Sally Clark » Budget and Economic Development

Career pathways to skip the skills mismatch

Sally J. Clark — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:36:58 +0000

We had two great presentations in the Council’s Economic Resiliency & Regional Relations Committee yesterday on current job trends and the better coordination under way in the Seattle area to prep people to be successful competing in the sectors that are hiring. Matt Houghton from the City’s Office of Economic development started off breaking down the current 8 percent unemployment rate in this area. Approximately 3 or 4 percent is considered “normal” unemployment (unless you’re the person unemployed). Approximately 4 percent is due to the contracted economy and approximately 1 percent is due to a mismatch between the worker skills available and the worker skills needed. You might be out there searching and see plenty of “help wanted” ads, but not in the fields you know. Despite 8 percent unemployment around here, approximately 17 percent of employers have recently reported difficulty finding qualified workers to fill jobs.

Then let’s add in the overall increase in competition for well-paying work. It takes more education and skills prep to earn a decent income and this trend will continue. The big figure everyone is using estimates that 67 percent of all jobs in Washington will require some kind of post-high school education between 2014 and 2019. Some kind of education after high school, a year in college even, has become the single biggest predictor of life-long earning power. And the further you go in post-high school education and training, the better your prospects.

But how? If you’re out there working in a lower-paying job, you need an education or training boost the most, but face the highest hurdles. Cost is one hurdle, the need for remedial courses in math or reading can be another. The partners in the Pathways to Careers and Pathways to Completion projects have identified significant transition points where people fall out of the system for one reason or another. Like between acceptance to community college or training program and actually signing up for classes. The programs focus on standardizing and compressing the long and somewhat mysterious application and prep time periods, working people into a cohort for mutual support, mandatory program orientation and advising and overall support with getting to class and achieving completion goals.

The City of Seattle is a partner in the Pathways to Careers work and I think it’s money well spent. Giving people the boost they need to get even a little post-high school education can change individual lives and the trajectory of a family. Job competition will only get hotter. Leaving people behind is unacceptable. Thanks to Seattle Community Colleges, the Seattle Jobs Initiative, The Workforce Development Council, OED and to funders like the Gates Foundation for their work.

Soon we’ll talk about the 13 year concept embraced by Seattle Community Colleges and others as a way to institutionalize access to post-high school education – and the life-long benefits it can bring.

Bill Walton, Dave Twardzik, Maurice Lucas, Bob Gross and…

Sally J. Clark — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:34:17 +0000

When I was 11 I had the 1976-77 Portland Trail Blazers team photo taped to my bedroom door. If I had that photo still I could have checked it to recall the fifth starter of that world championship team. Instead, I hit Wikipedia and learned the other starting guard was (drum roll, please)… Lionel Hollins.

Hearing Chris Hansen describe how he felt when the Sonics won the title in ’79 took me back to staying up too late for the broadcasts, crouching on my knees in front of the television with the volume down far enough my sister and parents wouldn’t hear it. I don’t remember specific plays from the championship games, but I do remember the celebration on the court afterwards. I remember Dave Twardzik saying something about how unbelievable winning was, how he thought he’d by then he’d be taking a lunchbox to work and punching a clock.

Some are immune, but the drama and elation of sports are powerful for most of us. Some of us have rules about which sports we’ll follow. Our dog walker, for instance, banished the NFL from her television after Michael Vick’s conviction. My eighth-grade teacher said she followed only collegiate basketball. The pro’s didn’t demonstrate enough good decision-making or gratitude by her measure. Plenty of my circle say, “But we already have a pro basketball team.”

The idea of a new basketball and hockey arena in Seattle won’t be embraced by all. I’ve heard from more than a few people strongly in favor of a new arena and I’ve heard from a few raising concerns. Whether you love the idea or think we need another sports venue like a hole in the head, I hope you want Councilmembers to give the proposal released last Friday a fair shake. It’s what I intend to do.

The basics: Mr. Hansen (with the help of so-far-unnamed allies) has purchased the SODO Stadium District land necessary and would buy an NBA team when one becomes available (another group would need to purchase and move in a hockey team). Mr. Hansen would chip in $290 million and the City and County would under-write arena construction with a total of $200 million via councilmanic bonds. That debt would be paid back over time via rent payments and taxes and fees “captured” from the site and arena operations (city property taxes, city business and occupation taxes, city lease excise taxes, city sales tax, and city admissions tax). The team owners would operate the new arena and enjoy profits off the activities inside. The NBA team would have a no-relocate requirement for the 30-year term of the bonds. If revenues in any month don’t meet the debt payment amount, the owners would write a check for the difference. At the end of the 30 years, the city and county would own the land and the arena.

Since we (the people of Seattle) are being asked to go in on building the new arena to the tune of $150 million, we (the people jilted by a pro basketball team once before) need to be cautious and do our homework. The proposal released last Friday took more than seven months to build. We’ll need a little time to unpack it and ensure it’s not just feasible, but a good step for the city. How long we have to do that fair review depends on what happens elsewhere in the NBA. I take Mr. Hansen at his word when he says his motivation is not to “take” another city’s team, rather his goal is to return an NBA team to Seattle. That means he has to be opportunistic, prepared and patient.

I’ll have many questions, among them:

How will the City of Seattle avoid a replay of the Sonics’ painful, expensive exit?

OK, maybe that’s too broad. Breaking that down a bit:

How will we ensure that the city’s General Fund is shielded from responsibility for the arena debt?
Can the NBA truly guarantee a no-relocate clause?
How do we measure the economic impact of a new arena? How many permanent new jobs will be created and at what wage levels? How many new “heads in beds” for the hotels?
How will the addition of a third venue in the Stadium District impact traffic? Specifically, what might a third venue mean for Port-related and other industrial traffic?
How would use of our debt capacity for a new arena affect our debt limit? How might using City-issued debt for the arena affect our ability to debt-finance other major projects?
How do we account for impacts to Key Arena operations?
Are we a big enough market to support two more major teams? How does the size of our market affect projections for corporate suite sales, advertising and sponsorships? All of these affect team business success and the ability of team ownership to fulfill debt payment back-up obligations.

Watch for review of the proposal to get under way in the Council’s Government Performance and Finance Committee in the near future.

Start your budget engines

Sally J. Clark — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:20:06 +0000

Mayor Mike McGinn delivers his proposal for a 2012 City budget Monday thus kicking off the two month budget review season (which just happens to coincide with baseball playoff season, an important fact for people in many other cities). Over the past few years budget review has made Seattle’s otherwise delicious autumn days metaphorically darker. In the past two budgets we’ve hacked 447 employee positions from the City budget as we’ve dealt with the drop in revenue associated with the recession. Library employees take one-week furloughs, community centers operate with limited schedules, we have fewer neighborhood district coordinators, fewer construction permit reviewers, shuttered some Neighborhood Service Centers, froze hiring for the Neighborhood Policing Plan, and fewer precinct liaison attorneys.

The budget for 2012 promises more of the same. For context, unemployment nationally and regionally remains unexpectedly high; the housing market nationally is choking on a gut-wrenching number of foreclosures still “to clear,” as described in the media; and the Federal government is fighting us into a deeper hole with brinksmanship and the likelihood of deep cuts to domestic spending. Locally, tax revenues are no longer in free fall, but that’s the best thing we can say at the moment. This may be the “new normal,” or Greece, worse, will default on its debt and send reverb through the world financial system – and further gloom into the spending attitudes of you and me.

For the current Mayor and the Council, the reputed Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times” might be amended to be: “may you govern in really broke times.” This will be Mayor McGinn’s second budget and the second time he’s had to propose layoffs and program cuts. Not an enviable position and one I know he does not take lightly.

A budget is the opportunity to demonstrate one’s priorities and values through a spending plan. Through the Council’s review of the Mayor’s proposed budget I hope we can produce a budget for 2012 that accomplishes important objectives:

Maintain the safety net. This Mayor and this Council have both prioritized direct services to vulnerable people in our community who have limited or no resources of their own. Food banks, shelter, counseling, job training and other social services are survival services in these times.
Preserve public safety. While Seattle’s rate of violent crime is down, property and quality of life crimes are up and we hear regularly about street-level drug dealing and assaults in certain neighborhoods. We need to see change in these areas. We’ll debate how police staff, beat patrols, “hot spot” policing, street outreach, treatment and other approaches get into (or don’t get into) the City budget.
Keep the infrastructure up. Whether we’re talking about sidewalks, concrete and asphalt travel lanes, overhead or underground wires, building roofs, pipes or conduit, I’ll be looking to see how each department (Transportation, in particular) deals with long-term infrastructure investments.
Reevaluate what we do and how we do it. We, including me, have to set aside long-held ideas about how to provide City services. Asking the right questions about outcomes and competency, we have to look at City programs and measure how effective they truly are. We can’t afford everything we’re doing today. Chances are we won’t be able to afford everything we’re doing this time next year, as well. The Mayor and Councilmember Sally Bagshaw, chair of the Council’s Parks Committee, have already announced a different approach to community center staffing that preserves our system, but at lower cost.
Cut where we have to, invest where we must. We will cut, there’s no doubt, but we should also maintain investments that draw in other sources of funding and that pay dividends for Seattle in the long-run. The Neighborhood Matching Fund is a great example of a fund that multiplies dollars and builds stronger communities.

We all want a City that does the basics really well and uses dollars effectively, despite the economy and predictions of future revenue declines. Easier said than done in a city our size, but we have until Monday, November 21 (final vote day) to get it right. The public hearings are slated for the evenings of Tues., Oct. 4 and Wed., Oct. 26 in City Council Chambers. I anticipate these will be well attended. You can find more information here, including a form for emailing councilmembers with your budget concerns and ideas. Please feel free to send ideas. I can definitely use them.

Now we build a budget

Sally J. Clark — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 20:41:20 +0000

With the vote tallies for the state-wide initiatives clear we can now get down to building the final 2011 City of Seattle budget. The Mayor delivered his budget proposal Sept. 27, but it wasn’t until Wednesday morning that we really knew how much money we would have next year. Revenues (sales tax and business & occupation tax) are down even since Mayor McGinn snapped shut his budget and now we know that with repeal of the surcharge on bottled water and on sugary candy, gum and soda we’ll lose an additional $1.2 million next year (from revenue that would have trickled down from the state) and lose $1.7 million in 2012. (If we had just a fraction of the $150 million Meg Whitman spent on her race in California we could make it up, but that’s another story).

We’re now engaged in reviewing specific cuts and adds auditioning for inclusion in the budget. Yes, there are adds. I’ve learned there are always adds. Even when cutting millions of dollars and laying off staff there are adds to account for new regulatory mandates, Council-wide priorities that differ from the Mayor’s priorities, and, sometimes, pet projects. To keep things from getting too crazy and to prevent any of us from slipping into what might look like grandstanding on behalf of a constituent group, we have a rule that requires at least three councilmembers sign onto a proposed addition before it can advance for discussion in the Budget Committee. Cuts at this stage are necessary, but also politically difficult. Careful watchers of the City Council process will notice that cuts are never proposed by named councilmembers, rather by the “Budget Committee.” Everyone likes to be a hero, no one wants to be the villain.

I’ve been reviewing my notes from the last public hearing we held. Speakers on Oct. 26 testified on many topics (and until 11:10 p.m.), but support for community centers, sidewalks, bike lanes, neighborhood district coordinators, community access television, shelter and other human services dominated. A few phrases that stuck:

“A lifeline for our future.”

“A community raises the kids.”

“They bring an integrity to civic engagement you won’t find anywhere else.”

“First, do no harm.”

“Your options are all tough.”

Things did get tougher as a result of Tuesday night’s results, but I still think we’ll deliver a budget with rational fee and fine increases, a reasonably intact safety net, more patrol officers, and attention to the elements necessary for safe, healthy and active neighborhoods. Big questions remain when it comes to utility rates and the transportation budget. We’ll tackle those issues today, tomorrow and next week. We just have to figure it all out by November 22 when we take our final votes.

Budget blues: Public Access, SCAN and the creative, educational “fringe”

Sally J. Clark — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:28:22 +0000

One of the more ardent groups of advocates fighting to change the Mayor’s budget comes from the world of public access television. When Comcast and Millenium were awarded the contracts to provide Seattle neighborhoods with cable television we gained franchise fee revenue. This money must be spent on community-related technology, including cable channels for public access, education and government. We use some of it for Seattle Channel, for community-generated projects through a matching fund, for better connecting people to City services via the web, and historically we’ve used more than $500,000 to fund a non-profit group called SCAN to operate Seattle’s public access television station (77 or 23 depending upon where you live). Via SCAN’s work in the studio, providing training to budding programmers and accepting submissions from community producers you might see “Democracy Now,” “Hawaiian Showcase,” “Goddess Kring,” “Free Speech TV,” “The Real Garden,” “Ask and Atheist,” “Youth Speaks Seattle,” and more. It’s the television equivalent of the soap box.

In his proposed 2011-2012 budget Mayor McGinn charts a course away from an automatic reliance on SCAN to provide management and content for Seattle public access television. In press comments earlier this week the Mayor said that in the 21^st century people’s reliance upon television has lessened. We have multiple options for gaining our information about public affairs and for presenting our own contributions to public debate. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube – all of these provide people with their own ways of contributing and viewing. The Mayor is saying we now have lots of soap boxes, so why maintain the same level of funding for public access television when our reliance on it has lessened.

The Mayor’s proposal cuts the amount of funding available for public access television from $650,000 down to $100,000 and commits the city to choosing a new channel operator via a competitive bid process. I don’t have qualms about the latter – I think there should be a request for proposals and the best provider chosen. Given the agency’s experience and investment in equipment, SCAN may emerge the best provider. As for the money cut, while I’m not sure I have a choice with the City facing such a huge budget hole, I don’t really see a plan from the Mayor’s side of the shop for how the City will ensure meaningful public access happens. I don’t think it’s enough to say people will use Facebook and YouTube instead of a guaranteed, protected channel dedicated 24 hours a day to whatever you or your neighbor want to produce. Well, almost anything you want to produce. I may think some of the programming is weird, but I think the point of public access is that no one needs to get my sign-off.

I’m not a big public access viewer, so I posed the question to my 700+ friends on Facebook to see who among that self-selected group of friends, politicos and urbanistas watches. You can see the results yourself here. Again, we’ve used just initials to protect against any unwarranted claims of privacy.

What about you? Do you watch? Why?

GA: scan? what the h*ll is that?
13 hours ago

BM: that’s a negative, ghostrider.
13 hours ago

BW: I am embarrased to say that I never heard of it until a week ago.
13 hours ago

PK: Scan? Cat scan?
13 hours ago

RT: i had to google it.
13 hours ago

KR: I confess, only out of perverse curiousity. Extremely fringey. But … shouldn’t the fringe have a place?
13 hours ago

JP: Sorry. No Scan. What’s this survey for? Just curious, Sally.
12 hours ago

TP: Not since we got that YouTube thingy…
12 hours ago

PBC: No.
12 hours ago

Sally Clark: JP – mayor’s budget proposes going a different direction for public access. A big cut to SCAN.
12 hours ago

GV: I signed a petition just this afternoon to ‘Save Scan’ – tho I do not have a television.

From what I understand it is an important access point for those who DO have tv’s, and may not be as internet savvy as us responders to your query, Sally.

I would just guess that you might get a VERY different response if this question were put out there on SCAN, to those viewers, no?
12 hours ago

JP: ‎@ GV: Excellent point!
12 hours ago

PBC: I’ll sign it. I do not have nor want cable or dish so I can not see it. It is important so I watch public access on line when I want to .
12 hours ago

ST: Off topic but why support the Pres after the announcement that there will be an appeal of the DADT injunction?
12 hours ago

GV: btw, the Petition said it was a $ 165,000 line item, if I recall correctly . . .
12 hours ago

LG: twice in my life, and only to watch people i know who were on so as to make fun of them.
11 hours ago

EK: Not since I had kids. Confession time: I don’t watch tv anymore. I would, but there’s just no time for it now.
11 hours ago

GC: SCAN hosted a people of color forum on ballot initiatives. It provides an opportunity for community members to produce their own media.
11 hours ago

KM: Thanks for asking about this Sally. This is an important issue, especially to Seattle’s immigrant community. Here’s a story I wrote for the P-I about an Ethiopian show on SCAN.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/235214_cable04.html

Later in the afternoon, Solomon was spreading the news at the line of Ethiopian businesses along 12th Avenue, by East Jefferson Street. A fan, Stewan Daniel, said, “Sundays are family time. To go to church and be with your family and listen to your language for an hour is good.”

Because of the important resource SCAN provides, it seems like we should be spending more, not less. Many people arent watching cable. But what SCAN really needs to do is the same thing mainstream stations are doing in response to changing viewing habits — putting their shows on an improved site that can be shared through means like Facebook.
10 hours ago

TH: sadly, not that big of a loss.
10 hours ago

SS: Never have. Feels kind of kookie?
8 hours ago

RM: No, The World Series is about to start… And then there’s, Corber’t, Stewart, Gail Conlins, David Brooks, the City Council, County Council, State Legislature, a sunraise, etc, etc… “It’s always something” Roseanne Rosannadanna…
6 hours ago

SP: SCAN is public access TV. Never seen it myself, but I hear it has a loyal following. I’m surprised it doesn’t get utilized more often.
4 hours ago

DP: I do every once in awhile
3 hours ago

KK: I used to watch more, been meaning to again. Democracy Now and Talking Stick. Maybe Seattle TV could pick up that slak? Thing is, in the deal where we gave away our TV to the cable companies, and then the city issues a cable franchise, we should have made sure the cable companies paid for the public access station.
3 hours ago

JR: Never.
2 hours ago

YC: I do watch once a while, and it helps many diverse communities to get info and news in their own language. However, I don’t think it is a priority specailly when we have more pressing issues. Nowadays, we have Youtube, Facebook, and other ways to reach out and communicate with a wide audience. I don’t think it is a big loss. Sally, keep eye on Human services — programs that help directly the low income population.

about an hour ago

JTW: Yes, I’ve watched it on and off. I like seeing local politics, School Board or Sound Transit meetings debating on occasion. I think it is important for some ethnic communities and for transparency. I’ve heard it may be cut and think it would be a loss to the community.

about an hour ago

JTW: Thanks for asking on FB!

about an hour ago

DHM: I don’t seek it out, but I have stopped on it and watched something interesting from time to time. I will say, I won’t watch online. I do NOT like to watch tv or broadcasts online. Too many stalls and stops, I turn things off – even things I have seeked out to watch.

54 minutes ago

LT: SCAN is a valuable asset to our community! Some of my friends’ opinions that SCAN is not a priority … I beg to differ when SCAN is the ONLY trusted and AFFORDABLE source of community empowerment mechanism to promote the VOICES of common …citizens out there without commercial and political pressures. I and many of my friends watch SCAN programming all the times. In fact, the Vietnamese American youth are organizing and developing a media empowerment project through SCAN’s supports. Sally, please champion the restoration and continued funding for SCAN. Congressman Jay Inslee and other “visionary” public officials are behind this program. Thank you for your support.See More

14 minutes ago

JS: Easy question – I don’t own a TV – Too much Propaganda – No surprise ; consider their owners.

12 minutes ago

An unscientific parking poll

Sally J. Clark — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 21:15:54 +0000

For fun (don’t laugh) I posted a question on Facebook regarding the parking options facing City Council in the 2011-2012 proposed city budget. Now, the world of my “friends” on Facebook is skewed to be a self-selected lot of green-ish civic-minded types — by no means a full, statistically accurate cross section of Jet City resident opinions. I doubt there’s an owner of a small, bricks-and-mortar neighborhood business in the group. However, the comments closely matched the concerns and questions we (councilmembers) are posing to staff. I thought I’d repost the posts here to give other readers a view into the dialogue. You’ll note I’ve used initials rather than full names. I’m not sure anyone on Facebook truly believes they are in a private conversation, but I haven’t asked anyone if it’s OK to use their name and have erred on the side of caution. Some of you will have fun figuring out who’s who.

Parking. Pay more for on-street? Pay more and for more hours? Pay on Sundays? All of the above? None of the above?

BM the underpinning work of san francisco’s variable pricing … was conducted by dr. donald shoup of ucla who wrote the ‘high price of free parking,’ which is a must read. if there is some modest amount of discretionary funds …at the council’s disposal, i would thoroughly recommend bringing dr. shoup to seattle for a briefing/public lecture. i know a few NGOs that would be interested in co-sponsoring;-) in the interim, download this podcast from the national building museum: http://www.nbm.org/media/audio/parking-is-not-free.html
it’s fascinating stuff

Sunday at 8:49pm ·

JW Yes, please enact the mayor’s parking revenue proposals; SDOT has had Prof. Shoup in Seattle; rates are too LOW today; Seattle needs the revenue and this is a fair approach; it is market based; Seattle has already provided parking capital …downtown (e.g., the Pacific garage, the Convention Center garage, and the Library garage; in Uptown, the Key Arena garage and the Mercer garages are largely empty); yes, the rpz fees should be higher; note that the AWV deep bore project will soon be taking out many parking stalls in downtown and it will get more scarce; note that budget may neet to add PEO; they would pay for themselves in added revenue.

Sunday at 8:58pm ·

BW I support all of the above!

Sunday at 9:01pm ·

RH All of the above!

Sunday at 9:37pm ·

GV Meter the scores of absolutely free parking for ??? owners of Yachts? at the Northerly portion of the Westlake drag (W. of Lk Union, basically just South of the new sidewalk/combo bike trail heading dwntn out of Fremont. Biggest ROW givea…way I am personally aware of: overnight, all day, NO Charge. Hmmm.Might want to check out that whole Westlake lot for revenue ops, OR hand a row of parking over to a cycle path before a huge bike/ped/car crash!! (waiting to happen on this multimodal ‘lot’ the City owns and ‘operates’.

Sunday at 9:39pm ·

RC As long as the revenue goes toward better infrastructure for pedestrians, I’m all for higher parking rates and more hours. I need to see some benefits for the higher costs.

Sunday at 9:53pm ·

PBC The S.F. approach is very workable. Add to this a flat parking permit sticker fee for scooters/motorcycles that can be renewed each year. So all of the above but managed like S.F.

Sunday at 9:54pm ·

AJL Yes to all of the above.

Sunday at 10:02pm ·

AJL ‎*ahem* but no CPT increase for non-profit institutions that use their parking dollars to heavily subsidize bus passes for their employees… and in some cases students

Sunday at 10:07pm ·

KJ Increase hourly rates. Retain free parking after 6 p.m. and on Sundays. Keep arts, culture, and entertainment vibrant in Seattle.

Sunday at 10:19pm ·

JM ‎”Free” parking is a large subsidy to drivers from the whole city, when many of us don’t have cars or drive rarely. Seattle already has too much parking, and at a price of zero, you can never supply enough of it to meet demand. Parking should cost basically what the market will bear, with a share of the revenue going to support pedestrian, bike, and/or transit improvements in the areas where it’s collected.

Sunday at 10:28pm ·

AB to add onto what J says, underpriced parking creates a shortage situation. In other contexts we recognize a shortage by seeing people standing in line for something. In the case of parking we see people circling for a spot. In Seattle we …have a good start with e-park (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/epark/) but the creating a Seattle equivalent of SFpark will take time and money. In the short run we need to set parking pricing based on our current system. The mayor’s proposals are worth a try as they will provide valuable data for setting the initial rates for a more flexible parking pricing scheme. Raise the cost of parking in the short run to fund initial implementation of a more flexible system that will provide walking, biking, and pedestrian funding for the long term. This is one of those rare win-win situations for everyone, don’t miss it!

Sunday at 10:51pm ·

IW As I told you today, Sally, retain free parking after 6 PM and on Sundays. If the meter rates have to go up, so be it. Extending paid parking to 8 PM will kill small retailers who can’t afford to provide parking lots for their customers. We… have more votes than the car
haters.

Sunday at 10:55pm ·

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/101843.The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking

Seattle recently hired Gehl Architects to advise us on how to create a more vibrant downtown. Among their observations was that downtown Seattle has too much parking. …They showed how a nearly 50 year old policy in Copenhagen of reducing the city’s number of parking spaces by 2% a year has improved vibrance, traffic congestion, and air pollution there. This is just the kind of barely noticeable incremental policy we should seriously look at to make great improvements to Seattle over time.

You can’t pander to cars and preserve the environment; Seattle is always talking a big game but looking for small, symbolic efforts rather than making tough changes to improve the environment. I seem to be in the majority considering who we elected mayor.

Sunday at 11:13pm ·

AS Free parking after 7pm. Begin rates at a $1 minimum and raise rates on parking times over 1 hour.

Sunday at 11:18pm ·

IW ‎@ JM: This is not Copenhagen. You don’t have the votes to ever get that. Your mayor was elected by a razor-thin margin over a candidate who was equally unfit for the job, and the voters will turn him out by a landslide, the way he’s going. And quit using “vibrant,” please. It is so overused as to become meaningless, just like “progressive.”

Sunday at 11:19pm ·

JM I am only using the city’s word. The city chose to hire Gehl, knowing they’re in Copenhagen. I don’t hear anyone aspiring that we become more like Detroit or Houston. I wasn’t involved in that decision and don’t know who else might’ve bi…d on the consulting contract. And we all share the same planet, which we have no replacement for. If Seattle means what it’s been saying for so long about being environmentalist, it’s time to start making the real changes we voted for. Over half Washington state’s greenhouse emissions come from transportation, the overwhelming majority of which is cars. We can’t reverse global warming with organic beef and CFL bulbs. If we’re not willing to change our driving habits, that’s fine, but we need to admit that and stop pretending to be pro-environment.

Monday at 12:17am ·

AB Hey IW, one feature of SFpark you might like is that parking rates are adjusted according to the time of day. Thus small businesses can be assured that if their location has empty spots after 6pm the price will go down until those spots start filling up. Check it out www.sfpark.org

Monday at 12:50am ·

AB JM: while I appreciate your enthusiasm about our new mayor I don’t think parking policy came up much in the election so it’s not clear what exactly voters think about it. That said, I think you’re spot on about our need to address transpor…tation’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that Ivan would agree that greenhouse gas emissions are a serious problem which we all need to work together on addressing. Shifting how we get around away from automobiles is one way of handling this. Lets get market rate pricing in place and then with the data this pricing system provides us make intelligent decisions about the supply of parking.

Monday at 12:59am ·

JW IW, your comments are “world class”!

Monday at 1:21am ·

TF I say keep it the way it is. The price was raised only a few years ago and now again. When will the war on cars stop?

Monday at 2:05am ·

JM No one’s fighting a war on cars. But are we fighting climate change? Or not? I think Seattle needs to make that fundamental decision and proceed from it. Nearly all transportation is subsidized, but we should subsidize transportation that is healthy for our bodies, communities, economy, and planet; and discourage transportation that is harmful to those things. So far, Seattle talks green but acts brown.

Monday at 2:24am ·

JW I am tired of people using the “free market” as a justification for their agenda, whatever the cause or issue may be. The reason the Mariner’s suck is the “free market”. My friend’s favorite color is purple because of the “free market”. The… “free market” makes my food heathier. But when it does not serve the interests of the same folks when it is used for another issue, its a terrible reason. Please.

This is obviously not a small issue, yet there were no hearings or studies on the issue. Where is the buy-in from the public. We do have areas in the suburbs that have free parking, including Alderwood Mall in another frickin’ county, Snohomish! What a cruel joke it will be if the sales tax revenues go down enough to offset any revenue increase. And all we need to put at risk are small businesses and a vibrant downtown.

Monday at 2:36am ·

AB JW, market rate pricing isn’t an abstract”justification”, it’s an actual policy. The “agenda” is to price parking spaces according to how much people actually value them, with people “voting with their cars”. Check out www.sfpark.org for more information on how this works.

Monday at 2:54am ·

MJM Should we have an increase in the street parking rates? Sure. For RPZ passes? Yes. But extending hours for paid parking to 8p and Sundays is ridiculous.Comparing street parking the private lots is comparing apples to oranges. When we… start having routine security patrols, the ability to park all day, and begin covering every single street space, then we can talk about “market rate”, but until then, trying to get street parking as close to $7 per hour as possible is incredulous.Additionally, if we are going to increase the parking tax and parking rates, then that money should go, IMO, towards maintenance of streets and sidewalks. Sidewalks on Capitol Hill are barely walkable. Streets all over the city have potholes that are dangerous to cars and bikes. Increasing these rates and fees, while attempting to pump $13 million into more bike lanes and sidewalks, but with no plan to maintain them, while also slowing down basic maintenance of what we already have, is asinine at best.Expanding bike lanes and sidewalks is awesome. It’s good for safety, for cars, for bikes, for pedestrians. It’s a net positive. But not at the expense of what is already there, and not without a plant o keep those new lanes and sidewalks safe into the future.

Monday at 9:06am ·

AB Who’s comparing street parking to private lots? There seems to be some misunderstanding about “market rate”. Look at the website sfpark.org Seriously. Market rate is merely the rate people are willing to pay to park in a particular place at a particular time. 98% of spots are full at 25 cents an hour then that’s the market rate. Again, look at the website sfpark.org. If we were to to do this it would look a lot like that.

Monday at 9:15am ·

MJM ‎@AB: Who is? Well, the Mayor has talked about private lots when justifying the increase in street parking rates, for one, and since it’s his baby.Now, it looks to me as though some of the neighborhoods in SF are going to have variable… rate parking throughout the day. Awesome. Anyone who lives in the 167 corridor knows a thing or two about variable rate tolling, and I personally believe it’s a great idea. Variable rate parking – also not a bad idea.However, the proposal isn’t for variable rate parking. It’s for an increase in parking taxes, street parking hourly rates and RPZ rates, extending paid parking to 8 p.m. and Sundays, and putting $13mm towards new bike lanes and sidewalks, while delaying basic maintenance of existing sidewalks, bike lanes and roads. Further, there is no plan that I have seen come out of the 7th floor to maintain all these new lanes and sidewalks.Should we increase parking rates to help with the budgetary problems at SDOT? Yes. I disagree with the hours and Sundays, and also think that, at the current time, we should be maintaining what we have, not letting it crumble further while building new things that need to be taken care of, but not providing any plan to take care of them. That’s all.

Monday at 9:28am ·

DG YES! Higher parking rates will benefit those of us who don’t drive and those of us who do by forcing us to make efficient and environmentally friendly transportation decisions and can increase economic development in neighborhood business districts

Monday at 10:51am ·

JW On the Mayor’s walk through the University District, the owner of Bulldog News suggested extending paid parking to 8 pm in order to increase availability of parking around his store. The reasoning is that those who park for free there after meter hours actually decrease the parking supply. Hence the suggestion to 8 pm.

Monday at 11:05am ·

NJG People should pay for leaving their vehicles on public streets. Period. The increased revenues should go to pedestrian improvements.

Monday at 11:18am ·

DWH I don’t own a car, so I’m looking at this in the abstract. I think the downtown retailers may be loathe to see what affect it has on their Sunday revenues.Beyond that, it seems like car owners expect the world to cater for them, at huge ex…pense. I wouldn’t mind seeing a slow-down in road repair and construction – these construction workers make like $30 an hour, and so should have a decent war chest set aside for a temporary lay-off, plus they’ll make more on unemployment that a downtown cashier makes working full time.

Monday at 12:05pm ·

KG To that end, tabs for bicycles.

Monday at 12:20pm ·

JW Who is using the parking? People outside Seattle drive in and spend money Seattle would not have without them. Depending on the area, this could hurt neighborhood businesses by decreased patronage, and the city by decreasing revenue from pe…ople outside Seattle.
All I am saying is that this is not a simple decision and its effects are unexamined FOR SEATTLE.
@MJM: I totally agree that this must go to street maintenance first. In the eyes of residents and visitors, maintained streets are a basic expectation that helps sustain their willingness to invest in projects like more bike lanes. Why would residents support improvements in the city if it cannot even fix its potholes? Nickels ignored these basic expectations during the snow, and politicians would ignore it do so at their peril.
What about the effect on the Mariners? You can argue that street parking is an indirect cost to the city. But will it increase gentrification of baseball fans at the game? Will a decrease in attendance not only impact Mariners fans, but increase resentment by many people outside Seattle feel?
@AB: Market pricing without thorough examination and discussion by the public is used as a justification, not a policy.

Monday at 1:45pm ·

JM Tabs for feet, too?

Monday at 3:48pm ·

KG I wonder how much money Seattle has used for bicyclists in the last 10 years compared to pedestrians?

Monday at 3:51pm ·

JM Very little on either. But walking and biking are both good for our physical and social health, good for our economy, and good for our environment. Thus they are modes of transportation we should subsidize. Driving hurts all those things, which is why we should stop subsidizing it so heavily.

Monday at 3:53pm ·

CL Love the idea of paying on Sundays and later in the evening in key areas, but increasing the rate to $4/hour keeps me driving to Renton or Southcenter (from SE Seattle) instead of downtown. The city might get an extra $3 out of me for 2 hours of parking, but lose $5 -10 in sales tax.

Monday at 3:54pm ·

KG I think it’s safe to say that Seattle spends quite a bit of coin for the needs of bikes compared to feet. Maybe the people who ride them (including me) can put their money where their treads are and cough up $50 per year to keep bike paths and roadways safe.

Monday at 3:57pm ·

JM So if you already don’t spend your money in Seattle, how would higher parking fees cost the city sales tax revenue from you?

Monday at 4:01pm ·

CL JM, my point is that I love going to downtown Seattle, like many people. But the cost of getting there is a huge disincentive, especially when so many other options exist for those that don’t live in the central core of the city. Not only are sales taxes less and parking free outside the city, most of the suburbs are safer. It all adds up. So I only go downtown to shop/recreate/celebrate a few times a year, instead of a few times a week.

Monday at 4:14pm ·

NJG You don’t need insurance to drive or to ride a bike for some very good reasons. You can’t kill anyone doing either (easily). We have tabs and we have insurance for cars because providing for them is very very expensive and they are the most dangerous thing out there. We spend a pittance on bike or pedestrian improvements, compared to for cars.

Monday at 11:08pm ·

Ah, the specter of washington’s sprawl and dead mall generating tax system finally rears it’s ugly head. Shop in the suburbs where parking is “free” ie subsidized by sales at the mall, and then the burbs can have the sales tax revenue funne…led back from the state. And to heck with Seattle and their budget woes and pot holes. That’s what market rate parking is. Pass on the cost to future generations by building unsustainable automobile dependent places and then waiting for the price of gas to hit 4.50 per gallon again. Seattle can’t really do anything about it, unless they encourage walkable, urban densities and create enough value so that they can internalize the cost of parking and not lose retail tax dollars.

In the meantime, they should lobby hard correct the market distortion caused by our state’s asinine tax revenue sharing system. The biggest city and cultural capitol of the state and barely a voice in the legislature.

13 hours ago ·

Starting the new year with way too many people on food stamps

Sally J. Clark — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:09:02 +0000

The New York Times Sunday edition carried this wake-up piece about the record high number of people using food stamps. The piece notes that the surge has happened under the radar which seems hard given the numbers cited in the article:

The public development authority model for coordination of action is interesting and works well for Pike Place Market and the International District. Each of the other PDA’s owns property, though, and that’s the bedrock of their reason for being. We need a central coordinating committee for Pioneer Square.

“About 6 million Americans receiving food stamps report they have no other income, according to an analysis of state data. In declarations that states verify and the federal government audits, these people described themselves as unemployed and receiving no cash aid: no welfare, no unemployment insurance, and no pensions, child support or disability pay. Their numbers were rising before the recession as tougher welfare laws made it harder for poor people to get cash aid, but they have soared by about 50 percent in the past two years. About one in 50 Americans lives in a household with a reported income that consists of nothing but a food-stamp card.”

One in 50 is an incredible statistic. The article states later that the number rises to 1 in 17 in Yakima County. Some of the rise in numbers is due to states like Washington getting smarter and more aggressive in signing people up for food stamp help. The numbers are over-whelming, though, and further drive home the difficulty of speedily “correcting” the economy. We need jobs so people can ditch food stamps, right? Seattle wants new, green jobs. Professional jobs, construction jobs, research jobs, manufacturing jobs. In order to create jobs, companies need to see demand for consumption of their product. Or do companies just need tax breaks?

“ ‘This is craziness,’ said Rep. John Linder, R-Ga., the ranking minority member of a House panel on welfare policy. ‘We’re at risk of creating an entire class of people, a subset of people, just comfortable getting by living off the government.’

He added: ‘You don’t improve the economy by paying people to sit around and not work. You improve the economy by lowering taxes’ so small businesses will create more jobs.”

Part of me believes Linder is correct in that national and state tax policy could use an overhaul, but lowering taxes has become an easy thing for national-level figures to espouse. Maybe we should lower local and state business taxes “so small businesses will create more jobs.” The problem is small businesses also need adequate garbage service, a dependable power supply, clean water, good sewers, buses and trains shuttling around their workers, responsive police and fire services, high quality schools producing skilled, smart workers, and a safety net that strives to take care of the people who can’t yet or never will be successfully employed or fully independent.

Even without lowering taxes we’ll be cutting city services further this year. Mayor McGinn’s announcement today of mayoral review of all new hires (essentially a hiring freeze), mayoral review of every amended or new contract, and trimming higher level staff numbers by 200 won’t get us to the point of needing less tax revenue, just a little closer to the balance point for current income.

So exactly what is the right mix of tax breaks and consumer confidence that will get more people jobs and fewer people needing food stamps?

“Saving” Pioneer Square

Sally J. Clark — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:07:57 +0000

This piece on Pioneer Square from Knute Berger last week in Crosscut may not have received many hits because we’re in the twilight of the year when many people are tuning out for a while, but it’s worth revisiting. I’ll be working a bit in 2010 on how to raise Pioneer Square’s stock as a great neighborhood. The City’s hired consultant, the esteemed historic business district expert Donovan Rypkema, has looked at Pioneer Square’s opportunities and disadvantages twice over the past decade and each time the message has been essentially the same — stop whining, things aren’t as bad as the hand-wringing would have you believe (his retail numbers are pleasantly shocking); we need to improve safety and the sense of safety; we need more workforce and market-rate housing in the square; and the square needs better coordination and decision-making by the players involved.

Berger jumps ahead slightly when he says I have a task force working on better incentives to make historic properties and their users successful. We’ll be launching the task force in the first part of 2010.

Boeing’s business decision

Sally J. Clark — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:04:20 +0000

It is incredibly disappointing to finally get the call we’ve been expecting: that Boeing has chosen to open the second 787 line in South Carolina. I know there must be appreciable technical reasons to open the second line in the Palmetto State, but it’s hard to not assume that $14 an hour and no union sealed the decision against opening the second line in Everett . The promised $170 million in grants in return for 3,800 jobs over seven years probably helped.

Puget Sound’s Boeing workers earn more (and, yes, deal with a higher cost of living) and bargain collectively with the company for wages and benefits. They’ve produced planes for decades and done it better than anywhere else. It’s been and will continue to be a great partnership, but I wish “the market” recognized good compensation. Instead, it seems like the South Carolina decision is yet another reflection that cheap labor trumps.

Budget talk

Sally J. Clark — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:14:23 +0000

Last night’s public hearing at Whitman Middle School (Crown Hill) on the proposed 2010 city budget was, for a budget hearing, sparsely attended. Maybe our outreach wasn’t what it could have been. Maybe people just know there’s no extra money to claim for their cause. In fact, among the pleas last night to restore cuts to library hours and human services advocacy groups, there was one speaker who asked the looming, critical question, “Are we cutting enough this year?” Specifically the speaker wondered how we’re going to fare in 2011 if we deplete the “rainy day fund” this year.

It’s the multi-multi-million dollar question and the basic answer is that we may not fare well. No one knows how quick the recession will come to an end in Seattle. Under the mayor’s proposal we’re taking $30 million of the $35 million reserve account to help plug the $72 million gap in the 2009 and 2010 General Fund budgets (the utilities and big bricks-and-mortar projects are separate from General Fund and usually happen with other, restricted money from ratepayers, the feds, the state or other funders). That means less of a piggy bank to hit next year when the gap could be $35 million.

Instead of looking to restore library hours or add to community center programming, should I instead be looking to lay off more than the approximately 150 people currently slated for layoffs? Some readers will say, “Hey, just cut that Mercer project or quit with the street cars.” Neither of those projects if cut would yield General Fund dollars.

If you come up with great ideas about where to cut from the budget bring them to one of the two upcoming public hearings on the proposed 2010 budget:

Wednesday, Oct. 14, 5:30 p.m.
NW African-American Museum
2300 S. Massachusetts
(Judkins neighborhood)

Monday, October 26, 5:30 p.m. (4:30 p.m. for call-in comments)
City Hall, City Council Chambers
600 Fourth Ave.
(Downtown)

A recent paper from the Pew Charitable Trusts examines how a few cities, including Seattle, are dealing with budget shortfalls through furloughs and drastic layoffs. The paper provides good context for how we’re doing relative to other cities. I’m always happy to be in Seattle. Even more so when I look at the budget numbers others are facing.