“We aren’t just NIMBYs”

Goldilocks and the three NIMBYs: Waiting to get it just right.

The story posted last night on the Seattle times was headlined “South Lake Union neighborhood advocates oppose taller, fatter buildings.” And South Lake Union NIMBYs are actually calling themselves NIMBYs and saying “it isn’t just the views, but yes the private views matter.”

What is breathtaking about the story is the complete paucity of any substantial argument by neighbors against more housing.

“It’s too fat!”

“It’s too tall!”

And they were so civilized, these Goldilocks of South Lake Union, considering their whole way of life is being put at risk by proposed changes outside their windows.

While opponents of change might be patting themselves on the back this morning, they really have outed themselves as opposed to change because its change. If it doesn’t look like they want to look they want it stopped.

In the end this is better for the debate on land use in Seattle. Change opponents can keep opposing density until it’s “just right,” and those of us who argue basic economics (more supply of housing means lower price) can make our case without resorting to plannerese. What’s better for the future of the city, waiting for the perfect urban form or building more housing for new families trying to make ends meet in our city?

In the end it’s up to City Council. Will they give in to the Goldilocks approach to urban form or will they support vibrant growth in South Lake Union and welcome new people to our city? Only time will tell, although the issue has already been debated for years. Isn’t it time for a decision? Which bed will we sleep in; the past, the future, or the status quo?

Risky Business: Sharing the Wealth Means Sharing the Risks

Pay to play: Why should the City get access to private profit when they won’t take any risks?

Proposals for incentive and inclusionary zoning in South Lake Union seems like Seattle City government playing politics with the balance sheets of private businesses. Upzones create private value, the argument goes, so the City should share some of that value and use it for affordable housing. More profit is possible with additional building, but what about the risks? Profit is a reward for successfully taking risk. Is the City willing to share the risks too? If it wants to tap into the profit stream created by new development, the City should put up some cash like other investors rather than fining developers for success.

Don’t get me wrong; I love taxes! Taxes pay for public goods, redistribute wealth, and create disincentives for stuff we shouldn’t be doing, like sprawl (this last point is a central point of Dan Bertolet’s latest post). Taxes are one thing, but when the City tries to create public benefit from private investment without taking any of the risk, it’s not fair. If the City wants to “extract value” from private development at South Lake Union then they should put some money into projects being proposed there.

Instead of having City Council staff standing on the sidelines speculating about just how much money is going to be made from increases in development capacity being sought by developers in South Lake Union, how about getting in the game by buying a share of the projects. I can’t think of a better way to get more control over what happens with the upzones than if the City itself was an owner or shareholder.

As an investor the City would have to take on some risk. If there is too much housing built with additional zoning, then the City would lose it’s shirt along with other private investors — but the price for units would be cheap. But if demand for new housing stays high, the City would make it’s money back. And guess what, it could contribute its share of profits to reducing rents in the project. It’s a win-win!

The City has lots of power when it comes to land use, but trying to squash private profits from private investment to make political points doesn’t make sense. It also doesn’t make sense to tax something that’s good for the public, like additional housing. If the City really wants to influence housing price they should allow as much housing construction as private investors think would be profitable, then let those investors make a profit.

Imagine if the “incentive zoning” concept was applied to other businesses in the city. Since the City gives out a business permit should it share in the profits of a restauranteur, in addition to other taxes and fees, and require an affordable menu? Should a pet shop have to create a certain number of affordable pets for children? How about affordable hot dogs? If the City wanted to accomplish these things they’d regulate them or create a tax or fee structure, but they wouldn’t game the profits of local businesses. Housing is different and more important, but is 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) really the income band in the city that needs help with housing costs?

One last point that I made in a comment on Bertolet’s post at Citytank:

The longer we try to suppress developer profits to prevent them from “laughing all the way to bank” we’re simply preventing new housing, attenuating supply which drives up prices and keeps them high, and, in the end, transferring wealth to the people who got here first at the expense of future residents of the city.

The real value extraction — and social injustice — is making things more expensive for families who want to live with us by keeping housing supply low and fining developers for trying to build more of it. Increasing costs of housing and limiting how much gets built siphons money out of the pockets of newcomers into the pockets of homeowners already here by increasing the value of existing homes and developable land. That doesn’t seem fair either, does it?

Hemingway, South Lake Union, and Views

I’ve decided to read the entirety of The First 49 Stories by Ernest Hemingway. In order to make it interesting (and keep me reading), I’ve decided to post each night to Facebook the story I have read and a quote from that story. Tonight I chose, randomly, “The Gambler, the Nun, and the Radio.” It is a rather long story for Hemingway, but one rich in experience. Here’s what caught my eye:

From the other window, if the bed was turned, you could see the town, with a little smoke above it, and the Dawson mountains looking like real mountains with the winter snow on them. Those were the two views since the wheeled chair had proved to be premature. It is really best to be in bed if you are in a hospital; since two views, with time to observe them, from a room the temperature of which you control, are much better than any number of views seen for a few minutes from hot, empty rooms that are waiting for someone else, or just abandoned, which you are wheeled in and out of.

Hemingway’s prose is poetic. Reading Hemingway, I believe, is like eating Escoffier’s cooking. The difference, of course, is that one can today read Hemingway, while it is impossible to eat Escoffier’s culinary creations, made by him in his kitchen. But I digress. 

The issue isn’t food, it’s views. Hemingway’s narrator goes on to describe what views can do.

If you stay long enough in a room, the view, whatever it is, acquires a great value and becomes very important and you would not change it, not even by a different angle. Just as, with the radio, there are certain things that you become fond of, and you welcome them and resent the new things.

Hemingway describes the issue of views in South Lake Union perfectly. Change is scary. Why change things now, especially when what has been has worked? True, the city is about many more rooms in a smaller foot print. But if one does not leave ones room, then the view becomes everything, no matter what that view might be.

I have a beautiful vision:  Everyone at Mirabella takes a fishing trip.

You’re Blocking My View — of the Future!

In a crowded city having a view is an important and valuable thing; and things of value have a price. One of the charges being leveled at proposed changes in zoning in South Lake Union is that they would result in blocked views of the Space Needle and the lake. How should the City Council weigh the impact on views of new development on private property owners against the manifold public benefits of new development in South Lake Union?  Views are like parking spots, something of value that can be sold at a price when they are in demand, but not something government should require and subsidize so they’re “free.” View protection is really a subsidy of a private benefit at public expense.

In the middle of this debate is my former boss and longtime friend Peter Steinbrueck. I’ve known Peter long enough that we can disagree, I think, in public about these sorts of things. I don’t find it all that odd that he would oppose new development on the grounds that it doesn’t create enough affordable housing, however it gets defined. But views from private homes? That’s what makes his point of view a bit strange:

There are multiple negative impacts as a result of planning, or lack of it, that is driven more by property interests and development goals than a form of growth that respects the established neighborhood, respects the existing residents, and respect the neighborhood’s wider territorial views.

Steinbrueck admits that this is a battle of property owners over a thing of quantifiable value, views. One set of private property owners is outraged because another set of property owners is going to so something to change the value of their private property. View battles are usually about the financial interests of existing property owners. That’s why the law and the courts are not silent on view protection.

The State Court of Appeals found in Anderson v. Issaquah that, “the issue of whether a community can exert control over design issues based solely on accepted community aesthetic values is far from ‘settled,'” but they also concluded that, “aesthetic standards are an appropriate component of land use governance.” That’s why the City of Seattle has gone out of it’s way to legislate to protect views and views of the Space Needle specifically.

I’ve had some fun poking at Steinbrueck’s views on views on my Facebook page, pointing out that when compared to the benefits, the loss of my own view of the iconic remnant from the 1962 World’s Fair is a small price to pay. The World’s Fair was about the future, and the future of Seattle should be to play an active role in teaching the region and the world how to grow smart and sustainably. That view of the future is important.

Let’s see. I might lose my view but we’ll get more people moving into our city, we’ll increase housing supply which will actually put a downward pressure on price, we’ll prevent some sprawl, we’ll use energy more efficiently, we’ll create a bunch of jobs as well, we’ll generate a bunch of sales tax revenue, and we’ll make a 100 year decision in favor of more growth in our city.

Oh, and last but not least, we can help take a bite out of climate change.

That seems like an easy decision. Look at some buildings rather than the Space Needle and get a huge amount of civic benefit for the next several decades. From here, that sure looks like the right thing to do.

Take my view, please!

Views do help make a great city, but someone has to pay for them; like parking spots in the right of way, they aren’t free. When we distort our planning agenda and the free market to preserve private views (even private views from public places) we’re favoring the financial position of the few over the well being of the many. I have my qualms with the way we address problems of affordability in the city, but that, at base, can arguably be a social justice issue. People need shelter from the elements. But should we stop the future to save the views of some relatively well off people?

As Seattle grows the City Council has to make some tough decisions that will inconvenience those of use who are already here to make room for new people moving here in the future. Locking up valuable land that can produce lots of new housing in order to protect an existing view is short sighted; it’s like being against gay marriage because the lines will be too long at the licensing desk. Not liking new development at South Lake Union because it blocks views is a legitimate position. Legally and aesthetically views are something the Council can factor into their decision; but they shouldn’t.

How is Burgess on Land Use?

By now you’ve heard the news: Seattle City Councilmember Tim Burgess is running for Mayor. As Gomer Pyle might say, “surprise, surprise, surprise!”

How is Burgess on land use?

Burgess has actually appeared in the blog a few times, mostly in a positive light. I wrote about Burgess’ use of the biblical reference to Seattle’s tendency to try and “split the baby” on complicated land use issues. This annoying tic on the Council often leads to granting 65 feet of height, for example, for a project requesting 85 feet in a 40 foot zone. Burgess was asking his colleagues to resist the baby splitting urge.

I also pointed out Burgess’ leadership when he teamed up with Mayor McGinn on the Roosevelt rezones around the new transit station there. Burgess wrote a great letter that called out what we all worry about with zoning around transit: that we’ll miss a prime opportunity to create as much housing as possible around new stations. There are 100 year decisions, after all, and if we aim too low we’ll end up with not enough housing supply where people will want to live most, right near light rail.

And in the “I should have seen this coming” category, Burgess was much better on the proposed changes to building height and increases in density in Pioneer Square while his colleague Mike O’Brien was hesitant, and actually joined the opponents of an upzone there. Burgess, on the other hand, said that great neighborhoods

Have high density, where people can rub shoulders together, trade ideas, create jobs, bring innovation, be safe, create community

So when it comes to land use issues, especially when it comes to density and increasing the development capacity we currently have, Burgess gets it. He says the right things and has voted the right way, most of the time.

But the pressures of running for the City’s top job will be a test. Already, there’s talk that Burgess might go down the lemming path leading off the inclusionary zoning cliff, a proposal that would mandate the developers build units at certain prices in their developments. While this might seem like an affordable housing strategy it’s really a price control, and price controls are usually a bad idea.

South Lake Union is a good test for all candidates for Mayor or Council. Will you do the right thing and turn up the volume on supply, or will we continue to make the mistakes of the past and attenuate housing supply because we want to engage in some kind of social safety net experiment? The truth is that the best way to have a salutary effects on price (for buyers of housing, anyway) is to increase housing supply along with smart subsidy programs for both developers and residents.

It’s going to be an interesting year for Seattle and land use.

Seattle is Ahead of San Francisco on Apodments

Affordable and accessible housing: Let it be!

Just yesterday, after lots of handwringing, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed legislation allowing “micro-units” of housing. But the same day, just around the corner, I visited Alturra the latest of Seattle’s Apodments. The Alturra now houses 55 people where there once was a decrepit old craftsman style home. The property manager said the units filled up in a week.

Seattle is way ahead here, and here’s hoping that we see more apodments springing up like mushrooms in the fall rain. A potential tenant was impressed at the price when I visited, $750 all inclusive. These aren’t quite the the rooming houses Alan Durning wrote about recently at Sightline’s blog, but they are close. The kitchen is down the hall and shared among clusters of tenants.

This kind of housing is a critical part of increasing supply, and despite protestations of some local neighbors, there is a strong demand for them. The other bright spot is that this is one place where Seattle is already ahead of other cities, or at least San Francisco, in allowing this option. Let’s hope the City Council follows my early advice: Let it be!

 

Krugman, Twinkies, and Tax Increment Financing

The size of the job matters, not the size of the boat.

I love Paul Krugman. Except when I don’t. During the Obama years Paul Krugman has been a clear and consistent voice for fiscal policy that doesn’t worry about debt limits or the phantom of “big government.” His latest reverie on the demise of the Twinkie reminds me of how even really smart people (Nobel Prize winners!) can get blown off course by ideology and rhetoric. Sometimes when he plays to the gallery, Krugman can indulge in language that makes fiscal policy harder to do. Here’s Krugman on the 1950s in his Twinkie Manifesto:

Squeezed between high taxes and empowered workers, executives were relatively impoverished by the standards of either earlier or later generations. In 1955 Fortune magazine published an essay, “How top executives live,” which emphasized how modest their lifestyles had become compared with days of yore. The vast mansions, armies of servants, and huge yachts of the 1920s were no more; by 1955 the typical executive, Fortune claimed, lived in a smallish suburban house, relied on part-time help and skippered his own relatively small boat.

Krugman is smart enough not to imply a correlation between economic growth and the size of rich men’s boats. But that can’t be said of his left leaning readers. The problem with Krugman’s piece is that it seems to make the relative wealth of the rich the most important outcome of economic policy. That is, the economy will grow if we squash down the people who are wealthy by taxing them a lot.

Does it really matter how big the rich guy’s boat is? If the economy is thriving, people are getting back to work, and all boats are rising should we concern ourselves with just how rich the rich are getting? I think that matters less than creating policy that uses government credit, regulation, and funding to boost the economy. I think that is what Krugman’s support of stimulus is all about, not making the life of the richest executives more Spartan.

This matters at the local level. For me, in Washington, the El Dorado of public finance and land use is Tax Increment Financing or TIF. The benefits of TIF are myriad, since it uses the governments ability to zone, tax, and borrow in the public and private interest. By capturing the value of new development, taxing it and using the proceeds of the tax to pay down debt incurred for infrastructure;TIF is local fiscal policy, creating money where non-existed before.

But Krugman’s language feeds the liberal mindset that someone must be “laughing all the way to the bank” at the public’s expense because of schemes like TIF. Opponents of TIF are on both left and right, but it’s leftward opponents always see a bamboozle by the elite in TIF which doesn’t exist. On the contrary, current proposals actually would generate lots of new money for jobs, infrastructure, and sustainable, green development. Liberal opposition to concepts like TIF just aid conservative anti-tax and debt sentiment that Krugman has pointed to as the cause of economic pain, not recovery.

Krugman usually is a strong counter to the know-nothingism of the Tea Bagger set that decries debt and taxes as the downfall of the country. There is a long tradition in the United States of stoking fear of banks, financing, and, essentially, things that are hard to understand. But in the Twinkie Manifesto Krugman sounds the fearful Jeffersonian note of the American voice rather than the truly progressive Hamiltonian one.

I like to think that Krugman would support local proposals for TIF as a wise use of debt, taxation, and government regulation in the support of important goals like job creation and density. I’m all for it too, even if someone ends up getting a bigger boat. The wrong lesson of the late election is that, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, it’s fine for our policies to make the poor poorer as long as the rich are less rich. I’d rather read the election as a mandate for smart use of government regulation and debt to create jobs and promote sustainable growth using density using tools like Tax Increment Financing.

The Future of Single-Family Neighborhoods is in Their Past

Definition of VINTAGE
1 of wine: of, relating to, or produced in a particular vintage
2 of old, recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality: classic

What is the future of single-family neighborhoods in Seattle? What should single-family neighborhoods look like in 20 or 30 years? This Wednesday, November 14^th, the Department of Planning and Development will host a forum to discuss this broad issue along with the more specific problem of how to implement its “emergency” legislation to stop big houses on little lots. I won’t be able to go, but I think it’s worth a visit by anyone concerned about the future of land use in the city. Where is the future of single-family neighborhoods? The answer is easy: the past.

If you visit any of the most idyllic single-family zones in Seattle, with the exception of probably Laurelhurst, you’ll find remnants of what I would call vintage zoning, single-family houses adjacent to various multi-family and commercial uses. I’m planning to head out to find more examples of traces of vintage zoning, like corner stores, multifamily units clustered or embedded within old single-family zones, or other vestiges of a time when people might have been less picky about pushing uses and forms together.

One interesting resource out on the web now is the 1912 Baist Real Estate Map. It is more provocative than conclusive when it comes to figuring out whether I am right about what land use looked like 100 years ago. The map isn’t very clear about uses; it mainly maps the footprint of buildings and their construction, brick, wood frame, or stone. It also includes whether the building is a stable, since back then most transportation choices were animal based or on a trolley line, which the Baist map also maps.

Two maps snips I think most interesting are first, the map of the area that is now dominated by Seattle Center. Most of the hand-painted reddish shapes apartment buildings with glitzy names like The Avalon, The Hollywood, or The Wilmot. There is also a corner bakery in this map, and each of these buildings are mixed in with what looks like various sizes and shapes of single-family or other kinds of housing.

The second one I find worth noting in the context of what single-family might look like in the future is a section of the map that is now Fremont. Notice the varying size and placement of buildings on the lots, and the number of buildings. Many of these houses and buildings are likely still in place.

All this is guess work on my part. I’ve hardly done deep analysis of historical photos of these areas along with the maps themselves. But I think it’s worth looking back before we look forward. It’s very easy to believe that our neighborhoods always looked just like they do today. That’s simply not true. And when we look back, my guess is that we’d find more variety in single-family neighborhoods of housing type, size, lot placement, materials, and densities. We’d also likely find that in the old days, there was more commercial uses in the midst of single-family and residential neighborhoods, an idea that was set upon by some Capitol Hill residents as the end of their world as they know it.

Planning the future of Seattle’s land use may very well be an exercise is dusting off these old maps and photos rather than inventing fancy, complex new code. To plan for the years ahead, we should use these records of a time when the horse and trolley dominated the right of way rather than the car. Many of our existing single-family neighborhoods already have classic patterns of use. Variety and diversity are already here, we just need to find ways to welcome more people (density is people!) into those classic Seattle neighborhoods.

Photo: Dedication of Chief Seattle Statue at 5th and Denny 1912, from Seattle Municipal Archives

Prayer or Politics: How Do We Get a Sustainable City?

Yesterday I got personal with my own experience with politics and honesty. We’re smart enough and science is on our side when it comes to density, for example, but if we don’t hold politicians accountable for what they do and don’t do to make density happen nothing is going to change for the better. My last post was about the intimate side of politics and land use, but what about the practical side.

I decided to start getting my thoughts together on how, if we start with the limits of how we use land, we end up getting right back to the messy business of electoral politics. What are the limitations on how we use our land in the city?

The Limits of Land Use

• Physical – Does the site or building materials limit use?
• Financial – how does the project pay for itself?
• Health and safety – is the project going to meet basic health and safety standards?
• Regulatory – what laws and rules are in place that limit development on the site?

What can expand these limits?

• Physical – innovation and design (e.g. apodments, big houses small lots, density, technological innovations.
• Health and safety – outputs rather than inputs can reduce costs while keeping people safe. For example, not all older buildings need a full fire retrofit as long as patrons can safely exit building in case of an emergency.
• Financial – the most important financial tool to increase development potential is borrowing money
• Regulatory – relaxing code requirements can reduce costs, expand development capacity, and achieve better alignment with physical, financial, and health and safety limits

What sets or controls these limits?

Government plays an extraordinary and important role in how land gets used since it regulates each area of limitation and it can provide financial incentives and disincentives within the market in each area.  For example, the government can enact legislation to subsidize innovations in engineering, impose taxation on financial institutions that lend money to developers, impose strict land use regulations, or set stringent health and safety rules.

Every facet of life in the United States bears a regulatory stamp whether it is an explicit regulation or something that is less obvious. This presents obvious challenges and opportunities. Government can, through taxation, regulation, and other incentives like subsidies, largely determine how the built environment of a city evolves.

Government controls on each of these areas are subject to the decision making process of elected officials and the recommendations of non-elected government staff. Therefore, while technical and financial realities are hard limits to how we use land, but the only other thing limiting how land gets used are political priorities. Up to the very limits of engineering and design, the price of money, and safety, there are no limits to the use of land other than those set by political priorities.

Often these political limitations seem insurmountable unless we look at how change in land use happened over decades. Who could have predicted that over the course of one hundred years, the United States would go from a country with a few thousand cars and a few thousand miles of highway, to a country with millions of both. This shift from a society and economy more accustomed to rail mass transit to individuals driving cars was the result, over time, of deliberate and identifiable policy shifts completed by government and framed by political priorities.

The idea of large quantities of debt being affordably incurred by families after World War II was a financial innovation dependent largely on the federal governments willingness to back home loans for single family homes, a typology of housing that was less common. The single-family home is a land intensive use and it relies heavily on the automobile and highway travel. Certainly the modern day suburb could have been designed for mass transit, and the housing type could have been more dense multifamily. But both the housing and automotive industry exploded at roughly the same time, becoming dependent on one another.

The social norm of the single-family home with a car parked in front was the result of tax policy, subsidization, and regulation that favored and sanctified that norm over other options. Even if it truly is “too expensive” to live in the city, it isn’t because of some random act of nature, but rather the prioritization of one model of living over another though government policy framed by politics.

When voters who aspire to ownership of a single-family home determine political futures, then the single-family model will progressively win out over other options. And, ironically, then it becomes “cheaper” to get a massive loan for a very poor and inefficient use of land, than to live in a densely populated city.

The truth is that we, through government policy and action, can make living in one place “too expensive” and living in another “affordable.” We can make sustainable choices an automatic feature of our systems and economy rather than making people choose between a myriad of options that are of various shades of green.

Everything I’ve written here is blindingly obvious isn’t it? But why, in Seattle, do we engage the culture war on topics such as abortion, gay marriage, and gun control, for example, but refuse to engage in the important political social shift needed to get to a sustainable city?

As I pointed out in my last post, politics can be a highly personal business, and political motives are not always anchored in rational thinking. We need to challenge politicians about why they want power. But we also need to bring our resources to bear on how we influence the political choices being made every day so they go our way.

I’ll keep saying it over and over again: we need to stop talking about all the cool ways we can make the world and our city more sustainable, and start doing things to reverse decades of bad choices supported by our political system. If all we are going to do is attend brown bags, charettes, and conferences we might as well just pray the rosary for a sustainable city; it might actually be more effective.

Can we talk, brown bag, and conference our way to sustainability? Or maybe we should say a prayer.

Maturity or Vanity: Changing the Politics of Land Use and Sustainability

To me it’s strange that, in Seattle, we spend time arguing about whether political change is the first step to changes in policy. Suggesting that we oust some City Council members and replace them with a pro-growth coalition, for example, is a non-starter.

And then there is the ingrown quality of our local politics: most of us rub elbows with local politicians and we don’t want to be rude by challenging their policies. Rather than worrying what our elected officials think about us, they should be worried about what we think about them.

Here’s a personal example. I am a recovering politician. I spent the decade of my 20s aspiring for public office. Anyone who knew me then saw a person who, while ideologically principled, was driven by looking for political opportunity. This isn’t a bad thing. We need smart, principled people to run for office.

Politics, in practice, is a methodical grind punctuated by moments of exhilaration, but also embarrassing rhetorical contortions, and disappointment. Not surprisingly, when my moment came I found it really was about raising money, and going door to door like a bible salesman trying to persuade total strangers, on their front lawns, to vote for me. In my tiny little race (total funds raised by all candidates was less than $100,000) the lofty policy discussions and changing the world became about turning out people’s pockets for money to pay for mail, signage, and robocalls.

Very early on in my efforts I got a note from a local leader I had worked with and admired.

3/17/02

Dear Roger,

I haven’t been ignoring your requests for you election campaign. I’ve been trying to figure out what I wan to say about it. So, here goes.

I like you Roger. I can see you are very smart, that you are an astute observer of personal and community dynamics and that you really care about the people around you and the place we collectively inhabit. These are all characteristics that I would like to see in our elected officials and civic “servants.”

Having said that, though, I think you lack a level of maturity that would make you a good candidate right now. Having worked with you, I’ve seen the way you can talk behind people’s backs, make promises you can’t keep, and in general have too great a sense of your self-importance. I say these things to you because I believe that you can hear them and do something with them. I think these characteristics are a sign of someone who is professionally advanced for someone as you as you are and at the same time relatively inexperienced in terms of life and personal/professional discovery.

A good legislator (I think) would be one who can listen to people with less judgement about people, or at least the ability to see their own judgments and still hear what’s valuable and what individuals are saying underneath what might sound trivial, uneducated, or whatever.

I want to support your learning and growing Roger which is why I’ve included a donation to your campaign but I’m not comfortable putting my name on the “endorsement list.”

Best of luck,

An important reminder from a life in politics

Now, at first, you might think this was dispiriting or hurt my feelings. There is certainly a tinge of resentment running through the note’s muted admiration of where I was relative to my age and experience. But he was absolutely right: I did lack maturity. It took some considerable courage for this man to write this note to me. Courage because so often people hedge their bets, wanting not to personally offend someone running for fear of the consequences later. And, like it or not, candidates in this country are not awarded a stint in office because of their maturity; they win because they want office, because they need office.

Sometimes, only sometimes, the desperate desire for power and to be seen coincides with maturity and intelligence. But our tests for office aren’t maturity, intelligence, or experience; rather, winners are chosen because of their persistence, desire for power and their ability to establish symbiotic relationships with varied interests who need a vote, or a seat of power. It’s about who needs it most.

My personal trip through the political life has taught me that while the truth can hurt, it is important that we share it with those who aspire for office. When we fear politicians we aren’t doing them or ourselves a favor. Politicians need to hear the unvarnished truth. I needed it then, and I appreciated it. All of our aspiring David’s need at least one Nathan.

Nathan and David: “Thou art the man!”

I still read the note from time to time as a measuring stick for myself. Am I mature yet? All elected officials should have a stained, dog-eared note from a supporter telling them the truth, and, perhaps, challenging their motives. As a recovering politician, I think my maturity and life experience have started to exceed my sense of entitlement for office. Sadly, when it comes to politics, there tends to be an inverse relationship between  maturity and the pathology of power seeking; the more mature one gets, the less one needs office.

When it comes to land use and sustainability, we can talk and talk and talk about the science and the economics, but if we are ever to make the change we need it will start in the emotional and irrational world of politics. That political change must start, not with a tome about the technical elements of climate change (we all know how that works already!), but, perhaps, a simple note to an ambitious politician we like telling her she is wrong and advising her to change. If we can’t make our elected officials—especially the ones we like—uncomfortable or turn them out of office because they are making bad decisions, we are doomed.

So the next time you get one of those remit envelopes from a local politician who is asking for campaign cash, try filling the envelope with some honesty.

The sad but ironic truth is that, in Seattle, when the right thing doesn’t happen, it isn’t because of the vanity of our politicians, but the vanity of their followers.