSBLE situation specifically and the ST3 execution process in general.

   1. Whoops! I now see that these are Seattle Subway endorsements and not STB.

      I don’t think that would change my substantive points.

   2. I am also a bit heartened that some candidates have been involved in Seattle Subway too, as they too likely understand that the rider experience (an experience that will be fixed for decades to come) has to be given more weight than they give to a fussy property owner upset by a short-term street closure (and be compensated for that impact anyway).

      Not really. Seattle Subway has insisted on pushing the idea of a second tunnel, instead of interlining the three lines from the south (West Seattle, Rainier Valley and East Link) into the existing tunnel. They have simply supported the least-bad option, but it is still really bad. Bad for riders, and bad because it means spending a fortune making things worse for riders.

      To criticize Morales for wanting to put different (cheaper) lipstick on the pig missed the point. No one has had the courage to buck the incorrect assumptions that exist with this poorly designed project. It would be great if Morales did that, but to blame her for a very bad design that she had very little to with is a bit much. Hopefully we will get someone in there who can point out that the emperor has no clothes (and it is time to rethink the stupid assumptions) but that doesn’t mean we folks shouldn’t vote for Morales.

      1. RossB is correct on this point. For Seattle district two, Morales has been a strong voice for pedestrian and bicycle safety. I heard Woo describe the IDS ST3 DSTT2 station choices well.

         For Seattle district three, Hudson fails the Daniel CCC Streetcar suggestion; she is a strong proponent. I am impressed by Joy Hollingsworth.

         I do not always agree with Seattle Subway, but I do on Reyneveld, KCC district four.

      2. Seattle Subway is backing CID2, Madison, and SLU Stations, not the Constantine/Harrell mess.

         Their option is no more wishful thinking than stuffing every line in one tunnel.

      3. Exactly Brent. It is irritating that an organization with a fair amount of power ignores the political and practical problem with the second tunnel. From a practically standpoint, any set of stations in a new tunnel will be bad for riders, and a colossal waste of money. From a political standpoint, a new station at ID is extremely difficult, if not impossible. The only way to actually build something useful is to interline.

      4. “any set of stations in a new tunnel will be bad for riders,”

         Good point. Even a short transfer walk is worse than transferring at the same platform or remaining on the train. The only reason we even considered a second tunnel was for possible overcrowding. And ST passed on improvements to DSTT1 that would have supported more service in it, and never gave any reason for that. (Just “We want the second tunnel anyway.”) All of these assumptions for DSTT2 were based on a “normal” train-to-train transfer like in NYC, BART, the L, etc. Now we’re told these transfers would be unprecedentedly bad — maiming the subway network — especially the popular Rainier Valley-UDistrict and North Seattle-Airport corridors. And ST won’t acknowledge this as a major problem that must be addressed.

      5. The CCC is an order of magnitude less expensive than WSBLE, so even though it’s a poor project, it’s not that important, and thus how a councilmember stands on it is not that important. If all else were equal I’d vote against a pro-CCC councilmember, but it’s much more important what their stance is on the downtown Link alignment, improving bus service, expanding housing, etc. And I’m not as much concerned about one or two pro-CCC councilmembers than if almost all of them support it. Of course we won’t know that until after the election, but risking a pro-CCC majority is low on my concerns.

   3. I’m going to say that elections don’t really have much impact on Sound Transit plans. There’s a lot of problems in the City and County and transit is more of a rear burner issue. I can’t see any elected official burning much political capital fighting the second tunnel. It is what it is. Learn to live with it.

      Sound Transit was built in a way that shields it from any public scrutiny. First off it’s a phony tax district set up for one vote, 100 years of spending. If there was any way to vote Sound Transit out and spend the money on housing…. ST would be toast. But there isn’t.

      Sound Transit is also what I call a toxic money burrito. Local tax money is taken from several sources, mixed with Federal money and projects are funded and built (very slowly, the toxic money burrito takes years to do much). The second tunnel is going to be build because it steals cash from outlying subareas and the Feds. There’s free money involved! Pols love free money! So the project is turd? Free money I tell you! Pols never ever give up Federal pork. Ever.

      Transit use aside, because transit use isn’t any part of this bullshit, the smart money bets on the Constantine/Harrell plan. Those two have the political power to grab the “ST free money burrito” and do whatever they want with it. None of those Seattle Subway endorsed candidates will stand up to Harrell to block his ST plans. Rubber stamp time! With a huge side order of pork. Get on the wrong side of the Mayor or Executive on a down budget cycle? No way, because he’ll screw your district over.

      1. The county executives matter, and then a few personalities that choose to be very involved in ST Board activities (e.g. Balducci).

      2. I agree the county exec. has a lot of political influence although he has one vote. But after that it is the city mayors and their councils who control zoning, police, land use, parks, local infrastructure, local taxes, etc.

         Everyone is praying Harrell gets it right with a dysfunctional council, and the adults in the room think his focus is right, although executing it will be tough, especially if voters give him another dysfunctional rookie council. Constantine followed Harrell on DSTT2. Harrell followed the DSA and Amazon.

         Balducci doesn’t do anything without conferring with the mayors of the major eastside cities. She was a mayor. The mayors don’t do anything without speaking to their Chambers. She can see East Link running along 405 and not Bellevue Way, and I am sure recognizes Issaquah Link is not a very good use of transit dollars that if up to her would be reallocated. She was told the 554 had been rerouted to Bellevue from MI. She was not part of the decision making. Even then transit — despite being on the ST Board — is maybe number 12 of the issues on her list and reelection platform (considering East Link is now delayed 4-5 years but eastsiders don’t care).

         What will be interesting is how involved Harrell is in the elections for Seattle City Council. His approval rating is around 66% right now, which is a bit of a sugar high, and the current council’s is 8% which actually is a benefit for Harrell because they are exiting in shame and have no influence over him or policy.

         The best thing for Harrell is the number one issue out of the gate for the next council is closing a $250 million gap in the operating budget, because then the new council would tell Harrell we have to generate more money out of the CBD so we don’t have to raise taxes or cut spending, at which point Harrell will say welcome aboard the sinking ship. Everything after that — especially zoning since Harrell got 65% of the SFH vote — is irrelevant.

         Public safety, schools, police, zoning/neighborhood character, parks and green spaces are usually the key issues in suburbia, and most of Seattle is suburbia. Those are the same issues for the CBD if Harrell wants those suburban folks to return. If they return, as workers or visitors because at one time it was cool to work downtown and a nice break from suburbia, then so will the transit riders.

      3. ” Harrell followed the DSA and Amazon.”

         The CID activists had nothing to do with it?

      4. “She can see East Link running along 405 and not Bellevue Way, and I am sure recognizes Issaquah Link is not a very good use of transit dollars that if up to her would be reallocated.”

         That’s why people like me and my family support Balducci, because she understands the flaws and what would be better and why, and where the Eastside needs to go to fully thrive.She may not be able to prevail against stronger opposition, but she knows which way is up. At least in a suburban kind of way (i.e., she may be more pro-P&R and less 1920s-walkable than I would be), but she’s a step forward for the Eastside.

      5. ” Harrell followed the DSA and Amazon.”

         “The CID activists had nothing to do with it?”

         The CID had nothing to do with eliminating a station at Midtown and SLU, although to be defeated by the CID was a little embarrassing.

      6. “That’s why people like me and my family support Balducci, because she understands the flaws and what would be better and why, and where the Eastside needs to go to fully thrive”.

         Where does the eastside need to go to fully thrive? Things are pretty good today. If you mean transit or urbanism, Balducci doesn’t mention either in her campaigns or literature she sends out.

         I am not a huge Balducci fan but my wife votes for her, and my wife is anti-urbanism or density, pro SFH, pro SUV, and transit doesn’t even exist for her except as a reminder of what she dislikes about Seattle. And that is Balducci’s core eastside voter. Balducci is not going to change the eastside.

      7. How about Harrell and crew fix the second tunnel issue once and for all with a “Downtown Experience” that lifts Seattle?

         So yes, there’s a second tunnel, and it stops at “union central” where all those useless City and County buildings are. Let’s start with thousands of new new units of TOD! And a shopping mall? Add in high rent restaurants and bars? And here’s the kicker! Where the magic happens baby! Downtown parking garages! With safe, security patrolled parking, Eastsiders and the like can drive downtown to see a ball game, go shopping, have a night out. And the real cool thing while the car is parked and safe, and you’re at a transit hub. Ride the subway to Capitol Hill! The famous U-District! Your paid parking ticket is also a transit pass! Explore the Emerald City!

         If you think this is crazy… drive and park at the Tacoma Dome. Sound Transit has done projects like before, and there’s nothing stopping them from doing it again. Mayor Bruce isn’t an idiot and transit is NOT what he’s about. He’s about downtown redevelopment and he’s clever enough to highjack Sound Transit to get it done.

         Seattle can build parking garages and pay the bond back with the revenue… or so the story goes. Selling a thousand $700,000 condos for the project? Yep… five hundred pre-sell 18 months out. Anchor tenants can easily be bought with property tax breaks and security agreements. This project will have a shitload of private guards and Seattle’s finest. An Oasis from homelessness.

         And just why will this all happen? Because Mayor Bruce wants to be remembered as one of Seattle’s greatest leaders. He’s the Mayor, he’s got “the juice”. The rest of the ST is going to fallow his lead because what other choice do they have?

      8. “First off it’s a phony tax district set up for one vote,”
         The ST RTD is legal entity that had to go through multiple layers of government both locally and at the state level to exist as a special tax district separate from state or local taxes. The state had to write off on it’s existence alongside the multiple counties and municipalities that are part of it.
         If you want to pull facts out of thin air about the legitimacy of the tax district, be my guest. But all your doing is destroying your credibility by trying to claim the tax district is an illegitimate use of local and state tax authority when it is 100% legal.

      9. Tacomee does make two good points:

         1. Two votes (ST 2 and 3) have metastasized into taxes and spending until 2044 based on false assumptions and estimates in the levies so even the additional tax revenue will not produce the promised projects (and don’t get me started on false future O&M estimates and funding), and some projects have veered from those promised in the levies.

         2. There is no way the citizens, cities, or even politicians can question or review this agency and Board, or projects. For example, any state project requires re-authorizing the necessary funding every two years when the budgets are adopted. This results in regular project review, changes that are voted on, and in some cases elimination of projects, especially if the assumptions turn out to be wrong. Here we have an agency that believes its taxing authority is literally endless, and no way to contest or question that unless we replace the Board members when no voters vote based on transit or ST because ST is not these politician’s main job.

         Fortunately, there is subarea equity to protect subareas to some degree, although it also results in some very questionable projects in subareas like mine that have more revenue than anticipated. For example, there is no way to review the wisdom of Issaquah Link, even post pandemic, and so almost by inertia it will get built for $4.5 billion and carry almost no one when Link up or down 405 would make infinitely more sense because Issaquah is powerful in the subarea. If you offered the cities along Issaquah Link the $4.5 billion to use some other way they would take that option in a second. But you can’t.

         There is also no way to reallocate ST tax revenue for other uses. For example, post pandemic it makes no sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new parking garages to replace existing parking garages in Sumner, Auburn and Kent when Sounder S. ridership is down dramatically and let those cities use the tax money more effectively.

         A basic principle of governance is you don’t create an agency that cannot be reviewed, and its taxing authority cannot be reviewed and modified, and is according to the Board endless in duration.

         The real concern is ST is legitimate, but without any of the safeguards normally applicable to a government agency, which IMO led to many of the false assumptions and estimates in ST 3.

      10. “Toxic money burrito”
          WTF?
          Is that anything like trying to sell a ketchup popsicle to a woman in white gloves?

2. If I were voting for the next Seattle City Council — considering the current council has an 8% approval rating — what I would ask candidates:

   1. Harrell has released a seven goal plan to revitalize downtown Seattle. Do you agree with the plan and if so how would you achieve these goals.

   2. Would you increase zoning density in the SFH neighborhoods, and if so where and how much.

   3. Talton has an article in the Times noting the work commuter is not coming back. The CBD pre-pandemic generated 2/3 of Seattle’s tax revenue and lowered property taxes for non commercial buildings. The Times is predicting a $250 million deficit in Seattle’s next operating budget. How would you fill that hole, and how will you deal with higher property taxes for housing properties including rent from a decline in the tax value of commercial offices. If more taxes which taxes. If spending cuts what spending cuts.

   4. Seattle is down over 300 police officers and us having difficulty attracting new officers. How would you solve this?

   5. The state auditor estimated Seattle’s unfunded bridge repair and replacement is $3.5 billion. The last legislature proposed raising the car tab from $20 to $40 over 10 years and bonding that money to raise &70 million to fix the bridge problems. Do you think that is adequate, and if not how much do you think the city needs to spend each year to catch up and how would you raise that funding.

   6. Despite its growing population and rising AMI — actually because of — Seattle is becoming whiter and whiter and was already the second whitest large city in the U.S. Do you think this is a problem, and if so what are the causes and how would you address it.

   I probably would not base my vote on the CCC although any candidate that supports it is an idiot.

   1. 2. It would also be interesting on their outlook for zoning in the urban villages? Should the UV grow up and/or out? Do they support new ones (i.e. at 130th station)?

      1. Zoning is being discussed as part of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update, described here: https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/06/23/seattle-reveals-rezoning-concepts-and-invites-scoping-comments-for-big-2024-update/. Candidates have largely expressed their opinion on the matter there.

         The first thing I look at when considering candidates is their endorsements. I don’t care if I agree with them on most issue — if they have no endorsements, the probably aren’t ready to lead. I have been largely focused on my own district (5) and was impressed with Nilu Jenks right off the bat. Not only does she have a good selection of endorsements, but it includes people who started running, then quit, endorsing her instead. I have to respect both people for that. Too often we get candidates who hardly even vote, and then think they are ready to be on the city council. Such arrogance is unfortunately all to common in politics; it is nice to the see the opposite.

         Since the at-large districts are not up this year, this is the only city council race I can vote in. Likewise, my county council representative isn’t up either. If I could vote in those races, it is quite likely I would go with the same people the Urbanist endorsed (which is slightly different than Seattle Subway). Not because they endorsed those candidates (although that doesn’t hurt) but because of the other endorsements, as well experience, etc. The only race that would be almost a coin flip is King County District 4.

   2. “I probably would not base my vote on the CCC although any candidate that supports it is an idiot.

      The way politics works, candidates sort themselves into ideological camps without nuance. In this case, the divide is between those two support options to get around the city without driving, and those that believe that all transportation except cars is a useless sideshow. So, even if you don’t want the CCC, you typically have no choice but to vote for candidates that do want it, otherwise, you’re voting for somebody who wants to not only defund the CCC, but also defund bike/pedestrian improvements and basic bus service as well.

      1. Agreed. I also agree with Mike’s point as well. The CCC is an important issue, but it isn’t a deal breaker for me. Hopefully the folks who support it will change their mind or simply be outvoted. Even if not, there are more important transit issues.

3. [ot]

4. No surprises here really. I’d expect subway to endorse Lewis and mosqueda. As a d7 constituent there’s now wsy in hell im voting forbthe guy…

5. Do these panting “endorsements” remind anyone else of the warm-up speeches at a Donald Trump rally?

   1. “Do these panting “endorsements” remind anyone else of the warm-up speeches at a Donald Trump rally?”

      No. But they do sound like a special interest group endorsing candidates on that one issue. I really doubt SS moves the needle. At best they are read by their tiny base. They probably endorsed Gonzales too, even though transit was hardly an issue in that election.

      I sometimes find SS a little naive, at least when it comes to money and what things cost. I understand that like many on this blog they dream of an urban utopia in which people can walk in urban facade density and take fast grade separated transit to wherever, and there is a “wherever” when they get there.

      I just wish SS would think about the existential factors for that kind of urbanism to flourish, because without it subways are stupid.

      Safety is number one (and two and three) and Harrell’s seven-point plan understands that, although then SS would address the 300 police officer shortfall at SPD. This means on the streets and on transit.

      Number 2 is cleanliness. Things that are clean make folks think things are safe. It is why Seattle cleaned up graffiti before the All Star game but tolerates it the rest of the time.

      Number three is zoning that condenses things. Seattle’s and this region’s big problem is everything is zoned for everything, the three counties have nearly 6500 sq miles, and that zoning disperses everything, so we are running Link to Everett and Tacoma and Redmond. Urbanism starts with zoning that starts from the center and moves out, slowly, until the zoning has reached capacity. Not like Honolulu or Vancouver where single very tall towers stick out from a sea of one- and two-story structures because the land was cheaper for the developer.

      Number 4 is this entire region only has the population for a very small area of truly vibrant urbanism, MAYBE UW to CID.

      Number 5 is retail vibrancy and density, something that is very hard to create or zone for but easy to kill, like in downtown Seattle. Urbanism whether Seattle or Paris begins and ends with retail density. SS needs to study U Village, and ask themself why is this so retail vibrant with so little transit — certainly rail.

      SS wants to build a fantastically expensive subway system but without the urban environment that makes someone want to take transit. SS makes the classic mistake that the transit or subway is a priori, and from transit comes the urbanism and retail density and true housing density (UGA) that makes someone want to take transit, can walk to it, or is willing to.

      Instead, SS supports shunting housing growth to remote residential SFH zones that HB 1110 recognizes need onsite parking requirements because there is no walkable transit, fewer police, fewer commuters and workers, and policies that just result in more urban deadness. Because today, in 2023, Seattle is some of the worst urbanism of any major U.S. city, and transit ridership is down significantly. It doesn’t matter how many subways you build in that environment there won’t be the population and work and retail density to get folks out of their cars.

      Maybe SS should read the comment by its founder why he no longer rides transit.

      What SS and some on this blog don’t understand (although Ross does) is an area or city builds very expensive subways and tunnels BECAUSE IT HAS TO, because the population and retail and worker and tourist density in a confined area is too dense for cars. That ain’t Tacoma, Fife, Federal Way, Lynnwood, Everett, West Seattle, or the eastside, and unfortunately downtown Seattle is about as dense and congested these days as those areas.

      If SS wants subways it has to create an area in which subways HAVE to be built because the area is too dense and vibrant for cars.

      1. Daniel, Judah has little corner markets every three or four blocks, and up-to three-story houses and flats for a couple of (pretty long) blocks on either side of it. Muni runs two-car trains every ten minutes on that street. The cars are a bit smaller than Link vehicles, because they are really “trams” designed to fit in a single traffic lane, but they’re recognizably close “cousins”.

         Muni fills them up from dawn until well into the night. True, the line has a great anchor in UC Med Center, but the trains are well-filled to Nineteenth Avenue and don’t empty until the turn-around at 458th Avenue. How do they do it?

         Because of those corner markets and very little wasted space in the Sunset. The houses have yards, but they’re separated by only three feet for the garbage access. Golden Gate Park is two blocks away. Who needs a big yard???

         This is what the hated “Urbanists” want, not the cartoon in your head.

         Oh, in case you did not know, the “N” Judah runs on the surface from Carl and Cole to the Great Highway, much of the time in [GASP] exclusive right-of-way in an ordinary street!

         What will they think of next???

      2. Tom Terrific,

         You’re joking right? San Francisco is a complete failure as a city. It’s dirty, crime ridden and regular people can’t afford to live there. Talk about a zoning disaster…

      3. Tom, I don’t have an objection to surface running trains. In other people’s neighborhoods. Nearly all of East Link is surface and our subarea has more revenue than any subarea.

         Are you saying the Urbanists want SFH but with 3’ and not 5’ side yard setbacks like in Seattle and not huge backyards in urbany areas in SF? Are you sure? Is that is what the upzoning zealots on this blog want?

      4. Tom, I don’t have an objection to surface running trains. In other people’s neighborhoods. Nearly all of East Link is surface and our subarea has more revenue than any subarea.

         Are you saying the Urbanists want SFH but with 3’ and not 5’ side yard setbacks like in Seattle and not huge backyards in urbany areas in SF? Are you sure? Is that is what the upzoning zealots on this blog want? I thought they were talking about multi-plexes.

      5. “You’re joking right? San Francisco is a complete failure as a city. It’s dirty, crime ridden and regular people can’t afford to live there.”

         If people can’t afford to live there, it means it’s very popular. “Nobody goes there anymore; it’s too crowded.” San Francisco has stricter zoning than Seattle does, and hardly grew at all in the early-to-mid 2000s when people were flocking to the Bay Area and wanting to live in San Francisco. So the richest people got the available units, and everyone else was shut out. That’s not due to dirtiness or crime, it’s due to restrictive zoning.

         San Francisco wasn’t always expensive. It was inexpensive in the 1960s. In the early 90s it was harder to get an apartment than in Seattle, but my friend who moved there said, “Everyone can find something after looking for a month.” In the late 90s I went down thinking about getting a job there, but I ended up feeling like I’d have to run three times as fast for the same standard of living so I moved back here. And now it has gotten even higher.

         Your summary of San Francisco forgot about all the cultural reasons people visit and want to live in San Francisco. That’s not gone just because there’s a problem with crime and homelessness. Things always change so the current situation will change.

      6. “ You’re joking right? San Francisco is a complete failure as a city. It’s dirty, crime ridden and regular people can’t afford to live there. Talk about a zoning disaster”

         Generalities like this don’t help the discourse. More than most cities, SF has a variation of over 900 feet in elevation. It covers 49 square miles and has many very expensive and zoning restricted areas. The N Judah even runs through a tunnel because it’s too steep for a streetcar.

         The Outer Sunset is dense with low-rise housing and has convenience shopping in it. It tends to be much safer, less crime ridden and “cleaner” than other areas. It is also about 50 percent Asian.

         Because it is so expensive to live there, a property owner is more likely to keep their investment in good condition. It’s not Detroit or East St Louis. There are no abandoned blocks in the Outer Sunset! Only people who watch biased media would think that because they simplistically see the world only as either good or bad.

      7. “Are you saying the Urbanists want SFH but with 3’ and not 5’ side yard setbacks like in Seattle and not huge backyards in urbany areas in SF? Are you sure? Is that is what the upzoning zealots on this blog want?”

         It’s too complicated to summarize in a short paragraph and give universal rules on exactly the right setbacks and other specs. We have described The Netherlands, Copenhagen, Zurich, Tokyo, several cities in Spain, Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary, and Ottawa as potential models. You have to add up all the factors and see what the total is, and even then a substantial part of it is a judgment call, and different levels of density and distribution can be equally good. Or something may be good at one level but lacking somewhat in another. Often the most you can say is that one city is better than another in certain ways, or that two cities are different but equally good.

         San Francisco is among the best American cities in terms of walkability, transit, mixed use, parks, small-lot houses, almost-attached houses (Are Victorians attached? Probably almost.), climate, cultural draw, internationalness, etc. It has frequent regional transit (BART), going-to-be-frequent commuter rail (Caltrain), a U-Stadtbahn (MUNI), frequent buses, half-hourly night owls (at least pre-covid), a good grid in both transit and the streets, etc. So it ranks around fifth-best in the US in transit, and pretty highly for walkability.

         BUT, the MUNI trains are excessively slow in their neighborhood surface segments. Growth gets crushed with highly-restrictive zoning, design review, and environmental-impact statements that let hardly any projects get through. Cities should densify as their population increases and more people want to live there, as New York and Chicago and Boston did before the 1960s, and as the DC area is doing now. But that was blocked in San Francisco. So the houses are more walkable than in most US cities, but some of them need to give way for denser development so that more people can live there.

      8. San Francisco’s narrow-but-deep lots with the house in front is an interesting quirk. There are both good and bad aspects to it. On the good side, you can walk past more houses per block, so it’s more likely the house you’re going to is there. San Franciscans have done wonderful work with colorful front gardens: it can be surprising to see that much green in a denser-than-average city. Those deep back yards were probably a godsend WWII when people had to have victory gardens to sustain their family: you could fit a lot of food in those yards.

         On the other hand, the deep yards mean you have to walk longer the other direction to go past the house. And they block more houses from being built.

         In northwest Everett I’ve noticed similar narrow deep lots, but the houses are in the middle rather than at front. The front yard is usually a blank lawn or similar underused space. People don’t like to gather in it because it’s so exposed on three sides and next to the road. And the front yards are so long you could fit an entire row of houses in front of the other houses. That seems worse than the San Francisco situation.

         Magnolia also has some deep setbacks with blank lawns in front; e.g., on route 24. The lots are wider than San Franscisco or Everett, maybe two or three times as wide. I don’t know how deep they are. I assume they’re not extra deep but more of a squarish lot, but I don’t know.

      9. San Francisco the template for West Coast liberalism. All of the problems Seattle is currently having happened in San Francisco first, because SF is really the older brother of Seattle. I’ve been to both cities and yes, they’re dirty.

         What is happening on this blog is a kind of educated, upper class White privilege. Is this blog really about transit? Maybe? Sometimes? I think some posters are transit riders and have a personal interest in the subject. But other posters think that there’s some way to re-wire Seattle with zoning and transit so they can afford to live there. It’s almost like they believe that they have some sort of right to live in Seattle, like they’re a stakeholder or something. It’s a mean city. Just ask any of those poor bastards living in tents.

      10. Is this blog really about transit?

          Usually, yes, although sometimes someone will write an entire comment that has nothing to do with transit, like … well, the one you just wrote. Who brought up the idea that San Fransisco is dirty, anyway, since that obviously has nothing to do with transit. Oh, yeah, OK.

          Look, I get why you would complain that folks stray from talking about transit, but maybe you should follow your own advice. As a moderator, I really don’t feel like going through these comment threads and ripping out the various pointless arguments (San Fransisco — dirty or clean?) so that folks can get back to talking about transit.

   2. “Do these panting “endorsements” remind anyone else of the warm-up speeches at a Donald Trump rally?”

      I marked this as off-topic and you post it again when I’m gone. Consider this a warning.

      Trump rallies are a group trying to overthrow the Constitution and install their own fascist dictator king and use the power of the state to harm demographics they have a grievance with. And the rallies are full of disinformation, accusing their opponents of doing what they’re doing. If you really thought Seattle Subway endorsements were like that, you wouldn’t be asking an idle question, you’d be warning that terrorists are trying to take over the government.

      If you merely meant that Seattle Subway is — I have to guess here — mindless groupthink? — you could find something else to compare it to.

      Seattle Subway is a group of intelligent individuals, who weigh transit tradeoffs, run organized campaigns, and engage with politicians/industry/the public to try to get their ideas implemented. Naturally they have specific values and make endorsements accordingly. If they’re “panting” (excited), well, activist statements often are. STB editors have long respected Seattle Subway, and their research on candidates, and usually agree with their endorsements more or less. That agreement is starting to fracture with ST3 — as agreement everywhere regarding ST is, such as between the subareas. But Seattle Subway’s opinion is still worth considering.

      When I vote, I compare the endorsements of Seattle Subway, The Stranger, The Seattle Times, STB, and my own knowledge of the candidates. Transit mobility is a high value for me, so I tend to support people whose transit ideas I agree with, and if they have those ideas, they likely have complementary ideas in other areas too.

      1. Sorry about the double post. I had my tablet in the car and went blueberry picking. When I picked it up maybe I accidentally hit the Post button.

         The point was not that Seattle Subway says things that Trump warm-up speakers would. That’s obviously not true. It’s that they are just as mono-maniacal about digging tunnels where they’re not needed as the Trumpies are about their fantasies.

         Oh, just go ahead and block me. You don’t appreciate much of what I say because it’s not “the party line” of backing ST when they’re driving off a cliff.

      2. I find it a stretch to think that Seattle Subway is much like Trump. But I also think it could be on-topic, since this is Seattle Subway making these endorsements. The assumption is that this organization has done its homework, and has figured out which candidates are most likely to be good for transit. If, on the other hand, you believe they are unreasonable demagogues, then it doesn’t make sense to give their endorsements much weight.

         But there has to be more than that. What choices to do you disagree with, and why? Simply trying to discredit the organization is pointless if you aren’t trying to make the case that one (or more) of their endorsements is bad. A pointless criticism of Seattle Subway is definitely off topic.

6. Andrew Lewis sucks. Vote that bastard out. Anyone who voted against enforcement of open public drug use has no business being endorsed by a public transit site.

   1. When STB makes endorsements it’s only on transit and land use issues. Seattle Subway is doing the same: “For the primary this year we’re endorsing candidates that are most aligned with our vision and interests in a vacuum.” We opine on what we have the most knowledge and expertise in, and leave it to others to opine on other aspects of the candidates.

      1. “When STB makes endorsements it’s only on transit and land use issues. Seattle Subway is doing the same: “For the primary this year we’re endorsing candidates that are most aligned with our vision and interests in a vacuum.” We opine on what we have the most knowledge and expertise in, and leave it to others to opine on other aspects of the candidates.”

         One of Mussolini’s campaign platforms was that he would make the trains run on time. He did, but his methods had ancillary issues, most notably fascism.

         SS did not release its opinion of the candidates on transit or land use. It specifically stated vote for these candidates over the others, based on only these one or two issues.

         Now if the issue is war, or the economy, or Democracy, a single-issue vote might make sense. But like Mussolini voting solely on the trains running on time is a risk.

         The other issue I raised is the STB Board, and SS, need to understand transit and subways follow. They don’t lead. You spend the enormous sums to build subways and light rail because you have to due to vibrancy, density, population, congestion, because that is the only time transit and subways are better than driving a car or riding a bus. There are some areas that never support the cost of subways or light rail. Even in Seattle, which is mostly suburban, like West Seattle which likes being suburban.

         Even then the MTA has all of those factors necessary for subways and ridership has plummeted. Some of that is WFH, and a lot safety.

         It takes a ton of things to go right to justify subways and light rail over buses. Metro ridership is down 41%, and so is Link when compared to ridership estimates including the opening of Northgate Link, possibly the highest ridership part of Link post pandemic. There are a few areas in this region where subways and light rail make sense (in part due to our bad zoning that disperses urbanism until it evaporates), but there isn’t the safety, population density, retail density, or safety to get folks out of their cars, which is ten times harder post pandemic.

         Transit today — especially subways — has to start with the riders who want to ride transit to places where transit and subways are better than driving or taking a bus, including now a transfer. The “build it and they will come” concept is a fallacy. So is the “we will make driving as unpleasant as transit so folks have to take transit’ concept. We built it and they went away due to WFH and safety, although safety touches some sensitive buttons with a lot of Seattle progressives who tend to be anti-police (Jesus, a candidate for City Attorney who promised to NOT prosecute misdemeanors nearly won in Seattle) and enamored with a 1970’s kind of urban decay.

         The final point is transit as a political issue is a luxury. When public safety, crime, open drug use, graffiti, taxes, schools, taxes, the environment, parks, zoning, spending cuts, affordable housing, dying retail are on the ballot no one ever gets to transit, just like the last election in Seattle. I don’t think transit will be an issue in 2023 either because it will get drowned out by the other issues, especially with a current council with an 8% approval rating, lower than Mussolini AT THE END OF HIS TENURE. Think about that. If the factors that make urbanism and transit thrive are missing those issues will drown out transit on a ballot, because transit always follows.

         The next council will be almost all new. Their very first action will be to close a $250 million hole in Seattle’s operation budget, which means raising taxes (with Bellevue across the lake without those taxes like head taxes and capital gains taxes) or cutting spending, which will bring howls of protests from those who tend to not pay taxes. If a bridge fails that will consume the council because the city does not have the money to fix it and citizens will howl
         .
         The next council won’t have time to think about transit so I would not base my vote for city or county council on transit (and the county council is mostly made up of folks who are anti transit or agnostic). If the next council gets downtown Seattle right the transit riders will return. If not, some painful transit cuts are coming, more than Metro’s proposed Sept. cuts.

      2. “SS did not release its opinion of the candidates on transit or land use. It specifically stated vote for these candidates over the others, based on only these one or two issues.”

         That’s what an endorsement is: your judgment based on the factors you think are important or that you think you’re qualified to judge. Some endorsers try to look at everything; others look at a couple aspects. Seattle Subway endorses on the factors it has studied the most and are part of its mission. Isn’t that what I said originally?

         There are other endorsers, like the Seattle Times, The Stranger, The League of Women Voters, etc. Seattle Subway doesn’t have to do it all or stray outside its expertise and mission.

         If a candidate was anti-democratic like Mussolini, endorsers like Seattle Subway and STB might have to make an exception and say these candidates can’t be trusted with power even if they have pro-transit views because they’re dangerous. But that doesn’t apply to anybody in the local elections except maybe Alex Tsimerman and the like. Sawant has been described as a socialist and her rhetoric and tactics and obsessions are distasteful, but she’s not anti-democratic. Who else is there that might be a concern? Loren Culp? He’s not running in any of the races we’re covering.

         In any case, I don’t vote solely based on what Seattle Subway endorses, and I don’t think anybody should, and Seattle Subway members themselves probably don’t.

         “The final point is transit as a political issue is a luxury.”

         That’s the wrong way of looking at things; it’s part of American dysfunctionality. I don’t have time to repeat it all here. A city should be designed so that its residents and visitors can get to the destinations they want to go to with the least friction, and without everyone having to go around in individual expensive huge heavy gas-guzzling behemoths. Ideally everything should be walkable so that no transit is needed. But that’s not practical in a city over 20,000 or so, so some comprehensive transit is needed. It should be comprehensive so that it can be a plausable first choice. That’s what The Netherlands and China and Japan et al more or less have and Seattle and Tacoma don’t.

7. The Seattle Transit Benefit District will be up for renewal in 2005 I think. The Seattle City Council will decide whether to put it on the ballot, at what rate, and how to distribute the money. In 2020 some councilmembers wanted to let it expire, saying that taxpayers couldn’t afford it during the covid recession. Other councilmembers wanted to keep it at the 2016 level. In the end the council compromised on a middle level. Voters approved it, and TBD-funded service was cut partway. This shows up in frequency; e.g., the 11 weekdays was 30 minutes, then 15, now 20; Saturday was 30 minutes, then 15, now 30.

   If TBD funding goes away completely, so will the night owls, 15-minute evenings on the 5 and 49, 20-minute evenings on the 8, 15-minute middays on the proposed 75, one of the proposed Lake City-Northgate-85th or Lake City-Roosevelt routes, etc. It would take only two or three councilmembers to swing it between no renewal, the current level, or restoring the 2016 level.

   The council also decides how to distribute the money: what proportion goes to service hours, what goes to free passes for some people, etc. Originally the TBD was to add service hours. When Metro couldn’t fully do it when it was ramping up from the 2008 recession, the council diverted some of the money to free passes for public school students. It could have saved the money for future bus service when Metro had capacity to deliver it, or to preserve some service for a time if the levy wasn’t renewed. The state is now giving agencies a grant to help defray free service for people under 18, so that’s no longer an issue. But the council could expand free passes to low-income groups or do something else. Routing decisions are done by Metro based on its underserved-corridor metrics, in consultation with SDOT, but I think the council ultimately approves the list of routes getting additions. So it has a role in that too.

   The council also oversees SDOT. That includes the pace of street rechannelizations, how much to favor transit vs bikes vs peds vs cars in design, etc.

   1. When I vote, I do consider transit in city council races, because this is where who wins will have the most impact. On national and statewide races, as the impact of politics at these levels on local Seattle transit is minimal or zero. For example, Seattle’s high point in bus service and bus ridership came while Donald Trump was president, and the reason why has absolutely nothing to do with Trump and a lot to do with the Seattle City council getting the vehicle levy on the ballot to fund more bus service.

      Of course, even in local races, transit is not the only issue. As I mentioned before, in many cases, the most pro transit candidate ends up taking the extreme left position on every issue, so you sometimes end up needing to vote for the more moderate candidate who will support enforcement of laws against camping and drug use in public space, even if that candidate is more lukewarm about keeping the buses running than their left-wing ideologue opponent. Sometimes, in politics, there exists no viable candidate that represents everything you want, so you have to pick and choose between what’s there. That’s life.

8. “When STB makes endorsements it’s only on transit and land use issues. Seattle Subway is doing the same: “For the primary this year we’re endorsing candidates that are most aligned with our vision and interests in a vacuum.” We opine on what we have the most knowledge and expertise in, and leave it to others to opine on other aspects of the candidates.”

   One of Mussolini’s campaign platforms was that he would make the trains run on time. He did, but his methods had ancillary issues, most notably fascism.

   SS did not release its opinion of the candidates on transit or land use. It specifically stated vote for these candidates over the others, based on only these one or two issues.

   Now if the issue is war, or the economy, or Democracy, a single-issue vote might make sense. But like Mussolini voting solely on the trains running on time is a risk.

   The other issue I raised is the STB Board, and SS, need to understand transit and subways follow. They don’t lead. You spend the enormous sums to build subways and light rail because you have to due to vibrancy, density, population, congestion, because that is the only time transit and subways are better than driving a car or riding a bus. There are some areas that never support the cost of subways or light rail. Even in Seattle, which is mostly suburban, like West Seattle which likes being suburban.

   Even then the MTA has all of those factors necessary for subways and ridership has plummeted. Some of that is WFH, and a lot safety.

   It takes a ton of things to go right to justify subways and light rail over buses. Metro ridership is down 41%, and so is Link when compared to ridership estimates including the opening of Northgate Link, possibly the highest ridership part of Link post pandemic. There are a few areas in this region where subways and light rail make sense (in part due to our bad zoning that disperses urbanism until it evaporates), but there isn’t the safety, population density, retail density, or safety to get folks out of their cars, which is ten times harder post pandemic.

   Transit today — especially subways — has to start with the riders who want to ride transit to places where transit and subways are better than driving or taking a bus, including now a transfer. The “build it and they will come” concept is a fallacy. So is the “we will make driving as unpleasant as transit so folks have to take transit’ concept. We built it and they went away due to WFH and safety, although safety touches some sensitive buttons with a lot of Seattle progressives who tend to be anti-police (Jesus, a candidate for City Attorney who promised to NOT prosecute misdemeanors nearly won in Seattle) and enamored with a 1970’s kind of urban decay.

   The final point is transit as a political issue is a luxury. When public safety, crime, open drug use, graffiti, taxes, schools, taxes, the environment, parks, zoning, spending cuts, affordable housing, dying retail are on the ballot no one ever gets to transit, just like the last election in Seattle. I don’t think transit will be an issue in 2023 either because it will get drowned out by the other issues, especially with a current council with an 8% approval rating, lower than Mussolini AT THE END OF HIS TENURE. Think about that. If the factors that make urbanism and transit thrive are missing those issues will drown out transit on a ballot, because transit always follows.

   The next council will be almost all new. Their very first action will be to close a $250 million hole in Seattle’s operation budget, which means raising taxes (with Bellevue across the lake without those taxes like head taxes and capital gains taxes) or cutting spending, which will bring howls of protests from those who tend to not pay taxes. If a bridge fails that will consume the council because the city does not have the money to fix it and citizens will howl
   .
   The next council won’t have time to think about transit so I would not base my vote for city or county council on transit (and the county council is mostly made up of folks who are anti transit or agnostic). If the next council gets downtown Seattle right the transit riders will return. If not, some painful transit cuts are coming, more than Metro’s proposed Sept. cuts.

   1. You can’t compare Seattle Subway to Mussolini. Of course, when an actual voter votes, transit is just one issue among many, but Seattle Subway is an organization, not a voter, and the organization’s mission statement is one thing – more transit.

      It is not the responsibility of Seattle Subway to engage in mission creep and start endorsing candidates for reasons unrelated to transit. It is the responsibility of the voter to cross check Seattle Subway’s endorsements against the endorsements of other organizations that support causes the voter believes in and make a holistic decision.

      Voters read Seattle Subway’s endorsements to see how the candidates do on transit, whether they ultimately vote Seattle Subway’s endorsements or not. Nobody cares what the people who run Seattle Subway think about crime, homelessness, fixing potholes, or anything else. That does not mean these other issues are not important, it just means that people will be looking to other organizations to see who is best at these issues. I applaud the Seattle Subway leaders for sticking to their core mission and resisting the temptation to endorse candidates based on their standards toward every left-wing issue under the sun.

      1. You can’t compare Seattle Subway to Mussolini.

         You can if you write for the Seattle Times. Ha!

         [Sorry, silly joke. A new writer for the Seattle Times wrote an essay saying that the Lenin statue in Fremont should be removed because it was offensive. Folks questioned his arguments on Twitter. One thing lead to another, and the guy was making the claim that Lenin was worse than Hitler. As a result, the guy was fired by the Seattle Times. Even if you think his argument (which I’m not going to bother to repeat) is not meant to be a defense of Hitler, it was pretty stupid, and there is no reason for the Seattle Times to hire someone who makes such stupid arguments. Ironically, the guy is Jewish.]

9. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/the-good-the-bad-the-bizarre-ideas-from-seattles-huge-candidate-field/?utm_source=marketingcloud&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TSA_071223210256+Good+and+bad+ideas+from+Seattle%e2%80%99s+City+Council+candidates+Danny+Westneat_7_12_2023&utm_term=Registered%20User

   This is from Danny Westneat.

   Vacancy tax. Both commercial and residential (because office building owners want their buildings to be vacant).

   1 million sf of new housing for the homeless.

   Restructure government ships for the homeless.

   Three levels Urban “campgrounds” throughout the city that would allow different levels of drug use based on the level of the campground.

   Congestion tax.

   Tax breaks for remote work to protect the environment.

   Force workers back to the office.

   Use AI to audit city expenditures.

   Anti/pro cop and everything in between.

   Capital gains tax.

   Airbnb income tax.

   Spray paint tax to prevent graffiti.

   Westneat’s column focuses mainly on 8 of the candidates. He notes some of the candidates devolve into satire.

   1. “Residential vacancy tax”: Good.

      “Office vacancy tax”: Not in this extraordinary environment until we figure out an all-society longer-term plan. It’s not the businesses’ fault that a pandemic struck and upended their assumptions and changed work-from-home expectations. That’s an all-society problem.

      “Other commercial vacancy tax (e.g., retail, warehouse)”: Not until a problem is clearly identified. I’ve only heard of a vacancy tax in terms of residential; e.g., Vancouver. And a housing shortage is the most acute problem by far.\

      There are some commercial landowners on the Ave that have kept a storefront vacant for years to avoid reducing the rent, hoping that a high-paying chain store will eventually come along. That angers me but I’m not sure how widespread it is, so first we’d need to determine that.

      There’s also the concept of an underused-property tax; e.g., keeping a surface parking lot in Rainier Valley for years until market rates reach a certain level or the lot is upzoned. This used to happen downtown too, although those lots were filled in in the 2010s. An underused-property tax would tax the full zoning capacity of a lot rather than its current use. That would nudge the owners to densify the lot or sell it. I’d apply this first to lots within and near urban villages rather than citywide. This tax has some similarities to a vacancy tax but is not the same thing, so we’d have to look at how they’d compare.

      “1 million sf of new housing for the homeless”: That’s just an arbitrary number. Is 1 million square feet enough or overkill? I’m leery of people who promote arbitrary numbers like that. It’s like when Andrew Yang proposed a Universal Basic Income of $1000/month. Is that enough for necessities? No. It’s an arbitrary number. We need to focus on meeting peoples’ basic needs, not on a round number out of the air.

      “Restructure government ships for the homeless”: Interesting idea. I’d like to look at getting one or two ships and parking them in Elliott Bay. Others (libertarians) have proposed repurposing a hospital ship as an autonomous city outside national governments’ control, as a start toward a new artificial-island country in the ocean. This is not the same thing (the residents would be tax-haven billionaires), but it shows how ships could be used for multifamily housing.

      “Three levels Urban “campgrounds” throughout the city that would allow different levels of drug use based on the level of the campground.”: Interesting concept, but it’s hard to see how these campgrounds would be less impactful on neighborhoods than existing tent cities. I’d like to just offer housing-refuseniks a rural plot of land and tell them to form a commune.

      “Congestion tax.”: A perimeter tax around downtown Seattle wouldn’t be practical or fair. London has a much larger area within its perimeter, with several times more housing/work/shopping/recreation opportunities. New York would enclose all of Manhattan (?). Both those zones have several times more transit and walkability and destinations within them than downtown Seattle does, so you could really live in them and rarely go outside, and you’d really be going to the city if you drive into the perimeter. And Seattle is hourglass-shaped with downtown in the middle, so people have to go through downtown because it’s the isthmus, and there are few alternative roads in East Seattle. Somebody living in Capitol Hill would have to go into downtown and back out just to get to SODO, or go around via Beacon Hill which is ridiculous. If Lisbin is envisioning a different kind of tax, what is it?

      “Tax breaks for remote work to protect the environment.”: No. We’d need to evaluate remote work’s full environmental impact in several industries before doing that. It’s generally better for the environment for people to live and work in denser settings. And it’s better for productivity, creativity, mental health, and cohesion for people to gather for work at least part of the time. Society is still figuring out what’s the best balance, so we should do that before incentivizing remote work.

      “Force workers back to the office.”: Society is figuring that out. I won’t say I know better than anyone else does.

      “Use AI to audit city expenditures.”: A throwaway idea. Society is still figuring out how accurate or dangerous or equitable AI is. City expenditures need a good, well-trusted, human accountant.

      “Anti/pro cop and everything in between.”: Whatever that means.

      “Capital gains tax.”: Good idea. The top 10% and 1% have made a killing on their workers’ productivity gains and middle/low-income people’s regressive expenditures ever since the tax rates were changed in the 1970s to favor the top 1%. A capital gains tax would help to counteract that, and make the tax system more fair.

      “Airbnb income tax.”: Or restrict airbnb’s further. How much long-term rentals are airbnb’s off the market now? How much is that contributing to the housing shortage and high rents?

      “Spray paint tax to prevent graffiti.”: No. Canada has a tax on blank CDs and tapes to mitigate home-taping (alleged copyright infringement), but in that case it was a compensatory tax on something good (having home music). This would be a tax on spray cans for something that’s no good, and that’s not intrinsic to the can. Canada has both taxed CDs (for ripping music) and untaxed CDs (for personal data), and lets you choose on the honor system (how laughable). Would there be both taxed and untaxed spray cans? This is getting ridiculous. Just enforce the anti-graffiti laws more effectively.

      Did you forget rent control? Or did Westneat not mention it? Well, there are good and bad models for rent control. German states have a good one, where the cap is around 2% above inflation, enough for maintenance and a modest but steady profit. It’s applied statewide, so developers can’t just go two miles beyond the city limits to escape it. Developers still build because a modest steady profit is better than no business at all. And people can rent a unit in middle age and know they won’t be priced out when they get old and on a pension. That lessens the incentive for home ownership, because rentals are a secure way to live. This would be a good model for Washington. To fully implement it you’d have to do it statewide, or at least in all of Pugetopolis. The suburbs and legislature aren’t going to agree to that anytime soon. But Seattle could implement part of it, ensuring the cap is high enough to cover maintenance and a modest profit, and applies to all units both current and future.

      The bad kind of rent control is when the cap doesn’t keep up with inflation and maintenance costs, and when it applies only to units that existed when rent control was enacted. That gets into a downward spiral of unmaintained buildings. And it means that as the population increases and more buildings are built, an ever-smaller percentage of the population can find a rent-controlled unit. The net result is that a few long-time renters get a perpetual affordable deal, while a growing number of equal-income people have to pay higher rates or go homeless or move away from the city or metropolitan area.

      We need the good kind of rent control, not the bad kind.

      1. Rent control is coming to Tacoma… both measures on the ballot are good for the renters with leases who already live in T-town, but the reason they’ll pass is voters are sick of rampant development changing the nature of the city. So many apartments have been built, so many property tax breaks handed out to developers and yet affordability and homelessness issues continue to run wild. Time to lock up the brakes! Or at least that’s what Tacoma voters are going do.

         Lesser Tacoma! Lesser Puget Sound! Rent Control Now! I’m afraid other communities are going to see how Tacoma jams development and fallow suit.

         Rent control isn’t really any different than restrictive zoning. It keeps things like they are and residents like that. It’s human nature. Why does MY city need to change anyway? Rent control just leads to NIMBYs in apartments.

      2. So what’s your other solution to housing affordability then? Oh yes, move to Centralia or Wenatchee. Never mind that those cities have few jobs, little transit, and make Tacoma’s walkability look like New York. And that they have a housing shortage too, or soon will. And when they can no longer afford Centralia or Wenatchee, move to Alabama or Missisippi. And when they can no longer afford that, move to Haiti or drown in the ocean.

         “the reason they’ll pass is voters are sick of rampant development changing the nature of the city”

         So voters want to pass rent control to shut off development? Silly.

         “So many apartments have been built”

         Tacoma may have built a significant number of apartments, but I doubt it has nearly as many apartments per capita as Vancouver or Calgary. And Tacoma probably still has a higher percentage of single-family land (as modified by the 4-plex law). So they’re crying crocodile ears.

      3. Let’s start with this first. Absolutely nobody in Tacoma cares about the collective Seattle Transit Blog’s vision is for T-Town. Why should they? They could care less than Vancouver built more apartments. Tacoma doesn’t value your opinion in slightest. Please don’t feel bad, because I live there, personally know people in City Government and my opinion also means squat. It is what it is.

         Tacoma has seen maybe half the percentage of growth has Seattle over the last 20 years? Maybe a little more? It’s hard to measure because what is Tacoma? Fircrest and Parkland aren’t technicly Tacoma, but they are in a general way. What is “Greater Seattle?”

         The City government is expending multi-unit zoning by leaps and bounds to try to foster more housing to be built…. and yet there’s a huge citizen driven push for rent control that threatens to squash development. Zoning aside, the term “rent control” translates into “don’t build here” to developers. Rent control doesn’t affect new units you say? My answer is… for now. If voters can influance my return on investment, why would I invest in a city? If rent control doesn’t help the housing problems in Tacoma…. what’s next? More rent control?

         Back to upcoming rent control vote. It’s the voters of Tacoma trying to protect what they see as theirs. Fuck growth! As long as I get mine. Rent control is just as effective as zoning for suppressing change. And growth just isn’t popular in Tacoma right now.

      4. “Absolutely nobody in Tacoma cares about the collective Seattle Transit Blog’s vision is for T-Town.”

         Tacoma’s population is 219,000. Probably 50,000 of them at least support the general idea of frequent transit, more multifamily housing, and walkability, even if they’ve never heard of STB. It’s not plausable that every one of the 219,000 support no growth and no better transit — in spite all of being different ages and moving at different times and having different backgrounds, and some of them living in multifamily housing already, and the past calls for better transit. In any case, we’re still going to talk about what would make Tacoma a better place regardless of whether Tacomans disagree. Just like they talk about what would make Seattle a better place.

      5. I lived in the South End near Wapato Park off and on for nearly 30 years. I’ve spoken to neighbors who do want to see a more lively city than just a bedroom community there for Seattle and Olympia. Many of my neighbors wish there was more local shops, cafés, or restaurants within walking distance of their houses to go hang out or have a nice meal with neighbors or friends compared to going to the Tacoma Mall, 6th Ave, or Proctor. Said neighbors have also mourned the fact that 56th and M could be better utilized for retail space if it was upzoned to have more apartments and ground floor retail. People want Tacoma to be better amenities wise alongside still being decently affordable even if it means more dense housing.

      6. Zach, MI is a short distance between Seattle and Bellevue. For years we have wanted more shops, restaurants and retail vibrancy for a fairly affluent city of 25,000. Plus we have fabulous inter city transit and lots of free parking.

         Wanting vibrant retail and getting it are two different things. The zoning is there in the town center, but we have a very hard time attracting restaurants and retail. Shoppers and diners want retail density if they are going to drive there or take a bus, and just can’t attract that kind of density.

         Every city (except maybe Sammamish) wants vibrant retail density, but there is only so much to go around.

      7. “Wanting vibrant retail and getting it are two different things. The zoning is there in the town center, but we have a very hard time attracting restaurants and retail. Shoppers and diners want retail density if they are going to drive there or take a bus, and just can’t attract that kind of density.”
         Probably because it’s either the rent is too expensive, spaces are too big, or limits on what can exist in a leased spaces. All three things that only exist from having highly restrictive building and zoning regulations. The reason food trucks exist as big as they are in the US is because we have regulated out smaller retail spaces from existence outside of older US buildings compared to Europe where small retail shops are the norm. For many small business in F&B they rarely need the size of most traditional American resturant spaces and can be overly excessive in certain cases. One of my favorite brunch places in Florence Italy was a 6 top resturant with a small bar for additional seating. So the space would accommodate about 30 people max. Said hole in the wall was always busy from opening till closing mid afternoon with a line out the door to wait.
         It’s not a matter of there isn’t enough retail to go around, it’s more of that we don’t build and allow smaller spaces for new businesses to thrive in and grow.

      8. Correction: the place in Florence I was talking about is 20 person max now I looked at pictures of it again.

      9. It’s often a good idea to look into why said regulations exist. It’s knee-jerk to assume that they’re due to monopolistic behavior or ill intent. Often regulations are put in place for good reasons, to address specific problems. For example, cleanliness standards, availability of restrooms, ADA requirements, etc. I bet you a hundred bucks that the hole-in-the-wall place in Florence would not be ADA-compliant in the US. Now you can argue that such regulations end up being counterproductive, sure, but just harping against them may not be wise without understanding the background of why they exist. And I would not support a candidate who planned to repeal the ADA, or loosen it, for example, whether it were in the context of transit or in the context of housing or what have you.

      10. DT, I have both shopped and looked for restaurants in MI. It comes down to this: Do the owners of those things want to attract off-island customers or not? I can’t answer for them.

          With a fairly steady Island population it’s not like they can gain volume of business unless it comes from elsewhere. Even the nearby neighborhoods like Factoria aren’t adding large numbers of residents.

          The only growing market that comes to mind is Judkins Park. There are something like 3000 new apartments in various stages of construction or completion. Those are likely residents apt to look at dining out or take out yet I don’t see a boon in new retail or restaurants there.

          Surely, having 2 Line can make it easy to dine in MI for these new residents. But even now they can drive to MI to dine. That’s especially true for wealthier residents with views of Lake Washington in SE Seattle.

          So it simply comes down to who does MI want in restaurants there. That involves advertising, delivery systems, coupons and similar business decisions.

10. I want to address an issue progressives and some on this blog refuse to accept because the builder groups keep repeating it: we have a glut of market rate rental units.

    One year ago, the Growth Management Planning Council determined the three-county area (plus Kitsap) has the zoning in place to accommodate future population growth and housing EVEN WHEN FACTORING IN THE OFM’S PREDICTION THAN 1 MILLION NEW RESIDENTS WILL MOVE TO THE REGION BY 2040 (50,000 per year), although in 2023 we are over 250,000 residents short of that prediction, and King Co. has lost 43,000 residents in the last two years. In fact, the three-county area has current zoning that could accommodate several million new housing units.

    “In 2020 there were about 22,600 vacant units in the city, a drop from about 25,000 ten years earlier. Vacant units are slightly more evenly spread around the city than total housing units, though 46% of them are still within the combination of Districts 3 and 7.”

    https://sccinsight.com/2021/09/14/what-the-2020-census-data-tells-us-about-housing-in-seattle/

    According to this article, based on the 2020 census, Seattle has 22,600 vacant rental units, and a 10% vacancy rate, and most of the new development has been in expensive urban neighborhoods, except for gentrification in south Seattle. The current vacancy rate is 6%.

    The article concludes:

    “The fact that as a whole Seattle’s housing construction nearly kept pace with the torrid pace of growth is somewhat surprising. It certainly didn’t feel that way over the past ten years, and we didn’t talk about it as if we were keeping up. To be fair, the building boom wasn’t steady and even across all ten years. Still, there’s an opportunity to do a retrospective on the past decade to figure out what we did right (and wrong) so that we can continue the trend — and perhaps even have housing growth outpace the population over the next ten years.”

    This glut has been known since 2018. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/free-amazon-echo-2-months-free-rent-2500-gift-cards-seattle-apartment-glut-gives-renters-freebies/

    https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/amid-building-boom-1-in-10-seattle-apartments-are-empty-and-rents-are-dropping/ (2019).

    What are other key factors:

    Thousands of rental units that began pre-pandemic based on high population growth estimates will come on the market in the next year or two and add to the glut of market rate rental housing, and it will be focus on the more expensive northern neighborhoods if not publicly subsidized.

    Those new units and past construction will help keep rent increases lower to a small extent, except rising property taxes and inflation will likely offset those market forces.

    Inflation is cooling, and if mortgage rates drop more SFH will come on the market and more Millennials will be able to move from rental housing to a SFH, for most the American Dream.

    There is a HUGE shortage of affordable housing, in large part because we are destroying older housing to replace it with market rate new housing geared toward a high AMI.

    The 30% of gross income for affordable housing under federal guidelines is too high, but is another myth promoted by builders and developers that is widely accepted. After taxes we are talking about a single person spending 40–50% of after-tax income on housing.

    Upzoning the SFH zones goes against every planning concept the PSRC has adopted in its Vision Statements for the last 20 years, although most of Seattle’s rental construction in the past decade has followed this Vision: locate multi-family housing in urban centers near walkable retail and transit. Few seem to understand how fundamental a shift in policy HB 1110 is.

    I believe the driving forces behind upzoning the SFH zones — that to me makes little sense without regulatory reform and will create little housing and allows high parking minimums — are three-fold:

    1. Renters in Seattle can’t afford to buy, are angry at the high costs of market rate rental housing, and will believe any idea no matter how unlikely that their rent will not increase or will go down.

    2. Seattle will continue to gentrify driving out those with lower AMI’s. Many people think this is a good thing.

    3. Anger at the SFH owners and the perception they hit the lottery creates hostility toward these zones by renters who are expected to spend 30% of their gross income on housing.

    Nothing will change market forces. New market rate housing will be expensive, and likely will displace older more affordable housing. Current interest rates and the glut of rental housing will result in a cooling of construction. High mortgage rates are depressing sales prices, but from high levels. The upzoning of the SFH zones will create no affordable housing, and the past construction trends suggest urban Seattleites don’t want to live in them. District 3 and 7 will see the most new rental construction which will be pricey, along with some gentrification in S. Seattle like in Columbia City.

    Rents will continue to rise relative to the increased costs to landlords for property taxes, levies, and maintenance due to inflation.

    The reality as the article points out is housing construction kept pace with population growth in Seattle over the last decade and yet average housing prices increased significantly. This has to do with the cost per sf of new construction, the destruction of older more affordable housing to build new construction, and most importantly rising AMI.

    1. How does this relate to the topic of Seattle Subway endorsements? It seem off topic. Shouldn’t this be in a prior open thread? I’m cool with moderators removing this thread including my comments.

       And is this a point about Seattle or about the region? It’s my expectation that real estate markets cross over city limits and King County districts.

       I thought the idea of the market controlling the supply wouldn’t be a problem for non-progressive types on this blog. What happened to good ole’ Adan Smith “invisible hand” market economics?

       As to dates, I’m totally confused by the point. It’s quoting data from three years ago. Had this problem originated by 2019 as is mentioned here, there would be much fewer units under construction today because the banks wouldn’t give developers construction loans. Rents would already be lower too. With other posts declaring societal change since 2020, it just seems odd for the same person to quote something further back unless it’s for historical reference.

       Plus it seems that an economic conservative free-market advocate would prefer that we have more units zoned than we can build because that better enables the marketplace to build the number of units in demand for different housing types. If oversupply is to be avoided because it’s considered bad, then the most obvious action would be for the state to tell cities to reduce the hundreds of square miles of allowed single family zoning that consumes most of the region. Good bye 10000 square foot single family lots; hello 40 acre minimum lots?

       Finally, a person will seek a different housing situation depending on age and mobility and key destinations (like job location or medical care) and that will vary. A person with a wife and two active children will want something different in housing than that same person 50 years later whose spouse has died, whose children have moved away, who is unable to react or see well enough to drive, and who can no longer use stairs or even move about the house without a walker. Only in a setting where we make royalty out of landowners would we expect a person residing on the inherited family property to be more important than that person’s lifestyle needs.

11. “Plus it seems that an economic conservative free-market advocate would prefer that we have more units zoned than we can build because that better enables the marketplace to build the number of units in demand for different housing types.”

    That is what we have today Al. The three-county area (and Seattle) have the zoning capacity for millions of new housing units if the capacity if fully realized.
    Plus a 10% vacancy rate according to the 2021 article using 2020 Census Data, when many more units have come on the market since then.

    Still you miss the key points.

    Zoning is always a restriction on something in order to create “zones”. That is why the PSRC has always advocated for using zoning to concentrate retail and new population growth in urban or commercial areas with walkable retail and transit, which is what we have seen in Seattle over the last decade. If you disperse that retail and population density you will never have urbanism, which is the biggest issue for Seattle and the region. 90% of it requires owning a car. If there is one take away from spending tens of billions of dollars to send Link to the outer parks of the region through mostly nothingness it is this region has done a terrible job of condensing housing and retail.

    I knew it would be hard for some on this blog to accept the fact that housing growth in Seattle has kept pace with population growth over the last decade because that is the central tenant in their desire for more upzoning and dream of lower rents. Housing kept pace with population growth, which is slowing, but rents went up dramatically. Why is that? AMI.

    The zoning is already there. If you have a high AMI and can afford market rate rents you will likely have more choices. If you are lower AMI the amount of market rate affordable housing available will continue to decline. The rep. for Seattle could not have made this clearer during his testimony on HB 1110.

    I know a lot of people who think gentrification is all good (they also tend to be builders and developers). Replacing lower income residents with higher income residents with better skills benefits a city with higher tax revenue, better retail, newer housing, and lower crime. To some extent they are correct, and that is exactly the course we are on in this region, and especially in Seattle. Our housing policies for the last 20 years have been ” economic conservative free-market”, and for some of us that has worked out very well.

    1. That is why the PSRC has always advocated for using zoning to concentrate retail and new population growth in urban or commercial areas with walkable retail and transit, which is what we have seen in Seattle over the last decade. If you disperse that retail and population density you will never have urbanism, which is the biggest issue for Seattle and the region.

       OK, yeah, I think I follow you. You want to concentrate the housing and commercial development in one area instead of having it spread out all over the place. One single area, like … I don’t know … Seattle! That’s it, really.

       The greater Seattle area has somewhere around 3.5 million people. Seattle itself has about 750,000 people. The Seattle metropolitan region is over 8,000 square miles. Seattle itself is a little over 140 square miles. Outside of the United States or Canada, a city this big would have higher development levels all across the city proper. Places like Greenwood (with a bunch of apartments and retail) would be normal in the city. This is basically what many urbanists want. They want Greenwood everywhere. Or at least something similar, with shorter buildings but similar density (like the urban part of Wallingford). Candidates who support such a vision are bound to be more popular with urbanists, as well as transit advocates.

       That is because density and proximity are one of the keys to transit. It is just very difficult to serve a bunch of pockets of density spread out all over a region. In contrast, with good density in a fairly small area, you are bound to (at the very least) get a lot of people using transit. If a lot of people use it, there is a good chance that it will get better. There are other reasons to support such a vision (lower rents, fewer homeless, extremely popular) but better transit is a very good reason to support increased density.

       [Fellow commenters take note. Notice how I took a comment thread that clearly strayed away from the original topic (endorsements and transit) and brought it back. If you don’t want your comment yanked, I suggest you do the same.]

    2. “ If you disperse that retail and population density you will never have urbanism, which is the biggest issue for Seattle and the region.”

       What’s the “issue” here? Is it that density regulations are overly restrictive or too loose? This is a really vague comment.

       What is “urbanism”? The Census Bureau recently defines this as “425 housing units per square mile”. That easily defines the 10,299 housing units on a 12.9 sq mile Mercer Island as fully “urban”. Are you advocating for Mercer Island to no longer be “urban” and actively seek to demolish 40 percent of its units? That’s a deduction that could be made with this comment.

       I sense a desire to be provocative on a slow transit news day. Just like I see the need for you to use broad key words like “urban”, “issue” and “density” to get attention . But I don’t see any substantive point to this post talking about SS candidate endorsements.

       1. Al, I was just posting in response to Mike’s and Tacomee’s back and forth over the toxic burrito that Tacoma is, and Tacoma’s housing issues and rent control in this thread.

          The only true urban area I see in this region, certainly with current population levels, is downtown Seattle, basically Districts 3 and 7 plus downtown, adn even then I think that area is too large, especially with the CBD pretty dead and never having much retail. Some I suppose will argue Tacoma and Everett and Lynnwood and Redmond and West Seattle are “urbanism” too, so Link should run there, but I don’t think they have the population and retail density for true urbanism, which is why transit struggles in those areas.

          I just don’t think there is the population and retail to support both a true urban area and the rest of the region. The PSRC basically agreed, but HB 1110 if builders use it disperses that housing to areas without much transit, which is why 1110 allows 2 onsite parking stalls per unit. That is 8 onsite parking stalls per four-plex because there is no transit in these neighborhoods. In the past decade, if you read the article, the growth in Seattle has been in the more urban areas, Dist. 3 and 7, which I think is wise planning although mostly market based (expensive neighborhoods for new construction for high AMI). If you want more of the new construction, if there is much, in the residential neighborhoods ok, especially if you plan to live there. My guess is builders built in Dist. 3 and 7 because that is where folks with money who want the urban experience want to live. If you want the suburban experience, you don’t live in a four-plex on a small lot.

          My main point was the constant claim Seattle has high rents is because new construction did not keep pace with population growth is a myth. There is a glut of market rate rental housing in Seattle today. Seattle has high rents because new construction is the most expensive per sf, high AMI, and because new construction often displaced older existing housing that was more affordable.

          That is no big deal unless you earn less than 80% AMI, and as I noted a lot of folks think that kind of gentrification is good for a city, and who cares how much it costs to run Link to West Seattle or how much per rider mile because WS is urban, or will be theoretically.

          In the end if your rent in Seattle your rent is not going down, and I think ridership on Link outside of Seattle will be weak even though we have dispersed housing and retail to this vast area.

          It is our regional zoning that has dispersed retail and housing that has made owning a car a necessity. Running Link to the suburbs will not change that, or increasing modestly housing density in the SFH zones, especially when the only first/last mile access is by car to a park and ride, and so few today have to commute to Seattle.

       2. So, how many of the candidates supported by Seattle Subway advocate for MI-style urbanism? Inquiring minds want to know :)

       3. There’s 45 candidates and Westneat focused on the 8 nuttiest.

          District elections probably mean different district candidates have different views on zoning. Harrell got 65% of the SFH vote and Gonzales was more qualified and polished than any of these council candidates. Her positions were simply out of date.

          So I don’t know how candidates in different districts will pitch upzoning. Even urban areas like Queen Anne are very touchy about upzoning SFH.

          Plus HB 1110 already allows 4 units per residential lot in Seattle although the regulatory limits stay the same (50% GFAR I believe).

          When it comes to “urbanism” the real problem is Seattle has no true urbanism. Factoria has more retail vibrancy, although I doubt any candidate will want to discuss why.

          On MI and the Eastside zoning is a very intense issue. We believe in segregating zones and uses, and condensing retail and multi-family housing in the town center so there is walkable retail and transit. Pretty much PSRC because that is what we have been told for 20 years to zone for.

          Really the MI town center is better urbanism than many parts of Seattle, without the crime, public drug use, and dirtiness. It is truly a 15 minute city, with powerhouse retail cities like Issaquah and Bellevue a short drive or bus stop away.

          We have 4/7 council seats up for election. Beginning in 2019 we began cleaning house of the past progressive council and now things are great, especially with tax revenue from WFH and online sales. Only two have challengers, and the other two have token challengers. Still every candidate runs on two platforms: 1. Maintain SFH zoning; 2. Don’t let Seattle come to MI.

          If anyone in Seattle or candidate thinks zoning is one of the existential issues for the next council they are sadly misinformed. If they think more new construction will lower their rent they will be disappointed. A lot of progressives have taken the builder’s bait that population growth exceeding new construction is the cause of rising rents when we know that isn’t true.

       4. Harrell got 65% of the SFH vote and Gonzales was more qualified and polished than any of these council candidates. Her positions were simply out of date.

          That is a bizarre take. Do you even live in the city? As a long time resident who has been following politics since my mom was on the school board, here is how I assess the campaigns:

          Both candidates were fundamentally strong. Both had been head of the council. Both had plenty of support from current and former colleagues, other elected representatives and various well-respected organizations. We haven’t had a candidate for mayor as strong as either in a long time, let alone two.

          At some point in the race, Harrell started blaming Gonzales for the homeless on the street. This was an absurd claim, but it was doing some damage. The counter-argument would have been fairly easy. Harrell was on the council as well. Harrell actually voted against additional housing for the homeless (when it wasn’t a big issue). Gonzales could have dragged out people who supported her campaign that worked for homeless organizations (to end the counter-attack ad in a positive note). It would have looked like Harrell was throwing rocks from a glass house. But instead she brought up a ridiculous complaint about the handling of Murray’s rape case. It was total BS, and people recognized it immediately. Making matters worse, the Harrell campaign claimed the attack was focused on his being Black. This was also BS, but it added fuel to the fire. Folks thought it was Gonzales, not Harrell, that was full of it. They thought Gonzales had done nothing to deal with homelessness, while Harrell would clean things up. Basically, the Gonzales campaign was schooled by the Harrell campaign. Game, set, match, Harrell.

          It is actually Harrell’s policies that are out of date. Harrell would have been an excellent mayor twenty years. As it is, he is still very good. But the policies on development — such as urban villages — are simply out of date. Homelessness remains a major problem. Visible homelessness (people on the streets) remains a major problem. Holy Cow, the mayor has made it clear he has no problem sweeping people from the streets, and has done so repeatedly. And yet during the All-Star festivities, they put together a map suggesting people avoid some downtown streets because of “squalor”. The sweeper just can’t sweep fast enough. That’s because it is a game of whack-a-mole. There are two many homeless.

          The problem didn’t start overnight, and it can’t be fixed overnight. Homelessness is a housing problem. The housing problem is caused by the rent being too high. The rent being too high is caused by lack of public and private housing. We are spending a fortune on public housing, which means the problem is lack of private housing. We lack sufficient private housing because of overzealous development regulations (which include zoning). It remains to be seen if we will deal with the regulations. The mayor will have some input, but so will the council. This is why zoning remains a very important issue for the candidates. I would go so far as saying it is the most important one (by a wide margin). With better regulations we can build a lot more housing (both public and private) which will reduce homelessness, give renters and new owners a break, and also improve transit.

       5. Ross is very knowledgeable when it comes to politics. He understood the differences in policy between Harrell and Gonzales, both of whom were well known. Of course, he also supported Thomas who promised to not prosecute misdemeanors AS CITY ATTORNEY.

          When someone’s candidate loses badly their supporters — if they supported them on the issues — want to believe that the defeat was something other than policy. That all the voters who voted for the opponent voted for something other than policy.

          Harrell and Gonzales were better candidates than the last several elections for mayor in Seattle but that is a pretty low bar. Both were mediocre council members and neither great candidates. We are not talking Obama here. Harrell still can look like a deer lost in the headlights.

          I followed the race very carefully since our firm was still in Seattle and I could witness the demise of downtown. I have lived or worked in Seattle since 1959. I follow all politics closely, including at the legislature and on the Eastside that has many mayors although they are usually not separately elected like Seattle.

          Gonzales lost because she has policies that were soft on crime, removing the homeless camps, pro upzoning even after years of litigation by the residents of Queen Anne, anti business, pro tax, and anti police. As a result she got crushed in the neighborhoods. You don’t lose as badly as she did when she started with the same name recognition as Harrell when neither were incumbents due to politics in the campaign. The voters rejected her policies which to her credit she was honest about and articulated clearly.

          The council she sat on for years now has an 8% approval rating. Harrell has a 66% approval rating, mostly because he removed the tents and talks policies of a new beginning in Seattle. No one ran on a platform that all is well in Seattle, or morning in Seattle.

          I don’t think Harrell is a great mayor. He understands the issues, but delivering on public safety and restoring the CBD will be nearly impossible, especially with large budget deficits looming and still down over 300 police officers.

          But at least Harrell understands the issues. Gonzales did not, or at least her antiquated solutions were not what the voters wanted in a crisis. She thought it was 2012 and ran on continuing council policies that have v resulted in an 8% approval rating and most of the council existing in shame. If she ran today she would do much worse because her policies are even more out of date.

          Let’s hope Harrell succeeds even though he is not the most dynamic mayor. Some complain he ignores transit and zoning but I think Harrell believes like I do that without public safety that people truly trust with their lives you can’t even begin to return workers or visitors to the CBD, so the budget deficits will get punishing. Who cares about transit or zoning if your CBD is dying and once generated 2/3 of the city’s tax revenue which lowered Seattle residents’ tax burden.

          Things are going to get worse before they get better in Seattle, if they get better. Westneat highlighted some of the nuttier candidates, but some of their policies Westneat felt bordered on satire sounded like Gonzales’ policies, something from the past.

          After a succession of disastrous mayors (not sure which of them Ross voted for) the race between Harrell and Gonzales might have been the most important in Seattle’s history and voter turnout supports that. Unfortunately neither candidate was great. One just understood and issues and solutions better when in a crisis. Gonzales might have won if the election were in 2011, but it wasn’t.

       6. “Both candidates were fundamentally strong. Both had been head of the council.”

          Wait, what, Harrell had been on the city council? He was council president? I never heard of him before he ran for mayor. I wonder how his name was so little in the news when he was on the council that I never saw it.

          “Who cares about transit or zoning if your CBD is dying”

          I know in your world transit doesn’t matter but that’s not everybody. And the CBD is not dying, it’s just ill. When you get pneumonia or a broken leg do you say you’re dying? Or do you wait for proof you’re actually dying? I don’t see the last person turning out the lights downtown. The empty storefronts are on about six of of hundreds of blocks. There’s a pandemic-created mismatch between office cubicles and work from home, but that’s hardly unique to Seattle. Downtown Seattle was also decaying in the 1970s but it didn’t die then; it bounced back. It took maybe ten years to do so. We’re on year three.

       7. “ … your CBD is dying …”

          I was in Pike Place Market last Saturday rather late (4 pm) and it was still overcrowded of people — possibly more than I remember in 2019. Almost everyone had bought something, and there were lines at places like Beechers.

          Saying that the Seattle CBD is “dying” is something that is a Fox News sound bite intended to create a sense of “I told you so” in their dualistic and bigoted view of the world targeted to TV-focused folks who live in the South and Midwest who have never been west of the Continental Divide. Two economic factors — lower retail activity and less office space demanded — are certainly down, but these are national trends rather than localized to Downtown Seattle.

          Americans are proud entrepreneurs. They will come up with ways to take advantage of the circumstances. And of course, Seattle entrepreneurs are on the forefront! The shift from shopping at a store with Cincinnati corporate offices (Macy*s) to one with Downtown Seattle corporate offices (Amazon) actually puts Seattle ahead. And for Macy*s to close three stores in the area rather than just one (Downtown Seattle, Redmond Town Center and Northgate) here as well as many stores in smaller markets shows a general decline of the company and not Downtown.

          So Downtowns are merely transitioning. It’s like making a career change — but that’s different than dying. Major Downtowns by nature are always transitioning because society is transitioning. Downtowns must adapt — but there are many wealthy and smart people involved in Downtown Seattle who won’t let that happen. The next great real estate investment strategy out there (whatever it is), it will almost certainly be coming to Downtown Seattle.

       8. *Downtowns must adapt or decline — and there are many wealthy and smart people involved in Downtown Seattle who won’t let decline happen.

       9. There is a difference between different aspects of downtown. Pike Place Market and the businesses around it on First Avenue are thriving. The crowds and tourists have been back for over a year now. Hotels and apartments have gained back most of their pre-pandemic level. It’s only offices that are still significantly behind. So it’s more accurate to say office space downtown is struggling, and certain sidewalk blocks are struggling with misuse. Not all of downtown. At the same time, office taxes are a significant chunk of the economy, so downtown needs them, or needs some replacement.

       10. “Who cares about transit or zoning if your CBD is dying”

           I’m not sure if you realize this, but when you say “Who cares about transit”, you may be thinking “Who cares about WSBLE or would vote for it again?”, it also sounds like “Who cares about Metro frequency? Who cares if Metro shuts down tomorrow?” Because that’s what most transit trips are and most riders’ experience with transit.

       11. Recent statistics in the Seattle Times and on this blog put Pike Place Market foot traffic at 72% and downtown foot traffic at 44% in April 2023 compared to April 2019.

       12. The only genuinely dead Downtown I’ve ever seen is like Chehalis, WA. That’s a Downtown/Main Street that was deader than disco when I visited a few years back. A Thai place, Chinese buffet, a couple odd shops or offices and a lot of For Lease signs in many vacant storefronts. That’s a genuinely dead Downtown.

           At most you can argue is Downtown Seattle has gone through peaks and valleys over the decades in relation to the economy of the region. I think it’s also important to look at saying “Downtown is usafe.” and look at it brass tax as to rather meaning “pockets of CBD are sketchy or rough” as a better way to contextualize the phrase.

           I don’t think anyone here is denying that Pioneer Square has always been rough around the edges throughout its existence as the Olde Town of Seattle. Or that 3rd between Pike & Pine has always been a hot spot for problems. But from my experience traversing Downtown it’s relatively safe for the most part.

           Are there places I do avoid picking up the bus, yes. The only one I ever avoided was like 2nd & Main/Yessler near Smith Tower. But I rarely ever treaded in Pioneer Square and would usually pick up the 594 up towards Westlake behind the Bon Marché building or down on Royal Brougham/SODO Busway.

           Seattle isn’t dying it’s just in a lull.

       13. Yeah, Chehalis has really gone dead in the last10 years or so. The Thai place is good as far as I’m concerned and the two sports bars are busy, but a huge portion of the retail folded up between 2012 and 2016. Shane too, because the antiques store just south of the Thai place always had something interesting in the windows.

           You can tell a bunch of the places used to have apartments above them. Just as with Fremont, Ballard, Capitol Hill, etc, if the local residents aren’t there to support a business district, it’s almost impossible to support it entirely by those who live a long way away.

12. Because housing is a free market system, I’m not sure if it matters who you vote for in City government to fix housing. As far as funding transit… politicians have somewhat more control.

    The problem with a one party town like Seattle is every single candidate is going to love transit. Transit is part of the big Liberal list “to do” list. I can tell you that historically most Tacoma and Pierce County pols have given lip service to transit and then pretty much ignored it. I can’t see new taxes to fix Metro, or Pierce Transit being politically possible.

    Then there’s the huge pot of Sound Transit money! Harrell has a vision on how to spend it…. I’d guess Harrell’s “2nd tunnel” vision is pretty light on the transit part of the project, and real heavy on the downtown redevelopment part. The only way to stop Harrell would be through the court system. The City Council, Sound Transit Board and County Council will fallow the mayor like ducks in row. What other choice do they have?

    The real, unfixable problem with both housing and transit is inflation. There’s not really a bus driver shortage. There’s a shortage of money to pay qualified drivers a fair wage. Big difference. Local governments just will not pay the money to fix the problem. And yeah, it’s a National problem because local pols across the Nation have their pet projects they want to spend money on… and not live in the new reality where bus drivers cost more money. Pols don’t live in the real world wherever you go.
    Blame your elected officials for the lack of bus service, not the drivers.

    Housing works a little bit differently. Once upon a time there was a big difference between union scale pay and the free market scale pay for Seattle area construction workers. Now everybody is getting union scale plus more. Unlike Metro, a contractor just can’t cancel half a project, they have to pay inflated prices on materials and labor and push onward. Talked an old friend today and he’s thinking the price for Greater Seattle low income housing is busting though the 400K barrier. (per unit). There’s just no way to build units any cheaper, zoning be damned.

    I’d also add the construction industry has gotten a lot smarter over the last 25 years. There’s lots and lots of money floating around Puget Sound now. Why do any job for cheap? Why build 4 starter homes when one mega-mansion pays better… and it’s just easier? And the price of the good life is just so high around here now. If I can’t have my own house with a garage for my truck and tools with a yard for my kids… Why work my ass off in Seattle? So many tradespeople I know have taken off for Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Idaho. Contractors don’t live in apartments.

    I’ve always had a deep distrust of college educated Liberals because many of them are just deeply classist. Blue collar workers are not going to just “take one for team” for the “Pugetopia” Liberals keep planning for Seattle. I mean there’s still posters on this blog who believe the bus driver shortage is not about pay and working conditions. Everything is about pay and working conditions. Until Metro bumps pay by 20% across the board and stops addicts from smoking drugs on the bus… nobody really wants the job. And how many of us ever, I mean ever, deal with meth heads getting high where we work? You’d quit, right? And yet, you hold a bus driver to a different standard? And please… none of that “public servant” crap.

    Change zoning all the want, the price of concrete and the labor to work it are not coming down.

13. So there are some interesting links I want to share. The first is a proposal for vastly expanding San Francisco’s Trolleybus through the introduction of IMC Trolleybuses, an idea I’ve been bringing up here from time to time: https://www.climateandcommunity.org/trolleybus-decarbonization

    The second is the latest round of Service proposals for Lynnwood Link: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/programs-projects/fares-routes-and-service/lynnwood-link-connections.aspx

    1. There will be an article tomorrow on the Lynnwood Link bus restructure.

Comments are closed.