Katie Wilson is Seattle’s Next Mayor

42 Replies to “Katie Wilson is Seattle’s Next Mayor”

1. I am very curious to see how she puts her administration together, and who the key people will be. Her transition team may provide some insight to this.

   For the fact remains that she does not have experience running a large organization, and Seattle can’t afford the time for her to learn by mistakes. Her team should help with that.

   Yet, I believe her vision, and coalition building skills are better than Harrell’s ever were, but the devil will be in the details of how things get done., and, hopefully, things DO get done. It’s going to be interesting to watch.

   1. Does the Wilson campaign count as a large organization? Sure, it wasn’t 100K volunteers like Mamdani’s, but Seattle is less than 1/10th of NYC’s population.

      Mamdani is already being subjected to a racist smear/doxing campaign. I don’t expect the critics of Wilson’s proposals to sink that low.

2. [MOD: baseless accusation. replies removed.]

   1. She turned me into a newt!!!
      Thanks, Ross, that made my day :-)

   2. She has stated that she wants to stop stores who can’t keep their stores open by forcing them to stay open. She could only do that by using authoritative tactics and powers.

3. Note that she’s not guaranteed a seat on the Sound Transit board, although it would be kinda crazy if Girmay didn’t appoint her

   1. That’s interesting. It looks like a representative from the largest city in each county is guaranteed a seat on the Board, but the representative does not have to be the Mayor.

      1. Dang, I must have been confusing it with the guaranteed seat for each County Executive. For the curious, the state law governing the board of Sound Transit is here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=81.112.040

         Although I do think Wilson’s appointment to the board is practically guaranteed. King County Executive and Council would have to refuse to appoint her, and/or the rest of the Board would have to refuse to approve her. Can you imagine either body refusing to give the co-founder of the Transit Riders Union and Mayor of the largest City in Washington a seat on the Board?

         I’ll revise the post.

      2. I think the only scenario that would result in the Mayor of Seattle not being on the Board is if the Mayor does not want the position. Perhaps they are focused on other priorities and ask the Exec to appoint the SDOT Director or someone else instead.

      3. Right, I assume the law is construed that way to minimize who’s required to occupy a seat on the board if they do not wish to participate. However, the Board does have to be an elected official, and the law says “each county executive shall ensure that representation on the board includes an elected city official representing the largest city in each county”, so there has to be at least one representative from Seattle.

         Reportedly, Seattle D1 (West Seattle) CM Rob Saka has a strong desire to join the Sound Transit Board, so a really silly future would be one where Saka joins the Board instead of Wilson and sits next to Seattle D6 (Ballard) CM Dan Strauss. Although, it would be interesting to see them battle over how to prioritize WSLE and BLE…

      4. County Executive-Elect Zahilay will get to appoint a majority of the Board, and could conceivably go in a completely different direction than Constantine.

         Pete von Reichbauer will be the Dean of the Board until he gets forcibly retired. There ought to regardless be someone on the Board from Federal Way to smooth the path for the Tacoma Dome Link Extension.

         Likewise, Lynnwood and Everett both need a friendly voice there, but not someone who will insist on keeping ST Express 510 going to Seattle in perpetuity. ST needs someone more focused on building the best Everett Link Extension.

         Redmond has been represented well, and done an outstanding job, but doesn’t really need a rep on the Board any more.

         West Seattle, SODO, Chinatown, South Lake Union, Lower Queen Anne, and Ballard all need a voice on the Board via someone. That ought to include the Mayor, but could also be done by County Councilmembers or at-large City Councilmembers.

4. Excellent write-up Nathan. I think she will have an impact in subtle but very important ways. Don’t expect huge transit projects — there just isn’t the money. Nor has she shown an obsession with mode. Don’t expect new streetcar plans.

   But adding bus lanes and BAT lanes is not that expensive. BAT lanes on Denny, for example would not cost that much. They would be seen as a small project by many. Yet it is quite possible that adding BAT lanes just on Denny would save riders more time than West Seattle Link, a multi-billion dollar fiasco. Embracing — and expanding — on councilmember Rinck’s Better Bus Lanes campaign could be huge. We shouldn’t focus on a handful of corridors but the whole city. Try to fix areas that impact many routes (e. g. the area around the Fremont Bridge). This will require cooperation with other agencies, especially Metro and WSDOT. Readers of this blog have already pointed out the problems with buses trying to get from the East Side to the UW. Getting SDOT and WSDOT to fix the issues should not be that difficult, while making a huge difference for a lot of riders. The same is true with routing. Metro planners wanted to change the routing of the 62 in Tangletown. The buses would be faster *and* have better coverage in the area. This means it would have better coverage and ridership! Yet they were prevented from doing so by the city. Those plans should be revisited.

   1. Plus 10 about Fremont, Ross And get a million to extend the trolley loop to 35th and Stone Way. That’s close enough to attract walkers from as far as 42nd plus all the businesses along the lake. One seat to Uptown and Seattle Center. Also it would also help justify bus lanes on the bridge.

5. Despite its name, the Transit Riders Union activism appears to be focused on things other than transit. A review of the last four years shows a few items about transit — like employer-paid passes, transit fares and Denny bus lanes. However there’s not been much focusing on transit operations specifically for several years.

   https://transitriders.org/

   I can’t find any posts discussing the Enterprise Initiative on their web site.

   I also can’t find any recent references to advocating for people with transit mobility issues like adding or cleaning station escalators and elevators.

   I can’t find any posts about the massive change the Dow pushed for Link in the CID in 2021, which clearly is worse for transit riders making transfers Downtown.

   I don’t see posts mentioning fare enforcement policy either — beyond a suggestion for free fares.

   Honestly, it feels like the organization is misnamed. It feels like the name that they’re chosen by and advocating for transit riders but it looks like progressive populist spin to me that has had little to do with making transit better like making ST3 more cost effective or weighing in on Metro restructures.

   And as a transit rider, I feel manipulated. An organization that should be focused on making transit better based on the name appears to barely care.

   1. When the TRU stated there was an existing group in Los Angeles called the Bus Riders Union, which confused us by focusing on non-transit issues. The only transit issue we saw was “No more rail, because it serves rich areas and neglects poor areas”. We finally figured out “bus riders” meant their income level, not their interest in transit networks.

      We were afraid the TRU would be like that, but instead it focused on transit issues, and it supported us and other transit fans in specific interventions against Metro cuts, for Metro expansions, sensible restructures, and for ST3. That commitment to transit issues seems to have weakened in the past few years as the pandemic impacts hit and the TRU started spending more time on non-transit issues. So it may be becoming like LA’s Bus Riders’ Union, but not completely, and hopefully it won’t. The fact that it endorsed a rail-expansion campaign (Ross said it endorsed “Build the Damn Trains”) shows that it still has some interest in transit issues, and is taking a position the BRU never would (from what I saw of it years ago).

      I’m wondering whether Katie was behind the TRU’s endorsing BTDT, or if she stepped back from managing and decision-making at TRU when she launched her campaign for mayor. Because if the TRU and TCC are for “build all the things”, I’m afraid their position and STB’s are diverging.

      1. Seattle’s TRU borrowed the reputation based on the admirable work of LA’s TRU — but has never embraced the advocacy that they did.

         The TRU in Los Angeles exposed how many buses there in the low incone areas were overcrowded while expensive rail projects to wealthier areas were being planned with low ridership. Part of that derives from LA County’s form of “subarea equity”.

         A similar approach here would be to expose the fundamental inequities of ST3. TRU here did not say to vote no on ST3. TRU did not recommend eliminating subareas. TRU also has not criticized ST’s “racial equity toolkit”, which reduces equity to only discuss construction impacts.

         It should have pointed out how even within a subarea the projects benefited wealthier areas (like Issaquah before Renton for East King). And as ST3 badly done cost estimates came to light, they did nothing to weigh in on how to resolve the cost dilemma.

         And since Wilson started and ran our TRU, this criticism applies to her personally. I feel like she has long used “transit riders” in the name but didn’t advance interests of transit riders here.

         It’s actually very telling that this post is unable to hone in on a longer, more specific advocacy for transit with her election. One would think that the long-time head of TRU would have gone on record and advocated solutions to our many transit dilemmas way before she ran for mayor. She did nothing.

         It feels like the Wilson campaign was a massive feel-good PR effort targeting Seattle’s progressive leanings with little actual substance. Of course, Harrell could have exposed that hollowness with a revealing attack campaign — but he chose not to.

      2. If you want TRU to do something, you are welcome to join them.

      3. I feel like she has long used “transit riders” in the name but didn’t advance interests of transit riders here.

         Bullshit. https://transitriders.org/take-action/victories/.

         It’s actually very telling that this post is unable to hone in on a longer, more specific advocacy for transit with her election.

         Bullshit. The post mentions specifics. Her website mentions specifics. From the campaign website:

         Expand bus service through the renewal of our Seattle Transportation Benefit District in 2026, and work with King County and other partners to chart a path to regional bus service expansion.

         That is huge! Everything else pales in comparison. But wait, there is more…

         Improve speed and reliability with dedicated bus lanes and signal priority, to make bus transit competitive with driving.

         Again, this is huge! Those two things are the most we can realistically ask for in terms of transit for Seattle. It would be great if we somehow built Ballard to the UW or maybe some of those gondolas that Martin wants but realistically, that won’t happen. Seattle doesn’t have the money. Sound Transit, meanwhile, is busy with projects that won’t make that much difference. Build ST3, don’t build ST3, none of that matters nearly as much as making the buses better and she is definitely dedicated to making that happen.

         Of course it would be great if she said “No second tunnel” or was ready to replace West Seattle Link with bus infrasructure. But there are still a lot of people who simply don’t understand the mess we are in. They still think the problem is regulations or the inability to make up our mind. It isn’t. The projects are just too damn expensive. They can’t be built (unless we get the money from somewhere else). At some point the board is going to realize that and tough decisions will have to be made. Until then, everyone on the board — including people who will have a lot more power than her — are pretending it isn’t an issue.

      4. Al, accusing Wilson and TRU of being performative is ridiculous. Clearly you haven’t actually been paying attention to who’s been doing the work need to make grassroots advocacy happen.

         The Move All Seattle Sustainably (MASS) Coalition formed in 2018 after Jenny Durkan became Mayor of Seattle and began walking back progress on transit and road safety priorities. Katie Wilson led the MASS Coalition and much of the success of its advocacy is attributed to her leadership. Reports on early work demonstrate the strength of the group: https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/12/11/one-month-to-seattle-squeeze-mass-asks-city-to-do-more-to-prepare/

         This reddit post shares one person’s experience working under Wilson’s leadership of MASS: https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/1om4cwg/the_katie_wilson_i_knew_at_the_mass_coalition/

         Just because TRU doesn’t take credit for the accomplishments of the MASS Coalition doesn’t mean TRU hasn’t worked to improve transit in the region.

         > TRU here did not say to vote no on ST3. TRU did not recommend eliminating subareas. TRU also has not criticized ST’s “racial equity toolkit”, which reduces equity to only discuss construction impacts.

         STB has done none of these things. Do you think STB is performative, too?

         > It’s actually very telling that this post is unable to hone in on a longer, more specific advocacy for transit with her election.

         That wasn’t the point of this post. Her campaign website has clear and rather specific advocacy priorities that seem to fit exactly what you’re looking for: https://www.wilsonforseattle.com/transportation

         Al, you sure can write a lot. But can you read?

      5. “Al, accusing Wilson and TRU of being performative is ridiculous.”

         Maybe I’m too outraged by the lack of leadership by TRU in WSBLE evolution, but TRU should have been loudly advocating for riders all along during its design. Not weighing in does make them appear performative to me.

         The change in the preferred alternative to WSBLE in the CID was probably the most consequential (long term) and most singularly costly transit investment decision in Seattle’s transit history. Why wasn’t TRU proposing solutions to it?

         Harrell went along with Constantine’s proposal to change the preferred alternative. That put him on record. It may be even led to enough people losing confidence in him to get them to vote for Wilson and cause him to lose this election.

         What is Wilson’s stand on DSTT2 and that CID decision?

      6. If you want TRU to do something, you are welcome to join them.

         I was going to mention this. It is a union. If you join you automatically have a voice. You can join the group that most interests you and try to steer their activities. You can run for positions (or even be the next president) if you want.

      7. The change in the preferred alternative to WSBLE in the CID was probably the most consequential (long term) and most singularly costly transit investment decision in Seattle’s transit history.

         Oh please. Nothing is set in stone yet. It is quite possible there will be no second tunnel, in which case there will be no issue with the station in the CID. What was clear from all the proposals is that they all sucked. Not a single one involved “world class transfers” (as promised).

         That is the thing about ST3. At its best it won’t make much difference. It won’t serve First Hill. It won’t serve South Lake Union very well. It will serve the Seattle Center well but then so does the monorail. At best it will be a much faster way to get to Ballard than the buses. But that is only if they did something radical and actually made it significantly better than what the voters approved (by serving the heart of Ballard). Even then it won’t help that much of the city. At best it will help things a little. At worst it won’t help things quite as much. What is clear though is that it will likely cost a huge amount of money.

         What will matter a lot more is the buses. Add bus lanes on every major arterial and suddenly the buses are a lot faster. Since they would be faster they would be more frequent. Spending extra money on service — a key element of her platform — would also result in the buses running more often. It they followed up that work with a good restructure we would have a very good transit system (regardless of what happens with ST3).

         It is also quite possible the lobbying was done behind the scenes. I did notice that the union was adamant about moving the station on Denny. I’m not sure why they didn’t join the chorus fighting for a better CID station. They may have. The Google AI says they did (but I can’t find a link and I don’t trust the AI crap).

      8. “expensive rail projects to wealthier areas were being planned with low ridership”

         Which LA rail lines are low ridership? Maybe just the green one if even that?

      9. Mike Orr,

         This comment completely misses the context of public transit at the time in LA, when LA Metro was knee deep in insane cost overruns on a subway on a tertiary corridor. Wilshire was always the only really compelling corridor for a subway to the west, and the cost overruns and general shenanigans associated with the Red line did genuine harm to the bus network at the time. The LA BRU successfully sued LA Metro over this.

         And it’s natural for bus riders to organize around more than just buses. People have more concerns in life than just public transportation, and a lot of things intersect along what people are doing (housing costs, work locations, wages) and where they are going.

   2. I also can’t find any recent references to advocating for people with transit mobility issues

      https://transitriders.org/take-action/issues/disability-2/

      Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. That is the nature of every lobbyist organization. They fight for certain things. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. But my guess is they have a lot more wins then you are aware of.

      1. 2015 was 10 years ago. Many of the accessibility changes were required or promoted by ADA advocacy nationally. It’s hardly to the credit of TRU and it’s rather dated at this point.

   3. TRU was not elected Mayor. Katie Wilson was. And the campaign is over. Sorry you missed it.

6. One way to address Sound Transit’s gap in funding is to allow and encourage them to do real estate development surrounding the stations. New stations will have construction staging sites. Some existing station areas are underdeveloped, such as Rainier Beach. Surface parking lots can be re-built with garages incorporated into new development. Wilson will not be able to implement this system-wide, and it’s possible the legislature would need to approve the expanded role of Sound Transit, but she would at least have some say for the Sound Transit stations in Seattle. At the very least push for the needed zoning and land use changes.

   1. As a first step, ST could create a Surplus Land Committee.

   2. You mean like this: https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/creating-vibrant-stations/transit-oriented-development. That doesn’t really cover zoning but it does cover development (under the 80% for low income housing policy). https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2018/Resolution%20R2018-10.pdf

   3. This would require legislative action at the State level. RCW 81.112.350 , adopted in 2015, requires Sound Transit to transfer at least 80% of its surplus land to affordable housing developers at no cost. 80% of the housing built on the surplus land must be affordable to households making 80% or less of area median income.

   4. Yes, if we want TOD projects to generate income for ST then we need new state legislation authorizing them to bypass local zoning laws & other housing regulations, and much lower affordable housing requirements (10-20% instead of 80%). The current legislation seems to be purposed on providing affordable housing but not generating net income for ST.

   5. There’s some legal barrier to ST developing non-transit additions on its land to generate revenue like Japan does. It’s beyond this affirdable-housibg thing because that was passed in the run-up to ST3 but ST couldn’t do it before that either. It could only sell it to another developer, originally at market value. Now for that affirdable-housibg arrangement. The state thinks affordable housing is the biggest statewide need (because it is), so that overrides ST’s revenue interest in the land

      The barrier may simply be related to eminent domain. ST bought/seized the land for essential transit infrastructure. So it can’t make money on it building apartments/office buildings on it and renting/selling them.

7. “Future Mayor Wilson should use the influence of her office to simplify the land use code and open up more of the city to dense development. ”

   Agreed. Along with simplifying land use code the mayor will need to provide direction for Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) to provide water connections to small infill projects. The engineering, architectural, and builder communities are concerned that SPU is effectively squashing thousands of small development permits and housing units in Seattle. SPU squashes small projects by requiring small 1-2 lot developments pay for large public water projects such as large water mains with actuated valves in the street. $100k – $300k public infrastructure costs assigned to mom-and-pop developers squashes small projects fast, even small ADUs don’t escape these requirements let alone flats and missing middle housing. The mayor and city council can update zoning maps all day long but no project proceeds without a water connection. Other major municipalities (including SPU not long ago) allow smaller water lines to small infill projects. Other municipalities also have dedicated maintenance budgets to upgrade existing water mains along streets where development is likely. SPUs apparent lack of budget to upgrade smaller water pipes in Seattle streets that SPU itself has ruled need to be upgraded in support of city zoning is of special concern. The mayor’s office should put a special emphasis on providing SPU direction.

8. This is a good opportunity to buy cheaper properties in Seattle proper in the next few years.

   1. Affordable housing starts with affordable properties…

9. I wish Mayor Wilson the best— the last 3 mayors have been Chamber of Commerce types (including the Murray/Kubly homage to Big Tech in ST3), and she leads the city as we head into another recession (sort of like McGinn) with the added hurdle of dealing with the Trump administration.. McGinn had to deal with a Chamber of Commerce City Council majority, we’ll see if the current Chamber of Commerce types run for re-election.

   I asked the horde in the open thread for possible SDOT nominees. Per the Seattle Times, the current interim head is very close to Harrell– so not sure if she wants to go there and put in someone more progress

   Hopefully Jesslyn Ferell (sp?) is part of the transition, if not part of the new administration.

10. Talk is cheap. Getting elected in a Trump year is cheap. Now let’s see how she’ll pay for all that change she wants or if she’ll be fired by voters like every mayor before.

11. Any chance this will restart the Culture Connector/Center City Connector?

    1. Looks like she’s said this via Seattle Times:

       Wilson told me she supports building the First Avenue streetcar, sidelined by former Mayor Jenny Durkan.

       But Wilson cautioned that after years of inaction, “we owe the public a clear-eyed analysis” about whether quickly completing the Center City Connector streetcar line is the best use of limited transit money, especially when federal funding is under attack.

       “I doubt that the Center City Connector will emerge as a funding priority in my first term. Either way, we owe voters a clear explanation, and a commitment to never again let projects like this stagnate for so long.”

       1. “we owe the public a clear-eyed analysis” about whether quickly completing the Center City Connector streetcar line is the best use of limited transit money”

          That’s what I like about Katie. She has an instinct about what average transit riders need, which is more regular bus service in the most obvious corridors. That’s what CC-boosting didn’t show.

          A proper CC-affirming argument would be that 1st Avenue is the most critical underserved corridor in the city, that affects the most riders and widest cross-section of riders. And that a large number of riders need a route from Westlake to Stewart Street, 1st Avenue, and Jackson street. And that those are significantly more numerous than those continuing north on 1st to Belltown or south to SODO.

          All that is hard to believe, and the boosters never even made that argument. They just waved their hand and said “connecting the streetcars” and “transit”. Durkan had the most concrete vision: a tourist at Pike Place Market going to MOHAI or Little Saigon. That’s at least a concrete transit market. But is that important than improving regular circulation in the neighborhoods? Like Denny Way for instance, or putting something else on 9th so the 60 can remain on Broadway?

       2. Durkan correctly analyzed the issues of the CCC streetcar; the Murray-Kubly plan was severely flawed. In 2024, the CC streetcar was stricken from the CIP. Seattle has limited ROW and fiscal resources; there are much better projects for the city and 1st Avenue.

Comments are closed.