Search Results for: viaduct

1) Crime is down in the city, but we’ve seen some horrible incidents with the police in recent years. How do we ensure public safety and not have those sorts of things happen in the future?

We make certain the Office of Professional Accountability, and the related civilian Auditor and the seven-member civilian Review Board, have the tools and resources necessary to thoroughly investigate complaints of misconduct.

This may seem insignificant, but we should transform the public face of the OPA—printed materials that explain the process of investigations, notification and update letters and the office environment. The current OPA environment—website, printed materials, offices—express a strong police orientation. Instead, the OPA environment should be professional, neutral and welcoming. First impressions matter.

As we have heard from the past four civilian OPA Auditors, the quality and thoroughness of OPA investigations are not the issue. The real issue, as identified by current Auditor Anne Levinson, is what we don’t know. Some in the city believe that our police officers use force far more often than is reported. My office will soon ask the City Auditor and the OPA Review Board to examine this issue and conduct independent research of arrestees to determine whether force was used during their arrest and whether the arresting officers properly completed required “use of force” reports. This type of external, proactive examination will identify problems and will also help build public trust and confidence in the Police Department.

Turning to crime prevention, emerging evidence indicates that we should shift away from the policing of people, but not all people, to the policing of place. This would be a major shift in American policing.

This change is necessary because crime is geographically concentrated and anchored at micro places. Crime is not randomly distributed across a city. In Seattle, using 16 years of crime data, researchers have found that about 50% of reported crime is found at just 5% to 6% of our street segments. More than 20% of crime in Seattle is concentrated at just 1% of street segments.

Changing to policing place would have dramatic impact in reducing crime and improving police-community relations. Inherent in the “policing of place” is a strong community-based orientation; police officers working with the community to resolve problems, rather than police officers arriving to just arrest people or “enforce the law.”

This strategic shift would transform the Police Department. It would give officers a strong sense of mission. A spirit of innovation would take hold as officers digested crime data and worked with community members to design appropriate intervention tactics.

2) Now that the Viaduct is coming down, what should the waterfront look like?

The central waterfront should become a place that celebrates Seattle’s maritime and industrial history, honors our Native American heritage, reconnects the city with Elliott Bay along key east-west corridors, and provides a series of public places where individuals and families can enjoy parks, pedestrian promenades, outdoor restaurants and views stretching from Pike Place Market to the stadium district. Port of Seattle operations and jobs must be protected.

3) As the great recession drags on, the city budget is still hurt. What do we need to cut, what do we need to keep, and do we need to raise more money via taxation?

We should adopt an outcome-based budgeting philosophy so we understand why we are investing in particular projects and what we are achieving. Unfortunately, we don’t really know what many of our investments are producing, especially when it comes to human services, youth and family, and crime prevention expenditures. A much stronger performance orientation is needed in city government.

We should continue to protect human services and public safety programs as our highest priorities. For example, one of the best crime prevention programs in the country is the Nurse Family Partnership (NFP), a 30 year effort to link specially trained nurses with first time mothers living in poverty. Seattle currently provides funding to reach about one-third of the eligible moms in the city; two-thirds of those who qualify do not receive services. Yet, the NFP has consistently shown through high quality research that it can reduce criminal behavior, strength the families involved and save government tens of thousands of dollars. We should fully fund the
NFP.

I helped craft the renewal of the Families and Education Levy that is on the November 8 ballot. If passed by the voters, this measure will nearly double the amount of funding for highly targeted intervention efforts for our most at risk public school kids. This tax increase is justified because continuing to accept the status quo in public education where nearly half of our students are at great academic risk will only cost much more long into the future.

4) With its budget shrunk at least until the end of the recession what should Seattle parks look like?

We need to maintain our parks so they are inviting and accessible to all. Funding for parks maintenance has suffered in recent years because of the economic slump. In 2008, I worked with Councilmember Rasmussen to craft a Parks levy for the November ballot. That measure passed overwhelmingly.

There are discussions under way to identify other Parks funding options.

5) What is the Seattle’s role in education and public transportation given how important they are to the city, but that other agencies are tasked with them?

With regard to public education, our role is to make certain that Seattle students receive a high quality education. The City has many opportunities to influence the direction and policies of the Seattle School District— Families and Education Levy, joint use agreements for school playgrounds and parks, collaboration between the Council and the School Board.

City services should be aligned with the policies and outcomes of the School District. For example, we do this now with the Levy that is designed to provide academic and support services consistent with the District’s goals and with police services at specific District buildings.

SDOT is responsible for city streets and bridges and we work closely with King County and state agencies related to Metro bus services and state highways that traverse Seattle. We have good relationships with these other agencies; witness the new regional transit service principles for allocation of Metro service that eliminated the old and flawed 40-40-20 rules.

1) Crime is down in the city, but we’ve seen some horrible incidents with the police in recent years. How do we ensure public safety and not have those sorts of things happen in the future?

I believe that if the Seattle Police Department follows the recommendations of the City Council Public Safety Committee, real progress can be made to ensure public safety and public trust. Here are some of the key recommendations:

a. Establish a county-wide consistent approach to officer-involved deaths to avoid conflicts of interest;
b. Strengthen civilian oversight and increase public understanding and trust by implementing the recommendations of the civilian observer to the Firearms Review Board;
c. Review and enhance hiring standards and training as recommended by the Office of Professional Accountability Civilian Auditor including de-escalation training for all patrol officers with special emphasis on misdemeanor and other low-level encounters;
d. Monthly Office of Professional Accountability reports should summarize findings of misconduct; the nature of the discipline and changes to policy or procedure that have resulted from a complaint so that the public can see the actions taken by the department;
e. Expedite resolution of cases where there is a referral for possible criminal filing by referring the case file to both the King County Prosecutor and the City Attorney for review and recommendations;
f. Allow supervisors to use In-Car Video for instructional purposes;
g. Require mandatory and timely drug and alcohol testing of all officers involved in the use of deadly force regardless of whether a death has occurred and in all use of force incidents that result in the hospitalization or hospital treatment of a person;

2) Now that the Viaduct is coming down, what should the waterfront look like?

I would like the public places to be as beautiful and open and accessible and free from commercialization as possible. The waterfront should include great landscaping with many opportunities to gain access to the water and to view Elliot Bay and the Olympic Mountains. I would like the newly developed portions of the waterfront to be connected with and to extended to the walking and biking trails of Myrtle Edwards Park to the north and similar trails to the south.

3) As the great recession drags on, the city budget is still hurt. What do we need to cut, what do we need to keep, and do we need to raise more money via taxation?

We “need to cut” funding in areas where the City will not experience harm to public safety or deterioration to our infrastructure. I believe that all City Departments should be directed to find cuts and savings through efficiencies in operations and by reducing administrative and overhead costs. I would request department directors to engage their City employees and the public to identify where savings can occur and where budget reductions are possible with the least reduction in public services and with the least harm to our public facilities.

What we must ensure that we support is public safety: police and fire services; infrastructure maintenance and repair of our transportation system; our parks and other public facilities to avoid costly deterioration; public health and human service programs that are essential to the lives of the most vulnerable including the poor, children, seniors and people with disabilities.

I have proposed an increase in the vehicle license fee in order to help meet the maintenance and repair needs of our transportation system as well as to help improve its operations. This measure if approved by the voters would improve transit service; and would increase funding for repair of our roads and would fund bike and pedestrian safety improvements.

4) With its budget shrunk at least until the end of the recession what should Seattle parks look like?

Given the reduction in revenue the City will be cutting services. Of course I would like our parks to look beautiful and to be well maintained. But with reduction in staff that will be challenging. My preference and priorities are to minimize reductions to maintenance and repair staff and seek cuts in other areas of the Parks Department budget.

5) What is the Seattle’s role in education and public transportation given how important they are to the city, but that other agencies are tasked with them?

A strong and successful public school system and a good public transportation system both are fundamentally important to a thriving, healthy and successful City.

The role of the City in education is to support education both indirectly and directly. The indirect support can range from safe sidewalks and routes to schools to sharing of athletic fields and community centers. Direct support can and is provided through the City sponsored Family and Education Levy, which is up for renewal. The programs and services funded by the levy are designed to support, strengthen and ensure the success of students in the Seattle Public Schools. Other direct support should include support for arts and cultural programs that are affordable
and accessible to students.

Public transportation is funded, planned and provided for at the regional level with significant authority for planning and funding authorized by the state of Washington. The City’s role is to be an active and effective participant at all levels in public transportation advocacy and organizations.

Seattle City officials should be leading strong advocates for public transportation and for public transportation funding and expansion. Seattle officials must build strong relations throughout the region and the state to be able to be successful in creating and receiving support for public transportation.

1) Crime is down in the city, but we’ve seen some horrible incidents with the police in recent years. How do we ensure public safety and not have those sorts of things happen in the future?

I believe the Seattle Police Department is composed of very professional officers who take pride in protecting the well-being of our residents. But recent events have shown that there are indeed some “bad apples” in the bunch. The City Council should send a strong message to the Police Department that these types of incidents will not be tolerated, and that we should continue to support and strengthen the Office of Professional Accountability Review Board’s mission. I am certain with these actions, we will continue to have a police force that our Seattle residents will be proud of, and that unfortunate incidents such as these will become a thing of the past.

2) Now that the Viaduct is coming down, what should the waterfront look like?

I personally believe that the central portion of the Viaduct should not be torn down. As shown with the Highline in New York City, a fortified Viaduct (in conjunction with a rebuilt seawall and the removal of traffic from the structure) will allow the structure to remain in use for pedestrians for many years to come. In its existing state, the structure can connect all of the major attractions that bring visitors to downtown Seattle, including access to Safeco and CenturyLink fields, Pioneer Square, the Central Business District, and a possible connection to Pike Place Market and the Waterfront Sculpture Park.

An added benefit to the Viaduct is its double decking. The top levels could be used as a park, allowing City residents and tourists (both local and others) to enjoy an unparalleled view of Seattle’s downtown core, Puget Sound, and the Olympic Mountains. The bottom level could be used as a place for local merchants, including artisans and food vendors, to sell their merchandise. The top level would act as a covering, allowing the structure to be used year- round, allowing for increased usability and access throughout the year.

The street level beneath the Viaduct could be used as an alternative route to the Waterfront Streetcar, and would allow for a (reduced) number of parking spaces. This would allow the city to take much less of a hit on parking revenues, while allowing a place for cyclists to have an enjoyable trip along their waterfront.

3) As the great recession drags on, the city budget is still hurt. What do we need to cut, what do we need to keep, and do we need to raise more money via taxation?

Due to the Great Recession, many working people and families are struggling to make ends meet, and cannot afford to pay increased taxes. I believe that we should focus our efforts and available funding toward projects that will maintain our present infrastructure, while identifying areas of city government that need improvement and developing a plan to improve them. This way, projects that will be needed in the future will already be identified and can be executed when available funding can be secured.

Services that are vital to the well-being to residents’ livelihood, such as transit, neighborhood infrastructure improvements (like sidewalks and street repairs) should be maintained at their current levels, while additions such as streetcar extensions should be postponed until funding becomes available.

4) With its budget shrunk at least until the end of the recession what should Seattle parks look like?

Despite the shrunken budgets, I believe that there is no excuse for Seattle’s park maintenance to become lax. Although it is desirable to continue to expand the park system, the current economic situation requires that we continue to maintain our parks at the same level of care that Seattle residents have come to expect over the years.

5) What is the Seattle’s role in education and public transportation given how important they are to the city, but that other agencies are tasked with them?

Seattle’s role in education, although limited, should be to provide a safe environment free of crime and intimidation. Over the last couple of years, we have heard about a disturbing trend of violent crimes being committed near some of our schools. This reduces the safety of our students and creates an atmosphere that makes both parents and students reluctant to attend school. The City should work with school administrators and Seattle Police to ensure that crime and intimidation will not be tolerated at any of our schools. By doing this, we can provide a safe, caring environment for those who are working hard to make a bright future for themselves and become productive members of our society.

Seattle’s role in public transportation is also quite pronounced. Even though Metro is not directly funded or operated by the city, it is important that the City provide decent infrastructure. I believe many of our residents are inclined to take transit and reduce vehicle trips, but are reluctant to do so when it is unsafe or inconvenient to access them. We must work to maintain our roads and arterials, which, when properly maintained, provide the foundation for all safe forms of transit, and help Seattle achieve its goal of reducing transportation’s effect on the environment.

1) Crime is down in the city, but we’ve seen some outrageous incidents involving police in recent years. How do we ensure public safety and not have those sorts of things happen in the future?

I strongly believe that the SPD has many good officers and supervisors – but regret that there have been too many high-profile incidents that have, justifiably, cast a bad light on the department. We need to rebuild mutual trust between citizens and those who work so hard to protect and make our city a safe place to live and work.

I believe that our three-cornered system of police accountability has, for the most part, served us well, but it is clear that we need to work toward improving the system. For one, I support a pilot project to evaluate the use of body cameras for on-duty officers. If the pilot is successful, this may be the wave of the future. Second, we need better police training, most especially in the area of cultural sensitivity. To this end, I support the 11-step proposal of the Public Safety and Education Committee—including enhanced hiring standards and training of officers, expedited review of potential criminal charges against officers, monthly reports of findings of sustained misconduct, and drug-testing for officers involved in the use of deadly force. However, we do need to be cognizant that some of these measures must be negotiated with the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild.

2) Now that the Viaduct is coming down, what should the waterfront look like?

The waterfront should become the city’s front door, comprising a crescent of parks, walkways, bike paths, and a boulevard that stretches from the stadium district to the Sculpture Park. There should be ample sidewalks for outdoor dining, irresistible shops and romantic restaurants, a small boat harbor, trees, shrubs and flowers, and a beach where we can meet the water. I envision a Eurostyle plaza, a children’s spray park, a space for Summer Nights’ on the Pier, perhaps an amphitheater (Shakespeare on the waterfront). New housing opportunities would allow more people to live near where they work. Small businesses would flourish as patrons come from all over to visit our waterfront. The Pike Place Market would tumble down the hill to offer fresh vegetable and flowers, fresh-baked bread and hand-made crafts. Priorities would include a passenger-friendly redevelopment of Colman Dock, an enhanced waiting area for foot ferries, and ample space for Port of Seattle harbor activities.

3) As the great recession drags on, the city budget is still hurting. What do we need to cut, what do we need to keep, and do we need to raise more money via taxation?

As Budget Chair, my top priority has been ensuring that vital human services — such as community health clinics and domestic violence programs— are prioritized. When the Mayor tried to reduce human services, neighborhood programs, and libraries I said “No way.” In addition, I worked to restore funding for community centers and long overdue improvements to our city’s roads and sidewalks. My budget priorities—public safety and human services— have remained the same during both surpluses and shortfalls. These core services need to be our top priorities as we head into the 2012 budget process.

In addition, I recently co-sponsored a resolution to increase efforts to move homeless men and women into permanent housing. We must not forget that, even during these tough economic times, securing a warm bed for those without is a top priority. For example, as chair of the Council’s Budget Committee, I worked to ensure funding for a severe winter shelter at City Hall.

Regarding raising revenue—yes, we do need to raise revenue to pay for critical public services. Unfortunately, state law severely limits the city’s ability to impose taxes to raise revenue. As discussed below, I support two ballot measures (the Families and Education Levy and the Transportation Benefit District) that, if passed, will generate needed revenue to support our education and transportation systems.

4) With its budget shrunk at least until the end of the recession what should Seattle parks look like?

Parks are of great importance to our City, especially during this lingering recession as they are a “zero cost” place for people to relax and recreate. Unfortunately, the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department has taken a large share of the budget cuts. It is to the Department’s credit that, even in these lean times, parks’ grounds are for the most part still looking good and, although somewhat reduced, parks are still offering a variety of recreational activities. I will continue stretch every dollar of revenue so that we can provide our citizens with best parks possible, while also maintaining other critical services.

5) What is the Seattle’s role in education and public transportation given how important they are to the city, but that other agencies are tasked with them?

Although other government levels administer these services– the School Board (responsible for education) and King County and Sound Transit (public transportation), Seattle must continue to play a key role in providing the support necessary to ensure that citizens are being served in these critical areas.

Regarding education, one key role of the City is passing the Families and Education Levy this November. This levy, which the City Council doubled in size, will fund programs to improve children’s readiness for school, student’s academic achievement and reduction of the academic achievement gap, and student’s graduation from high school and preparation for college or a career.

I voted to put this levy on the ballot because of my strong belief that, especially in tough economic times, we must support our most at-risk kids (disproportionally children of color). The

Levy will support academic programs at schools with a high proportion of low-income students, as well as early-learning programs that improve academic success. To this end, even though I am in the midst of a reelection campaign, I have made sure to get out and campaign on behalf of this crucial measure. We must graduate all our students ready either for college or a career.

Regarding public transportation, I backed the Regional Transportation Committee’s move away from the rigid 40/40/20 formula for allocating Metro bus hours (under which 80% of new bus service hours were sent to the suburbs). The 40/40/20 allocation inhibited our ability to provide busses in Seattle, where demand is the highest and service is the most cost effective. I also lobbied on behalf of King County’s passage of a $20 car-tab fee in order to prevent a 17% reduction in Metro service in Seattle over the next two years.

At the same time, I voted to place on the ballot an annual Vehicle License Fee of $60 that, if approved by voters, will allow the City to make major improvements to our transit system while also providing safer roads for drivers and bicyclists, as well as safer crosswalks and sidewalks for pedestrians. It is the City’s duty to preserve and maintain the infrastructure that allows goods and services to move safely and quickly through our streets.

Plan ahead for the closure of the Viaduct starting October 21 (h/t).

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will close the majority of the Alaskan Way Viaduct at 7:30 p.m. on Friday, October 21 until 5 a.m. Monday, October 31.

During the closure, crews will tear down large sections of the southern mile of the viaduct, and complete temporary connections to a new SR 99 bridge currently under construction on the west side of the viaduct in SODO. Also, the northbound viaduct between the South Royal Brougham Way on-ramp and the Battery Street Tunnel will open from 5 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, and for special events at CenturyLink Field, but closed other times.

Drivers are encouraged to consider alternatives to their normal commute. WSDOT suggests the following options: carpooling, vanpooling riding the bus, water taxi, train or light rail; working from home or adjusting work schedules; checking traffic conditions before hitting the roads; using alternate routes where possible; delaying or combining trips.

Personally, I encourage carpooling, vanpooling riding the bus, water taxi, train or light rail even on days when the Viaduct is working fine.

My prediction: Most news outlets won’t cover it much until a week ahead and then will be like OHMYGOD!!!!!!!!!!! for a solid week. Then traffic is a little worse downtown but not much. But like I-5 a few years ago, or I-405 in LA, people will adjust and be fine.

– Republicans sure are Assholes.

– Who think they’re funny when they’re being assholes.

– Reuven Carlyle passes this on about 619 Western.

– So, when’s the rally to protest this outrageous waste and misuse of taxpayer’s money?

– Flying While Black & Reading Antique Aviation Books (h/t)

– An amazing looking moth.

I sent the following questions to all of the candidates for Seattle City Council. I’ll put the answers up in Tuesdays and Thursdays: Sept. 6 & 8 for position 1, Sept. 13 & 15 for position 3, Sept. 20 & 22 for position 5, Sept. 27 & 29 for position 7 and October 4 and 6 for position 9. First candidate to respond on Tuesday, second on Thursday. There is a good chance some of the candidates won’t respond, if that’s the case, I’ll probably make up snarky answers for them.

1) Crime is down in the city, but we’ve seen some horrible incidents with the police in recent years. How do we ensure public safety and not have those sorts of things happen in the future?

2) Now that the Viaduct is coming down, what should the waterfront look like?

3) As the great recession drags on, the city budget is still hurt. What do we need to cut, what do we need to keep, and do we need to raise more money via taxation?

4) With its budget shrunk at least until the end of the recession what should Seattle parks look like?

5) What is the Seattle’s role in education and public transportation given how important they are to the city, but that other agencies are tasked with them?

I think as the campaign season kicks into swing, I’m going to ask candidates for various offices questions. But I’d like to hear from the folks here. So far, I can think of some things I’d like to ask Seattle, King County, and Port candidates. If pressed, I could probably reasonably ask some things of some people running for mayor in some of the ring cities and some of the bigger cities in the area, or Seattle School board. But it’s an odd year, so nothing statewide. And I don’t know what local issues exist outside of the Puget Sound area.

Basically, while I have preferences that I’ll probably express pretty strongly about some of those positions between now and November, I want to ask questions that are more openended and to ask all of the candidates the same questions. So I’d email, say, 3-5 questions to each candidate per position and post them unedited here in some predetermined order on a predetermined date.

So is there anything you’d like a semi-popular Washington State political blog to ask of anyone?

Here are basically what I have so far, I’ve kept them vague for the most part so far so people can flesh out ideas in the comments without me saying here’s the question ahead of time:

Seattle City Council:

• Something about the Viaduct, probably cost overruns
• Something about police, preferably including accountability and safety
• Something about faster Internet across the city
• What is the city’s role in education and public transportation given how important they are to the city, but that other agencies are tasked with them?

King County

• Something about Metro service
• Something about services in general since the voters rejected Proposition 1 last year

Port of Seattle

• Something about how people run on reform, but it doesn’t seem like much has been done.
• How can the Port create jobs in the region?
• How can the Port reduce pollution/greenhouse gases, etc.
• Something about parks*

[Read more…]

I’m a fan of Publicola, but they’ve fallen into the same trap as much of the rest of the Seattle media on the McGinn and the tunnel. From a piece about Peter Hahn signing the Environmental Impact Statement for the tunnel (I assume by Josh, but it’s the Afternoon Jolt, so it doesn’t have a name attached, and he and Erica do the same thing).

The move could signify that McGinn’s administration has decided to back off (for now, anyway) from its single-minded opposition to the controversial project. The McGinn administration, mindful perhaps of polling that has linked his bad numbers to his nonstop focus on the tunnel, has been notably quiet about the tunnel these days. This even-keeled move will definitely draw applause from McGinn’s establishment opponents who consider him an obstructionist.

First off, you think McGinn’s establishment opponents give a fuck about policy? Nobody gives him credit for being bold on the Youth and Family initiative. Nobody thanks him for filling potholes quickly. Nobody gives him credit for a budget that didn’t cut social services. Despite the fact that he salted the roads during the snow storm like his establishment opponents demanded (and I think it’s bad policy, but it is clearly the position of Seattle insiders) he doesn’t get credit. So, no, I don’t think anyone will care that this time instead of asking for and being given more time by the state DOT that this time his people just signed it when their concerns were met.

But to the main point, McGinn has always been able to walk and chew gum (see the paragraph above, for examples of other things he does, and it doesn’t even get into the things that the establishment is against, but that deserve more coverage). He’s never been single minded about the tunnel. He’s always talked about other things. I’m sorry, but it’s been the media, including Publicola, who who see McGinn only through one highway project instead of through his budget and other policies.

Perhaps that’s why he has to stop talking about it. Because we have media who can’t stop talking about how much they’re over talking about the Viaduct replacement. The rap on him has always been that he’s a 1 issue candidate or a 1 issue mayor. But that’s never been the case. He’s always been able to chew gum and walk at the same time. He just needs an audience that won’t obsess about the gum thing.

Ryan Blethen has a column defending the fact that the ed board talks about the mayor of the city in its masthead and the speaker of the state house. As a frequent critic of the ed board, let me say: that isn’t the problem. The problem is that you’re wrong about them.

Even casual readers of The Seattle Times’ Opinion section have probably noticed two names: Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and state House Speaker Frank Chopp.

Yes. They are high profile elected officials. I expect the ed board of the largest daily paper in the state to mention them.

They are difficult to miss because we have been writing a lot about them. As the editorial page editor I believe it is important to be persistent on issues we feel strongly about or that demand a spotlight.

Does anyone say not to cover the legislature or city government?

We have been all over Chopp, a Seattle Democrat, for sitting on a bill to revamp workers’ compensation. Chopp’s resistance to the reform proposal became a serious threat to completing the state’s budget.

The bill is unnecessary to move a budget forward, so it’s anyone insisting that it be part of budget negotiations is holding up the budget. Also, we don’t need to revamp, workers’ comp. And if we did we should probably not do it in a corporate friendly way. But seriously, nobody says don’t try to hold Frank Chopp accountable. We’re just saying what you want him to do is dumb and there are better targets if you actually care about passing the budget.

But as always it’s McGinn who really gets under the Seattle Times’ skin. Ryan, start off with something I’m not sure if it’s a mixed metaphor or horrible pun:

McGinn has become a regular thanks to his tunnel vision on the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and numerous other issues. Last week’s McGinn editorial du jour was his hiring of the former advocacy director of the Cascade Bicycle Club. In an editorial we argued that David Hiller is not a great hire for a transportation and external communications gig. More important, though, was the way the announcement of the hiring was handled.

I literally can’t tell if “tunnel vision” is a joke or if he’s just trying to say McGinn is obsessed with one issue. In any event, you can’t have tunnel vision on “numerous other issues.” Tunnel vision means one issue, numerous issues means more than one issue.

Anyway, David Hiller is fucking rad. He helped turn the region more bike friendly. Right now, to take one example out of many, there’s construction on the Burke-Gillman trail in Lake Forest Park that Cascade helped bring about. Yes, he’s said some controversial things. Yes, he can be a lightning rod. Those are things that make an interesting story. The announcement aspect is so boring (not to mention piss poorly handled by the local media) that just thinking about it now, I’ve fallen asleep and am typing in my sleep zzzzzzz.

When the city is facing budget shortfalls, a mayor should know he needs to justify the hiring of a political ally in a well-paying job — even if that $87,500 job fills an existing opening. A clear explanation of Hiller’s hiring is not what the public heard. His job description was vague and the media were provided with a salary higher than the actual number.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

*Wakes Up*

*Re-reads this paragraph and decides to keep making fun of it*

Why should he get credit for significant cuts his office’s budget? Don’t you know that one specific hire is more important than the overall picture? (And I’m not even arguing that the amount he cut is right; the city probably should have kept the head tax, and it some of that money stayed in the mayor’s office, that’s fine by me.) Again, you’re allowed to look at the mayor’s office, but when you make dumb arguments, expect to get called on them.

Reporters rightly had questions because of the salary given and the lack of a job description. KOMO-TV was frustrated enough to send a reporter to McGinn’s house the evening Hiller’s hiring was announced. This angered the mayor and his staff. So much so that Aaron Pickus, the mayor’s spokesman, sent an email to the television stations telling them how far away they should stand from the mayor.

Because they have no idea how to contact him during business hours or at any of the multiple public events he does around town, KOMO were forced to go to his house after 9:00. And don’t give me that he’s a public official bullshit. We’re talking about a fairly routine hire.

Any politician with a taxpayer-supported salary should understand that reporters might show up in places they would rather be left alone. There is no Fortress of Solitude in politics.

If this was a major event, I’d agree. If, say, one of McGinn’s deputy mayors had got arrested and McGinn refused to talk about it, I’d be with you. Go to his house and demand answers. For David Hiller being hired, wait until the morning.

Anyway, how about going into super defensive mode and attacking a straw man?

One of the criticisms I often hear is that it is unfair for us to beat up on public figures. It would be if they didn’t have multiple outlets to voice their displeasure with us or support their cause. We are quick to offer up oped and letter space to the people we take to task. If a politician is frustrated with our stance they are free to complain about it to reporters, to us, or to unions or to business chambers.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that nobody has ever said it’s unfair for any newspaper to beat up on public figures. They may say your take is unfair. That you’re focusing on some public officials over others. Maybe someone has compared it to the embarrassingly fawning coverage Boeing and Microsoft get. Anyway, Ryan Blethen thinks he’s very brave for doing his fucking job. Poorly.

Recently, my favorite sports writer, Joe Posnanski wrote a piece about the meanings of advanced baseball statistics. He started quoting this piece from Louis CK:

“And then I was looking at the little Chinese lady. There was a beauty to her — she was just a tiny little Chinese lady, I was staring at her because I was fascinated by her. I don’t know anybody like her, and I am SO not a little old Chinese lady.

“Then I look and I think, ‘What are her thoughts?’ That’s what I was burning inside with. ‘What is she thinking right now?’ I can never know. And my dumb brain is telling me she’s just thinking: ‘Ching chung cheeng, chung cheeng chaing.’ That’s how dumb I am, that I think Chinese jibberish* that I made up is in her actually Chinese mind.”

Posnanski then went on to explain that a lot of people who oppose the use of advanced statistics are arguing with the Chinese jibberish in their head.

Baseball people really don’t get at all what people like Bill James and Tom Tango and Pete Palmer and the like are doing at all. They might THINK they know. But in the end, they are just assuming that the Chinese jibberish that they make up is what is actually happening in the minds of the most brilliant sabermetric minds.

This is a long way of saying that whenever I mention car culture or Washington State imposing car culture on its city folk, that I feel like the arguments I get into are with people assuming the Chinese jibberish in their head is my argument. If this was confined to the Internet, I’d just chalk it up to trollery and use this post to write about something else (more metacommentary, probably), but I hear it in conversation elsewhere, so I thought I should clarify what I mean, and hopefully we can get away from that and onto an actual conversation.

To address the jibberish: Opposing car culture doesn’t mean that nobody will ever be allowed to drive anywhere. It doesn’t mean that we’ll turn all the roads into bike paths. It doesn’t mean that you won’t be able to drive. While I can’t speak to anyone else who uses the term, for me it certainly doesn’t mean I think you’re a bad person if you drive or if you enjoy driving. It doesn’t mean that you are a bad person for feeling unsafe on a bike, or thinking it’s important to have a car if you have children.

Car culture is the myriad ways we privilege driving over other ways to get around as a society. It’s the fact that you need a car for so many jobs, even jobs unrelated to driving. It’s the fact that our bicycle infrastructure even in Seattle is pretty inadequate, and worse further out. It’s the fact that so many parents have such a need for cars. It’s all the roads without a shoulder let alone a decent bike lane. It’s the sidewalks that neighborhoods have been promised for decades but that never quite seem to materialize. It’s the underfunded public transit. It’s the fact that when we discuss the viaduct replacement that many people are more concerned about how to move cars than how to move people. It’s our refusal to deal with the externalities of driving from pollution, to global warming gases, to the big holes in cities where we have to park, to the fact that streets aren’t safe for pedestrians in the way they were before cars.

And car culture is treating all these things as inevitable instead of the result of choices we make. When I say the legislature imposes car culture (especially, but not exclusively) on Seattle, I’m saying that consciously or not, the policies that the state pushes make those things in the above paragraph, and more, worse. So when, for example, a state legislator from Yakima tries to impose a maximum parking tax on Seattle that’s a choice for that legislator, and possibly the entire state. They’re saying we should have cheaper parking. Not we should figure out what’s reasonable given the budget deficit and the things that extra parking does to a city, but that they know best. When the legislature wants to build a replacement for the Viaduct, instead of looking at how to move people around, they’re looking at how to move cars. Until they recognize that cars are one way people and goods move around, but aren’t the only way, they’ll still push cars on us when there are better alternatives. Not just with the Viaduct replacement but with all sorts of policies.

[Read more…]

Will (who you may remember used to write here, and could theoretically once again) has a piece on Slog where he argues that Seattle needs to be afraid of what the Olympia might do if we reject the tunnel. Bold mine because bolding on Slog seems mostly random.

If we reject the tunnel, the money will go away, and will be turned in to a north-south freeway in Spokane, or added lanes on I-405. Or part could be used to widen I-5 under the convention center, which might be the best-case scenario. Or it could be moved to the 520 bridge replacement project, which is short of funds. Or, just to spite us, they could give us a brand new viaduct, a wider, bigger, quieter replacement of the current structure complete with downtown exits and grand views of the harbor.

First off, the cost of a gallon of gas is rising just as quickly in the Eastside and Spokane as it is anywhere else. It’ll probably come down a bit off this high, but the trend is in the wrong direction. If they want to continue to tether themselves to foreign oil it’s not Seattle’s business, but good luck attracting skilled workers to the 21st century economy. Second, and more important, it’s past time Seattle (and frankly the rest of the urban-suburban Puget Sound, since the rest of the state hates them almost as much as Seattle) starts fighting spiteful bullshit with spiteful bullshit.

In 2009 when a few Tacoma legislators decided that they wanted to make sure that Tacoma Power could pollute more, they were able to gum up the works of the whole state. There’s no reason that the Seattle legislators who oppose the cost overrun provision couldn’t start demanding cost overrun provisions in any project (not just any road project) outside the net donor counties until the tunnel cost overrun provisions are repealed. And if they don’t get that to gum up the works. Seattle gives away our hard earned tax money to those counties and doesn’t see much of a return on their investment.

Partly this plan is out of spite for the state trying to saddle us with a freeway we don’t want, and then trying to make us pay for it. But you’re never going to get good policy until you’re willing to put your foot down against bad policy; while putting cost overrun provisions on counties that don’t pay their fair share is bad policy, it’s better policy than putting those provisions on a city that does.

And yes, the plan relies to some extent on the Seattle delegation asserting themselves. Relying on Seattle legislators to have any backbone is like relying on jelly fish to have any backbone. Still, if the tunnel loses an election in August and a few City Council members lose their jobs in November, it might put some steel in the legislature’s resolve.

***

Also, just as a side note, I supported Roads and Transit. Given how easily the Transit portion passed the following year, it’s probably fair to say that I’m more pro having the Seattle area pay extra for car infrastructure than the average urban King County resident. So call me a dirty hippie or whatever but if the state antagonizes Seattle enough, you can look forward to mayor for life Mike McGinn.

I’m currently on the seventh floor of the King County Courthouse building in downtown Seattle. The jury is deliberating in the trial of Bryan Gabriel, the medical marijuana provider at the center of the tragic circumstances from last June that I wrote about here, in which a medical marijuana patient named Jeff Roetter died during an epileptic seizure as Snoqualmie police were pressuring him to testify against Gabriel. The charges that Gabriel currently faces are unrelated to Roetter, but were curiously filed the exact same day that Snoqualmie police were forced by a judge to return 10 ounces of marijuana to Gabriel.

The reason I’m even able to be here today, though, is that yesterday was my last day of work at the job I’ve been at since late 2008. I don’t write much about my actual day job since I let work and blogging co-mingle a bit too much at Microsoft. I work much harder to keep the two things separate (which I make easy for myself by being a shitty blogger with a relatively small audience). This past job was even easier for me to do that, since a lot of the people I worked with weren’t local, and I became a father in 2009 – giving me even less time to write shitty posts.

My career is in software quality assurance (QA). I’ve worked on airplanes, office productivity products, online music systems, statistical modeling applications, and large-scale data warehouses. My career has presented me with numerous challenges and I genuinely like the process of having to solve difficult problems. In this most recent job, I succeeded in climbing up into management and got a different perspective on how QA is done and a better perspective on how large projects are managed and – more commonly – mismanaged.

But this experience has also made me ponder the parallels between how QA functions within a company building a commercial product and how government functions within a society. Working on flight control software at Boeing early on in my career, I saw the overlap between them, as the FAA worked directly with us in our certification efforts. While it’s true that Boeing cares a lot about safety, I’ve worked at enough places since then to know that corporate bottom lines are often the most immovable objects, and that FAA presence within the group was both welcome and necessary. It made it easier for those of us in QA to demand enough time to complete our job.

At many other places, that isn’t always the case. QA efforts are often undermanned and underfunded, and yet still end up taking the blame when things go wrong. Developers and sometimes even program management fail to see the value that QA provides until a horrendous bug is found in a production system that probably would’ve been found by that QA engineer that you laid off last year. It’s one of the basic tenets of software development that the longer it takes for you to find a bug, the more it costs you. You know QA has done their job well when you aren’t constantly reminded of how important they are.

This isn’t an argument to have government regulation for all types of software development. Most commercial software development doesn’t impact public safety the way that airplanes do, and companies survive or fail based upon the quality of the products they produce (and they often don’t, but that’s a whole other post) without us needing to interfere with that process. But the parallels to government and how it’s seen in our society is what this post is about.

At the town hall I attended last weekend, Republican State Rep Jay Rodne complained that the state Department of Transportation had 5000 engineers on its staff. He seemed utterly incredulous at this statistic, as if he’d discovered some secret cabal that’s bleeding the taxpayers of Washington state dry. He didn’t provide any examples of waste. In his mind, the mere presence of the workers is an indication of wastefulness. This is religion dressed up as politics, a belief that a public sector employee or any public project is inherently a drain on society.

One can easily look on the WSDOT page to see what those engineers work on. Currently featured is the work being done on the Alaskan Way Viaduct for earthquake preparedness. These are things that you tend to notice only when they’re not done right – or not done at all. And when you decide to skimp on those things, just like in the software world, you can end up costing yourself far more in the long run.

My latest work experience was a frustrating one. Without going into too much detail, it involved significant budget cutting to our QA groups, including an offshoring push. The efforts to rein in costs made it very difficult to do proper QA on a number of their systems, potentially costing them far more in the long run. They closed down our office before I got to see how it all unfolded, but with some free time inbetween jobs, I’ll have some extra time to watch what happens in our greater society as we continue to take the same approach with government programs – eliminating workers whose value is often underappreciated, and taking away projects whose presence keeps overall costs down.

Today is the 10 anniversary of the Nisqually earthquake that shook the Seattle region and almost brought down the Alaska Way viaduct. 

I celebrated the day by driving the viaduct…for the first time in my life.  I took it southbound…you know, the direction that would get me pancaked in a collapse.

I was on my way to West Seattle to get a root canal.

You might say I was wishing for The Big One.

No such luck, as  I’m writing this from my phone while waiting in The Chair for the Novocaine to kick in. 

Update: Well, that wasn’t so bad. Root canals have a bad rep. I hereby apologize to the residents of the Puget Sound region for wishing mayhem, death and destruction upon them over my endodontic anxiety.

If I’d told you that Joni Balter had a piece up about an election, would you think, maybe she’s going to write about the bond and levy elections that happened yesterday? Or perhaps the elections this November for Seattle City Council, King County Council, and various other municipalities around the state? 2012, and what the redistricting might do to state and Federal elections here in Washington? What will be the lines of the 10th district? Will she write about how Gregoire’s probable retirement means a reshuffling of the state’s executive branch? The president? No, stupid, none of those things, something that will happen after all of them. She’s writing about the mayor’s race.

It’s summer 2013: The southern half of the Alaskan Way Viaduct came down 10 months ago, creating dust, noise and predictable simmering feuds. But at least the project advanced before a feared earthquake. At Seattle City Hall, the ground rumbles in another way.

Construction projects never have any delays. True fact. Also, did the demolition create predictable simmering feuds, or am I diagramming that sentence wrong?

A humdinger of a mayor’s race is taking place, pitting the biggest foe of the tunnel, Mayor Mike McGinn, against City Councilmember Tim Burgess and state Sen. Ed Murray, two project supporters. As the city keeps growing, the public is comfortable that a tunnel is being built to keep traffic moving.

Remember that list of elections that happens before the one we’re talking about? I’m not sure Burgess wins it. If the cost over runs measure gets on the ballot (a big if), I think a few members lose.

Also, Balter is awful confident that there won’t be any more traffic than when the Viaduct was up. That nobody will feel any ill effects from the tunnel. To be clear, the 2013 tunnel is coming in on time, under budget, and not negatively effecting anyone in this fantasy of hers. Since construction on 1st is already fucking up my commute, I find that tough to believe.

Also, also, humdinger? There are mummies who don’t use that phrase because it’s too passe. Anyway, skipping past bullshit digs at McGinn, we get back to the Burgess.

Burgess skated to re-election to his council seat in 2011 and has been a leader on the viaduct, parking, education, police accountability, the sea wall. Voters lapped up that Families and Education levy he and the mayor worked on in 2011.

Since Burgess in 2011 punts on police accountability and the seawall, it’s tough to imagine why he’ll be taking the lead in 2013. Everyone thinking about running for anything in Seattle will support the Families and Education levy, so I’m not sure why that’s his. On parking he’s mostly modifying McGinn’s proposal, and it will be 3 years old by the time of the election. I’m not familiar with his education plank (or if it’s made up like some of the other things). So mostly that’s things McGinn has done better through 2011. But if you think the tunnel will be made of pixie farts, and not cause any problems then score one for Burgess.

Look, I’m probably McGinn’s biggest supporter among bloggers. I voted for him somewhat reluctantly in the primary, and volunteered for him in the general because I really didn’t like his anti-choice-corporate-bigwig-I’m-going-to-buy-the-election opposition. But I was skeptical that the Mike Bikes thing was real. I was skeptical that he’d pull for the city when things got tough. I was wrong, and he’s the rare breed of politician who has exceeded my expectations.

But I understand that our last 2 mayors lost primaries for reelection. And that not everybody likes his style. So, he could lose. I’d rather someone who loses by doing good for the city than the seat warmers we’ve had for the past 50 years or so.

Anyway the conceit of this piece after I read Balter’s column was to spin out things that could happen to those people that weren’t that much more unlikely. Burgess loses in November, Murray decides to run for governor. And that the Seattle Times folds in early 2013. But the way I wrote it, it’s mostly just Burgess bashing instead. Since I’ve lost the whole thread, I’ll just end here.