The Seattle Planning Commission has issued Housing Seattle, a report developed using data from the United States Census Bureau, the American Community Survey and surveys of the Seattle housing market. As Erica Barnett pointed out at Publicola, the report is largely about whether housing is affordable in Seattle. The report concludes, “Seattle households are increasingly burdened by their housing costs.”
That burden is measured by the classic normative standard for measuring affordability; no more than 30 percent of a household’s income should be spent on housing costs. While the report makes some good recommendations based in solid data, the use of the 30 percent rule of thumb only raises more questions about what the housing problem really is, or whether there is a problem at all. We need better language and measures when talking about housing if we’re going to make good policy that accommodates growth. More after the jump.
Debt allows big changes: Tunneling on Capitol Hill
Often state and local governments borrow money for capital projects when the economy is good and there is plenty of money for debt service. But when the economy crashes, officials get timid about debt, tightening the purse strings on new borrowing and spending. The problem with that is that economic downturns are the best time to borrow and spend on capital projects because they create jobs. A new set of recommendations from the Washington Commission on State Debt would take a step toward addressing a structural problem in the state’s constitution that makes it harder to borrow for job creating projects when times are tough.
First, a bit of background on how we do debt in Washington. In the first place, almost everyone in politics is paranoid about too much debt. Remember the big debt ceiling debacle over the summer in Washington DC? Politicians respond to the word debt because they think of public debt like a huge credit card that the government uses irresponsibly. Republicans and the press have made debt bashing de rigueur for politicians at all levels, and now even Democrats parrot the government-as-shopaholic meme.
But the truth is that debt is an important tool to get big things done. Virtually every big capital project in the private sector relies heavily on borrowed money. And if you have a mortgage, college loans, or even short-term credit card debt you’ll understand that using credit can be an important way to achieve an otherwise impossible end. The same is true for state and local governments. Debt allows cities, counties, and transit agencies access to cash now to create improvements that will generate benefits to tax payers over time. More after the jump.
Just a few days ago the Seattle City Council passed an Occupy Seattle inspired resolution containing a raft of feel good jargon about our latest economic crisis. For a while the Council was flirting with a city income tax! This is the City Council (except for Councilmembers O’Brien and Bagshaw, who weren’t on the Council then) that repealed a citywide “head tax” that generated about $4.5 million dollars for pedestrian and transit friendly projects around the city. What’s gotten into their heads? A city income tax isn’t a bad idea, but it’s illegal. A payroll tax for sustainable transit is a good idea too, but it’s legal.
It’s worth telling, again, the sad story of Seattle’s “Head Tax.” The tax was an employee-based tax that charged business with revenue above $80,000 a tax of $25 for each employee that drove to work. Yes, this really happened. If I didn’t know better, I’d be surprised that such a progressive and sensible tax was actually passed and implemented by the City Council.
But it didn’t last long. In 2009 under pressure from the Downtown Seattle Association the tax was repealed. Keep in mind that the average business in Seattle paid $92 in “head taxes,” and that huge businesses with millions in revenue were paying only several thousand dollars in taxes.
Remember, too, that the tax generated $4.5 million for sidewalks, crosswalks, and other improvements to make it easier for people to avoid driving. And guess how much the shortfall was in the Seattle Department of Transportation’s budget the following year? It was about $4.5 million. More after the jump.
If there isn’t a “war on cars,” why isn’t there one? After all cars are the leading producer of carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Also, the automobile as a form of transportation has been the central to a social engineering project that promotes far-flung single-family homes woven together by a web of expensive highways, punctuated by shopping malls.
But a war? Of course not. Even though Kemper Freeman quite unabashedly has declared war on transit in our region on behalf of the car, we (transit advocates, pedestrian advocates, environmentalists etc.) aren’t at war. We’re engaged in “messaging.” Messaging is another way of saying “persuading people to do the right thing,” and it’s failing.
The failure of Proposition 1 in my estimation is due to several factors not the least of which is a tough economy. But I think the other side had, to be consistent with my colleagues’ language, a better message. “Why spend your cash on elaborate and fanciful transit planning efforts when you just busted your axle on a gigantic pothole?” they asked. “And those Prop 1 people are just trying to get you out of your car.”
“Absolutely not!” answered the other side. The Prop 1 message was all about how spending $60 on registering your car would help fund things that you wouldn’t use—unless you got out of your car. “This isn’t a war on cars, it’s an effort to make all modes safer and faster.” More after the jump.
It started off as these things usually do, with a lot of pointing and gesturing at a roll up screen at projected images of various images and sketches. There was talk of “massing” and “features” and “treatments” and other designy language. But what was otherwise a relatively mundane design review meeting might have planted the seeds of a neighborhood revolution. OK, maybe I am a little bit too excited, but when considered in context, the review of a proposed mixed use project on Beacon Hill bodes very well for those of us who want to see more density around transit.
First, a quick report of what happened. The Southeast Design Review Committee was meeting to consider a mixed-use project on the corner of 17th and McClellan, a corner lot which sits, vacant on the same block as the Beacon Hill light rail station. The proponents presented their project and said they are asking for a review of the project at both 40 feet and 65 feet. There is a proposal on the table now to upzone the corner to 65 feet but it is currently zoned for 40. The project would vary from 30 to 45 units depending on height.
I’m not a big fan of design review, so I’ll spare you my snarky recapitulation of the questions board members had of the proponents. Let’s just say they were the kinds of questions design review board members ask. What has given me some real hope about the shape things might take in Beacon Hill was the public comments after the presentation and questions. More after the jump.
Upon reflection it seems important to elaborate on my last post on Beacon Hill. First of all, my post was mainly about the proposed 30-unit development on the currently vacant station block. I think the proposal is fine, although I worry that it locks up a key piece of property with less intense development than might be possible if the whole block were developed at the same time. What drew the most comments, however, was the question of whether Beacon Hill, as a neighborhood, supports density. It sounds familiar, especially when we remember the ongoing debate about Roosevelt.
In general my rule of thumb with these things is to “never complain and never explain.” But when I wrote about the “vigorous opposition” in the neighborhood to upzones, I was speaking about the balance of some 16 years since neighborhood planning began there. And while there have been many positive statements on the record by neighborhood planners there has been opposition. One effort was made to appeal the revisions to the neighborhood plan by one group of neighbors. Knowing Beacon Hill as I do, I would guess that those neighbors weren’t completely alone in their views.
That fact is that there has not been, on balance, huge consensus around or for increased density around Beacon Hill’s transit station. That’s why more than two years after the opening of light rail, and 12 years after the completion of neighborhood planning there is still a vacant lot around the transit station and a parking lot across the street at the Red Apple. While I appreciate language like this in the neighborhood’s latest proposal for changes in land use, it isn’t a stretch to have a “believe it when I see it” attitude:
Participants also recognized that the existing town center is generally underdeveloped under current zoning and does not reflect the desired future character of a more vibrant and diverse mix of shops, restaurants and housing.
The barren moonscape that surrounds the Beacon Hill Station is the poster child for the institutional and political failures endemic to Seattle’s approach to Transit Oriented Development. A picture of the stubby station box poking out of the ground is the front picture on my land use blog. I’ve gotten endless use from images of the lonely station as a sad commentary on the state of TOD. But maybe that’s changing.
Tomorrow night at 6:30 the Southeast Design Review Board will review a proposal for a four-story, 30 unit commercial and residential building including parking on one piece of the vacant lot surrounding the Beacon Hill station.
It’s a pretty modest proposal. But I have this feeling some people will appear to oppose it. I’m really hoping that isn’t the case, but my sense of land use politics tells me that, like most design review meetings, neighbors will emerge with all kinds of reasons why this project is wrong for Beacon Hill. More after the jump.
The We Won’t Pay people—the group that is urging people not to pay their fares when they ride Metro—have created a clever version of the Orca cards with the word “Nope” written on them. These were being distributed at the Occupy Westlake gathering over the last weekend. While some people might disagree, I have no problem with free transit anymore than I’d have a problem with free coffee or free pony rides. The problem with “free” is that it is an elusive concept. If we really want to reduce the price of transit, at the fare box or anywhere else, big changes are needed in the way we do land use and plan for growth. These solutions involve using the market to our advantage, something I doubt the We Won’t Pay movement has reached consensus on.
I’ve pointed out before that if we consider simple supply and demand, the problem with transit pricing is that the demand is diffuse which drives up costs to supply that demand. It’s the same reason that pizza delivery restaurants often have a service delivery area. I might want a pizza from that cool pizza place in Seward Park, but for them to drive it to me in Capitol Hill is cost prohibitive to them. The same is true of transit, when demand is spread all over the county then it’s going to get more and more expensive to operate the system.
But unlike a private pizza business, the community and political system has decided we do need to support the transit system even with all the costs. As part of the social contract we invest in things that we may not use or that wouldn’t make a profit. That’s why we use tax dollars to keep transit going. More after the jump.
It’s true. I am impatient. During the ongoing discussion and debate about land use around Sound Transit Link Light Rail stations, I have been thinking, “there ought to be a law!” Specifically, I’ve been dreaming of legislation that would substantially up zone around all light rail stations in the city of Seattle, and create options for innovative ways to create the density that makes light rail work. There are a lot of discussions about doing just that, but I decided I’d take a crack at writing the legislation myself.
There are a number of problems affecting light rail and land use in Seattle. First, there is the lack of market appropriate land use to produce more housing and commercial space next to light rail. Second, there are vested interests wanting to keep things just about like they are, willing to accept only incremental change. Lastly, the City Council, just by the nature of politics, always has to try to make everyone happy, and that’s tough.
When I was reading Seattle’s Land Use code I pointed out how helpful it would be to have a “superagency” to make Transit Oriented Development happen. I even suggested a charter amendment that could make the Planning Commission that agency. I think putting a charter amendment on the ballot soon to create what I called the Seattle Planning and Development Commission would facilitate a healthy debate on TOD and development in Seattle and, if it was successful, create an agency well equipped to start work now and benefit from changes at the state level that, hopefully, are forthcoming. Portland, for example, has the Portland Development Commission (PDC). I’ve heard a lot of PDC envy in Seattle over the last few years.
But why do we need a super agency? First, the City Council has a tough time doing the right thing when it comes to land use. Fear of change has a vocal constituency, and strong majorities in neighborhoods. It’s tough to listen to hundreds of people saying, as they have in Roosevelt, “we’ve taken enough density” and then impose more anyway. These are taxpaying voters after all, and one could argue that even if the Seattle City Council wanted to max out development in Roosevelt they shouldn’t: it’s not what most people there want.
Second, many of the financing tools are lacking right now for a hefty TOD program. While most of these problems—especially the lack of Tax Increment Financing and prohibitions against the lending of public credit—are state level problems, a Seattle Planning and Development Commission could function as a Public Development Authority (PDA). In Washington PDAs have some unique and appropriate tools, the most important being the ability to issue bonds. While PDAs are expressly prohibited from using eminent domain, that power could be added with a suite of constitutional amendments and legislation in the future.
Lastly, I love my friends at the Seattle Planning Commission, but they don’t have enough power. And even though I don’t always agree with them, the Planning Commission is the right place to work out the future of Seattle’s land use. An amendment could transform todays Commission into something approaching a “superagency,” immune from the influence of both fearful neighbors and smart growth land use fads. Giving the new agency the power to legislate zoning could save us from the incremental and piecemeal approach the City Council always seems to take. More after the jump.
