Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Streets for All Seattle: Less Talk, More Action

Launched on Monday, Streets for All Seattle is a campaign by dozens of Seattle nonprofits and organizations pushing the city to fully fund the (woefully underfunded) Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans and expand transit to make walking, biking, and transit the easiest means of transportation in the city.

I spoke with Craig Benjamin, Sierra Club Conservation Program Coordinator and spokesman for the campaign, about Streets for All Seattle’s plan, the availability of funding, and the feasibility of their goals.

How did Streets for All Seattle get started?

It came about from a number of people in the city who are really concerned that we are not aligning our infrastructure investments with the values of our citizens. And coming off last year, when the city council repealed the head tax [which paid for things like bike and pedestrian infrastructure], a lot of us were left scratching our heads that we had a council and a mayor—both in [former mayor Greg] Nickels and in [Mike] McGinn as mayor-elect—who supported the bike master plan and the pedestrian master plan and transit extension, yet we weren’t taking the actions necessary, or making the tough choices necessary, to actually make the investments to make that happen.

Right now we’ve got a bike master plan that’s seriously underfunded, and almost completely unfunded pedestrian master plan. Metro’s facing huge cuts, which is going to leave a lot of people stranded all over the city. A lot of us aren’t comfortable waiting another 30 years for another extension of light rail or real transit service in this city. So we decided that we needed to all get together and really get serious about funding bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure. So a group of us came together and started organizing and looking at what we could do this year to push both the council and the mayor to actually build the kind of transportation system our citizens want.

Your goal of transforming Seattle into a city that predominantly travels by walking, biking, and transit is no small task. What are your short-term and long-term plans for accomplishing that goal?

Just so you understand, this isn’t a one-year plan. This is a multi-year campaign. We’re planning to be working on this for at least two to four years. And really, what we want this year is for the council to raise $30 million in revenue. And there’s a number of ways they can do that.

We want to use this year to have a city-wide conversation about how we actually fund and build the infrastructure that aligns with our values. And we plan on doing that this year and talking to groups all over the city. Groups and organizations, especially, that haven’t been involved in your typical transportation conversation. If you look at the groups who’ve already endorsed this campaign, yeah, we’ve got the usual suspects, but we’ve also got United African Public Affairs Committee and El Centro De La Raza.

For people that don’t have a lot of money, cuts in Metro service hours and pedestrian infrastructure is incredibly important.

Where is that $30 million going to come from? Are you looking for new revenue sources, shifting money within the existing city budget, or both?

It could be a little bit of both. We know we can raise an additional $8 million a year in revenue with a $20 vehicle licensing fee. We know that we could increase a commercial parking tax and for every five percent increase, we could bring in an additional $10 million per year. Those are just two of many different things we could do.

But we don’t want to limit ourselves right now and say, “these are the revenue mechanisms we’re looking at right now that we want.” We want to have the conversation with council, with the mayor, with all of our partners and see what really works. How do we get there? Also, since this is a multi-year campaign, how do we work with our partners at the state level to expand the options that we have? The cities wants this. Why aren’t there other mechanisms that we can use to generate revenue to build the things we actually want?

We recognize fully that it’s a really tough budget time. When you start talking about reallocation of resources you have to be careful about what you’re reallocating it from. You have to think that through thoroughly. You don’t want to take money from human resources or really important things. But if we’re reallocating it from something that everyone agrees it should be reallocated from, then yeah, that’d be fantastic.

The city’s in its own budget crisis. It’s hard to imagine any programs that everyone would agree to cut.

I don’t have a good answer for you. Obviously, one of the reasons we’re pushing for new revenue is that we totally understand that we’re in a tight budget time and we don’t want to get into competition with things that are incredibly important. You don’t want to cut human services to pay for pedestrian and transportation improvements.

What does $30 million a year buy you?

It will help us kick things off and really allow us to start doing more good things. With $30 million in annual revenue you can double your bike and ped investment annually. Metro’s revenues are going to fall off a cliff. We can buy about 50,000 Metro service hours, which will help offset the cuts that we know are coming and hopefully help increase service a little bit. It allows us to do some strategically targeted transit improvements, like fixing the right of way for the First Hill streetcar and potentially helping to extend it. When you look out over 10 years that really starts to make a large difference. But it’s a first step.

Do you have the support of any elected officials?

We’ve started to speak with some council members. We know from their public statements and what they’ve said in discussions we’ve had that they support our visions and our goals. You can just look at our web site and see some of the quotes from council members about bikes, peds, and transit. We know Mayor McGinn supports our goals. He’s started talking about his “walk, bike, ride” initiative. We’re really excited to see where that goes and hear more details about it. We’re meeting on Friday with council members [Nick] Licata, Tom Rasmussen, and Richard Conlin. At the end of the day, our elected officials have said they’re with us, publicly. Now it’s time to step up and fund it.


  • Anc

    Interesting… This group seemed to come out of nowhere, so the more info the better. Good stuff Josh.

  • gidge

    Just because the group is relatively newly formed, doesn't mean that it's members came out of nowhere.

  • sgiffy

    I would really like a system to put micro-levies on the ballot for things like this, or a better idea for the Center than a Chihuly Gallery. Some way the voters can request a vote on public projects in an easier way than a full on initiative.

    I think if given the chance Seattlites would happily kick over 5 or 10 bucks for a neat playground at the Center, or the 60ish bucks a person it would take to fund the Master Plans.

  • Morning Fizzy

    $5 per foot would raise about $6 million!

    Let me tell you how it will be;
    There's one for you, nineteen for me.
    'Cause I�m the taxman,
    Yeah, I�m the taxman.

    Should five per cent appear too small,
    Be thankful I don't take it all.
    'Cause I�m the taxman,
    Yeah, I�m the taxman.

    (if you drive a car, car;) – I�ll tax the street;
    (if you try to sit, sit;) – I�ll tax your seat;
    (if you get too cold, cold;) – I�ll tax the heat;
    (if you take a walk, walk;) – I'll tax your feet.

  • J-Walker

    I think it is a time to build our city into modern and up to date place. I like the vision of street for all. It creates jobs, make people healthier, and more importantly makes our transportaion system better. Good job Guys.

  • Thomas

    This is a great idea.

  • Ryan C

    Is this the beginning of the next Forward Thrust movement? I hope so. We need another Jim Ellis.

    http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPag…

  • Anc

    Members, no of course not. Organization and funding… yeah, not really a lot out there on that at the moment.

    Don't get me wrong, I can't think of a single thing they've said that I disagree with, but the cynic in me likes to know who is the man behind the curtain.

  • Morning Fizzy

    Jim Ellis, great as he was, had a secondary interest in that he was a bond attorney. His firm made out on the projects. He suceeded in cleaning the lake and some other important issues, but not transit issues.

    What might be of greater interest is that forward thrust was done during a local deep recession. The property taxes in those days required 60% yes votes because they were for bonds.

  • http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com Joe Brewer

    As someone who has been working to help launch this campaign, I can say with certainty that there is no “man behind the curtain”. This thing is grassroots all the way. It's leadership is a coalition of grassroots organizations. It's agenda arose out of neighborhood conversations at coffee shops, pubs, and community councils over the years.

    This is a sign of changing times. Citizens are getting organized and pushing for what we've repeatedly shown that we want.

    The more important question is Will you join us?

  • Mohamed Ali

    This is the coolest idea i heard for many years. It is the best investment we can put into our city. I would like to thank to the people who are working on this project. It resonates well with the people of Seattle, and i have no doubt in my mind that majority of the citizen of Seattle will support this project.

  • Lee Chan

    I saw the website, it looks very well design. This issue is one that will unite all of us who cares our beloved city of Seattle. I am with you folks

  • Ryan C

    He succeeded in a little more than cleaning up Lake Washington.

    Proposition 1: Youth Service Center ($6.1 million)
    Yes — 174,749 (72.4%)
    No — 66,594

    Proposition 2: Multipurpose Stadium King Dome ($40 million)
    Yes — 151,489 (62.3%)
    No — 91,499

    Proposition 3: Community Centers ($26.2 million)
    Yes — 136,804 (58.7%)
    No — 96,129

    Proposition 4: Arterial Highways ($81.6 million)
    Yes — 147,379 (62.2%)
    No — 89,489

    Proposition 5: Storm Water Drainage ($68 million)
    Yes — 139,254 (59.3%)
    No — 95,373

    Proposition 6: Parks & Recreation (with Aquarium, $118 million)
    Yes –157,323 (64.7%)
    No — 85,790

    Proposition 1: Neighborhood Improvements ($12 million)
    Yes — 74,915 (60.8%)
    No — 48,259

    Proposition 2: Sewer Bonds ($70 million)
    Yes — 74,852 (62.6%)
    No — 44,596

    Proposition 3: Low Income Housing ($3 million)
    Yes — 69,089 (57.9%)
    No — 50,057

    Proposition 4: Fire Protection ($6.2 million)
    Yes — 82,867 (69.8%)
    No — 35,758

    Proposition 5: Maintenance Shops ($3 million)
    Yes — 66,061 (57.6%)
    No — 48,555