5views.com

Does the city really need more money to pay for street repairs? Recently the city came up with $45 million for improvements for downtown in a supposed attempt to keep Russell Investments Group from leaving (and to keep their pipe-dream of a pie-in-the-sky financial district alive).

Now they’re considering going back to voters to ask for more money to repair streets. We already said, ‘no’ to such a proposal, but I’ll get back to that. There wasn’t a vote during this discussion so the only members mentioned in the News Tribune article as supporting the idea are Lonergan (who seems to have proposed it) and Fey.

But this is the money-quote from the TNT article:

But Councilwoman Connie Ladenburg questioned whether there was enough time to develop a proposal that would get to voters this year. Ladenburg also said that the City Council had not determined that street maintenance was the top priority, although it certainly is among the top priorities.

(more…)

As an alternative to the zoning approach to land use restrictions, Houston, TX has always had used a free market approach. There are benefits and drawbacks, but the important thing is it puts property rights in the right place, the hands of the property owner.

Michael Ennis of the Washington Policy Center (WPC) attended a conference in Houston where the subject came up. He points out some interesting aspects of the system in this blog entry.

Our Neighborhood Council meeting recently had visits from the city’s planning commission staff and from a lobbyist group that is lobbying the city for more restrictive land use. This article seemed a good way to start the conversation on this blog.

I’m not advocating a radical change to our land use and zoning laws. However, I do want to make clear that a) there are alternatives, and b) that more restriction isn’t the best approach.

Update: Robert Mak, probably the closest thing that Northwest TV news has to an objective reporter, did a segment on this issue (here’s an online synopsis). He spoke with a UW professor who, without outside funding or support, did a study on the impact that land use regulations have on housing prices.
(more…)

They took the plunge today and opened for business. This is a great place. They call their coffee shop/bistro ‘Fishtales Bistro’. They’re not allowed restaurant style seating, but there are plenty of choices to take to nearby picnic tables and enjoy.

At the walk-up window is an espresso bar with soups and chowders plus some cool stuff like seafood cocktails. Inside are all of the fish products you’d expect and some more. It’s a good mix of ready to eat, prepped for cooking and unprepped selections.

The location makes it a good place to stop to pick something up for dinner whether I feel like cooking or not (I do like to cook). They’re right on the Ruston Way waterfront in Old Town with plenty of 15 minute parking out front.

(more…)

I stopped by the new waterfront location of Northern Fish Products on Ruston Way today and chatted with the folks getting ready to open it up. They’re hoping to open before the copper river salmon show up just after the15th of this month.

They’ll be selling fish products in what appears to be a market style, and will be selling things that will appeal to the foot traffic. It’s a great idea since that street probably has more foot traffic during the summer than even the busiest streets downtown. I’m guessing only the mall can compete with the numbers they’ll see going by each day during the summer.
(more…)

Tacoma’s city council, Economic Development Board and some special interest groups continue to cling to failing fantasies of a financial district in downtown Tacoma. All the while they’re wasting taxpayer money and letting opportunities slip through their fingers.

There have been so many warnings they can’t even be referred to as harbingers anymore. The list of businesses that have left Tacoma is long and represents thousands of jobs. The latest company to announce their intent to depart is Davita, a health services company that has a data processing center in downtown Tacoma.

The dream has been to build a financial services district in downtown Tacoma, and with that comes a number of other exploits that are supposed to build the kind of atmosphere that will attract the kind of companies that these people are looking for. The problem is that the people in charge of our tax dollars can’t tell the difference between a good idea and a bad idea.
(more…)

Union workers shut down the Port of Tacoma today for an illegal protest of the war in Iraq.

What do unions have to do with foreign policy? The short answer is nothing. So why do they think they can protest on company time and the taxpayer’s nickel?

In case you weren’t aware, it’s illegal for public employees in the state of Washington to strike. Unions do it all the time, but just because public officials and judges don’t do anything about it doesn’t change the law. These people should be put on trial for breaking the law. Not that it would do any good. The union would hire their lawyers (and probably get money from other unions to support their cause… exploiting employers and members) and the judges would likely dismiss the charges or suits after lengthy and costly appeals. But I wouldn’t mind my tax dollars going to strike a blow against these union thugs and in support of the rule of law in our state.

They claim they’re supporting the troops in this protest but that’s just double-talk. Nothing about what they’re doing is supportive of the troops. You can’t support the troops without supporting their mission, you can’t support the troops when you’re wasting money for the businesses that hire our troops when they’re not deployed and you’re not supporting the troops when you waste taxpayer dollars to do something that won’t do a bit of good for anyone.
(more…)

Finally, an objective review of rail’s ability to deliver on its promises.

Conclusion:

There may be places in the world where rail transit works. There may be reasons to build it somewhere in the United States. But saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are not among those reasons. Regions and states that want to be green should find cost-effective alternatives such as the ones described here. [emphasis added]

The CATO Institute’s report, Does Rail Transit Save Energy or Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?, released yesterday, has some less than flattering things to say about rail transit systems in the U.S.
(more…)

In January of 2007, the Tacoma City Council redrew the boundaries of what they refer to as ‘downtown’. But the new boundaries don’t make sense to me.

Map of area designated as ‘downtown’ for the purposes of the Angelou study

Here’s a link to the City of Tacoma Web site from January 5, 2007 which says that the area changed:

City Council defines downtown footprint
The Tacoma City Council recently defined the footprint of downtown Tacoma and designated the following principles for planning future growth: Protect neighborhoods, critical areas, the Port of Tacoma, industrial, and manufacturing uses, and increase densities in the downtown and neighborhood business districts.

(more…)

A summary of the reasons that I think Tacoma’s offer to Russell is bad for the city:

• It’s too expensive - Keeping one company in town for $140 million ($65 million of which has to come from a city struggling to rebuild its downtown) is just too much to pay.
• There was no apparent consideration of alternatives - That money could be used to attract a number of smaller businesses to downtown Tacoma.
• It was poorly negotiated - Public showmanship is not how you negotiate this type of deal when your competitors are keeping quiet.
• It appears to be politically motivated - None of the current city council members want to be the next Gary Locke.
• Building a financial district around Russell has already failed - There’s nothing to indicate that this deal can change it. Tacoma’s problems are systemic and need a systemic solution, not a flowery trim and better drainage in this imaginary ‘International Financial Services Area’ (IFSA).
• The decision was made while consultants were still gathering data that would be used to help determine if it was the best course of action (that is, assuming there was ever any question in their minds when they hired the consultants).
• The deal came from a policy that wasn’t discussed openly by the city council, nor was there a public vote of a quorum of council members. According to this thread at a TNT blog, there was only a ‘tacit approval’ by city council members, whatever that means in this situation.
• The deal depends on some money that is set aside for an Empowerment Zone, but will be used in an area that is being set aside for wealthy financial services companies (the IFSA).
• The financial district pipe-dream is probably responsible for the rejection (or hindering) of numerous viable companies that might have moved in downtown. I think it’s time for its proponents wake up from that dream and smell the coffee roasting (if they allow roasting in Tacoma).
• There’s no guarantee that all Russell employees will choose to relocate to be nearer to a Seattle or Federal Way Russell headquarters. Employees who choose to stay and commute to the new HQ would keep their personal portion of their ‘economic impact’ where it currently is, in Tacoma and environs.
• The B&O portion of Russell’s economic impact, as I understand it, is under $10 million, yet the city will spend many times that to keep them here.
• The deal includes a targeted tax cut for Russell for the city’s B&O which is being justified by saying, ‘if they leave we’ll lose it anyway’. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s nothing more than corporate welfare. The city should consider a broader cut or even a repeal of that tax to help bolster smaller businesses, including those who relocate downtown.
• Russell’s desire to relocate isn’t a big surprise. They’ve considered it at least once before (in the 90’s) and they have already revised their leases to expire in the same year. Even this huge deal might be too little, too late.
• Most anyone who is honest about it will admit that Russell and Tacoma are not exactly a good match (for Russell). There are many other companies that are a good fit with Tacoma that could use a boost from the sources cobbled together into this Russell deal.
• I think that it’s time for Tacoma to rethink its goals for downtown. I believe that the current plan has become more of a problem than it’s worth. Maybe some of the people who won’t let go of it need to step aside, or be voted aside, so that something new and viable can come together in our city.

My personal opinion is that this offer should be withdrawn and revised to exclude the IFSA and the goal of building a financial district downtown. It should be done in such a way that it doesn’t damage the Haub or Ilahie proposals.

Keeping Russell here is a good idea as long as the price isn’t too high and the offer to keep them here is above-board in all aspects, including the motivation behind it.  This offer doesn’t even pass the smell test.

Feel free to check back.  I might think of some more reasons.

I just got back from the presentation by a consulting firms hired by the city of Tacoma to (supposedly) help them figure out what to do about the floundering downtown area. I was encouraged by a few things, discouraged by some others and I can still smell Freighthouse Square on my clothes.

There were two basic parts to the discussion: Survey results and economic impacts. Both were on slide shows and the economic impact portion had a flier at the door. Oh, and there were some average grits for snackin’.

Here’s my bullet points.

On the upside:
(more…)