It’s green to vote on the seawall
In a recent post I called attention to the Seattle City Council’s repeal of the so called “Head Tax” as an example of the Sustainability Gap. I feel like I should follow my criticism with at least one practical suggestion to help close the gap: the Council should put the Mayor’s proposal to replace the seawall on the ballot for voters to approve this year.
It is really difficult for some local commentators to let go of the “manual” of politics used to run Seattle for the last 8 years. In her lengthy lecture of Mayor McGinn, Joni Balter of the Seattle Times cites the Mayor’s seawall replacement proposal as an example of the new administrations failure to play by the old rules. But that’s the point. McGinn is rewriting the manual, one chapter at a time.
Balter, who’s paper hyped the repeal of the so called “head tax,” suggests that McGinn is simply hurling ideas and that the seawall proposal is spendy. Balter neglects to say that the seawall has to be replaced anyway, and as a supporter of the waterfront tunnel, Balter clearly isn’t against spendy proposals.
Passage of the seawall is ultimately about safety. During last year’s campaign the Washington State Department of Transportation held nothing back with their disaster porn video showing what would happen to the seawall if Seattle was struck by an earthquake. Fixing the seawall is an urgent and important safety measure not a spendy idea.
Seattle’s safety on the sound is critical, but fixing the seawall helps in other ways. Last summer while discussions were going on about repealing the “head tax,” Councilmember Time Burgess offered ideas for replacing the head tax. He didn’t make any rash promises but he worked diligently with supporters of the tax to find sources of funding that would keep the revenue and the idea behind the tax, specifically discouraging driving and providing affordable, safe, and convenient alternatives.
There was about $19 million in potential funding on the table to choose from for tax replacement, including increases in parking meter fees, the commercial parking tax, and the creation of a Transportation Benefit District.
The problem is that many if not all of these dollars are being eyed for improvements to the waterfront related to the tunnel. If the seawall measure is placed on the ballot and passes, all of this additional money is freed up. The city would be able to use transportation dollars for transportation—possibly pedestrian, bike, and transit infrastructure—rather than fixing the seawall. So putting the seawall on the ballot and getting that project finished frees up a lot of other money that should go, in part, toward the purposes assigned for revenues from the “Head Tax.”
And that’s why the Mayor’s proposal to get moving on the seawall using bond financing makes sense. Why on earth would Balter and the business community want to pay for the seawall repair and the “spendy” tunnel project with increases in the commercial parking tax? Wouldn’t that hurt business? Wouldn’t that keep our neighbors from Bellevue—who will never use the tunnel—from shopping downtown?
Far from being a conspiracy to scuttle the tunnel, the Mayor’s seawall measure actually allows the city to maintain existing transportation infrastructure throughout the city, helps replace the lost “Head Tax” revenues, and helps keep the momentum on important bike and pedestrian projects all over the city, not just on the waterfront. If the Council puts the seawall measure on the ballot they will have taken a big step toward putting the city on a path toward sustainability.
