It Sounds Like a Lovely Bit of Compromise, But…

The whole density issue is one that bears much further discussion.

In my experience, going back to the 1970′s, neighborhoods are willing to accept a whole lot more in the way of density, if, and it’s as big IF, they can be allowed to plan for it themselves — neighborhood-driven neighborhood planning.

The problem with the bill in Olympia was that it was developed behind closed doors, with no neighborhood engagement at all. The people behind it had no grasp of coalition-building or community outreach.

The bill had all the trappings of classic top-down, do-it-our-way planning that’s been our curse for decades. No wonder it generated so much opposition, even from neighborhood people who embrace the concept of more density, especially around rail transit facilities.

Yes, let’s have a good discussion during this campaign, and recognize that it’s inevitably a nuanced discussion. Let’s not let superficial pundits just break it into two camps.

The whole density issue is one that bears much further discussion.

In my experience, going back to the 1970′s, neighborhoods are willing to accept a whole lot more in the way of density, if, and it’s as big IF, they can be allowed to plan for it themselves — neighborhood-driven neighborhood planning.

The problem with the bill in Olympia was that it was developed behind closed doors, with no neighborhood engagement at all. The people behind it had no grasp of coalition-building or community outreach.

The bill had all the trappings of classic top-down, do-it-our-way planning that’s been our curse for decades. No wonder it generated so much opposition, even from neighborhood people who embrace the concept of more density, especially around rail transit facilities.

Yes, let’s have a good discussion during this campaign, and recognize that it’s inevitably a nuanced discussion. Let’s not let superficial pundits just break it into two camps.

I think your distinction between the 2 camps has some appeal, but you’re neglecting to account for the intimate involvement of the Washington Low-Income Housing Alliance in *support* of the transit-oriented development bill. You’re also neglecting to account for the fact that John Fox has clearly gone off his rocker in the past 5 years or so (taking the Displacement Coalition with him), and now blatantly concocts “statistics” off the top of head and then uses those figures to make-up longwinded arguments that collapse upon a slightly rigorous inspection.

I think your distinction between the 2 camps has some appeal, but you’re neglecting to account for the intimate involvement of the Washington Low-Income Housing Alliance in *support* of the transit-oriented development bill. You’re also neglecting to account for the fact that John Fox has clearly gone off his rocker in the past 5 years or so (taking the Displacement Coalition with him), and now blatantly concocts “statistics” off the top of head and then uses those figures to make-up longwinded arguments that collapse upon a slightly rigorous inspection.

“This battle is now taking center stage in Olympia (between two groups whose names fit the stereotyped factions with near-comic genius , Futurewise vs. The Seattle Displacement Coalition.)”

Sandeep’s boss has gotta like that!

Yes, I know, publicola has addressed the issue of one of it’s two founders working for Mayor Nickels. No conflict of interest here. Trust us! We used to work for Seattle’s only newspaper The Stranger.

From The Stranger article:

There’s also a breaking down of traditional barriers at PubliCola. While Kaushik blogs about politics and media for the site, he makes his money as a political consultant, with clients including Mayor Greg Nickels and King County executive candidate Dow Constantine. “It’s an unusual arrangement, but not all that complicated,” he said. “I don’t write about anything that I’m involved with.”

Imagine what opinion Josh would be expressing if some guy running for office against, say, Mayor Nickels, had an obvious fucking glaring conflict of interest, and said don’t worry I own half the business, but I don’t have anything to do with…

From The Stranger article:

There’s also a breaking down of traditional barriers at PubliCola. While Kaushik blogs about politics and media for the site, he makes his money as a political consultant, with clients including Mayor Greg Nickels and King County executive candidate Dow Constantine. “It’s an unusual arrangement, but not all that complicated,” he said. “I don’t write about anything that I’m involved with.”

Imagine what opinion Josh would be expressing if some guy running for office against, say, Mayor Nickels, had an obvious fucking glaring conflict of interest, and said don’t worry I own half the business, but I don’t have anything to do with…

Oh, and when Constantine runs for County exec, I am sure that Sandeep will excuse himself from influencing any discussion of that race here at Publicola. Why am I so sure? Because you guys have assured me. And you once worked for Seattle’s only newspaper The Stranger. You can’t have a better resume than that.

Eating assholes to reviewing restaurants names Zoe. A_Z every issue was covered at The Stranger under Josh’s fine editing leadership.

Oh, and when Constantine runs for County exec, I am sure that Sandeep will excuse himself from influencing any discussion of that race here at Publicola. Why am I so sure? Because you guys have assured me. And you once worked for Seattle’s only newspaper The Stranger. You can’t have a better resume than that.

Eating assholes to reviewing restaurants names Zoe. A_Z every issue was covered at The Stranger under Josh’s fine editing leadership.

John Fox has clearly gone off his rocker in the past 5 years or so (taking the Displacement Coalition with him), and now blatantly concocts “statistics” off the top of head and then uses those figures to make-up longwinded arguments that collapse upon a slightly rigorous inspection.

Yes! yes Fat-tailed that awful John Fox is a crazy man! Just concocting statistics and kicking dogs and cats. Just flat ass crazy. Now over at the Mayor’s office, for instance, everything is scrupulously honest with statistics and forthcoming about goals and always working for the interests of the taxpaying citizens of Seattle. Why just the other day I was walking near Lake Union when dollar bills began to trickle down on to my head. Oh, than you Paul Allen I said. Thank you Mayor Nickels. Thank you Jan Drago. And then I bought a cup of coffee. Drip-no room!

John Fox has clearly gone off his rocker in the past 5 years or so (taking the Displacement Coalition with him), and now blatantly concocts “statistics” off the top of head and then uses those figures to make-up longwinded arguments that collapse upon a slightly rigorous inspection.

Yes! yes Fat-tailed that awful John Fox is a crazy man! Just concocting statistics and kicking dogs and cats. Just flat ass crazy. Now over at the Mayor’s office, for instance, everything is scrupulously honest with statistics and forthcoming about goals and always working for the interests of the taxpaying citizens of Seattle. Why just the other day I was walking near Lake Union when dollar bills began to trickle down on to my head. Oh, than you Paul Allen I said. Thank you Mayor Nickels. Thank you Jan Drago. And then I bought a cup of coffee. Drip-no room!

In 2002:

The ACLU of Washington board of directors has awarded the William O. Douglas Award to Seattle lawyer John Fox. It is the organization’s highest honor. Mr. Fox was honored for 25 years of working to advance the rights of tenants, the homeless and street youth.

http://www.wsba.org/media/publications/barnews/archives/2002/feb-02-venues.htm

In 2002:

The ACLU of Washington board of directors has awarded the William O. Douglas Award to Seattle lawyer John Fox. It is the organization’s highest honor. Mr. Fox was honored for 25 years of working to advance the rights of tenants, the homeless and street youth.

http://www.wsba.org/media/publications/barnews/archives/2002/feb-02-venues.htm

Hmmmmmm? Now why would a guy/gal named fat-tailed come to a blog owned in part by a spokesman for the Mayor and denigrate an opponent of the Mayor’s agenda?

Gawdddd. I’m cynical. See that’s what happens in a town where whn a multi-billionaire trickles a few dollars on a taxpayer’s head and the taxpayer uses the money to buy a cup of drip coffee he/she pays a tax on that coffee to subsidize a multi-million dollar Mariner’s stadium that was built against the expressed will of the voters but with the support of Seattle’s current Mayor-employer of Sandeep. Perhaps the Buddhists are right. Life is a big circle.

Well that’s enough riffing for today. i just stopped by after reading that piece in the Stranger. Ya got credibility problems publicola. This trust us, we’re not in the Mayor’s pocket, shit ain’t gonna work.

Hmmmmmm? Now why would a guy/gal named fat-tailed come to a blog owned in part by a spokesman for the Mayor and denigrate an opponent of the Mayor’s agenda?

Gawdddd. I’m cynical. See that’s what happens in a town where whn a multi-billionaire trickles a few dollars on a taxpayer’s head and the taxpayer uses the money to buy a cup of drip coffee he/she pays a tax on that coffee to subsidize a multi-million dollar Mariner’s stadium that was built against the expressed will of the voters but with the support of Seattle’s current Mayor-employer of Sandeep. Perhaps the Buddhists are right. Life is a big circle.

Well that’s enough riffing for today. i just stopped by after reading that piece in the Stranger. Ya got credibility problems publicola. This trust us, we’re not in the Mayor’s pocket, shit ain’t gonna work.

Thanks for sharing all of your ideas with us, Mr. Conflict-of.

Thanks for sharing all of your ideas with us, Mr. Conflict-of.

I stand by the claim: John Fox hasn’t made a sensible argument in years. (Maybe the 2002 award marked the end?) He stands against everything, for not much of anything but single-family zoning. He seems to be buried in nostalgia for some kind of past or other.

And think he doesn’t make up statistics? Try and wade through his aggressively silly claims on the transit-oriented development bill.

John Fox and Mayor Nickels deserve each other. Hopefully they’ll both go away.

I stand by the claim: John Fox hasn’t made a sensible argument in years. (Maybe the 2002 award marked the end?) He stands against everything, for not much of anything but single-family zoning. He seems to be buried in nostalgia for some kind of past or other.

And think he doesn’t make up statistics? Try and wade through his aggressively silly claims on the transit-oriented development bill.

John Fox and Mayor Nickels deserve each other. Hopefully they’ll both go away.

Josh: nice post. I analyze the candidates on this question as well. The clear urbanists are McGinn, O’Brien, and Rosencrantz. The clear populist is Bloom; how about Miller? Where is Royer? Bagshaw will be middle of the road. You also posted about Steinbrueck in this regard and dual endorsements between Bloom and Bagshaw. To be fair, both are appealing and were the endorsements made when the seats were known? Also, Steinbrueck is evolving on this issue; in the 1980s, he led the CAP inititiative. More recently, he led the Council to amend and accept a repeal of it and allow tall skinny buildings downtown.

Josh: nice post. I analyze the candidates on this question as well. The clear urbanists are McGinn, O’Brien, and Rosencrantz. The clear populist is Bloom; how about Miller? Where is Royer? Bagshaw will be middle of the road. You also posted about Steinbrueck in this regard and dual endorsements between Bloom and Bagshaw. To be fair, both are appealing and were the endorsements made when the seats were known? Also, Steinbrueck is evolving on this issue; in the 1980s, he led the CAP inititiative. More recently, he led the Council to amend and accept a repeal of it and allow tall skinny buildings downtown.

Josh your pro vs anti density analysis– which parses Seattle politics into two distinct camps– has always struck me as overly simplistic, especially since it usually avoids words like “displacement” and “gentrification.”

It’s the question of preserving affordability and equal access to city resources that people in Seattle are split on. All agree that we need to preserve affordable housing and that city services need to do more than cater to big developers. But no one agrees on what that means.

The class elements of this debate have been submerged in various interest group politics, most of which avoid radical critiques of business for fear of alienating city voters (ie conservative homeowners), politicians in control of government money, and developers that provide jobs to many city politicos in one way or another.

Developers and landlords and their lawyers/ lobbyists are well organized and tend toward corporate liberal/ fiscal Republicans.

Human services and affordable housing advocates pretty well organized and tend to aspire to promote redistributive programs, but few radical demands come from the majority of these groups because of their dependence upon government money, their non-profit status, and the role of developers in the affordable housing community.

Environmental/ transit groups pretty well organized, but while making some alliances with labor unions also tend to prioritize “green building” and “green design”– again allying with a certain kind of architect/ developer community– over preserving affordability. In some cases “sustainability” rhetoric has been absolutely key to legitimizing developer power in this city that refuses to deal directly with economic inequality and class disparity.

As a result, most Seattle politicians are bland corporate liberals who don’t challenge the status quo (developer power). Nick Licata and Judy Nicastro have been notable exceptions, but their isolation proves the rule. David is positioning himself to be another left-populist rather than liberal faux-populist.

I agree, though, that the “neighborhoods vs downtown” message for that populism made more sense from a left perspective when Seattle had far fewer millionaires than they have now. It’s renters, students, youth, seniors, middle class and lower middle class homeowners who are being screwed by Seattle’s corporate welfare, and who are threatened with displacement no matter what neighborhood they live in.

Josh your pro vs anti density analysis– which parses Seattle politics into two distinct camps– has always struck me as overly simplistic, especially since it usually avoids words like “displacement” and “gentrification.”

It’s the question of preserving affordability and equal access to city resources that people in Seattle are split on. All agree that we need to preserve affordable housing and that city services need to do more than cater to big developers. But no one agrees on what that means.

The class elements of this debate have been submerged in various interest group politics, most of which avoid radical critiques of business for fear of alienating city voters (ie conservative homeowners), politicians in control of government money, and developers that provide jobs to many city politicos in one way or another.

Developers and landlords and their lawyers/ lobbyists are well organized and tend toward corporate liberal/ fiscal Republicans.

Human services and affordable housing advocates pretty well organized and tend to aspire to promote redistributive programs, but few radical demands come from the majority of these groups because of their dependence upon government money, their non-profit status, and the role of developers in the affordable housing community.

Environmental/ transit groups pretty well organized, but while making some alliances with labor unions also tend to prioritize “green building” and “green design”– again allying with a certain kind of architect/ developer community– over preserving affordability. In some cases “sustainability” rhetoric has been absolutely key to legitimizing developer power in this city that refuses to deal directly with economic inequality and class disparity.

As a result, most Seattle politicians are bland corporate liberals who don’t challenge the status quo (developer power). Nick Licata and Judy Nicastro have been notable exceptions, but their isolation proves the rule. David is positioning himself to be another left-populist rather than liberal faux-populist.

I agree, though, that the “neighborhoods vs downtown” message for that populism made more sense from a left perspective when Seattle had far fewer millionaires than they have now. It’s renters, students, youth, seniors, middle class and lower middle class homeowners who are being screwed by Seattle’s corporate welfare, and who are threatened with displacement no matter what neighborhood they live in.

Should also note: organized labor could have more power in Seattle politics if it actually endorsed candidates on their platform instead of endorsing corporate liberals they think are going to win with the hope that labor unions might have some kind of political “access” down the road. That strategy has largely failed at the national, state, and local level.

Should also note: organized labor could have more power in Seattle politics if it actually endorsed candidates on their platform instead of endorsing corporate liberals they think are going to win with the hope that labor unions might have some kind of political “access” down the road. That strategy has largely failed at the national, state, and local level.

Trevor and ’40-year’ got it right (as does ‘What’, sadly for this blog).

Soundly-expensive transit is supported by big developers and money interests – the money that keeps the mayor plumped up at the top of the power heap – along with the go-along Councilors like Drago. Overly big buildings – 65′ and bigger – like Sound Transit and deep bore tunnels – are big dollar business, like the military industrial complex. You’ll see labor on that tit as well. Mega-projects and up-zones. That’s what we’re about now. Just call it green and sustainable and the masses (or naive) will blindly fall in line.

That’s the one pole.

Problem is, that path isn’t as sustainable as it is profitable. And as pointed out, it also leads to gentrification and displacement (that’s the Fox link).

On the other pole are folks that want density delivered more sanely – and transit as well (say buses, not street cars). Those “NIMBYs” in the ‘hoods believe in strong, healthy walkable neighborhoods (yes, dense ones), finding ways to reduce car dependence, and to live more sustainably. But for crissakes, just deliver the density and transit more equitably and rationally. Unfortunately, for the big bucks developer world, that’s not as much fun.

As pointed out, density is welcomed by the ‘urban village’ neighborhoods, but they just want a fair crack at defining HOW that happens. Not the ‘suck on this’ approach pushed by Nickels et al – as we are seeing with the south end neighborhood planning process.

Try lining up the top-tier Council candidates that way. Then try the Mayor’s race and see why so many are depressed and await a white knight.

Trevor and ’40-year’ got it right (as does ‘What’, sadly for this blog).

Soundly-expensive transit is supported by big developers and money interests – the money that keeps the mayor plumped up at the top of the power heap – along with the go-along Councilors like Drago. Overly big buildings – 65′ and bigger – like Sound Transit and deep bore tunnels – are big dollar business, like the military industrial complex. You’ll see labor on that tit as well. Mega-projects and up-zones. That’s what we’re about now. Just call it green and sustainable and the masses (or naive) will blindly fall in line.

That’s the one pole.

Problem is, that path isn’t as sustainable as it is profitable. And as pointed out, it also leads to gentrification and displacement (that’s the Fox link).

On the other pole are folks that want density delivered more sanely – and transit as well (say buses, not street cars). Those “NIMBYs” in the ‘hoods believe in strong, healthy walkable neighborhoods (yes, dense ones), finding ways to reduce car dependence, and to live more sustainably. But for crissakes, just deliver the density and transit more equitably and rationally. Unfortunately, for the big bucks developer world, that’s not as much fun.

As pointed out, density is welcomed by the ‘urban village’ neighborhoods, but they just want a fair crack at defining HOW that happens. Not the ‘suck on this’ approach pushed by Nickels et al – as we are seeing with the south end neighborhood planning process.

Try lining up the top-tier Council candidates that way. Then try the Mayor’s race and see why so many are depressed and await a white knight.

The problem with the TOD bill that was getting pushed in the last Legislative session was not the goals – it was the incredibly poor way in which the folks pushing it treated an issue of great local concern as something they could implement in Olympia from the top down.

Even my mostly single-family Central District neighborhood isn’t opposed to density – but our bus lines are packed to overflowing for large parts of the day, and the only additional transit we’ll get in the foreseeable future is more service on the 8 when LINK opens.

The other problem I continue to see, when comparing Seattle to someplace like, say, Vancouver, is that density brought amenities – not just bars and restaurants, but parks and open space as well. Seattle still doesn’t have a planning process, as far as I can tell, that tries to connect priorities for public investment with the neighborhoods we expect to see grow. I can’t really count South Lake Union given the current power structure, which is so Vulcan-dominated that pretty much whatever they want they get.

The problem with the TOD bill that was getting pushed in the last Legislative session was not the goals – it was the incredibly poor way in which the folks pushing it treated an issue of great local concern as something they could implement in Olympia from the top down.

Even my mostly single-family Central District neighborhood isn’t opposed to density – but our bus lines are packed to overflowing for large parts of the day, and the only additional transit we’ll get in the foreseeable future is more service on the 8 when LINK opens.

The other problem I continue to see, when comparing Seattle to someplace like, say, Vancouver, is that density brought amenities – not just bars and restaurants, but parks and open space as well. Seattle still doesn’t have a planning process, as far as I can tell, that tries to connect priorities for public investment with the neighborhoods we expect to see grow. I can’t really count South Lake Union given the current power structure, which is so Vulcan-dominated that pretty much whatever they want they get.

I can’t really count South Lake Union given the current power structure, which is so Vulcan-dominated that pretty much whatever they want they get.

And what they got. And we got! Is a soul-less sterile yuppie environment that would fit right into downtown Bellevue. Yuck! I wouldn’t live there for half the rent I pay in my working stiff neighborhood.

I can’t really count South Lake Union given the current power structure, which is so Vulcan-dominated that pretty much whatever they want they get.

And what they got. And we got! Is a soul-less sterile yuppie environment that would fit right into downtown Bellevue. Yuck! I wouldn’t live there for half the rent I pay in my working stiff neighborhood.

“This battle is now taking center stage in Olympia (between two groups whose names fit the stereotyped factions with near-comic genius , Futurewise vs. The Seattle Displacement Coalition.)”

Sandeep's boss has gotta like that!

Yes, I know, publicola has addressed the issue of one of it's two founders working for Mayor Nickels. No conflict of interest here. Trust us! We used to work for Seattle's only newspaper The Stranger.