|
|
Mercer Messiness
Critics are having a field day with the Mayor's proposal to fix the Mercer Mess. Nick Licata and others have focused their attention on studies that show that the $200 million plan won't make much difference with it comes to travel times through the notoriously difficult area. Spending $200 million for a six block project is hard justify, but it's doubly (triply?) hard when you can't make a clear case for congestion relief.
Jan Drago doesn't even try. When I asked her on our program to respond to the claim that travel times won't change much, she said: "I'll concede that." For her, the other goals that are advanced, including creating a more neighborhood feel to the area, are enough to support the project. Interestingly, she emphasizes something I haven't heard mentioned much. "The most important factor is the safety factor," she argues, making reference to the fact that there will be few curves and weaves with a two-way Mercer.
Our debate is lively and informative. It wasn't, however, the debate we originally envisioned. We expected to have a representative from the Mayor's office join us for the studio discussion. After all, his Department of Transportation came up with the plan. However, they decline our invite. In my experience, that's not typical for members of the Nickels Administration. They aren't ones to shy away from a fight. This time, though, they took a pass.
Wealth = Health
The Public Health Department in King County, as well as those across the country, are undergoing a big transformation. Instead of battling wide-reaching outbreaks of infectious diseases (a classic narrative of the 20th Century), health officials are increasingly focused on battling chronic diseases.
These include today's big killers such as obesity, diabetes, and heart problems – not the things you catch by drinking bad water or coming into contact with sick people. The hallmark of infectious diseases (e.g. typhoid, cholera, influenza) is their ability to spread across populations. The hallmark of chronic diseases are their concentration within populations. The combat strategies are therefore very different.
For the most part, public health departments and governments rid society of infectious diseases through sanitation efforts, immunization programs, etc. (The effort is not over, of course; not all of them have been eradicated.)
But with chronic diseases it's going to take a different paradigm. Mostly, they are the result bad behavior – not just bad luck. And that's a hard thing to reverse.
It used to be that wealth wasn't as "protective" when it came to getting sick. The well-to-do were susceptible to big outbreaks just like the poor. Now, though, wealth is an enormous determinant of health.
One interesting fact that I learned from the King County's Director of Public Health (Dr. David Fleming), who was a recent guest on our program, is that if you didn't know someone, but wanted to tell if they were obese, the single best predictor would be….the value of their house! The lower the value, the higher the weight. In other words, wealth = health.
But it's not just obesity you can predict from house values, it's also the other chronic problems like heart disease, diabetes, etc. Health is now inextricably tied to income. And that makes it an extremely complicated problem to solve.
Cleaning up the water supply seems relatively easy.
Jail Eviction Notice
It's now becoming well-known that King County plans to "evict" Seattle inmates from the downtown jail by 2012. The reason: the felony jail population is expected to grow in the next several years, so the County needs to get rid of Seattle's (and other cities') misdemeanor inmates to free up space.
Mayor Nickels has pushed back hard against this change, but County Executive Ron Sims isn't budging. And because facilities such as jails take a long time to site and build, Nickels is reluctantly moving forward now in order to make sure the City has a new jail for its own offenders come 2012. He recently identified four possible sites for the facility, two in the northend and two in the southend.
Needless to say, no neighborhood wants a new jail, which is certainly one reason why Nickels argues that providing jail service is a County (e.g. regional) service. It's certainly been that way for several years. If it stayed a regional service, new jail beds would almost certainly be built near the existing County jail down in Kent.
One of the most interesting aspects of this issue, it seems to me, is that King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg actually agrees with Greg Nickels on this one. On our program this week he made the case for keeping jails as a county service, and, indeed, he predicted that Ron Sims would actually reverse his decision. Satterberg thinks that the push-back from Seattle and other cities in the same bind is bound to eventually work.
I hope you'll watch our program this week to hear more about this issue and other aspects of our criminal justice system
Streetcars -- back to the future?
There is, of course, an irony that Seattle is trying to build a streetcar network that not too many decades ago it tore out! Before the car became widespread, the City's neighborhoods were connected by a vibrant streetcar system. So many neighborhoods, in fact, that it would be virtually impossible cost-wise to ever fully recreate that network. It'd be a huge step just to extend the current South Lake Union line up to the U. District and/or Fremont.
Opponents of streetcars (two of whom were represented on our streetcar show) like to make it an argument about streetcars vs. trolley buses (e.g. the electrified system we have on many of the City's routes). They contend that the latter are much cheaper than the former and that more trolley lines could be added quicker than streetcar lines.
Supporters (of which we featured two as well) resist having the debate be about streetcars vs. trolley buses. They would rather have it be about "choices" (e.g. having more of them vs. having fewer of them). They like to point out that even if streetcars are more expensive they attract more riders because people like them better.
I hope you will watch the show to hear more from both sides. I also hope you will watch to see first-hand the experience Portlanders have had with their network. The City of Roses prides itself on building the first modern streetcar system in America. (Like Seattle, it once had a vibrant system that got paved over to make way for automobiles, especially after WWII.)
Portland has expanded its network a couple times since it opened in 2001. It's now an 8-mile loop but not for long. In just a few years it will double in size. An already-approved plan will take the line across the Willamette River to the east side of the City. Leaders expect it to continue to act as a development catalyst.
The Boeing economy…still?
Remember long ago when our region's economy rose and fell in tandem with the fortunes of Boeing? Our diversified business base, developed over the last couple decades, has reduced our dependence on the aerospace giant. We're no longer at the mercy of international airplane market.
Or are we?
The most interesting thing to me about our show this week was a point made by Dick Conway, premier economic forecaster for our region. He contends that we are still tied to Boeing more than most people think. The Boeing downturn (and resulting layoffs) after 9/11 led us into a deeper recession than we had had in 30 years – deeper even than the nation's. And Boeing's good times in the last four years (including thousands of new hires) gave us a bigger boom than the nation as well.
Indeed, it's the recent surge in Boeing employment, according to Conway, that has kept our region's job growth numbers so good. That, in turn, has resulted in thousands of new households moving to the region. And that has kept home prices relatively high compared to the rest of the nation where the bubble is deflating faster and farther.
Conway warns that this could all change in the next few years as Boeing employment growth is expected to slow substantially. (It's a cyclical manufacturer, after all.) Watch for the effect this will likely have on house prices.
Sounds like we might still be a one-company region after all.
Tunnels – The All-Purpose Solution
Tunnels are what people tend to favor when it's hard to forge a "ground-level" solution to a transportation challenge. And why not, since they often solve a lot of problems in one fell swoop. Just look at the Viaduct. A tunnel would have retained capacity (which pleased State leaders in Olympia), opened up the Waterfront (which pleased environmentalists and urban planners), kept an uninterrupted corridor for freight (which pleased the industrial community and the Port of Seattle), and more. The downside: the cost. It was estimated to be a $4 billion project. It died of its own weight.
Is the same dynamic happening with 520? A number of groups in the Montlake area are now proposing not just one but two tunnels as part of the configuration of that leg of the project. The concept was one of three that came out of a mediation process recently held with the major stakeholders on the west side, including the U.W., Montlake and the Arboretum. It's not the officially endorsed result of the mediation process, but it does seem to have a plurality of support (not from the UW, however).
As you'll see on this week's program, the costs of the Montlake tunnels are high. The State estimates them to be $2.2 billion. Interestingly, the Governor is trying to keep the entire 520 project at something like $3.8 billion. It's therefore hard to imagine that these tunnels could actually see the light of day, so to speak. But it's understandable that many in the surrounding communities are pushing for them. After all, the ground level solutions are so hard to swallow.
Earthquakes: Surface vs. Deep
Here's something about earthquakes that didn't come out totally during out interview, or at least wasn't emphasized as much as I think it could have been...
We've never had a major "surface-break" (e.g. shallow) earthquake around here in modern times. The three major shakes this century (1949, 1965, and 2001) were all deep quakes. They measured 6.5 or greater.
The big fear, according to scientists, is not necessarily that we'll have another deep quake (we will, but we've survived them reasonably well before). Rather, it's that we'll have, say, a 6.5 surface quake. Experts seem united that this would be far worse than anything we've experienced so far. The closer quakes are to the surface, the greater the chance of the earth buckling, and the greater the devastation that would result.
That's really what they mean when they talk about The Big One in our area.
Gregoire, Rossi – AND Eyman!
On our program last week all three journalist we featured predicted a Gregoire win this fall against Dino Rossi. After the show we kept talking about the match-up. I mentioned a theory I have about the contest that intrigued all three (which means it must be good, right?!).
My sense is that Rossi is at a disadvantage at this point, but not just because Gregoire is the incumbent. I think it has to do with the continuing success of Tim Eyman. For the last decade, State voters have seemed comfortable with the idea of a Democratic Governor on the one hand and a strong Tim Eyman on the other. It seems to be our form of "divided government!" It's a tad dysfunctional, that's for sure, but it does seem to be what Washington has settled on.
In one respect you could say that Tim Eyman's success should give an opening for someone such as Rossi. After all, his initiative wins suggest a statewide appetite for lower taxes and a check on government. However, it seems just the opposite is happening. Having Eyman do so well leaves little justification (or political room) for Rossi or, indeed, another conservative gubernatorial candidate. At least the election record so far suggests as much.
In other news…here's a link to a recent Crosscut article I wrote about where the region's transportation discussion seems to be several months after the defeat of Proposition #1 last November.
What's the Center of the Center?
I thought one of the most interesting ideas coming out of our Seattle Center show was from Architect David Spiker, who said that the Center needs an overriding "theme." His would be open space. Indeed, he wants to tear down Center House and add its acreage to the new open space that is expected after the Fun Forest is dismantled and Memorial Stadium is taken out. His point is that the Center has too many things going on and that it needs to do one big thing in a big way. Think Millennial Park in Chicago.
It strikes me, too, that there isn't a major overriding theme to the Center. Or, maybe it's that the overriding theme is eclecticism? That's really the view of the Century 21 Committee that drafted the Master Plan. Jan Levy, who represented the group on our show, made a compelling case for thinking this way. The Center, she said, is united by its diversity. That is, it gets its coherence by being a place where an incredibly wide variety of activities can and do take place.
That, it seems, is the most interesting question going into the next round of debate/discussion over the Master Plan…does Seattle Center gain strength by all its offerings, or does it lose focus because of them? And, if you tend toward the latter, what does it do now that you could live without?
For Spiker, that's Center House. It's not just a physical obstruction. For him, the problem is all its uses as well (including the Food Court). They represent the "clutter" that he would like to see removed from the campus (or at least relocated to its periphery). For Levy, Center House being the center of it all represents exactly the vision she supports.
So, in some ways, this whole discussion comes down to that old armory building. It seems a good microcosm of what the overall Center is about. For some that's great. For others, that's just the problem. What do you think?
Photo Gallery: New designs for the Seattle Center
Gang Violence – What's in a Name?
We didn't talk about it during our interview for this week's program, but there is a very important question about just how to define a gang crime. If a known gang member commits, say, an assault, is that automatically "gang violence?" What if it has nothing to do with drugs, or money, or hustling, or any other activity associated with gang life? In other words, what if he just got into a fight?
You can bet that no police department, including Seattle's, has come up with an airtight definition. It's important, however, that one is developed, since getting a handle on just what it is we are trying to combat is pretty much essential if it's going to be tackled in any meaningful way.
For instance, the State is right now considering whether to give out money to local jurisdictions to handle gang violence and promote prevention. Having a good working definition is necessary to know what exactly should be funded.
I wrote a piece recently for Crosscut about gang violence and the "catch up" efforts that are being made by both the Seattle Police Department and the King County Sheriff's Office. I think you'll find it interesting.
In other news…you also might be interested in my take on whether there will be a City levy this fall in Seattle. It too was published recently in Crosscut
Housing Affordability
We had fun putting this program together. After all, who doesn't have something to say about housing affordability?!
We conducted some man/woman-on-the-street interviews that are part of the show. As you would expect, everyone talked about how expensive housing has become in the area -- except for one person! She and her husband and their kids moved here BECAUSE it was more affordable than where they lived previously -- Napa Valley.
I suppose that when a boutique California community is your baseline, then Bainbridge Island (where they relocated) seems moderately priced comparison.
The show begins with an interview with the author of the controversial study that shows that nearly $200,000 of the recent increase in housing prices in our region is attributable to government regulations. You think easy credit was the reason for the bubble? Think again -- at least according to this economist.
One interesting item that came out of our panel discussion was a point made by retired UW Professor Richard Morrill. He argued for a distinction between sprawl and growth. Often they are used interchangeably. I know I've used them that way -- until he corrected me on air! And, I must say, it clicked with me the moment he said it. Sprawl in a strict sense is spreading the same number of people out over a larger land area. Growth in a strict sense is adding more people, even if they get added further and further out.
You've definitely sprawled if you use more land to house and employ the same number of people. But have you sprawled (or have you just grown?) if you've doubled the number of people in the area, but haven't necessarily doubled the land you're paved over to accommodate them? The distinction made me think. Maybe it will make you think too. Tune in and see!
Historic vs. Hysteric Preservation
We spent some time in Ballard this week interviewing anyone who happened to be walking near 15th and Market. We were asking what they thought of the plan to tear down the Denny's restaurant and Sunset Bowl (just a block away). Most said they lament the loss, though there were some who didn't seem to care.
One interesting aspect of this debate that Knute Berger (one of our guests) talked about off-camera was the element of class that seems to be just under the surface in this discussion. He points out that everyone seems to agree that a turn-of-the-century mansion on First Hill, for instance, is worthy of being landmarked. However, there isn't the same level of agreement when it comes to an establishment like Denny's (and Manning's before it) that catered to lower income individuals and families.
I don't know how I'd vote if I were on the Landmarks Board, but that does seem to be a valid point about the biases that might exist against designating something like the Denny's site.
One thing I learned that I didn't know before doing this program was just how strong our Landmarks ordinance is. Established back in the 1970s, it does not require the consent of the owner. That's not the case with many other cities; their preservation boards are merely advisory. Having the power to actually designate something a landmark does set up apart.
And yet there are many preservationists in town who believe that, despite the stronger authority, the process still hasn't yielded enough "victories" in terms of buildings saved.
Another interesting point that came up in my research (though, alas, only a little bit on camera) is the concept of Historic Districts. Seattle has seven of them, including Pike Place Market, Pioneer Square and Ballard Avenue. Basically, everything in these clearly delineated zones is landmarked and must therefore get approval of the Landmarks Board before alterations or changes must be made.
From a preservationist's point of view, the benefit of a District is that it allows a whole area to be preserved. Otherwise, you are simply looking at one building at a time. Case in point, the Northcliff Apartments (which we highlight in our set up piece). This First Hill apartment building was once part of a series of "residential hotels" one or near Boren Ave. They housed many people who worked downtown and who were not yet able to afford a single-family homes.
While no individual building among this group may rise to the level of a Landmark, as a group they do represent a significant aspect of our city's history. But that's a "context" argument. In other words, they are significant as a group, but unless there is a historic district, they each come to the Landmarks Board one and a time and usually don't make it on their merits of their building alone. The result is that over time, one by one, these structures get taken down – and then there is no context left.
Historic Districts, as you can imagine, are hard to designate because so many properties are involved. The Landmarks Board, which has the power to create such Districts, has basically resisted creating them for years. We have seven; some cities our size have 30.
I hope you will watch this week's show. It's an important discussion about the tradeoffs involved in preserving part of our past, being fair to property owners, accommodating growth, retaining neighborhood character, reducing sprawl, etc.
Homeless in Seattle
The most striking thing about preparing for this week's show was the tour we took of the homeless encampments on the west slope of Queen Anne. They are in a greenbelt, which, though under the control of the Parks Departments, isn't a typical City park. Which is probably why the homeless have set up camp there, since few people otherwise use the space.
It's a garbage-strewn area that you'd be surprised to find just blocks from multi-million dollar mansions.
Here are some of the questions we try to tackle this week on our show: Do we have enough shelter space for these people? Would they take it if offered? If not, why not?
How these very questions are answered matters a lot in terms of how the encampment issue should/will be dealt with. Tune in and see where you come down on this all.
Cop Accountability
If you have made your way to our website – and my blog! – you are surely the type who knows about politics. Dare I say, you are a junkie??!!
Well, this week junkies were given a lot to chew on. The long-awaited report from the Mayor's Police Accountability Review Panel was released. We give it extensive attention this week on our program.
One thing that is quite notable is that the 11-member panel was unanimous in its recommendations. Most of us following the issue expected at least some difference of opinion, perhaps represented in a "minority" report. But no, they were all in agreement. Who would have expected Mike McKay (Republican former U.S. Attorney) and Bob Boruchowitz (one of Seattle's premier public defenders) agreeing about police behavior issues?? And yet they did – to their credit. Having a unanimous report carries a lot of weight. Certainly, the media (me included) would have tended to focus on the areas of dissent if there had been any. Instead, the panel marched with one voice.
Another aspect of the report that struck me is how significant the recommendations are. Do you hear anyone saying this was a white-wash or didn't go far enough? I haven't. Panel member Pramila Jayapal said to me this week that if these recommendations were already in place the high profile cases we've heard about would have been decided differently (e.g. against the officers involved, not for them). So, the recommendations are not just about helping to change the "perception" of the system. They really do seem to get at the very workings of it.
The only criticism voiced so far is from the Police Guild. Predictably, they reacted with much coolness to the report and reminded everyone that any changes in the police discipline system need to be negotiated at the collective bargaining table. In other words, not so fast Mayor and City Council.
We'll soon see how far elected leaders are willing to push. Keep a close eye on newly elected Councilmember Tim Burgess. He's now Chair of the Public Safety Committee. He spent 7 years as a Seattle cop in the 1970s. Will he be with the Guild or the Panel on this one?
Port Problems
It is hard to imagine a public entity that gets into more trouble than Port of Seattle. Whenever there is an opportunity to trip they seem to take it. Can you say "severance package?"
Just today The Seattle Times has a big story about a "steak house" deal that involved several million dollars and that may have broken the law.
That issue as well as several other questionable activities are in the news of late because of a scathing State Audit that was issued just a month ago. It pointed out a number of problems with the way the Port conducts its business. It's a big story, and it's the subject of our City Inside/Out program this week.
We took our cameras to Olympia to interview the State Auditor, Brian Sonntag, about his report. He was most passionate when he talked about the "resistance" his people faced from Port staff when they were doing the audit work. He said they have never received that kind of push back, "ever."
I must say the Port is a difficult animal. For our program we requested an interview with current CEO Tay Yoshitani. Instead, they provided Commissioner Lloyd Hara, who was elected in 2005. He's a relative newcomer, and, in fact, is rather critical of the Port himself. Interestingly, during our interview he pretty much sided with the Auditor's findings. That's a different stand than some of the other Port officials, including Yoshitani, who have spent at least some time since the Audit defending the Port's behavior. This also goes for Commissioner Pat Davis, who has been at the Port since the 1985. Indeed, she's the only one on the Commission who was there during all the years the audit looked at. Apparently, she is not granting press interviews these days.
The Port is a big operation with a number of people who do PR. I'm assuming it was a very well thought out and deliberate decision to offer up someone (Hara) who was going to be more conciliatory than defensive. I suspect they feel that the Yoshitani/Davis tact hasn't been working.
We also included an interview with Kristen Young of the PI. She's the only reporter in town who devotes her entire time to the Port. She has some very interesting things to say.
I hope you'll watch. It's your Port – and your tax dollars!
Viaduct Surprises!
Several of our guests this week had something surprising (to me, at least) to say about the Viaduct and where things stand nearly a year after the city-wide vote.
Jan Drago was quite impassioned about the idea of seriously pursuing a "deep-bored" tunnel option. Early on the State rejected that idea as prohibitively expensive ($8-$10 billion officials said at the time), but Drago argued that those numbers can't be right given the much lower costs that bored-tunnels are being built for around the world.
(A deep-bored tunnel means digging a line totally underground. The Mayor's waterfront tunnel, by contrast, was a "cut-and-cover" design. Basically, the plan was to dig a ditch and then put a lid over it. A deep-bored tunnel would, according to proponents, be far superior to that since it wouldn't have the years of disruptive effects to the waterfront and downtown since most all of the work would be "subterranean".)
She's as eager as anyone I've talked to in office about "resurrecting" the idea. Don't count her out…she's the most senior member of the Council, she's Chair of it's Transportation Committee, and she's the one who masterminded the "dual" vote last March that was cleverly designed to kill the elevated alternative.
We also interviewed two journalists in our studio. Susan Gilmore of The Seattle Times said something that very much caught my attention…that she didn't think much planning at all had been taking place. She senses that, yes, there have been meetings of stakeholders, but that very little has really happened nearly a year after the vote. Certainly no models or numbers or preliminary results from any surface study.
David Brewster always seems to have something to say that's worth listening to. During our discussion I was intrigued to hear him declare that Frank Chopp is the most powerful political figure in the State. And for that reason he is key to any future deal on the Viaduct. Indeed, Brewster believes that the big impasse last year was a direct result of Chopp getting in the way of the Governor trying to reach a deal with the City, which she might otherwise have been inclined to do. Rewind the tape of time and imagine how different things would have been if Gregoire was willing to go for the "tunnel lite" option? According to Brewster, Chopp put too much pressure on her not to do that. So, he says, keep an eye on whether Chopp (who continues to favor an elevated solution) similarly pressures her not to go along with the City on a surface-transit alternative.
Nearly a year after the vote and the differing passions for what should happen along the waterfront seem to remain, albeit lingering just under the radar of public attention – for now, at least.
Rice, Royer – AND Brokaw!
This week we feature a discussion about the year ahead with former Seattle Mayors Charlie Royer and Norm Rice.
A couple of things struck me about the interview. First, a line of thought advanced by Norm Rice. He said quite clearly that it's time to re-think about whether we as a City and region want to continue to use such prime property for Port activities, especially cargo container loading and unloading. Much of the difficulty in finding a Viaduct solution, he said, is about accommodating all the Port's freight traffic and not hampering freight mobility in the future. Take that issue away and…well…you just may have a lot easier time reaching a consensus.
Royer seemed quite inclined to that idea as well. He cited the example of San Francisco and Oakland, where the former ended up being the container Port for the region and S.F. ended up being a great waterfront City.
Both former Mayors seemed interested in striking that kind of deal with Tacoma.
Another interesting thing they said about the Viaduct…that a Tunnel may not be totally dead after all! Both were supportive of the Tunnel concept during last year's vote. What they say now is that as costs keep going up for the elevated concept (which apparently is still being studied by the state) a tunnel may actually start becoming more cost competitive next to that alternative. Interesting.
On the topic of Schools, Royer was much more pessimistic that things are on the mend for the Seattle School District, even with the new School Superintendent and School Board. He said the District simply isn't going to be anything but average unless there is better leadership, and he doesn't seem to see it.
Finally, I hope you all enjoy watching the Brokaw interview as much as I did conducting it!
End of the Year Program
 |
 |
 |
 |
| City Inside/Out's Tom Brokaw Interview |
For the last few years we have followed a format for our end-of-the-year program that we used again this time around. We start with a journalist roundtable about the best and worst of the year; we then highlight some of the best local political cartoons; and we finish with a preview of the year to come.
One special part of this show is our interview with Bill and Mimi Gates, which is our "preview" segment. They sat down with me for their first extended TV interview together. They talk about the big year they both had in their respective jobs, about the year ahead, and even about their relationship.
I'm also excited about my interview with Tom Brokaw. (See our pics above) He was in town this week, and I had a chance to spend nearly a half hour with him. That conversation will air during our first show of the New Year.
Panhandling and Pollution
Well, there certainly was a lot of feedback to our recent show about Tacoma's panhandling ban. Same with a companion piece I wrote about the topic for Crosscut.
Reaction, including in the blogosphere, was mixed. Our on-line poll, however, wasn't. Over 55% of responders say they think Tacoma's ban should be adopted here in Seattle.
Two specific reactions that I found interesting. First, Tom Rasmussen took grave exception with City Attorney Tom Carr's accusation that the current City Council is not interested in public safety issues. Second, many reacted rather negatively to the homeless man I interviewed who said that if we had a panhanding ban here the result would be more petty crimes, including car and house break ins. People didn't like the "threat".
 |
|
|
|
| City Inside/Out on the Duwamish River |
This week's program features a roundtable discussion about Puget Sound pollution. Among our guests, a guy who knows a thing or two about the environment, former EPA Director Bill Ruckelshaus. He was recently tapped by Governor Gregoire to head the Puget Sound Parthership. The goal: Create a swim-able, fish-able, and dig-able Sound by 2020.
As part of the show I put on my life vest and head up the contaminated Duwamish River with the head of the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Sue Joerger. It's Seattle's only river, and it's a federal Superfund site.
I'll hope you'll tune in!
City Strategy: Full "Court" Press
It's becoming clear what the City of Seattle's strategy is when it comes to keeping the Sonics – litigate the team until it hurts. This week I interviewed the Mayor about the City's firm stance in going to court to hold the team to its Key Arena lease, which doesn't expire for another three seasons. (The Sonics want out now.)
"I think if the team is staying until the 2010 season," the Mayor said, "this particular ownership may not have that patience."
In other words, wear them down, drain their pocketbooks, and hope owners will sell out in frustration. Not at all crazy, though not at all assured. But it's about the only course of action that's available for keeping the team, which seems to be what most lawmakers and leaders are increasingly in a mood to do.
The team insists it's not for sale, and no clear local buyer has fully emerged. But a lot can change by 2010. And Mayor and others are investing in the hope that things will change by setting aside $1 million for legal costs to enforce the lease.
What does that kind of money get you? Slade Gorton, for one thing. The hiring of former U.S. Senator as a legal advisor on this issue reinforces that the City is prepared to play hardball with the team. Gorton, many will remember, successfully sued Major League Baseball back in the 1960s when the Seattle Pilots left town. The result: the Mariners came to town. The League gave the City an expansion team in the deal.
When you have Slade Gorton on your side in these fights, it's a good bet that you'll probably win. And when you have Slade Gorton as a guest on your program it's a good bet that you should probably watch! And that's exactly what we have on this week's City Inside/Out. Gorton joins PI Sports Columnist Art Thiel, Seattle City Councilmember Nick Licata, and Save Our Sonics Co-Founder Steven Pyeatt for a roundtable discussion about the future of Seattle's NBA and WNBA franchises.
Clinton and Gore were a hit with the crowd at the U.S. Mayors Conference. After all, these leaders were here because they want emissions reduced, and the former President and the former Vice-President are two of the most notable figures in the world on that issue.
An interesting difference emerged in the three big keynote speeches. Clinton was heavy on what it will take to get the developing world (especially China and India) on board meaningful emission limits. It won't happen, he argued, until the U.S. (the biggest emitter in the world) shows that it can be done economically. Why else would other countries do it?
But Gore and Michael Bloomberg (the other keynoter) took a little different tact. Of course they acknowledged that making the economics work was important, but just setting an example was important as well. Indeed, Bloomberg took that concept the furthest. He said citizens in countries like China will eventually demand that their governments reduce emissions because they will see how positive the effects are in the U.S, especially the health effects. And that'll be no matter the economics.
For him, it's analogous to the former Soviet Bloc. Much of what brought it down was the irrepressible aspiration of citizens to have the freedoms of the West. In this case Bloomberg predicts it will be the urge to have the clean air and the clean environment of the West that gets the developing world on board.
Bloomberg, in other words, is a lot more hopeful than Clinton about whether just setting an example will do much.
Here's an interesting commitment that came out of the Mayors Conference. And, no, it doesn't have anything to do with global warming.
As the meeting opened, Jim Donald, CEO of Starbucks, addressed the delegates and discussed his company's green strategies. He was followed by Trenton, New Jersey Mayor Doug Palmer. Turns out that Trenton, inexplicably, has NO Starbucks store. Not even one! When that was pointed by Palmer, Donald pledged then and there to build one. So, residents of Trenton, get ready for grande lattes, since you're about to get them – perhaps on every street corner!
 11/1/2007
My report today comes from the site of the U.S. Mayors Conference. A crew from the Seattle Channel is stationed here at the Edgewater Hotel (the meeting's headquarters). We're getting footage of the various speakers, and we are also doing individual interviews with a number of the Mayors who are in attendance. It's all in preparation for our program next week (Nov. 9) where we will be addressing the issue of global warming; specifically what cities are doing to reduce their carbon emissions. This conference is dedicated solely to that subject. All the Mayors here (roughly 120) have signed onto the carbon limits set forth by the Kyoto Protocol.
(For my take on Seattle's role in encouraging cities around the country to take on this issue, see by recent article in Crosscut, the on-line journal of News of the Northwest)
So far this morning I've had the chance to interview the following Mayors at length:
Dan Coody: Fayetteville, Arkansas
Chris Koos: Normal, Illinois
Will Wynn: Austin, Texas
Manuel Diaz: Miami, Florida
Martin Chavez: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Doug Palmer: Trenton, New Jersey
One thing is worth noting. A number of the Mayors, while they have all signed onto to the Kyoto limits, express some reservations about whether they will indeed be able to meet them (a 7% reductions in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2012.) In my interviews, the Mayors of Miami, Albuquerque, and Trenton said yes unequivocally, but the others stopped short of saying they could absolutely do it. For them it feels more like an aspiration. Many of them face strong headwinds, including utilities that are predominantly coal-based, years of sprawling development, and, public attitudes that simply have not put climate change at the top of the priority list.
Even Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, whom I just talked to, acknowledges: "Not every City is going to make it." But enough will, he predicts, that it will be impossible to ignore, especially for the federal government to ignore, which he hopes will kick in money to help the efforts.
But this is clear: all these leaders are tremendously enthusiastic about doing what they can. And all agree that progress certainly won't happen in the absence of a clear goal that can focus everyone's attention.
The next big event today is the keynote speech by Al Gore. He'll be addressing the Mayors today at 1 p.m. (via satellite). And then, of course, Bill Clinton later this afternoon. I'll let you know how those go!
10/26/2007
Remember what I wrote in my previous entry, Douglas Report #2, about sometimes getting scooped by events? Well…it happened again this week, though to a lesser extent. Election season has a way of doing that!
Since we taped our Port Commission debates (which airs on Friday, Oct. 26) news broke in the Seattle PI that a new baggage handling system at SeaTac is $92 million over budget (was $139 million; will be $231 million). It is something that I would have surely brought up had our interviews been taped after that report came out, especially since it goes to the larger issues of cost overruns at the Port, most notably the 3rd runway.
But our debates between the candidates are substantive nonetheless. Issues discussed include: reforming the way the Port does business; the Port's tax subsidy; environmental concerns; the cruise ship business; expanding cargo business; and more. I hope you will watch us.
And, I hope you will read us as well. Specially, my new occasional column in Crosscut, the on-line journal of politics and culture in the Northwest. My first essay on Crosscut is about the Seattle City Council elections this year.
10/19/2007
As loyal viewers know, City Inside/Out premiers on Friday nights at 7 p.m. Typically, we tape the program on Thursday afternoons, sometimes Wednesdays. The one or two day delay allows us time to edit the program and get it fully ready for airing. Normally that doesn't present a problem. But sometimes…events scoop us. This was one of those weeks. We taped our Venus Velazquez – Bruce Harrell debate before she was arrested for suspicion of drunk driving. We taped Wednesday afternoon; she was pulled over Wednesday evening. (No we didn't serve any alcohol during the debate! It's not allowed at City Hall.)
Though it's too early to tell just how this development will effect the race, it's pretty clear that I would have addressed the issue in some way during the debate had it happened before our taping. Because of the timing circumstance we felt that it was important that I at least make mention of the interview, which I do during the opening of the program.
As for the rest of tonight's show…there are lots of interesting exchanges between the City Council candidates, who were interviewed in pairs. I hope you'll watch!
-- C.R. Douglas
Have a show topic idea for us? A comment on C. R.'s latest message? We'd love to hear from you at talkback@seattle.gov
10/12/2007
 It's a big week for us here at the Seattle Channel! Fresh off our recent wins at NATOA (National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors) for City Inside/Out, we're ready to launch this season (our 6th!) with lots of new elements.
The biggest change is our set! We've been busy this summer planning, designing and rehearsing with our new studio toys. It's all to give our viewers a more visually-interesting and in-depth look at the issues we'll be covering this season on our show.
We'll kick off the season Friday, Oct. 12 with a look at what could be the biggest tax package in state history: Proposition 1, better known as the roads and transit package. Are miles and miles of new roads, bridges and light rail the answer to our traffic tie ups? Or will those simply make the problem (and that pesky little issue of global warming) worse? And most intriguingly, why has King County Executive Ron Sims, who has consistently voted for all things transit, decided to vote no on Prop. 1? Tune in to hear what those for and against the multi-billion dollar tax package have to say on the controversial choice facing voters this fall.
 And that's just the beginning for City Inside/Out with C.R. Douglas! We'll be covering issues ranging from in-depth election debates to police accountability to cleaning up the Puget Sound. Go ahead and bookmark the City Inside/Out with C.R. Douglas blog - we'll be updating it often with additions to our show and insight into the world of politics in the Puget Sound and beyond!
Cheers,
C. R. Douglas
Have a show topic idea for us? We'd love to hear from you at talkback@seattle.gov
|
