Tag: election 2015

City Council, Elections

A Last-Minute Challenge to Banks Endorsement in the 37th

The upheaval in the 37th District Democrats about the group’s endorsement process, which led to a narrow vote to endorse District 3 candidate Pamela Banks over council incumbent Kshama Sawant, in part, because Sawant is not a Democrat, continues to reverberate.

Late last week, Erin Schultz, who works for Banks’ consultant Christian Sinderman, sent out an “open letter from members of the 37th District Democrats” expressing concern about some members’ efforts “to disqualify the endorsement votes of some of our East African members based on who they supported for City Council. As Democrats, we are passionate about the right to vote, and we condemn any move to silence our members.”

Currently, the district’s rules say that a member must live in the district and must have been a dues-paying member for 25 days prior to a vote. Due to confusion over some new members, a few members may have voted who weren’t eligible, according to a statement district chair Rory O’Sullivan posted to the group’s website. According to two 37th District Democrats members, Banks needed at least 73 votes to win the endorsement, and received exactly that number.

Without the ineligible members, it’s possible that Banks wouldn’t have received the Dems’ nod. (The win would have then gone to “no endorsement,” the de facto Sawant endorsement). Banks finished far behind Sawant in the September primary, and has raised far less than the Socialist going into the general, making endorsements from groups like the Democrats more important than they might be for a candidate with a comfortable lead.

Commenting on my original Facebook post about this, a Democrat who was present at the meeting said she couldn’t remember any instance in this past where members sought to challenge people’s eligibility to vote on endorsements after the fact.

A couple of other random election-related notes:

District 5 candidate Sandy Brown, who came in far behind Debora Juarez in the primary election, is accusing Juarez of avoiding campaign forums where she’d have to appear with him. Late last month, Brown posted a series of tweets with hashtags like #whereisjuarez and #emptychair (sorry, Sandy, that one’s kinda already taken), such as this one, on September 23: “How do we debate N Seattle issues if 1/2 candidates won’t appear?” 

Asked about her absences (apparently, Juarez missed three appearances in September, but her campaign said she had attended “at least 23” by the time Brown wrote his tweets), Juarez’s campaign manager Tyler Emsky said, “Debora was out of town (on a short family trip) for the Sept. 3rd Haller Lake Community Club forum.  She also was not able to attend a small neighborhood block party on September 13th due to an unavoidable last minute personal situation. …We have also declined the invitation of the group putting on the Oct. 1st candidate forum at Ingraham High School. This was very tough for us to do, but we had little choice. We received information from multiple sources that a few members of the group had succeeded in setting up the debate to be highly impartial.” Three of people reportedly organizing that forum are Brown contributors.

The meeting Emsky was referring to was ultimately turned into a meet-and-greet for Brown’s campaign.

Speaking of campaign contributions, Vulcan, along with the SEIU 775 health care workers’ union, is holding a fundraiser on October 12 for Position 8 candidate Tim Burgess and Position 9 candidate Lorena Gonzalez, at SEIU headquarters downtown.

 

City Council, Elections

The C Is for Crank Interviews: Sandy Brown

Now that the primary-election field of 47 has been narrowed to a comparatively manageable 18, I’m sitting down with all the council candidates to talk about what they’ve learned so far, their campaign plans going forward, and their views on the issues that will shape the election, including density, “neighborhood character,” crime, parking, police accountability, and diversity. I’ll be rolling out all 17 of my interviews (Kshama Sawant was the only candidate who declined to sit down with me) over the next few weeks.

If you want to help me continue to do interviews like this one, plus on-the-ground reporting, deep dives on issues like affordability and transportation, breaking news, and incisive analysis, please consider becoming a sustaining supporter by pledging a few bucks at Patreon. This work costs money and (lots of) time, so I really appreciate every bit of support I receive from my readers.

Today’s interview is with Sandy Brown, a gun safety advocate and former Church Council leader who’s running in North Seattle’s District 5.

sandy-brown-v2The C Is for Crank [ECB]: You finished far behind your opponent, Debora Juarez, which must have come as a surprise given that many initially considered you the frontrunner in this eight-way race. What was your reaction to the lopsided [39.25-19.88] results, and do you think you have a path to victory?

Sandy Brown: I was surprised, a little, but when I think it through, it it’s not a surprise at all. The District 5 race has had more independent expenditures than any other race. [Most of that was a big spend by the Realtors on behalf of fourth-place finisher Kris Lethin; full IE details available at the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission]. The final three weeks were a shower of direct mail and robopolls directed at folks in the district—three from Deborah, one from the independent expenditure campaigns. [Third-place finisher] Halei [Watkins] did four flyers, including one from Planned Parenthood. Kris had three flyers from the Realtors, plus in-person calls. Mercedes [Elizalde, who finished fifth] was doing doorbelling. And we lost the Times and the Stranger endorsements [to Juarez].

In contrast, we had three measly direct mail pieces and no calls, robo or otherwise. What saved us was, we had 26,000 attempts [to reach voters at the door] and 18,000 actual doors. That’s really big. We got those votes by knocking on doors. So those are relationships which will help us in the general. In this new plan, we have to focus less on the resume and more on the issues.

ECB: What issues do you think most differentiate you from your opponent?

SB: I think the election for District 5 has not been about issues. We have yet to see Debora take a stand that defines her positions in this race. We have watched Debora work to make it a really broad race. She’s opposed to taking stands on issues. The one stand she has taken is in favor of federal funding for the Northgate bike-pedestrian bridge. The problem is that we’ve already got that funded. The money’s in the bank.

We do have Debora on the record saying she opposes labor organizing in the casinos and hotels. We have her on the record opposing the activities around Shell Oil. She said to the Times endorsement board—because as you have noted, the Times is only interested in Terminal 5—that she opposed the [protests] down there.

Debora is an unknown quantity and didn’t have a grasp on the issues. Only 24 percent of her money is from inside Seattle. Her largest contributors are Native American tribes. Seventy-five percent of my money is from inside Seattle. I’ve been working here for many years and my record is here. I have a longstanding record on progressive issues–homelessness, gun violence, marriage equality.

The question is to look at is, does Debora have a track record in the city of Seattle? 

ECB: You’ve been somewhat critical of the mayor’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda committee’s recommendations to build affordable housing in Seattle, saying you thought the committee should have gone further. Can you elaborate your thoughts on HALA?

SB: The issues are more complicated than just [removing] single-family [areas from consideration for other uses, such as duplexes.] The issue of a ten-minute walkshed–what does that mean? [HALA recommended upzoning the six percent of single-family land that’s within a 10-minute walk to frequent transit service to allow low-rise apartments]. I know people who’ve been timing themselves to see if they’re 10 minutes from Lake City way to find out if they’re going to get upzoned. People need to know those kind of things. The sooner we can get to specifics, the better.

One of the things with backyard cottages and mother-in law apartments is that they’re great things to have in single-family areas, but they’re already legal. The question is, what’s the best way to incentivize more of it to get to the same goal [as allowing duplexes and triplexes] without the [single-family] changes? I like them to be owner-occupied, because the financial incentive goes to the homeowner, not a developer. [HALA recommends eliminating the requirement that all primary units that have an accessory dwelling be owner-occupied].

The heart of HALA was the compromise on the linkage fee to get the business community on board. [The HALA committee dropped a residential linkage fee imposed on new housing developments and proposed a commercial linkage fee]. The next step is the feasibility question. Developers said, if you set the linkage fee too high, it would lead to a lawsuit.

ECB: Do you oppose the HALA proposal to upzone 6 percent of single-family to low-density multifamily?

SB: I haven’t involved myself in the politics of that. I think it needs to be neighborhood by neighborhood. In Broadview or on 12th Ave Northwest, if there is additional housing, the challenge is that those people are going to need a car, because the nearest bus stop is 14 blocks away on Greenwood.

If there’s going to be additional density, it should be done neighborhood by neighborhood, based on what infrastructure is there. Shouldn’t there be parks? Shouldn’t there be amenities?

What we do–introducing density where there aren’t schools and parks–it’s a quality of life issue. Let’s go neighborhood by neighborhood. It’s always generalities, and it shouldn’t be. I believe there are some northwest and northeast neighborhoods that are not good candidates. I think we could see a little more density around Maple Leaf, Roosevelt and 15th, and Lake City Way at 125th. That’s a prime candidate for more density. The community has a plan, and it’s a really good plan, it just needs more [transit-oriented development]. There’s a whole plan to make Lake City not just more dense but also a better community.

Let’s bring density here, but we should be coordinating density with what the infrastructure is in the neighborhoods. Why would we want to be putting density where we don’t have schools or parks or bus service? How do we get more density if we don’t have the infrastructure? It’s going to increase the number of cars on the road.

The second concern I have that I don’t hear very much about is that there are really no new answers in the HALA plan for housing for people making from zero to 30 percent of median income. I didn’t see any big new investments. If HALA don’t [provide housing for] zero to 30 then we haven’t move the dime on homelessness. My plan is for a $5 million increase in the general fund for shelter. We need a reorientation of our priorities.

It’s very complicated to build and finance very low-income housing. On Aurora, we have a ton of old motels. If we used housing levy money, we could activate those places that are dormant and turn them into more positive things. We need 2,000 more shelter beds. I haven’t checked the number of rooms in those motels, but I bet there are hundreds.

ECB: What do you think of the committee’s recommendation to eliminate or parking minimums for some new construction?

SB: People worry about parking minimums. I hear it a lot up in Broadview. I hear people complain up on Palatine and First Avenue–there are all those new apartments and people are parking on First and Palatine. They’re saying the same thing about Greenwood.

In my opinion, the key objective is to get people out of their cars. We’re not going to be able to build more streets, and it’s ecologically catastrophic to continue the way we are. So we’ve got to have more transit so people can live here without having to be so car-centric. But there are people who ask, how can I do that if we don’t have a way to get around without our cars?

ECB: I hear a lot about violent crime in the south end and property crime in the north. How big an issue is crime in your district, and what kinds of crimes are you most concerned about?

SB: The last quarterly report showed a spike in violent crimes in the North Precinct, but what the north precinct is known for is property crime. It’s the capital of Seattle car prowls and lost packages. 

I used to live two blocks away from an encampment of people that included individuals openly using and selling drugs and people openly carrying baseball bats to protect their turf. The neighbors called SPD continually for three weeks, and the answer was always, we’re understaffed, it’s not a high priority, or we have to see the behavior occur in front of our eyes to do anything about it. That doesn’t answer neighbors’ concerns.

I have extensive background experience in homelessness. I worked to advocate for tent cities. I’ve taken out-there stands on behalf of homeless people. And I was shocked at what I saw, because there was a level of disorder that I had not seen in any neighborhood.

People within a block or two of Aurora experience the area as a high-crime neighborhood. I’m not sure that all they perceive is real, but that’s how they perceive it. So they’re asking, how can we get SPD to work for us, to do something that will help their neighborhood? They want to feel like they have a safe neighborhood.

Previously:

Shannon Braddock, District 1

Lisa Herbold, District 1

Bruce Harrell, District 2

Tammy Morales, District 2

Michael Maddux, District 4

Rob Johnson, District 4

Mike O’Brien, District 6

Catherine Weatbrook, District 6

Deborah Zech-Artis, District 7

Sally Bagshaw, District 7

Tim Burgess, Position 8

Jon Grant, Position 8

Lorena Gonzalez, Position 9

Bill Bradburd, Position 9

City Council, Elections

The C Is for Crank Interviews: Lisa Herbold

Now that the primary-election field of 47 has been narrowed to a comparatively manageable 18, I’m sitting down with all the council candidates to talk about what they’ve learned so far, their campaign plans going forward, and their views on the issues that will shape the election, including density, “neighborhood character,” crime, parking, police accountability, and diversity. I’ll be rolling out all 17 of my interviews (Kshama Sawant was the only candidate who declined to sit down with me) over the next few weeks.

If you want to help me continue to do interviews like this one, plus on-the-ground reporting, deep dives on issues like affordability and transportation, breaking news, and incisive analysis, please consider becoming a sustaining supporter by pledging a few bucks at Patreon. This work costs money and (lots of) time, so I really appreciate every bit of support I receive from my readers.

Today’s conversation is with District 1 candidate Lisa Herbold. As I noted in my interview with her opponent, Shannon Braddock, Lisa is a longtime personal friend  and I’m supporting her campaign. In spite of our friendship, I tend to personally disagree with Lisa (and her boss of 17 years, Nick Licata) on a lot of issues, such as the proposed residential linkage fee for affordable housing and one-for-one replacement of existing affordable units. Overall, I think those two factors balance out. In any case, I made every effort not to allow personal friendship to influence the questions I asked either Braddock or Herbold.  Braddock and I spoke in person; in the interest of keeping my interview with Herbold as impersonal as possible, I submitted questions by email to her campaign. These are her answers, edited for length and style.

lisa-herboldThe C Is for Crank [ECB]: Given your long association with Council Member Licata, a lot of people seem to think you’re going to be Nick 2.0 on the council. Tell me a couple of policy areas where you differ from your boss. Are there any specific votes he has taken that you’ve advised him against or on which you would have voted differently?

Lisa Herbold [LH]: Council Member Licata has been a fantastic advocate on the City Council; there’s a reason I’ve championed him for 17 years. An example of an issue I would have handled differently is the rent regulation resolution. Nowhere in the resolution [I drafted for Licata] does it say that it is in support of rent control. It is written to describe the disparate impacts of the current housing market on people of color, as described by the city’s own studies. The resolution then goes on to say that our inability to regulate rent in any way at all (not specifically rent control) limits our ability to address these disparate impacts.

The issue isn’t whether we have already decided to support one particular form of rent regulation—we haven’t. This was the wrong time to try and have that debate. Council Member Licata did try and clarify that before the vote, but it was too late. The early portrayal of the resolution as a “rent control resolution” led to a divided vote in committee and the proposal of a new resolution by council member Burgess [and unanimous adoption by the council.]

ECB: The argument against a residential linkage fee is pretty straightforward: Charging developers a tax to build new housing drives up the cost to build that housing, which gives developers an incentive to charge tenants more or to simply build elsewhere. This contributes in turn to the city’s affordability problem. How do you respond to that argument, and why do you think a residential linkage fee would work to produce more affordable housing than the current HALA proposal?

LH: The argument against linkage fees might be as you say, straightforward, but that doesn’t make it correct. The city’s consultant report on policy recommendations explain that the fees would be built into the price of the land—meaning the seller of the land would have to lower the price of the land (since the market reality of developing the land includes the fees that the buyer of the land – the developer – will have to pay. So the land itself will cost less for the developer to buy and thus would not be passed on to renters.

The residential linkage fee program has been studied by the council for a year and a half. It has already had SEPA review and it’s ready to go. We are not scheduled to adopt the proposed Mandatory Affordable Housing Program until spring of 2016 but both it and the Commercial Linkage Fee program implementation are delayed until fall 2017 when the council completes the upzones that are integral to this approach. This timeline lacks urgency and makes me question how seriously we are taking the severity of our current housing crisis and its impacts on low income people.

ECB: Rent control is illegal at the state level, and no amount of petitioning from Seattle is likely to make the Republican-dominated legislature change the law and allow cities to adopt their own rent restrictions. Given that, what is the point of rallying for and arguing about rent control at the city level? Isn’t rent control a sideshow that distracts from more attainable policy decisions like how to incentivize affordable housing development and where density should go?

LH: The passage of reasonable regulations that landlords and tenants agree upon is not a sideshow. I talk with landlords regularly who believe, for instance, that landlords should not be allowed to give 100% rent increases. I want to identify the behavior that even landlords agree is outlying behavior and use that identification of common ground to address those issues. It may not be rent control, or even rent stabilization, but laws like this will still impact people’s lives in a positive way.

I was pleased to see my opponent last week in PubliCola said that she would “‘likely’ support a resolution to overturn the state ban on rent regulation.” In a June questionnaire, she replied “No” to the question “Do you support asking the state legislature to remove the state ban on rent regulation?”

ECB: Displacement is an issue that divides affordable housing advocates. Anti-displacement activists argue that existing affordable housing should be protected against new development or replaced in new development on a one for one basis. Others believe that protecting old housing stock against new development restricts supply, increasing the cost of housing overall and actually reducing the total amount of potential affordable housing stock. What is your argument for anti-displacement policy and against those objections?

LH: We have capacity under current zoning for 230,000 new units of housing, while we anticipate the need for 70,000 new units over the next 20 years. In addition, a preservation policy might be structured in a way to protect existing housing, but it may also be structured in such a way to require a payment when it is removed.

I worked on the design and passage of the City’s Rental Registration and Inspection Ordinance. This innovative program will result in the investment in maintenance of rental housing that will result in the preservation of our housing stock, making older housing less vulnerable to the kind of speculative redevelopment that results in higher rent or the removal of affordable rentals for higher income homes for purchase. I support the development of a broader preservation program that identifies both subsidized and non subsidized rental housing that is likely to be redeveloped into more costly housing without preservation.

ECB: Why do you believe rent incentives for employees of certain companies are discriminatory? How do you believe they violate civil-rights law, and what would you do to stop them?

LH: Preferential practices for some result in discriminatory outcomes for others. We should resist efforts to turn Seattle into a company town where the employees of a few dominant corporations work together and live together, while others are excluded. Those who do not work for these preferred employers will have to live further from their jobs, their doctors, and those publicly funded amenities that are most accessible in the highest demand neighborhoods.

“Source of Income” anti-discrimination laws protect tenants from being treated differently because of their source of income. Many jurisdictions have them. Seattle only protects holders of Section 8, or Housing Choice, vouchers.

ECB: How would you work to close the gender pay gap in Seattle?

LH: I am proud of my work to help enact Paid Sick and Safe Leave and to assist in creating the Office of Labor Standards. Paid Sick and Safe Leave, the new Minimum Wage, the Job Assistance Ordinance, and our Wage Theft laws all must be well enforced. Employers benefit too when we ensure an even playing field between those who adhere to our laws and those who might not. I will ensure the Office of Labor Standards is well-funded, well-staffed, and is also supporting our community partners in their own efforts to educate workers and employers about these laws. I have also proposed a program of testing to root out discrimination in employment and ensure our employers are using fair hiring practices.

New laws are needed too, including prohibiting retaliation for disclosing one’s pay or comparing one’s salary with coworkers among private employers and city contractors and subcontractors. We should also promote pay transparency among city employees like some private employers have already done. I also support expansion of paid parental leave for city employees to 12 weeks and the creation of a parental leave insurance law for Seattle workers.

ECB: What will you do to stop racial profiling and excessive use of force by the Seattle Police Department?

LH: Accountability is the best guard against racial profiling and excessive use of force. The Community Police Commission, the Office of Professional Accountability Auditor, and the Mayor’s Advisor on Police Accountability have made a slate of unified recommendations, some of which the city is now bargaining with the Police Guild to implement. We must ensure that these recommendations are not left on the bargaining table. In particular, the recommendation to ensure that law enforcement representatives are not sitting on the body that hears the appeals of fired or disciplined officers is a “must do.”

Additionally, a significant number of people who have filed OPA complaints also have obstruction charges against them. The OPA auditor has repeatedly identified this as an area for reform.

I would also like to enact an “Observers’ Bill of Rights.” Too often observers are arrested for obstruction when they are only bystanders. SPD policy addresses this issue, but much like former Councilmember Steinbrueck did by passing a law enshrining the policy requiring visible badges, a law like this can strengthen the existing policy and a public good would be served by the awareness an ordinance would facilitate.

ECB: Do you support including light rail to West Seattle in the Sound Transit 3 package, and why or why not? Will you support ST3 if it doesn’t include rail to West Seattle?

LH: I absolutely support including light rail to West Seattle. If elected I will be a champion for light rail on the City Council and will fight for West Seattle to be included. If West Seattle is not included, I would have to reconsider my support.

Previously:

Shannon Braddock, District 1

Bruce Harrell, District 2

Tammy Morales, District 2

Michael Maddux, District 4

Rob Johnson, District 4

Mike O’Brien, District 6

Catherine Weatbrook, District 6

Deborah Zech-Artis, District 7

Sally Bagshaw, District 7

Tim Burgess, Position 8

Jon Grant, Position 8

Lorena Gonzalez, Position 9

Bill Bradburd, Position 9

City Council, Elections

The C Is for Crank Interviews: Shannon Braddock

Now that the primary-election field of 47 has been narrowed to a comparatively manageable 18, I’m sitting down with all the council candidates to talk about what they’ve learned so far, their campaign plans going forward, and their views on the issues that will shape the election, including density, “neighborhood character,” crime, parking, police accountability, and diversity. I’ll be rolling out all 17 of my interviews (Kshama Sawant was the only candidate who declined to sit down with me) over the next few weeks.

If you want to help me continue to do interviews like this one, plus on-the-ground reporting, deep dives on issues like affordability and transportation, breaking news, and incisive analysis, please consider becoming a sustaining supporter by pledging a few bucks at Patreon. This work costs money and (lots of) time, so I really appreciate every bit of support I receive from my readers.

shannon-braddockToday’s conversation is with Shannon Braddock, a West Seattleite and chief of staff to King County Council member Joe McDermott who’s running in District 1. We sat down at Collins Pub in Belltown.

Full disclosure: Braddock’s opponent, Lisa Herbold, is a longtime personal friend from way, way back and I’m supporting her campaign. In spite of our friendship, I tend to personally disagree with Lisa (and her boss of 17 years, Nick Licata) on a lot of issues, such as the proposed residential linkage fee for affordable housing and one-for-one replacement of existing affordable units. Overall, I think those two factors balance out. In any case, I made every effort not to allow personal friendship to influence the questions I asked either Braddock or Herbold.  Braddock and I spoke in person; in the interest of keeping my interview with Herbold as impersonal as possible, I submitted questions by email to her campaign, and will run her answers, edited for length, on Friday.

The C Is for Crank [ECB]: You were the beneficiary of a pretty significant amount of independent spending [nearly $75,000] from the Chamber of Commerce, developer lobbyists, and the landlords’ association. Even with all that, you came in second. Were you disappointed in the results, and how much influence do you think the outside spending had, positive or negative?

Shannon Braddock [SB]: I was disappointed, but the turnout was so low that I should have felt good about the results. Those last few days of doing a lot of field work helped. I did well. Personally, I was happy. My strategy to get through worked. My time was very focused on three-of-four Democrats [voters who identified as Democrats and voted in three of the past four elections].

I, honest to god, have no idea how much influence [the IEs had.] I’m going to guess not much, given the number of people in the race [nine]. I think i would have done well anyway. I never saw the ads on TV. My 15-year-old son found it online. I was glad it was a positive piece that said, basically, “She’ll be smart about transportation and growth and she’s a progressive candidate.” Even when you know it’s your supporters [doing an ad], it’s stomach-turning to know that somebody is campaigning on your behalf.

ECB: Why do you think the Chamber and other business groups are supporting you?

SB: I don’t know exactly, except that I don’t see business as the bad guy. We’re all working together to get stuff done and we all have to be partners.

I support the $15 minimum wage. That was one of the things the Chamber didn’t support. I have a reputation for working well with people, and I don’t come to the table saying I think I have the best answers.

ECB: West Seattle is such a close-knit community, that can seem, to outsiders, very separate from the rest of the city. What specific work have you done in West Seattle to prepare you for representing this district, and what’s your history with West Seattle?

SB: I grew up in Bellingham, and when I first moved here, West Seattle reminded me of Bellingham. It has great walkability to school, great walkability to grocery stores, great walkability to the old movie theater. I didn’t think I’d ever want to live there because it seemed so far away, but when I got there, I felt right at home.

When I first got there, my involvement was with Lafayette Elementary PTA stuff. I did little things, like litter pickups with the neighborhood association, and I was involved with the West Seattle Food Bank, which is facing a higher number of clients coming in. We were trying to change the number of things we were doing and expand services. It really opened up my world. I’m on the board of WestSide Baby.  I’m also involved with the 34th District Democrats. That got me more engaged in the political world.

ECB: Early on in your campaign, I remember that some opponents were questioning whether being a single mom disqualified you for this job because you wouldn’t have enough time to make it to night meeting and other obligations of being a council member. Were you expecting that kind of retro criticism?

SB: I did not realize that could happen. We live in such a progressive bubble that sexism still surprises me. There was a whole discussion on the District 1 Facebook page about whether it was a legitimate question to ask whether I could be a mother and serve on the council at the same time, especially a single mother. Now, I don’t really consider myself a single mother because my children’s father is very much involved in their lives. But I am a single mother, and to have people suggest that in 2015 is outrageous. The tenor of the conversation was, “Is she progressive enough?”, and then it would devolved into the equivalent, in my opinion, of misogynistic sexist attacks on me. It was jarring to me and frustrating to think that here we are, in a city where we’re progressive, and people are asking whether I can be on the city council because I’m a mother. It’s stuff men do not think about.

I’ve been told by men who are my supporters that I look tired in my pictures, or that I should smile more, or “Don’t talk so much about being a mom.” Thanks for reminding me why we need more women in government in general, and young women with kids at home in particular. We need that perspective. I look up to people like [District 3 primary candidate] Morgan [Beach] and [District 1 primary candidate] Brianna [Thomas], and I think we need women to keep doing that it until no longer seems surprising.

ECB: Do you think district elections made it easier for people like you and Brianna and Morgan to run?

SB: I was a supporter of districts, and I wouldn’t have run [without them]. Realistically, to do that as a mom with three kids still at home would have been much bigger challenge for me, and to have the time and space to go all over the city would be challenging. It would have been easier for me to talk myself out of it. This opportunity made me pause long and hard and think about it. While I support districts, I’m also a big believer in regional government. and I don’t want to be represented by someone who doesn’t have that perspective.

ECB: Your opponent, Lisa Herbold, thinks the city needs to go beyond the HALA recommendations by charging a linkage fee on all new residential development, among other measures the HALA committee did not recommend. Are you all in on the committee’s affordable-housing recommendations?

SB: I can’t say I support every single recommendation in HALA. I’ve read the report, but not with a fine-tooth comb. I do find it a little bit grandstanding [of Position 8 candidate and dissenting HALA member Jon Grant] to step in on it after they had agreement with 27 members. [Grant, along with Herbold, proposed an alternative to HALA that HALA backers say would scuttle the grand bargain]. It’s disrespectful. They did good work. I respect that they spent a lot of time on that. You can work around the edges during the hearings.

If you could have gotten 14 other people to agree with your HALA amendments,  you wouldn’t have had an alternative plan in the first place. It’s a recommendation. I think there’s plenty of opportunity for political pressure for him and his agenda. If he wants to blow it up, go for it, but I’m very comfortable with where they are right now. I wasn’t in those meetings, I don’t know how they came to this grand bargain, but if Council Member [Mike] O’Brien came to a spot where he felt that he had reached an agreement on the linkage fee that he could live with, then I’m good with that. If there are many things we could get to sooner rather than later, I’d vote for that.

ECB: Your opponent has seemed more open to the idea of rent control, or rent stabilization, than you have. What are your views on rent control?

SB: I opposed traditional rent control. If it was just a matter of allowing Seattle to discuss it, yes, I would absolutely support the state lifting the restriction. I support more options. A lot of what’s in HALA is rent control. Mandatory inclusionary zoning is an option to have lower rents.

ECB: People in West Seattle seem to have the sense that they’re constantly being asked to accept more density without more funding for infrastructure, like road improvements and bus service, to support that density. The counterargument would be that you can’t add bus service to areas where the population density doesn’t currently support it. What do you think of those complaints?

SB: I  can appreciate that people are saying that, because we don’t have enough buses in West Seattle. I think there is not enough bus service in most places. I don’t think that’s District 1-specific. I support more transit and I support [the upcoming Sound Transit 3 ballot measure], but I want it to include West Seattle and Ballard. At this time, I would not support it if it did not include West Seattle. As a District 1 council member, I would have to fall on a lot of swords for light rail if it did not include rail to West Seattle.

If I see a plan in place, an actual plan in place, for infrastructure, I’m a lot more omfotable building a little bit ahead of time. Right now we’re building based on  a 20-year development plan that had a monorail in it. It’s completely out of date. I want people to feel that they are watching a robust transit system grow. Right now, we’re at the spot when people in District 1 are saying, “When are we going to be getting it?” They’re not seeing any of that being done with bus service. Metro did split the C and D routes, which helped.

SDOT needs to improve their outreach to communities. We’ve had isssues in District 1. The rollout of the 35th Ave. Southwest road diet–SDOT was a little behind the 8 ball on that one. I do feel that sometimes they’re like, “Here’s what we’re going to do, you’re welcome.” Sometimes communities need more time to find out what they’re getting. That means we have to do a better job as government at involving the communities earlier.

ECB: Do you think having district council members will help with that kind of community outreach?

SB: Yes. I do think there are always going to be people that it’s never going to be enough for. I do hold out hope that having people like Kathy Nyland in Neighborhoods and the new department [the Office of Planning and Community Development] is very valuable. I’ve got some hope.

Previously:

Bruce Harrell, District 2

Tammy Morales, District 2

Michael Maddux, District 4

Rob Johnson, District 4

Mike O’Brien, District 6

Catherine Weatbrook, District 6

Deborah Zech-Artis, District 7

Sally Bagshaw, District 7

Tim Burgess, Position 8

Jon Grant, Position 8

Lorena Gonzalez, Position 9

Bill Bradburd, Position 9

Uncategorized

The C Is for Crank Interviews: Deborah Zech-Artis

Now that the primary-election field of 47 has been narrowed to a comparatively manageable 18, I’m sitting down with all the council candidates to talk about what they’ve learned so far, their campaign plans going forward, and their views on the issues that will shape the election, including density, “neighborhood character,” crime, parking, police accountability, and diversity. I’ll be rolling out all 17 of my interviews (Kshama Sawant was the only candidate who declined to sit down with me) over the next few weeks.

If you want to help me continue to do interviews like this one, plus on-the-ground reporting, deep dives on issues like affordability and transportation, breaking news, and incisive analysis, please consider becoming a sustaining supporter by pledging a few bucks at Patreon. This work costs money and (lots of) time, so I really appreciate every bit of support I receive from my readers.

Today’s interview is with Deborah Zech-Artis, the long-shot (very long-shot) opponent to council incumbent Sally Bagshaw for District 7. Zech-Artis—who this week declared at a Downtown Seattle Association forum that “dieting the roads” had created insufferable traffic congestions on streets like Nickerson and Stone Way—lives on Queen Anne; we met at Cherry Street Coffee in Pioneer Square.

The C Is for Crank [ECB]: As someone who had never heard of you before you decided to run against Sally Bagshaw, I’m curious to find out what your background is and why you’re running for city council now.

Deborah Zech-Artis [DZA]: When I was a little kid, we’d drive up Queen Anne Hill, and I would look up at the top of the hill and ask my dad what kind of people lived up there, and my dad said, “nice people,” and I decided that I wanted to live up there. I got married when I was 21, and we moved to Queen Anne in 1975, and I’ve been there ever since.

When you’re newly married, you get involved in your husband’s stuff, so I got involved in sports. Of course, I’m just a girl, so I didn’t know anything about softball or what the rules were, but I ended up coaching my son’s Little League because none of the men wanted to do it. I became head of Seattle Little League and I was 34 when i finally graduated. I was in the Navy reserves, and I worked as a buyer for the state of Washington, and I got a job as a buyer with Boeing.

I’ve always been in male-dominated industries. When I see a problem, I get involved, and I’m really irritated with what’s going on in the city right now. I’m fed up with traffic, with the city council and mayor not being responsive to people. I have lots of friends who have brought stuff to the mayor and the city council for years, and they never receive a response.

ECB: Can you give me an example?

DZA: Density is one issue. Not being able to know who the homeless are and where they come from—not looking at why they’re here. The city council and mayor don’t look at root causes. There’s a lot of roadblocks, or they just don’t care. I’m tired of the city being run by developers. Developers are setting policy for the planning and permitting departments. If you own a home and you want to build a  mother-in-law unit and you have an appointment at the permitting office, if a developer comes in, you get shunted to the back. Even if you wanted to build a duplex, you would get shunted to the bottom of the pile. In my mind, it should not matter how much money you have. You should get the same service.

ECB: Why are you running in District 7 against Sally rather than running citywide?

DZA: Sally’s a nice person, but Sally is backed by developers. You can see it in her donations. She doesn’t listen to regular people. I have tried to get a hold of Sally for years about parks issues and I never get a call back. Everybody on the council has something they’re responsible for. That’s the way it’s set up right now—you have to go to that person. We’re still going to be on those committees, but [districts] gives you a voice, which you didn’t have before. It gives everyone in the city a voice. So many people in the city who have ideas, who have thoughts, they’re not being heard. There are so many ideas sitting out there that it’s not even funny.

Seattle is a small town. I don’t care if it has one million people or ten million people in it, this city has a small-town mentality, and there’s nothing wrong with that. One of the things I love about Seattle is that we care about each other. That’s who we are. My district’s really getting hit bad [by density]. All the low-cost housing that used to be around that area isn’t there any more. The city outlawed [single-room occupancy rooming houses, or] SROs. Nobody’s doing it. There’s no money in it. So in lieu of that, I’ve talked about having a certain percentage of apartments set aside for low-income housing, and put that money into a principal fund for subsidies for housing or for property taxes, which are skyrocketing. Lots of seniors  can’t afford their property taxes anymore.

ECB: Given your opposition to density, is there anything you like about the mayor’s HALA proposals?

DZA: There are good things and bad things. I’m talking about the [commericial] linkage fee, mother-in-laws, and backyard cottages. I’m totally in favor of that. But we’re not going to be able to build our way out of the housing shortage. Developers are not going to build until we have a shortage. That’s when they do that. The rents are going to be high.

The thing that was really bad in HALA was upzoning. When you do that, the land value goes up, your house value goes down, and property taxes go up. That’s going to cause land inflation.

ECB: What do you think of the mayor’s Move Seattle plan [the $930 million property tax levy on the ballot in November]?

DZA: We’re trying to get people out of their cars. So what do they do? They get rid of one of the two Magnolia routes. King County has taken away a lot of bus routes. If they want people to get out of their cars, they have to stop taking away routes. In Tokyo, you have one big route running around the city, and you can get on and off the routes like spokes. Why should I have to commute into downtown just to go from Queen Anne to University Village? Why do you have to go to downtown and transfer? It’s ridiculous. It would be nice to have a bus that just runs around the top of Queen Anne so you don’t have to get in your car. Same thing with Magnolia. Up on Aurora, the E [RapidRide] line starts at 200th, so the money we voted in can’t be used on the E Line because of where it starts. Why don’t we have a short bus that goes from where people are to downtown? I’ve never seen a survey on buses about where the people are going. On Emerson, the city was doing some work and they had people standing under the Magnolia Bridge writing down people’s license plates. Why can’t they do that with bus riders?

ECB: There is no homeless encampment proposed in your district yet, but how do you feel about encampments in the city in general?

DZA: Homeless camps. in my opinion–they have to go away. It’s not mentally healthy, it’s not emotionally healthy, it’s not physically health or spiritually healthy for people to live there. When city leaders say this camp is going to be here, you don’t have a say in it. In Ballard, most people are not opposed to camp, they’re just want to have a better place for it to go. The city has said, “you’re not allowed to know where these people are from or why they’re here, what their issues are, why they’re homeless.” If we’re going to give them money, we should at least know why we’re doing it. How do you help somebody if you don’t know where they’re from?

I went to a women’s shelter on Third and I chatted for two hours with all these ladies there. These women don’t have families, or are estranged from their families, or they can’t get a job because of their age. That puts them in a situation where they’re dependent on services. We need to get them into proper housing or short-term housing that’s not in a tent. The city owns a lot of properties with buildings on them. Why aren’t they doing something to retrofit those building?

Previously:

Bruce Harrell, District 2

Tammy Morales, District 2

Michael Maddux, District 4

Rob Johnson, District 4

Mike O’Brien, District 6

Catherine Weatbrook, District 6

Tim Burgess, Position 8

Jon Grant, Position 8

Lorena Gonzalez, Position 9

Bill Bradburd, Position 9

City Council, Elections

The C Is for Crank Interviews: Bruce Harrell

Now that the primary-election field of 47 has been narrowed to a comparatively manageable 18, I’m sitting down with all the council candidates to talk about what they’ve learned so far, their campaign plans going forward, and their views on the issues that will shape the election, including density, “neighborhood character,” crime, parking, police accountability, and diversity. I’ll be rolling out all 17 of my interviews (Kshama Sawant was the only candidate who declined to sit down with me) over the next few weeks.

If you want to help me continue to do interviews like this one, plus on-the-ground reporting, deep dives on issues like affordability and transportation, breaking news, and incisive analysis, please consider becoming a sustaining supporter by pledging a few bucks at Patreon. This work costs money and (lots of) time, so I really appreciate every bit of support I receive from my readers.

Today’s interview: District 2 candidate Bruce Harrell. I met up with Harrell at the Starbucks at 23rd and Jackson.

Bruce-HarrellThe C Is for Crank [ECB]: I wanted to talk to you about encampments, and this location is very appropriate for that conversation, because Central District neighbors were very accommodating about not one but three separate tent cities that located within a few blocks of here. Yet up in Ballard, people are threatening a revolt around the prospect of even one tent encampment in their neighborhood. Meanwhile, one of the finalists for a future encampment is in your district, near Othello Park, which already has problems with criminal activity. How do you think the South End community will react to a new tent city in their area–will they be more like Ballard, or more like the neighborhood we’re in right now?Image result for bruce harrell

Bruce Harrell [BH]: I’m on record saying that I want to be open, I want to find a location somewhere. We all feel comfortable saying we don’t want people living in tents, we all say, “Housing first,” but until we get housing for everyone, [a tent city is] a practical alternative. I want to support an alternative, even if it’s in my district, although that is not ideal. Ideally, we want strong services to get people off the street. We don’t want our city to be a place where, because of our tolerance, we just have tent encampments forever.

ECB: When you say an encampment in your district is “not ideal,” it sounds like you are saying that tent encampments are inherently a bad thing, something that gets “dumped” on neighborhoods. Is that what you’re saying?

BH: I don’t care how good-hearted people are—even the most liberal-minded people I know are not excited about having encampments close to their homes. They say, “I support it, just not close to me. I think we have a tendency to demonize that kind of person and to worry about crime and safety. That’s a reasonable position, but to some extent an undeserved position. In the North End, they were very safe, very well organized. It can be done where it doesn’t jeopardize public safety.

At 22nd and Cherry, I had mixed feelings. I get concerned when I see people living in tents, but I’m glad to see them living somewhere where they were dry and safe. They did not see a huge number of impacts. When we temporarily house someone in tents in the city, it’s not ideal. That’s why I’ve been progressive about exploring residential neighborhoods. [Currently, tent encampments are allowed on city-owned land only in nonresidential areas.] We have to acknowledge that we’re short of space and tents are what we have right now.

The face of homelessness has changed. It’s not what we used to call hobos and people drinking and moving from place to place with a long beard. It’s people who are down on their luck and out of work. It’s people with drug and alcohol problems, children, single parents. We have to be more willing to house them, perhaps even in tents. One of the problems we hear about in Seattle is that we’re enablers and we invited these people here, where they don’t have to work and can just get handouts. I’ve never met a child who says, “I can’t wait to grow up and be homeless.”

But that misses the point. the fact is that if we’re going to have a humane society, we have to commit to housing people. I don’t think Othello is an ideal location. It has an opportunity to be a thriving economic center, with jobs and training centers and apprenticeships. It could be a gateway to a better South End. So is that the ideal location? No. But to have it there as a temporary solution? I’m willing to consider it.

I already hear people saying the South End is the dumping ground for the city. [An Othello encampment] would play into this narrative. And, yes, there would be vehement opposition. It would perpetuate the narrative that we’re the dumping ground for social services agencies. And it would impact neighborhood policing and community-based organizations in a negative way.

ECB: You were standing behind Mayor Murray when he announced his crackdown [on which he has since backtracked] on hookah lounges, which are owned primarily by African immigrants. But I heard you were resistant to doing the press conference, and particularly to doing it in Hing Hay Park, near where [International District leader] Donnie Chin was killed. What do you think of targeting hookah lounges as a source of crime, and the specific way the mayor announced it? Do you think they’re really linked with crime, or are they a convenient scapegoat?

BH: It’s public safety. We need to know what the plans are, as well as actually plan for enforcement. I’m not going on the record saying I oppose what [Murray’s] trying to do. But I met with 10 of the 11 owners and had a robust meeting with them. In that meeting they did each seem to have valid concerns. They’re saying that if the city tells them what the rules, are they will comply. Right now, you can apply for a membership for five bucks a day. The department has ruled that that is not a proper  membership, and they’re saying, then tell us what proper membership would look like.

They’re also saying that no marijuana is smoked in the place. I don’t know if that’s true or not. That was not the issue for me, but I want to know what occurred in those lounges. I believe they were not forthcoming, because we’ve talked to folks who say they’ve smoked weed in these lounges. The issue is if they’re not being honest. Every one of them said that no illicit activity takes place.

ECB: Have you ever been inside a hookah lounge?

BH: No, but I’ve talked to people in the East African community who’ve said most of them want those places shut down. [City attorney] Pete [Holmes’] letter says, you are not acting legally, however, we will work with you to be a law-abiding private club if you want. We owe it to them to have a clear set of guidelines.

The biggest travesty out of all of this is that none of us decision-markers has even been in a hookah lounge. I’m trying to better understand this culture. From our police department and law department, they are saying that illicit drug activities were going on. What they are saying is that they’re seeing rowdy behavior, some gunfire, weed in the parking lot . I’ve yet to see any data saying there is any link to violence.

ECB: Do you think the hookah lounges had any link to Donnie Chin’s murder?

That’s a legitimate question. I’m asking that myself. I have yet to see that linkage. The reason it didn’t occur to anybody is because all the information being thrust upon us is weed is being smoked and that there’s guns at night after hours. This is an after-hours spot, after they’re tanked up on alcohol—and then you go smoke weed… Sally Bagshaw and I have talked about going to one of these places some night soon to see for ourselves what goes on there, and I think we should do that.

ECB:  I was surprised that, when he announced he was shutting down all the city’s hookah lounges, the mayor didn’t seem to notice he was targeting black businesses exclusively. Did you have any reaction to that fact at the time?

BH: I would have thought I would be the first to see the race issue. I saw a constituency that’s not valued as a constituency. Compared to taxi drivers, who are a vocal constituency of political players in town. I saw them as not politically astute, not politically connected or connected to politics in any respect. As a group, I don’t even know if they vote. I saw a group that needed to be somewhat organized and relevant.

Previously:

Michael Maddux, District 4

Rob Johnson, District 4

Mike O’Brien, District 6

Catherine Weatbrook, District 6

Tim Burgess, Position 8

Jon Grant, Position 8

Lorena Gonzalez, Position 9

Bill Bradburd, Position 9