|
|
 Budget Blues
Just a few weeks back Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels announced a package of mid-year cuts that he hopes will shore up the City’s budget deficit for 2009. It may not be the last round of reductions, however. New revenue numbers will come out in August, and if the revenue picture worsens by then, the Mayor will have to engage in yet more mid-year cost-cutting.
And that’s all before he gets around to tackling an even bigger problem – the deficit for 2010. Right now that’s expected to be around $40 million. There’s at least some comfort that the City’s Rainy Day Fund, which includes $25 million (after withdrawing $5 million for 2009) will soften the blow. But leaders I talk to say that even if they draw from that, they won’t deplete it entirely. After all, there’s always 2011, where it might be needed as well.
So, get ready for more cuts.
When I asked the Deputy Mayor recently whether Nickels will be able to hold the line on human services and police officers in future rounds of reductions, he was non-committal. He said that would have to be looked at given what the condition is in the future.
Cops and human services have been spared for now, but it does sound like they could come back into play if things continue to get worse.
Yesler Terrace
The Seattle Housing Authority has clearly learned a hard and important lesson from its redevelopments of Rainier Vista, Holly Park, and High Point.
Critics continually point out that there are fewer low-income housing units on those sites now than there were before the redevelopments started. The Housing Authority argues that it did indeed replace all such units (and then some), only many of them were created off-site in other parts of Seattle.
That fact has become an easy target for many low-income housing advocates and those who were opposed to the redevelopments in the first place. They have been able to argue that the makeovers benefitted middle and upper incomes households (for which there were many new units added) at the expense of the poor.
The Housing Authority recognizes that for the fourth and final “garden community” redevelopment, its policy will have to be different if it wants to avoid the controversy it suffered from the earlier projects. So, with the upcoming overhaul of Yesler Terrace, leaders are making it clear that they will replace all current low-income units (561) on-site. Moreover, they will guarantee every current resident a chance to come back, another commitment that was not made at the three previous redevelopments.
There will no doubt continue to be opponents of any Yesler makeover, but the replacement component will be a much harder to criticize this time around.
Watch City Inside/Out: Yesler Terrace
Gun Show Viewer Response
Our program last week about the Mayor's proposed gun ban on City property generated a lot of viewer feedback. Most of those who posted comments on our website were opposed to the policy. Here's a sampling:
"Police are not my bodyguards. I must provide my own security. I have a right to live. I have a right to defend my life. I have a right to the weapon I choose to keep living."
"The U.S. is one of the most dangerous countries in the world because of organizations like the NRA which see no connection between handguns, assault rifles, and violence…More guns means more violence."
"This will cost tons of money and the criminals will still have guns, only law abiding citizens would be disarmed. Save the money and fix the gang problems."
"If the police can't even remove drugs from the criminals on the streets, how do they expect to remove guns from criminals?"
"The path to reducing crime and violence -- including gun violence -- does not lie in taking away citizens' ability to defend themselves from violent criminals. It lies in reducing the number of desperate or unbalanced people. It requires a more comprehensive and intelligent social support system that provides a minimum of financial, health, and housing security to its citizens, drugs or treatment to addicts, and effective treatment (including confinement, when necessary) to the mentally ill. If you look at countries with high gun ownership and lower violence rates -- Finland, Switzerland, Canada -- this is what distinguishes them from us."
On-Line Poll
We also encouraged viewers to take an on-line poll. We posed 9 questions, the final one being whether the program had changed the viewer's mind about the proposed gun ban. Roughly 55 people have taken the poll (as of mid-day Friday, April 10), though not everyone answered every question. Needless to say, the survey is extremely unscientific. However, it does give you a sense of what at least some viewers thought of the program and of the issue. Here are the results:
Where do you live?
Seattle 40%
King County (Not Seattle) 20%
Other WA County 16.36%
Out of State 23.64%
Do you own a handgun?
Yes 53.85%
No 46.15%
Do you have a concealed weapons permit?
Yes 47.37%
No 52.63%
What is your view of the Mayor's proposed gun ban?
Agree 27.78%
Neutral 8.33%
Disagree 63.89%
What is your view of guns?
Causes Violence 27.03%
Prevents Violence 51.35%
No Connection 18.92%
Unsure 2.7%
Do you think the Mayor's proposed gun ban is legal?
Yes 14.29%
No 68.57%
Unsure 17.14%
If it's harder to get a concealed weapons permit, would you still feel we needed a ban?
Yes 20.59%
No 70.59%
Unsure 8.82%
What most influenced your view after watching the show?
In Studio Discussion 16.13%
Public Safety aspect 51.61%
Legal argument 32.26%
ER costs 0%
Other 0%
Has your view of the Mayor's proposed gun ban changed after watch the show?
Yes 10%
No 90%
The Mayor remains committed to implementing the gun ban. In an interview this week he told me that he expects it to go into effect later this spring.
Pot Laws --
State lawmakers in Olympia are considering a rather notable reform to WA’s marijuana law – decriminalization. A bill, which recently made it out of committee, would reduce misdemeanor pot possession (up to 40 grams) to a civil offense. Instead of going to jail, small-quantity users would simply pay a fine. The flat $100 penalty could even be mailed in, just like a parking ticket.
Dealing and possession of larger amounts would remain criminal acts.
It’s not legalization (where there would be no penalty), but it certainly is getting close.
Naturally, there are two sides to this issue. “It’s the wrong message,” argues Republican State Senator Pam Roach (R-Auburn), who voted against the bill as a member of the Judiciary Committee. “People who end up with oxycotin, cocaine and heroin have usually started with marijuana.”
“This is a non-addictive drug,” counters bill co-sponsor Adam Kline, a State Senator from Seattle. “Should a person who occasionally uses the way some people occasionally have a beer or a glass of wine go to jail and have a criminal record?”
The bill missed a deadline this week for consideration by the full Senate, but could actually make a comeback before the session is over since it has financial implications. (Bills that either save or spend money can be reconsidered at any time.) Supporters say it would save $16 million annually in enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration costs.
Interestingly, the decriminalization bill actually represents a move back to the way things used to be, at least in Seattle. Until 1989, the City treated small-quantity pot users in just this way – with a ticket, not jail time. That year the State Legislature passed a sweeping law that prevented local jurisdictions from being lenient in that way.
Pot decriminalization may or may not pass in WA this year, but the trend does seem to be in that direction. Voters in Massachusetts just approved an initiative this past November to that effect. That makes thirteen the number of states that treat small-quantity possession as a civil offense. The list is rather surprising, in that it includes some notable red states, Alaska, Nebraska and North Carolina.
Here's a link to a recent blog posting I wrote for Crosscut.com about the recent efforts in Olympia to win full marriage rights (without the name) for gays and lesbians.
After travelling down to Olympia this week to interview some of Seattle's state legislators, I wrote a piece for Crosscut.com about where things seem to stand with the Governor's viaduct tunnel proposal.
Also, check out my personal experience with schools closures.
I wrote a piece for Crosscut about the big influence City Councilmember Jan Drago is having on transportation issues in our City. Here's a link to the article.
I recently wrote about piece about Tim Burgess and his first year
on the Seattle City Council for Crosscut.com See if you agree with my
assessment.
Nickelsville
This week we took our cameras out to Nickelsville, the homeless encampment in the University District, to determine just who is living there.
Recently, that Mayor stated here on our Channel that those camping in Nickelsville are merely protestors who have homes to go to.
That's certainly not what we found.
We interviewed several residents who clearly had been previously living on the streets. Indeed, the pastor of the host church (University Christian) noted that many of the homeless in the U. District have actually taken refuge in Nickelsville since it moved there.
One thing that is always confusing about discussing our homeless situation is whether or not there are enough shelter spaces in our City or whether those living on the streets turn down shelter offers because they don't like the rules (the most classic being: in by 9PM, out by 6AM, no storage, no meals, no guarantee of another night's stay).
The homeless advocates on our program this week (Alison Eisinger of the Coalition on Homelessness, and Rick Reynolds of Operation Nightwatch) make a good case that it's a capacity problem, not a rules problem. Eisinger cites the statistic that shelters are typically 97% full – a number that was not disputed by Alan Painter, the Acting Director of Seattle's Human Services Department, who was also on the program.
Also, it's interesting to note that in the last few months the City has established 60 additional shelter spaces, a tacit acknowledgement that there is a capacity problem.
While there does seem to be a need for more shelter space, it's certainly true that the rules imposed by most shelters do turn many people off. Indeed, it's easy to understand why some would rather live in a greenbelt or in Nickelsville, where it can actually be easier to live a stable life while trying to get yourself back on your feet.
It seems to me that more needs to be done to make shelters a place that can accommodate the real-life needs of people on the street, which, hopefully, will lead to more people taking advantage of them. Can't we find a way to improve the hours of operation, provide storage, have a place people can rest and hang out during the day, and offer a guarantee or more than one night's stay? Watch the Show
Schools Superintendent Debate
Randy Dorn faces an uphill battle to become State Schools Superintendent. He is taking on a three-term incumbent, Terry Bergeson, who has a solid reputation among education leaders and the political class.
In many ways, the challenge of defeating Bergeson shouldn't be that hard. After all, nearly everyone seems to think that education in our state has terrible problems; the WASL has been a target of controversy; and the teacher's union soured on Bergeson long ago.
Dorn did make a strong relative showing during the primary. He got 34% compared with Bergeson's 39%. Indeed, the incumbent's vote total was pretty dismal - 61% of people voted against her, suggesting a strong preference for change. (In addition to Dorn, there were four other candidates on the primary election ballot challenging Bergeson. Three of them got at least 6% of the vote.)
Still, my sense is that Dorn hasn't yet sealed the deal for a new direction. I'm stopping short of making a prediction, but my feeling from having moderated a debate between the two of them is that he wasn't as strong at making the case for change as he needed to in order to win. I hope you'll watch our debate to see what you think.
Back in 2004, Bergeson was similarly challenged by an anti-WASL candidate, Judith Billings. In fact, Billings was herself a former Schools Superintendent trying to make a political comeback. She had name recognition, endorsements, and lots of credibility. And she lost. The final vote was 55.5% to 44.5%. Not even close.
And yet that year the primary was close. In fact, it was very nearly the result of this year's primary. Billings received 35% of the vote and Bergeson received 36%. (Like this year, there were a handful of other candidate in the primary in 2004.)
If history is any guide, Bergeson seems to be a candidate who looks weak in the primary election and ends up strong in the general election. We'll see if that holds this year as well.
Light Rail Debate 2.0
In many ways the Sound Transit debate we feature on this week's program is nearly identical to the debate we featured a year ago when the last light rail package was on the ballot (paired, of course, with a big roads piece). Indeed, three of our four guests were the same as last year!
The one notable difference, however, was that Mike O'Brien, who represents the Sierra Club, was sitting in a different chair -- this time right next to the supporter. As many know, the Sierra Club went from being opposed last year to being in favor this year. The main reason for the group's reversal is that the package no longer has the big roads component. The Sierra Club is concerned about global warming and polar bears. Building more roads, the group argues, will simply encourage our dependence on the single-occupant vehicle. Mass transit is the best way to combat global warming.
Given the emphasis the group places on global warming, I was surprised that Mike O'Brien didn't do much during our debate to defend the merits of light rail on that basis. I fully expected him to come out swinging when I brought up the environmental question. Instead, he seemed to let the opponents get the better of him when they made reference to a study (purportedly done by Sound Transit itself) that shows a negligible different between building light rail and doing nothing in terms of carbon emissions. O'Brien didn't really even try to counter the argument. His rebuttal basically amounted to this idea: Getting people out of their cars will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I have no idea if the study the opponents cite really proves their case, but I was quite surprised there was not a more forceful response from O'Brien. Reducing carbon emissions, after all, is the Sierra Club's entire mantra. He barely even tried during our debate.
I was also surprised that O'Brien didn't try to make the case that the Sound Transit plan would help reduce congestion. There's a Sound Transit study that purports to show that the light rail plan would cut car and truck trips by 30%. But O'Brien didn't go there. Instead, he conceded the point made by opponents that the $17.8 billion plan won't reduce congestion. Rather, he argued, it was worth supporting because it provides "alternatives".
The congestion-reduction argument is indeed hard to make with these kinds of proposals, but I was surprised he didn't even try.
Perhaps it was a deliberate choice on O'Brien's part not to get into a debate about "studies" and instead keep the conversation about basic principles that he hoped would just seem intuitive to people (e.g. more light rail = fewer cars = less carbon emission). Deliberate or not, it seemed that his performance left some things on the table.
Tune in and see what you think.
The Attorney General "Berate" Debate
The debate we present on this week's show between Attorney General candidates Rob McKenna (Rep.) and John Ladenburg (Dem.) was one of the most lively I have ever moderated. And I've moderated A LOT of campaign debates!
Perhaps the high energy came from the fact that they are both lawyers. Neither, it seems, can stand to let anything the other guy says go by without a multi-point rebuttal. At times it felt like an Oxford Union debate where the overall message often gets lost in the obsession with point-counterpoint.
Having said that, though, I think you will come away from our program with a very good sense of how these two seasoned politicians see this important job.
McKenna, the incumbent, says it's largely about serving the Governor, the State Legislature, and State agencies. In other words, to advise those clients about the law and, wherever possible, keep them out of court. He is also clear that there is a role for the AG to be proactive in a few certain areas: consumer protection, anti-trust, and law enforcement. Those are issue where the AG's Office has been given a lead role by State law or precedent. Trying to lead on other issues would simply be invading the turf of other parts of state and local government.
Ladenburg, on the other hand, argues for a much more expansive role for the office. He says WA needs an AG who is more proactive role in prosecuting criminal cases and in taking the lead on other issues that are important to the people of WA State - regardless of whose domain they may fall. According to Ladenburg, the AG is in a unique position to make a difference in a variety of arenas.
These two candidates represent a very different view of the role of AG. I must admit, I hadn't thought nearly as much about the role of the AG and the different ways the office can be used before I moderated this debate. I found the conversation and the choice extremely interesting. I hope you do to.
Interpreting The Oregonian
So, what exactly does The Oregonian, that State's largest newspaper, think of so-called assisted suicide? It's not a straightforward answer. But it's a rather important one, given that it's the only state in the country that has such a law and given that WA's Initiative 1000 is almost identical to it.
Ten years ago The Oregonian editorialized against Oregon's law as it was being considered by voters. But then in January of this year the paper wrote a lengthy editorial praising former Governor Booth Gardner for championing the issue here in Washington.
"The dire consequences predicted for Oregon's Death With Dignity Act did not pan out. Opponents, including us, warned that the law could steamroller vulnerable patients into suicide, target the disabled and become a destination for terminally ill people seeking to die with doctor-prescribed drugs. In a decade of experience with the law, though, no such abuses have shown up."
When I read this excerpt during our program for a comment from the No-On- Initiative 1000 representative, I did so by saying that The Oregonian had reversed itself on this issue. The paper's apparent change of heart is noteworthy, especially as it concerns the fears that people had ten years ago and how things have played out.
Interestingly, however, in an editorial just this week The Oregonian says that it doesn't endorse the Washington initiative. "Our basic unease with physician-assisted suicide has not changed, and we cannot exhort Washington voters to take the same path."
Confused yet?
This most recently editorial doesn't necessarily mean that the paper opposes the Oregon law (it was Washington's initiative, after all, that the editorial board was referring to when used the non-endorsement language). However, it does seem inconsistent with the paper's editorial earlier this year that all but admitted that its biggest objections had not materialized.
It seems to me that reasonable people can read The Oregonian's various editorials on this issue in a few different ways.
One is to say that The Oregonian has reversed itself twice on this issue, once this January when it admitted it was wrong, and once again this past weekend when it said WA voters should not go the way of Oregon on this issue. In other words, the paper made an intellectual roundtrip and is back to its original "no" position of ten years ago.
Another reading is to say that The Oregonian never changed its position and that it has always been against the measure. Under this reading the January editorial, while very favorable to so-called assisted suicide, only meant that the worst fears had not materialized, but that lesser fears still exist that should keep the practice from being legalized.
Finally, it seems to me that one could say that The Oregonian changed its position only once, in January, and that since then it has remained a convert to Oregon's law, though not a supporter of having the practice spread elsewhere. Consider this sentence from last week's opinion: "An argument can be made that Oregon's influence has already improved end-of-life care in Washington so much that the new law is not needed." In other words, Oregon legalizing the practice has had an important beneficial effect in other places.
I'll leave it up to you about where you come down on how to interpret The Oregonian's position. It's clear it doesn't endorse Washington's I-1000, but it's less clear what it actually thinks of Oregon's law.
Our Season Premier!
We’re excited to be back with a new season of City Inside/Out.
Because our return coincides rather closely with the return of students for a new school year (last week), we decided to dedicate our show to the topic. We visit two schools, we talk with Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson about her first year, and we welcome a panel of experts to give their views on the state of the District.
One fact that didn’t get addressed on the program but that’s worth mentioning in the context of schools is the issue of closures. It’s on the back-burner right now, but we all remember how intensely heated the topic was just a few years back. At some point it will make it to the front burner (and, no doubt, full heat) again. The District still has too much space, and that will become even more problematic in the next few years as enrollment continues its slow decline.
Here’s something amazing about the topic I didn’t know…In the north end the District may actually need to open new schools because of overcrowding! That’s right, OPEN them. Seems very odd given that School leaders made such a fuss about the need to close schools just two years ago. It turns out that while there is still too much space (“over-capacity”) District-wide, it’s not neatly spread out. The northend has a crunch, while the sound end has a glut.
Given that fact, it’s perplexing that the District ended up closing a northend school (Viewlands Elementary) during it’s last round of shutdowns. Apparently, it was just too expensive to renovate.
There is a School Board Committee working now on this capacity issue. Perhaps there is a way to attract some northend students to the southend to solve the problem without having to build anything new. (That strategy, however, runs counter to the policy now being pushed by the Board and Superintendent for more “neighborhood” schools.) If no magic solution is found, the District may well be in the very awkward position of needing to close more schools in the southend while it builds them in the northend.
Imagine being on the School Board and having to make that decision?
Have a show topic idea for us? We'd love to hear from you at contact@seattlechannel.org
|
Thoughts from C.R. Douglas 5/1/2009