Cascadia Report

Spending money to make money

The latest BusinessWeek has a summary of how Google convinced a poor North Carolina county to pay $212 million in exchange for siting a server farm there -- without even getting a guarantee of how long they would be there or how many locals they would employ. Poor suckers.

But wait. A few pages into the article there's a table of recent corporate welfare handouts, topped by Washington's $3.2 billion gift to Boeing in 2003 to site final assembly of the 787 in Everett. That deal surely played a part in improving perceptions of the state's friendliness to business.

Of course you have to spend money to make money, especially in a globalized economy. But how do you walk the fine line between losing to competition and selling out taxpayers? Unfortunately the magazine suggests just a few tentative ways to safeguard the investment.

Report: Washington's a better place for business

Forbes magazine ranked Washington the fifth best state in the country to do business and says the situation here is improving:

The biggest mover (tied with Tennessee), rising from 12th to fifth place, Washington is also the only state to finish in the top five in three main categories (labor, regulatory environment and growth). And Washington's numbers are up across the board when you look both backward and at projections into the future.

Ratings like this are problematic by defintion. But this one, coming from a conservative business publication, is likely to come up during campaigns for governor and legislature over the next 18 months.

The rating gives Washington kudos in multiple categories, especially growth prospects, reduced red tape and low energy costs. The magazine says this results in innovation: "Washington has had more businesses open per capita the past three years than any other state in the U.S."

The lowest mark was for quality of life, which includes schools. The state did well despite transportation woes (which would seem to drive up costs but don't seem to have been a factor in the low quality of life score). The state's tax structure wasn't an issue.

The magazine rated Olympia as the 10th best metropolitan area for business. Spokane, Bremerton, Portland and Eugene all finished in the top 50 (out of 200 rated). Oregon moved up three places to 28th.

Tapping tidal power from Puget Sound

Tide-driven power turbines may be coming to Puget Sound. The Snohomish County energy utility is beginning research into installing generators that could power 60,000 or more homes.

The studies would inform debate over harming the already troubled ecosystem:

The modeling could also show whether the turbines could affect tidal currents in Puget Sound, slowing them. Some observers worry that losing such "kinetic energy" could harm places such as Hood Canal, where water circulation already is poor.

Others believe turbines won't mix well with endangered salmon and the marine animals and fishermen that depend on them.

The proposal was reported a couple months ago, along with introduction of a bill by U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee to promote development of tidal energy through tax credits. That bill is now sitting in committee.

Wanted: Someone to make windmills

Driving across the wind-swept expanses of Eastern Washington is enough to make a person wonder: isn't there potential for more wind power in Cascadia. If only legal ambiguity and NIMBYism weren't in the way.

Add this to the list of hurdles: a shortage of windmill makers.

This Wall Street Journal article shows how surging global demand for turbines outstrips supply. Manufacturers are reluctant to make long-term bets since the market in the U.S. isn't stable. Wind power requires major capital investment up front and who knows if tax incentives will continue or if siting the projects will get easier or more difficult.

Oregon is mentioned as encouraging turbine-makers to set up in the state. That's one way Washington could encourage development (instead of simply mandating alternative energy). Consider the possibility:

In the U.S., more wind power was installed last year than in any country in the world -- 2,454 megawatts, or more than the equivalent of two nuclear reactors. Despite the recent action, the U.S. still lags behind other countries that have spent decades nurturing wind power with subsidies and price supports. Germany has fewer wind resources -- breezy, wide-open spaces -- than the state of North Dakota, for instance, but has twice as much wind power as the entire U.S. Spain, with one-seventh the population of the U.S., has the same amount of wind power. Overall, only about 1% of power in the U.S. comes from wind.

Getting representatives who match the region

There's a mismatch between the Seattle area's dependence on global commerce and its political system. Jim Vesely made that point well in his Sunday column in The Seattle Times:

The city is run by representatives of two major and influential cohorts: neighborhoods and highly specialized interest groups. That may fit a less-competitive era, but if this region is going to need every brain and every molecule of stamina, it must have a much higher caliber of contestants for public office.

Those candidates would be knowledgeable on the Shanghai school methods, on the bridging of both space and dollars for transportation, on the depth of connections between here and Chile or China. Only a few are.

That's why whenever council members venture away from the narrow into the broad currents of national or state policies — or even pro sports — they appear woefully parochial, despite representing one of the most-dynamic and exuberant city-states on the planet.

So what's the recipe for change? The fact is that voters select representatives who most clearly speak to their interests -- and in Seattle that's usually neighborhood issues. By definition, candidates speak about those issues to the media. Instead of bemoaning the lack of ideas, I'd like to see The Seattle Times promote wider perspectives.

For starters, the news pages should examine the benefits of Gov. Gregoire's trade-promotion efforts and her groundbreaking meetings with British Columbia's premier. Why not demand that representatives learn from the rest of the world on issues like transportation? At least ask leaders what they learned about transportation from their recent trip to Japan.

Even the opinion pages could help. It would be fascinating to hear the questions that Vesely asked and the candidates' responses. Why not post those online?

A proposal to get 520 fixes moving now

State transportation planners spent lots of time this week explaining long-term plans for fixing 520 between Seattle and the Eastside.

But what about easing the commute now?

At an open house at Bellevue High School Tuesday night, there were detailed displays about plans for a new six-lane bridge, including features like bike lanes and steps to treat runoff water and use new quieter cement. Assuming passage of the transportation tax package this fall, the new bridge would be open for traffic ... in 2018.

That distant date explains why commuters are so unenthused. Why give up a sunny evening to discuss a project that seems like it will never happen? No one can say planners haven't been inclusive, with open houses and hearings ad nauseum. (On Tuesday DOT staff sometimes outnumbered the public.) What's missing is anything to help now or build enthusiasm for change.

So here's an idea: Immediately move 520's westbound HOV lane to the left side from Redmond to Seattle. Instead of being stopped by merging traffic in the right-hand lane, buses and three-person carpools could speed through the corridor. Forcing cars with one passenger to merge from two lanes into one before crossing the bridge would be a dramatic incentive to take transit or carpool.

The change could be made almost overnight and would boost capacity. Demand for buses would soar and suddenly people would be willing to carpool, even if it meant sharing rides with (gasp!) strangers. If drivers really wanted more lanes they would be incented to support funding a new bridge.

As it stands, taking the bus usually isn't an appealing option and there's plenty of opposition to the 520 replacement project. One protester at the Bellevue event this week handed out flyers urging a vote against this fall's tax plan because he wants politicians to craft a better one someday. Instead of risking that kind of delay -- and keeping us all stuck for years -- transportation leaders should make relatively small changes necessary to improve movement now.

We're all paying for your milk

Market-bending crop subsidies only prop up the Midwest, right? Think again.

Farms in Washington got $266 million in federal subsidies from 2003 to 2005, while Oregon got $99 million, according to a national database by the Environmental Working Group. Wheat and barley got the most help in Washington, while dairy got $1.3 million in King County alone.

Some subsidies are designed for worthwhile goals, such promoting conservation. But most of those objectives could be met with zoning or smart economic development alternatives. The current system is costly and wasteful. Subsidies make a mockery of America's lip service to "free trade" by distorting markets, especially impacting developing countries that depend on agriculture. And they are even linked to obesity.

The database addresses the 2002 Farm Bill, not windfalls like, for example, tariffs and forest road building to help the timber industry. The database is searchable by state, county, congressional district and program.

How some farmers beat region's fishing industry

It's no secret that Vice President Dick Cheney has promoted the federal government's repeated preference for resource-extracting industry over business that depends on conservation.

The final installment of this week's superbly reported Washington Post series about Cheney shows how he did it while stirring up minimum public outcry over the methods. Most important for Cascadia is the support for some Republican farmers over the entire region's fishing industry:

In Oregon, a battleground state that the Bush-Cheney ticket had lost by less than half of 1 percent, drought-stricken farmers and ranchers were about to be cut off from the irrigation water that kept their cropland and pastures green. Federal biologists said the Endangered Species Act left the government no choice: The survival of two imperiled species of fish was at stake.

Law and science seemed to be on the side of the fish. Then the vice president stepped in.

First Cheney looked for a way around the law, aides said. Next he set in motion a process to challenge the science protecting the fish, according to a former Oregon congressman who lobbied for the farmers.

Because of Cheney's intervention, the government reversed itself and let the water flow in time to save the 2002 growing season, declaring that there was no threat to the fish. What followed was the largest fish kill the West had ever seen, with tens of thousands of salmon rotting on the banks of the Klamath River.

Characteristically, Cheney left no tracks.

Read the last piece of the series here.

Push for more renewable energy meets NIMBY

Voting in favor of more clean energy was a no-brainer last fall. Now it's clear that legal clarifications are necessary to reach the goal of getting 15 percent of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Consider Kittitas County, where some residents object to plans for several dozen wind turbines on the hills outside Ellensburg. The complaint? The turbines would block views, be noisy or disrupt the rural character of the place -- all predictable problems.

So why not head off such disputes by stipulating conditions for siting energy projects? For example, the state could determine allowable noise levels from turbines. If the project is quiet enough then it goes forward. Wide-open views will likely be missed, but surely windmills are a good alternative to using the land for sprawl or to dirtier air. The guidelines would speed projects throughout the state.

For now, a state agency, EFSEC, is supposed to settle disputes for the greater good. But without a stronger legal framework it could just as easily inflame urban-rural tensions and set up a backlash against decisions made in Olympia.

FEEDBACK on Why Seattle's buses don't work

This account of a recent bus commute drew a lot of feedback. Two emails came from Rep. Judy Clibborn, the chair of the state House Transportation Committee.

She explained that she's arranging to ride through the 520 corridor with the Department of Transportation to see what can be changed. Yet there will be opposition to any tinkering with the status quo:

I agree that we have some issues and will be working to get some of that merger smoothed out before we reach the new bridge and later implementation of tolls etc. I am interested in what comes out of the Urban Partnership regarding some of what you mentioned but I am also aware of the political reality of what we can do without support from the citizens. It will take a lot of education.

For info on the partnership, see the link for the Puget Sound Regional Council.