Reflections on Opening Day: Light Rail is People

In both transportation and land use it is easy to lose sight of one basic fact: what matters most it isn’t the bricks, the tracks, the design, the routes, the heights but people. At this last weekends opening of the latest link in Sound Transit’s Link Light Rail, there was lots of talk about the public art, the line itself, the future campaign to expand the system, and even lots of quantitative exclamations about the reduction in travel time between previously far-flung sections of the city. But as with density, while mass transit requires lots of capital investment and technical expertise to make it work, in the end, what makes it work is people. I’d suggest that most of our disagreements about where our city goes next is because we miss this point.

I live exactly .18 miles from the new Capitol Hill station but I had no plans to get mixed up in any of the celebrations. After all, it’s a two-minute walk, and once the opening day crowds subsided I’d have the place all to myself more or less. Why go up there and hassle with the hype. Earlier in the morning I ended up having to get coffee at the Starbucks down the street, a kind of last resort when other coffee shops I prefer have long lines. I ended up running into the Mayor. He was there for the opening of the station. We had a pleasant exchange and I went home.

Later that afternoon I was trying to figure out to write here. You might be surprised, but most of the times I struggle to find something to say. Not because I don’t have anything to say, but like most writers on a narrow topic, it’s easy to find oneself writing the same thing over and over. Not necessarily a bad thing—repetition is part of education and debate—but it is exhausting saying over and over again in different ways, “let’s build lots more housing of all types, everywhere, for all levels of income.” And one has to be creative to make the repetition at least interesting.

So I decided to walk up to the station and see what was going on. As soon as I got there I ran into a long time friend who works for Sound Transit. He handed me a media pass and we walked past the lines and around the station. Then we dove into the crowds. I talked with someone from Seattle Subway about Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning. We ran into probably half a dozen people I usually only see on Facebook. It seemed like every milling crowd of people had at least one familiar face—from leading politicians to people I hadn’t seen in years. I’m not being very evocative, but it reminded me what an afternoon in a small town might be like – seeing familiar people in public, catching up with them about their lives if even for just a moment.

My point is an obvious one: light rail is people. I like this phrase because it reminds me of Charlton Heston’s realization in Soylent Green. I said density is people for the same reason. Careers are made in complicating how to build great cities. But it’s simple. Put a lot of people together and there is a spontaneous order* that leads to community, and it is community that makes a city great. Yes, we have to figure out how to pay for things, and align things, and what color things are, and a myriad of other important choices. But we should not let these things stand in the way of doing rather than talking.

I wrote last week about competing visions of our city and how the stories that we tell matter. I won’t recall my experience of the light rail opening as anything but a completely spontaneous connection with other people facilitated by having those people close by, either because they live down the street or because light rail draws them closer. As I have pointed out again, and again, and again, cities—lots of people living in close proximity—create the possibility for transformation and evolution, for innovation and prosperity, and greater compassion for each other.

Cities can save us from the consequences of inefficient use of resources and from callousness toward one another from lack of human connection. We have to believe and imagine that even if that new building makes us look fat, the station is in the wrong place, and our apartments are too expensive, we’re still better off here than anywhere else in the world because we have each other.

*One of the best explanations of our potential through less planning rather than more is from Milton Friedman here:

John Fox and Ronald Reagan: The Art of Telling a Good Story

A big part of politics is story telling. Actually, I’d argue a good story wins over facts and data every single time. In some ways I think this is a bad thing. On the other hand, it’s just a fact that our world is just a bunch of stuff until we assign some meaning to it, and that meaning matters and is even more real that the stuff itself. Two recent examples of story telling about cities that have come across my computer screen and I can’t help but put them side by side because they are so good and so opposite. Those of us who want more growth in our city are losing the narrative war and it matters.

The other night I watched Ronald Reagan’s farewell speech. It’s absolutely fantastic as an example of why Reagan captured the imagination of the county and it’s a sharp contrast to the kind of rhetoric we see on the campaign trail today. Reagan was warm, reassuring, and his words and delivery inspired confidence. Here’s the key passage:

I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind, it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind swept, God blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace – a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.

That’s how I saw it, and see it still. How Stands the City?

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm.

And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the Pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

We’ve done our part. And as I “walk off into the city streets,” a final word to the men and women of the Reagan Revolution – the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back:

My friends, we did it. We weren’t just marking time, we made a difference. We made the city stronger – we made the city freer – and we left her in good hands.

 

Back in 1980, just three years after the Seattle Displacement Coalition was formed, there was no such thing as “homelessness”.

At that time, Seattle’s downtown had about 10,000 low-cost housing units–nearly all unsubsidized–inhabited by a diverse multi-racial mix of low income men, and some women, many on Social Security or getting disability payments.

Those wanting work could walk a few blocks to the day labor office and likely pick up part-time work on the docks or waterfront warehouses. If you were retired, there were bars, pool halls, hotel lobbies, and long-time restaurants like the Turf, where you could just hang out, see friends and get a cheap, filling meal.

Yes, there were an estimated 300 or so “skid road” denizens, mostly men, some with alcohol and addiction issues, who called the streets of downtown and Pioneer Square home. The missions helped these people and there was little need for subsidized housing or a multi-million dollar social service delivery system. Folks had built-in support systems intrinsic to the community.

But something dramatically changed. In Seattle as in cities across the country, in a little over half a decade, office and commercial development exploded. Spurred in part by lucrative tax breaks and supply side monetary policies during the Reagan administration, capitalists rediscovered the downtown core of major cities, including Seattle. The economy moved from blue collar to white. Real wages for many fell, the day labor offices closed, dock and warehouse jobs evaporated.

Local politicians actively abetted the trend, shoveling our tax dollars downtown and upzoning for another 20 million square feet of office space. From 1980 to 1985 over 4000 units were demolished or abandoned awaiting redevelopment. The hotels, the pool halls, the working class bars and restaurants were nearly all wiped out as well. Nationally, a million and a half downtown low-income units were lost during this period.

 

Two completely different stories about the same time period, one brimming with optimism the other tinged with a kind of dystopian despair. But both stories are very well told. Could they both be true?

In a way, Reagan is articulating what many of us hope for the city of Seattle, a prosperous place with diversity and fulfilling the highest ideals of openness and innovation. But Fox sees the same thriving city and sees the destruction of the past to make way for a future that isn’t inclusive at all.

One could find lots of facts to support each story. And most people around here hate Ronald Reagan. But if you set aside for a moment the story tellers and just think about the story, you’ll see why making housing policy in Seattle has been such a challenge. For those of us who see the shining city on a hill the hope and plan is for a prosperous and thriving city of innovation and inclusion for everyone. Those who see growth as a steamroller wiping out the pool halls and dive bars the past is better than the present and maybe even the future. Too often it’s Fox’s story that is told and believed; it’s a quaint vision of the past we lost rather than an ideal for what we could build together.

 

I Never Promised You a Rose Garden: A Meeting With Some Seattle Neighbors

If you’ve been paying attention, even a little bit of attention, you’ll know I don’t have much patience for most arguments made by neighbors about growth and new housing. In fact, I usually consider their arguments red herrings, mostly bluff and bluster about whatever they can come up with to create doubt, throw up process barriers and ultimately reduce density and, if they can, kill projects all together. What may be surprising, then, is that I spent Saturday morning with some of the most dedicated neighborhood opponents, or at least skeptics of growth, the Seattle Neighborhood Coalition. This isn’t the first time we’ve met and spoken to the group and I hope it won’t be the last. As much as I disagree with what the coalition represents, I still think we have to dialogue and discuss. My purpose on Saturday was to find common ground with neighbors on the Grand Bargain.

Most neighborhood activists these days don’t want more housing in their neighborhoods. Some will wave their hands at this characterization and say, “we just want density done right!” I don’t think there is such a thing, density is people, and whether they live in a beautiful building everyone loves or something neighbors hate, we need to welcome the people. Buildings really don’t matter all that much as long as they can get as many people efficiently housed as possible.

But we and the neighbors agree, the Grand Bargain didn’t include most builders or neighborhoods that we build in all over Seattle. The push for Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) has gotten process resistant. Our own efforts to get information about the methodology and math of the MIZ scheme have been ignored. Signers of the document like Faith Pettis and City staff like Geoff Wendtland have asked for me to be removed from panels we were supposed to be on and specifically excluded me from meetings or refused to participate in discussions if I was in the room. Why? I guess they don’t want to be embarrassed by the answers or maybe the lack of answers. I have no idea. But neighbors are feeling a similar cold shoulder. At meetings the City is hosting to discuss the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) Committee recommendations neighbors are being divided up, and some complain that if they’ve been outspoken about land use issues in the past, they are being excluded.

Most important, neighbor activists aren’t getting clear information about the significant upzones that the Mayor says will happen in 2017. It’s all part of the Grand Bargain that was negotiated by people downtown but without significant contribution from neighbors. Well, the same is true for the builders who make most of the housing in the city outside Downtown and South Lake Union. So I figured we have something to talk with about neighbors, even though this is how Bill Bradburd in a really fair and well written post describes me:

Valdez is a vocal proponent of “free market” solutions to housing, and largely frames the issue as simply supply and demand – with the problem being simply not enough supply.  He once said that housing was like bananas: if we produce more, prices will come down.  He suggests that impact fees and inclusionary zoning amount to a tax on development, and feels “we should be taxing what we don’t want” which includes further taxing low density Single Family zoning.  And Seattle’s intention to use Linkage Fees to further subsidize affordable units, he says, is flat out illegal.

He may be the iconic neo-liberal housing advocate, and in many ways he may appear an enigma with some of his apparently lefty leanings.

He supports using the City’s bonding capacity to produce deeply affordable units.  And he acknowledges that the affordable housing need is greatest at levels below that produced by HALA’s Grand Bargain (60% AMI) putting him in league with hard left advocates like John Fox.

The Fox reference is important. I consider Fox to be one of the few principled voices on housing in Seattle — the wrong principles in my view — but still, Fox isn’t afraid to align even with a devil like me if he feels we both agree that the City is making a mistake. We both get criticized by our supporters for our occasional and unusual agreements. But we’re both practical about our activism: do what works for the people we care about the most.

Do I think that we’ll reach some Grand Bargain between neighbors and builders outside Downtown and South Lake Union and neighbors? Maybe. If that’s what it takes to slow down the Grand Bargain and get answers I think it’s a discussion and collaboration worth making. And who knows, some of the other things we agree on –the City and Mayor aren’t doing enough to position the City as facilitator about discussion about growth, not picking winners and losers– might make the City take a different approach to other problematic issues as well, like the absence of neighborhood planning that was so successful in the 1990’s. As I pointed out, City policy is being made in reaction to and through conflict rather than solid data and measurable goals we can use to hold everyone accountable.

In the end, the neighbors and I will likely be at odds. But from my experience in the last decade, from Roosevelt upzones only going to a measly 65 feet, to the murder of microhousing, to scandalously bad low-rise legislation, and new rules that punish builders with design review based on building on an adjacent lot, the neighbors get listened to down at City Hall.

A neighbor earnestly approached me after the meeting and asked what he could do to stop an apartment development down the street that would shadow his house. I said, “I can’t help you with that.” And he wondered about his roses. I said, “Well maybe it’s time to pull them up and plant something that grows better in the shade.” But as much as I disagree with them, neighbors weren’t included in the Grand Bargain details. Neither were the people who build the majority of housing in this city in those neighborhoods. Activism isn’t always a bed of roses, but it’s important to go where the principles of more housing, everywhere, of all types, in all parts of the city, and for all levels of income leads us. And last Saturday it lead me back to the neighbors. We’ll see where it takes us next.

 

Will Speaker Chopp Open His Eyes?

After checking State law and asking a former colleague in the non-profit housing profession, I confirmed that many if not most non-profit, subsidized affordable housing projects don’t pay property taxes. This is what makes the opposition by State Representative Frank Chopp, Speaker of the House, of legislation to expand the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program to allow its use for preserving existing multifamily housing so strange. The legislation is now essentially dead. Why is Chopp opposed? According to the Seattle Times

Because House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, is against the proposal. Seattle and other cities shouldn’t be allowed to give tax breaks to for-profit property owners, according to the speaker, who says only nonprofit landlords should benefit.

Chopp has either entirely forgotten decades of experience in non-profit housing from his days before being a legislator or his reason is simply an excuse for playing to lefties in his home district. Or something else. Who knows?

What we do know is the bill had broad support in Seattle including from Smart Growth Seattle. We also know the legislation would allow the acquisition and improvement of older buildings with the tax exemption being used to help offset renovation costs so renters wouldn’t have to absorb them all. That would mean an end to many of the  sad stories about an older building being purchased and residents seeing their rents double when the building is improved. And we know that Chopp could have introduced an amendment to exempt non-profits completely from property taxes.

While we can’t know the Speaker’s motivation, we know the legislation would be positive. With the special session now underway, maybe the bill still has a chance.

And finally, our big ideological problem in our city and  state is that many people believe that for a housing program to be a good one, it has to somehow reduce private developer profits — or at least not be beneficial to them. That’s just nonsense.  Programs that incentivize private developers to create public benefits are good programs because they can be efficient, effective, and a fair use of tax payer dollars.

Part of why the City is proposing Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) is based on the ideological blinders worn by the Speaker and opponents of the legislation: It has to hurt. The idea is that tax payers shouldn’t foot the bill, builders and developers should. But that idea only leads to  higher priced housing when higher costs get paid by renters. It’s time to pass this bill. And it’s also time to take the blinders off.

 

 

 

 

 

A Builder Perspective: Why Housing Is So Expensive.

Last week I went to a meeting with Seattle City Light with about a dozen small builders who work mainly in the south end of the City or just outside it but are still served by Seattle City Light. They were mad. For many of them, the meeting was the last desperate attempt to get answers to many, many questions and issues that are slowing down their projects and adding costs.

I am posting the complete document offered by one builder representative who lays out in excruciating detail why the Department is failing them. I’m not doing this so much to blast Seattle City Light; they’re listening and trying to address the problems. It’s because I get tired of hearing how developers are corporations, greedy, and profit driven to the exclusion of all else and that these things mean housing is expensive and out of reach for ordinary people in Seattle.

That’s just false. These people are hard working business owners, often on site, managing projects with the own hands. I’m posting this because I want those who are curious to understand that all of these issues add costs to housing. When Departments don’t help builders, and when timelines slip, and standards are unclear or always changing, it’s the end user, that average person who ends up paying the price.

I don’t want people to feel sorry for builders. I want people to recognize the job isn’t easy but it’s one that needs to get done. Getting angry at builders of housing for high prices and trying to punish then for it is as wrong headed as punishing farmers when a drought wipes out their crops. Instead of adding more costs, fees, taxes, rules, limits, headaches and hassles (not to mention inflationary schemes like Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning) we need to be reducing all these things. Instead we have a City that each and every day, in big ways and small, makes the difficult and risky job of building housing that is in demand more difficult and expensive.

We hear complaints from neighbors all the time. Here’s some from a builder.

The Seattle City Light Experience for the Construction Office;

As experienced by Megan Parsons; Permitting Manager for Soundbuilt Homes or former experience while working at Richmond American Homes.

Projects:

I have worked with Seattle City Light for about 3 years now on 2 different projects. The first project was 55 lots in Seola Gardens from June of 2012 – April 2015, and the second being the Foster Short Plat beginning in May of 2015 to current. During both projects I have experienced the same type of delays and lack of communication from Seattle City Light employees. What I have been in charge of handling for both companies was the applications for temporary and permanent power for new SFRs and making sure the associated connection charges at paid in full.

Communication Issues:

Lack of communication is in my opinion one of the biggest issues I have experiences. During both projects the amount of follow up phone calls and Emails have exceeded any other utility company I have dealt with. On average it takes 3‐4 Emails AND 3‐4 phone calls in order to get a hold of the “project contact.”

The “Process”:

I was told to begin the process that I need to fill out an application and Email it to the project inspector for processing. On average once the application has been sent via Email, it takes 2‐3 weeks for the application to be processed. During this time, I will send Emails asking for my service request numbers so that I can pay the $1400 temp power pole connection charge; which cannot be paid until the application is processed. Once I have paid the temp fees, I am always assured that it will be 6‐8 weeks for connection. This was not the case for the Foster plat, and was hit or miss with the Seola project. For Seola I was told that I had to install a minimum of 5 poles at a time in order for them to make the trip out to inspect the project. For Foster, I was not told that.

For permanent power, I was told that the application for temp power should be filled out for the perm connection as well for quicker processing, so there is no need to turn in any further paperwork. Once the conduit is laid in the ground for the perm service, the site super is to contact the inspector and have them come out to inspect that all conditions have been met. At this time the inspector should measure the length of the conduit in order to determine to fee for the permanent service connection. This fee is not a set fee; but based off the length of the conduit. Again, I will have to wait for the site inspector to create a new service request number and attach fees to it before I can pay any connection charges. This can take anywhere from 2‐3 weeks and constant communication. After I have paid, I was told it could take 6‐8 weeks before someone is back on our job site to inspect and MAYBE connect to the perm service.

Timeline Examples:

Temp connections were paid on June 1st and I was told On October 9th that it would be “installed very soon.” This is 4 months from the time of payment, 16 weeks. The second week of January 2016; my site super told me he was getting no response from the inspector at SCL in regards to getting the perm service started. I spent the next 3 weeks Emailing and calling multiple people within SCL until I finally reached Cecile Bamer. I got a phone call the next day with a long list of excuses of why everyone has been out of the office for weeks but still no real answer as to what our fees for the Foster lots were and when someone could be onsite.

A few weeks later, I was told by Brittney Kent after requesting the contact information for our new site inspector; that I should not call and Email them all the time because I would be hindering their response time. Even though I was not getting responses at all.  After another 2 weeks of no one returning my phones call or Emails; I called Cecile Bamer again letting her know that I have still not been provided the fees and we have had inspectors on site. I expressed that I just wanted to get the fees paid so that I did not have to wait even longer to get permanent power. I was provided the fees within 48 hours but told that I had to drive from our office in South Hill Puyallup to the downtown Seattle location to pay with a credit card; even though I was allowed to by the temp fees over the phone using the same card. It took over 5 weeks of asking every 3 days and calling a higher up manager before I was provided the service request numbers and connection fees.

During my time at Richmond American Homes, I experienced the same lack of communication from multiple inspectors and extended timeframes for the simplest part of the process; paying the fees. During phase 1 of Seola Gardens, we were forced to build our entire model home off a generator (5 month built time with a 4 week lead on power) because of this connection process. The home was complete long before we received the approval for connection to the permanent service. It avoid further construction delays as stated before; I was told that I HAD to do lots in batches and they would not come out for one single lot. That they were too busy for that. Since it was a huge project; Richmond complied and did them in batches.

The Effect on Builders/New Homeowners:

The inability to get permanent power service to houses has delayed final building inspections and forced them to extend closing dates. Things like this can hurt future residences as meeting closing dates are very important in this line of work. By delaying us because you are “too busy,” you could be forcing a family that is depending on that moving date, to have nowhere to live for an unknown amount of time because there is no guarantee of installation with SCL.

How Others Power Providers Work/Suggestions:

My biggest suggestion is to stop basing the permanent power connection charge of the length of the conduit. Tacoma Power has a FLAT FEE for their connection charges, and will take payment for both the temporary and permanent service at the same time (even long before building permits are issued.) They will also take credit cards over the phone. This is also something that will help builders out. I am not sure how PSE handles the determination of their connection charges since each lot is different from what I have seen but they bill AFTER THE FACT. This keeps the process flowing smoothly so that there is no delay due to someone needing to make a payment. They set up a customer account and bill for the charges; due within 30 days.

Seattle City Light Issue’s for electricians begin at the time of Temporary Power. Here is a firsthand account from their experience during the Foster Short Plat construction:

Attempting to get Temporary Power:

We had made many phone calls and left messages with a person by the name of Doug Woo. It would take several days to get any kind of response and usually only left us with more questions or we would be directed to someone else. After several weeks we were able to get Temp Power to 4 lots by utilizing the secondary pipes that were installed by the developer of the property. This is not a common practice with other utility companies.

Hooking up Permanent Power:

I have personally had 3 meeting on site with SCL, first meeting we were expecting Doug Woo but instead were greeted by 2 young Ladies that informed us that we were allowed to use PVC bends in the ditch instead of Ridged Steel sweeps, this would have made life a lot easier. Shortly after this meeting I received a call from a gentleman named Roy, He informed me that PVC would not be accepted and that Ridged Steel 90’s would have to be used. Roy and I also met out on site and went over the issues we were having with the power ditches serving the homes. At this time Roy looked at the pipe work we had completed for lot 2 and gave us permission to back fill. He also took pictures and we discussed my concerns about having power down for more than a day when converting from temp power to permanent power. At the end of this meeting I felt that all issues had been addressed and we were good to go. So I sent a crew out and did the prep work on lot’s 3&9 while using lot 2 as our guide line. I then called Roy to let him know that these lots were ready for his inspection.

After Roy’s inspection he contacted me and informed me that that the PVC 45 degree bends that we installed would not meet there standards and that I would need to contact a gentleman by the name of Paige for explanation as to why? I contact Paige and try to explain the problems we are having on site and he is unable to comprehend why there is an issue so we agree to have a meeting on site to discuss what needs to be done. Again I meet on site with Paige and I have him look at lot 3 that we had prepped and his first response was that will work but only to be followed by if his mandrel will pass through the 45 degree bend. I asked if he thought it would but he thought that it would not. Next solution is to remove the 3 inch steel 90 degree sweeps and install 1 steel sweep 45` and 1 Pvc sweep 45`. After this meeting all parts were order and we are waiting for their arrival so that we can install.

Now before we can install we have to call SCL and have the wires removed from the secondary pipes that are powering our temp pole. After removal of wire we can complete the pipe work and then again contact SCL to prove the pipes by pulling the mandrel through with their inspector onsite. If it passes the mandrel inspection then finally they will schedule a line crew to come hook up the home. If it does not pass the pipes need to be dug up and repairs made.

So here we are, we have 2 almost completed houses with no power. We have been powering the furnaces from the temp poles to continue the drying process of the home and continue the construction. From what I can see when the ditch work is passed we face the possibility of being without power for a couple days.

How Other Power Companies Work With Builders:

Tacoma Power has a SSB Box on the property line that will serve both as a temporary power source and Permanent Power for the home, The SSB can usually Serve 2 houses and when temp power is disconnected the home is powered up same day. No power loss to site during the course of construction. PSE supplies every lot with a power stub that also provides power for the temp pole and the home with no down as far as power loss.