UW PROPERTY LEASING/MAKING THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT THRIVE

On Monday, June 16, the Council voted 6 to 3 (Licata, McIver, Conlin voting no) to approve a permanent removal of restrictions on property leasing by the University of Washington. Current regulations limit the University's ability to lease property in the area immediately surrounding it. The goal of this regulation, which has been in place since the early 1980’s, was to protect small businesses from competition for space and to prevent the de facto expansion of the University campus beyond its agreed current limits. The University has always been free to lease in other areas of the City (such as South Lake Union) that are beyond the impact zone boundaries. The lease limit has been raised twice in the past when the University requested more flexibility, but the UW this time asked for its permanent removal.

The Council package included a number of items that I supported, such as steps to encourage housing in the University District, a plan for economic improvement on the Ave, and provisions that conditioned the University's leasing activity with strong reporting requirements and restrictions on the displacement of street level use by office use. I also support expanding the University's ability to lease space, recognizing that the University is an important and growing part of our economy, and that its increasing ability to secure federal grants coupled with reduced state funding require it to have the flexibility to lease more extensively.

However, I voted against the final ordinance because I believe that the community’s concerns about the removal of the lease lid were not adequately listened to and responded to. Most community members endorsed changes in the lease-lid to support the University and its contribution to economic development. Many of those favoring the original proposal conditioned their support on elements such as restricting it to the Urban Center boundary or including requirements to stimulate housing production.

Unfortunately, while some of these concerns were responded to, the final legislation did not restrict the additional leasing in any way, and by removing the lease-lid permanently left little recourse for the City if things do not work out well for the University District and the surrounding communities. The City-University Citizens Advisory Committee (CUCAC), which includes both University and community representatives and has been designated by the City as the key advisory body on issues such as these, was not consulted early in the process, and voted to oppose the final legislation. I am concerned that this sets a precedent for further changes in the community without adequate public involvement. All of Seattle has to be involved if we are to reach our economic and community goals. By leaving out key community participants we create the potential for unnecessary conflict, litigation, and political opposition.

Removal of the lease lid was originally proposed as a way to "revitalize" the economy of the University District by expanding the University presence. The rationale was that this would fill vacant offices and encourage commercial development. However, as the Council explored the issues surrounding the U District, several things became clear:

1. The most important issue for U District merchants is housing. More office workers are helpful, but the Ave needs residents who will activate it in the evening as well in order to make serious progress.
   
   
2. A key obstacle in redevelopment has been absentee ownership of crucial properties. Absentee owners who are satisfied with their current rents are not likely to be persuaded to redevelop just because the University is looking for leases.
   
   
3. There are possible unintended consequences of removing the lease lid, including reduced street level uses, transportation and parking impacts, too much new office development at the expense of housing, and speculative overdevelopment. There is a real concern that small businesses will not be able to compete and will be forced out by rising rents. The legislation preserved restrictions requiring street level uses, a significant plus, and the UW agreed to extend its Transportation Management Program to leased space, which should greatly improve transportation issues. However, the other issues still remain, along with concerns about impacts on the surrounding communities.

I supported an earlier proposal which would have limited the leasing expansion to the Urban Center area, the area that the City and community have targeted for job and housing growth, and supported two amendments on the floor which would have, in different ways, retained regulations towards this end. However, the legislation as passed included only a target of 75% of new leases being in the Urban Center. If all goes well, this could be successful in mitigating or preventing the possible negative impacts listed above, but I am concerned that simply having a target rather than a legal limit will not provide protection for the community and University District businesses if things start to go awry.

The legislation as approved was based on a leap of faith: that good intentions would lead to good results. I entered this process hoping to be able to vote for lease-lid legislation. Unfortunately, I fear that we threw the baby out with the bathwater, and for that reason voted 'no'.

Back to Contents

GASWORKS PARK TREES

Thanks to a citizens campaign spearheaded by Cheryl Trivison and Catherine Maggio, on Thursday, May 22, the Parks Board voted to approve a plan for improvements to Gasworks Park that preserved the several dozen mature trees that were slated to be cut down under a proposal by design consultants. The Parks Board decision was affirmed by Superintendent Ken Bounds, and will result in a significant modification to the design plan, a modification that brings it into harmony with the original Gasworks Park Master Plan. I wrote to the Parks Board expressing my opposition to the tree-cutting proposal.

As part of the Pro Parks Levy approved by the voters in 2000, improvements are scheduled for the northwest corner of Gasworks Park. The goal is to improve access and make better use of that area of the Park. Consultants to the Parks Department recommended creating a formal entrance opposite to the new condominiums recently completed facing the park. In order to create this entrance and a view corridor from it, the consultants proposed removing most of a row of mature trees that screen the park from the parking lot and fronting street.

After touring the Park, I concluded that the opponents of the tree removal plan were correct, that the trees were healthy and that established city policy indicates that we should preserve healthy trees unless there is a very good justification. I also concluded that developing a formal entrance did not justify removing so many trees, that the sight lines would still be partially blocked by a hill immediately to the south of the entrance, and that any improvements in sight lines would primarily accrue to residents of the higher floor condominiums, not to the general public.

Over 400 persons sent messages to the Parks Board opposing tree removal, and sentiment at the public hearing also overwhelmingly opposed the plan. I am pleased that the Parks Board and Superintendent listened to the public, and reversed the course that several weeks earlier looked like it would be approved. It’s a real demonstration of the power of citizen organizing, and of the responsiveness of Seattle City government when a clear and cogent case is made, backed by strong citizen support.

Back to Contents

BICYCLE HELMET LEGISLATION

On Monday, June 16, the City Council unanimously approved a resolution supporting a Board of Health proposal to mandate bicycle helmets in the City of Seattle. The proposal would amend the King County Health Code, which currently mandates helmets everywhere else in King County, to include Seattle in this requirement. The Board of Health is expected to take action at its July meeting to approve the amendment.

The medical community and the Board of Health agree that there is strong evidence that head injuries are a major cause of death and disability associated with the operation of a bicycle on public roadways and bike paths, and that bicycle helmets have been shown to prevent head injuries suffered by bicycle riders during a crash or fall. There is also evidence from other jurisdictions that demonstrates that legislation mandating helmet usage is effective in increasing helmet use. It would be ideal if helmets were treated the same way as seatbelts, as something that was routinely provided as part of a bicycle purchase.

However, there is some disagreement in the bicycle community as to whether mandatory helmet laws are a good idea. Some have concern that such laws will discourage bicycle riding, will be discriminatory against the poor, or will be used as an inappropriate law enforcement tool.

I agree that a law by itself will not adequately address the problem, and that it must be accompanied by a concerted effort to provide low or no-cost helmets to low income riders and by education and incentive programs. After carefully considering the issue, the Bicycle Alliance of Washington has endorsed mandatory helmet laws, with the inclusion of measures to make helmets more widely available.

Public Health-Seattle and King County, the Seattle School District, the Seattle Police and Fire Departments, and organizations that promote bicycling have made a commitment to carry out education and incentive programs in conjunction with this legislation. There is also now a network of places that will provide low or no-cost helmets to those for whom purchasing a helmet would be a hardship, including the Brain Injury Association, the Cascade Bicycle Club, the Head Injury Hotline, Helmets R Us, the Odessa Brown Children’s Clinic, Prorider.com, Think First of Washington, and the University of Washington Hall Health Primary Care Center.

The King County Board of Health adopted the mandatory helmet regulation in 1992, at a time when the City had a separate Health Department. Now that the two Health Departments have merged, regulation of bicycle helmets in Seattle falls under the jurisdiction of the King County Board of Health. The City Council role is therefore advisory, although it is unlikely that the Board of Health would proceed without the concurrence of the three Seattle City Council members of the Board.

The resolution endorsing the mandatory helmet regulation also asked the Board of Health to continue and expand the education, incentive, and helmet subsidy programs, to consider language clarifying the rights of bicycle riders in liability lawsuits, and to include the opportunity for persons who receive a ticket for not wearing a helmet to have their ticket dismissed if they provide proof of purchase of a helmet to the Court. I supported the resolution, and look forward to adoption of the regulation by the Board.

Back to Contents

QUOTE:
“You are yourselves the town, wherever you choose to settle… It is men that make the city, not the walls and ships without them.”

-- Thucydides, quoting Nicias to Athenian soldiers on the beach at Syracuse

DEEP THOUGHT:
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

-- Anonymous

Citizen participation and engagement are critical for maintaining democracy -- fostering it is a key task of elected officials. It's my hope that this newsletter will inform you about issues, inspire you to get involved, and that together we can make things work better in this great city. Please send me your feedback, so we can keep things lively, interesting, and useful. And please forward it along to friends who might be interested.

Richard Conlin
Your Seattle City Councilmember

To subscribe to this list, send a message to: Majordomo@lists.speakeasy.org
In the body of the message, type: subscribe makingitwork
To unsubscribe, send a message to: Majordomo@lists.speakeasy.org
In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe makingitwork

Back to Contents

Back to MAKING IT WORK Newsletters