Cascadia Report

Running for Seattle City Council

After years of reporting and opining about Cascadia, I've decided to take a big step: I'm running for Seattle City Council.

I'm a Seattle native and I believe the city is being left behind because of poor leadership. We’re hindered by poor decision-making and political infighting, while posturing at the city council costs taxpayers and threatens our economic future. Becoming a parent made me realize than I could either hope for better or take on the challenge myself.

My goal is to create modern urban neighborhoods where people want to live and work, where growth and density are incentivized with infrastructure, fast internet, vibrant businesses and transit connections so residents don't need a car for their daily routines.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I don't have all the answers. Yet I am interested in good ideas and finding ways to work together to bring them to life. Please follow my campaign website and share your thoughts.

Wanted: Creative solutions to local problems

I published the following op-ed in today's Seattle Times. Please let me know what you think by leaving a comment:

In the wake of last week's election, I've heard people across Seattle asking: What were Americans thinking? Pundits say the results were a call for smaller government and fewer services. Gov. Chris Gregoire even responded by pledging an "all cuts" budget.

But voters aren't stupid. They want government to creatively solve problems and deliver results especially at the local level, where it's most tangible.

The vast majority of my neighbors in Southeast Seattle are concerned about the basics. Most don't have time to regularly attend community meetings because they're fully occupied working long hours and taking care of their families. They elect representatives to make sensible decisions about complex issues for them.

What comes to mind first is creating jobs and opportunity. Even during the boom times leading up to the 2008 crash, the population of the city of Seattle was growing and the number of jobs was falling — a combination that eventually will mean more taxes on individuals to support city services.

To avoid that result, we need to make it easier to do business here. It shouldn't take years to get a building permit through approvals and opening a new business should be straightforward.

What we "want" depends on the incentives

During a breakfast presentation today in Seattle, the author Joel Kotkin delivered an optimistic forecast for our region that left everyone with a spring in their step. I enjoyed the message, but wonder if we got the right lesson.

The talk was in support of Kotkin's new book The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. (His previous book The City: A Global History was fantastic so I was eager to hear him. Thanks again for the invitation, Will!) Unlike many soothsayers, he thinks growing population due to high immigration means America's prospects are good. (More on that on his Web site.) The Seattle area is particularly well poised to prosper from its position on the Pacific Rim, partly because, as he put it, Seattle is "like Portland with an economy." 

But he lost me when it came to describing the sort of land use and development we'll need to accommodate more people in 2050. He said that 86% of Americans now "want" to live in detached, single-family homes, a category that presumably includes everything from mansions on five-acre lots to tall, narrow urban infill homes.  More than once he said that today's planners are going too far by "forcing" people to live too densely.

When congestion is your friend

Vancouver's congested streets can be maddening -- unless, as Hugeasscity notes, you're a pedestrian or bicyclist. However, I've got a couple quibbles with that analysis.

For one, I'll definitely have to drive in Vancouver again. SkyTrain is great you go where it goes but my recent trips took me to UBC or on detours between Whistler and Seattle, where there aren't feasible transit options.

For another, the clogged street grid doesn't necessarily make the case for congestion pricing. Seattle's hills and water are a much better testing ground for combining a) alternative forms of travel with b) tolling that varies with usage. If the goal is to use congestion pricing to make more efficient use of finite resources, Seattle would be a great place to start.

Maybe we're not so 'livable'

Here in Cascadia we're used to hearing that this is among the world's most "livable" places.  But does that include economic opportunity?

Vancouver regularly tops international rankings and Portland is a media darling for its hipster qualities and great refreshments.  One shared feature of supposedly "livable" cities is that not many people live in them, points out FT columnist Michael Skapinker.

Less than 2 million people live in the cities of Vancouver, Portland and Seattle combined (the city of Seattle just topped 600K) and none rank among the top cities based on global business.  I'd prefer to encourage more economic and cultural growth within Cascadia's cities since without clear benchmarks it's unclear how much progress we're making.

None of this takes away the joy of nerding-out over top-cities listings.  Monocle magazine's list of top 25 ranks Vancouver as 14 and includes just one U.S. city (Honolulu at 11). Tokyo (3), Fukuoka (16) and Kyoto (22) make the list -- but there's no Osaka, Yokohama or Sendai, which are all just as comfortable.  Try explaining that.

See also: Decisions that made a great city