5 ms·

Lack of transit funding no longer rings true. The area just funded $50 billion in one of the most ambitious public transit expansion projects in the country, wi

Lack of transit funding no longer rings true. The area just funded $50 billion in one of the most ambitious public transit expansion projects in the country, with heavy expansion of the train network. This is after an expansion still completing to grow its rail network. (Granted, it should have happened earlier, but this criticism seems less valid now than 20 years ago.) And SPD stopped enforcing marijuana laws well before the state legalized it. It was classified as "the lowest possible enforcement priority". And then, last year, Seattle vacated all misdemeanor marijuana charges from prior to legalization. Seattle, overall, seems reasonably well-managed. I think City Council gets up to antics now and then - they nearly lost $12 million in federal funds because of some political grandstanding in December - but the staff who actually run the city seem to do a good job. Sometimes the level of effort to communicate and involve citizens slows down needed progress, such as the upzoning efforts designed to increase density, but they would get criticized for not doing that too.

existencebox 8y ago
"Lack of transit funding no longer rings true." I can only address this for the Duvall area, but I can't agree with this statement. According to the latest city council meetings I was at, we're slated for >11% YoY growth in population (mandated at a higher level of govt, to my understanding, and without commensurate increases in funding), but have consumed our road repair funding for the next 5 years. This not including regular shutdown of the only two roads across the river, for which we have to beg Redmond to fund repairs for if issues happen, not even getting INTO the boondoggle that was the novelty hill switchback being built at half bandwidth due to legal/contractor malfeasance. (I'm also frankly, as you say, still bitter that the train buildout didn't start years ago, going back home to philly and being able to easily get into center city from >hour out via train is _such a relief_) Enforcement was actually less my issue than how they've handled licencing. There was IIRC a lottery for licensing and they didn't take into account actual grower realized capacity, which alongside some very high tax levels, puts it non-competitive with the black market, has lowered quality and availability, and makes it very difficult to create new businesses. I'd certainly agree with "Reasonably well managed" and would hope my complaints don't paint over the successes that I also mentioned. As you say with the city council grandstanding (and I'd mention some of the corruption in the ports prior) there are some pockets of issues, and that's why I try to "stay hungry" as it were for being on my local govts to improve themselves.
- debatem1 8y ago
  I don't understand. Duvall is a separate city from Seattle. Is there some tie-in on road funding I'm not aware of?
  - existencebox 8y ago
    That's the understanding they communicated to us. Basically, the inter-township roads are funded in large part by the larger funding pools (redmond+seattle) and oftentimes "Growth funding" has to trickle down from federal, state and county levels. Apologies in advance if I'm totally off base, I'm trying to repeat near-verbatim what I heard in township/county meetings on this topic. (congestion and growth)
    - debatem1 8y ago
      I called around a bit and it sounds to me like Duvall basically built half its allocated growth housing for 20 years in about a year and a half and spent a ton of money on roads along the way, and now wants the PSRC to double both growth targets and funding for roads. Building lots of housing seems pretty reasonable to me, but I'm not sure I can blame Redmond or Seattle for not writing blank checks on this kind of thing.
      - existencebox 8y ago
        To be perfectly clear, I don't necessarily _blame_ redmond or seattle. I just think the convolution around "who funds what and who deals with the pragmatic result" is both unnecessarily opaque in this situation, and not a question I've heard any good answers to. This is why I handwaved at this problem as "things we're less good at." Going to years of township meetings and getting effectively shrugs and "we know this is a problem but no plan to address it outside of waiting for more upper tier funding" doesn't really engender much faith in this category, unfortunately. (also, I was under the impression that the allocated growth targets were "set on high by the powers that be" and handed down to the townships?) Good to know I'm not _totally_ in left field with my remembering of those meetings though... (I'm fascinated how you "Called around a bit" though, civ-e/govt work? I wish I could get those sort of answers as a resident :P)

existencebox 8y ago

"Lack of transit funding no longer rings true." I can only address this for the Duvall area, but I can't agree with this statement. According to the latest city council meetings I was at, we're slated for >11% YoY growth in population (mandated at a higher level of govt, to my understanding, and without commensurate increases in funding), but have consumed our road repair funding for the next 5 years. This not including regular shutdown of the only two roads across the river, for which we have to beg Redmond to fund repairs for if issues happen, not even getting INTO the boondoggle that was the novelty hill switchback being built at half bandwidth due to legal/contractor malfeasance. (I'm also frankly, as you say, still bitter that the train buildout didn't start years ago, going back home to philly and being able to easily get into center city from >hour out via train is _such a relief_) Enforcement was actually less my issue than how they've handled licencing. There was IIRC a lottery for licensing and they didn't take into account actual grower realized capacity, which alongside some very high tax levels, puts it non-competitive with the black market, has lowered quality and availability, and makes it very difficult to create new businesses. I'd certainly agree with "Reasonably well managed" and would hope my complaints don't paint over the successes that I also mentioned. As you say with the city council grandstanding (and I'd mention some of the corruption in the ports prior) there are some pockets of issues, and that's why I try to "stay hungry" as it were for being on my local govts to improve themselves.

debatem1 8y ago
I don't understand. Duvall is a separate city from Seattle. Is there some tie-in on road funding I'm not aware of?
- existencebox 8y ago
  That's the understanding they communicated to us. Basically, the inter-township roads are funded in large part by the larger funding pools (redmond+seattle) and oftentimes "Growth funding" has to trickle down from federal, state and county levels. Apologies in advance if I'm totally off base, I'm trying to repeat near-verbatim what I heard in township/county meetings on this topic. (congestion and growth)
  - debatem1 8y ago
    I called around a bit and it sounds to me like Duvall basically built half its allocated growth housing for 20 years in about a year and a half and spent a ton of money on roads along the way, and now wants the PSRC to double both growth targets and funding for roads. Building lots of housing seems pretty reasonable to me, but I'm not sure I can blame Redmond or Seattle for not writing blank checks on this kind of thing.
    - existencebox 8y ago
      To be perfectly clear, I don't necessarily _blame_ redmond or seattle. I just think the convolution around "who funds what and who deals with the pragmatic result" is both unnecessarily opaque in this situation, and not a question I've heard any good answers to. This is why I handwaved at this problem as "things we're less good at." Going to years of township meetings and getting effectively shrugs and "we know this is a problem but no plan to address it outside of waiting for more upper tier funding" doesn't really engender much faith in this category, unfortunately. (also, I was under the impression that the allocated growth targets were "set on high by the powers that be" and handed down to the townships?) Good to know I'm not _totally_ in left field with my remembering of those meetings though... (I'm fascinated how you "Called around a bit" though, civ-e/govt work? I wish I could get those sort of answers as a resident :P)