Downtown Conspiracy 101

Take one part over-representation of financial stakeholders in downtown planning, add a series of proposed projects that remove all hindrances to increased height and density, sprinkle in a few “amenities” to woo the public – be sure to leave all public comment in a box on the shelf – and stir it up with a few threats and misrepresentations. Bake in an oven warmed by a rush to beat the 2008 Council. Voila: Winslow Tomorrow Surprise.

If Saturday’s editorial page is all the Winslow Way gang and their good friends at the Review can come up with to dispute allegations of a “downtown conspiracy” (their words, not ours) then perhaps we’re on to something.

The exact ingredients may vary – only the cooks know the secret recipe – but what is clear is that there are many individual pieces of information and series of events that don’t add up, and the spin and blatant “errors” on last week’s editorial page haven’t explained any of them.


The Secret of the Hidden LID

The feigned shock from property owners and the City Administration (not to mention the editor of our fine paper of record) to the suggestion of an LID (Local Improvement District) to help finance the Streetscape would be comical, were it not so serious a matter for the rest of us.

We have been told that (1) an LID would not be appropriate for the Streetscape because we all benefit from it and that (2) an LID would fail because property owners won’t go for it. Winslow Way property owner Bruce Weiland goes so far as to state, in his op ed piece attacking Bob Fortner and the BRG in last Saturday’s Review, that “the City, by law, cannot impose an LID; it must be approved by 60% of the parcels being taxed”. That statement is wrong on so many levels, that one has to wonder why Weiland, a lawyer, would not do his homework before publicly admonishing a fellow citizen’s understanding of the law.

An LID can indeed be imposed by a municipality, though it can be blocked if it’s opposed by property owners representing 60% of the of the dollar amount assessed (not % of parcels). In other words only 41% of the affected financial interests need be in favor of the LID. Thus, in this case, the City could impose an LID and leave it up to the property owners to determine how essential this project really is. Unless of course we want to capitulate to the threat of LID protests in the same manner the City has been seen as capitulating to the threat of lawsuits.

In response to the argument that an LID is not fair because the Streetscape benefits us all, we need only look to Seattle where LID’s have been considered for both the Alaskan Way Tunnel and the Lake Union Streetcar. LID’s are standard operating procedure for financing a broad range of capital improvements that confer a special benefit to adjacent landowners even as they may provide a benefit to the entire community.

So, if LID’s are so ubiquitous, why the claims of impossibility from the City administration and why the disinfomation campaign in the Review? The answer may lie in a plan to reserve that funding mechanism to fund the proposed parking garage.

Streetscape project Manager Chris Wierzbicki told a friend of the PostScript in August, that an LID would not be appropriate for sidewalks and street trees, but would be appropriate for, say, a parking garage. Lo and behold, the funding recommendations for the Haggar-Scribner/ City parking structure, to be presented to Council tonight, include a special assessment for benefited properties. Recall that Tom Haggar, his wife Priscilla Zimmerman and Don Audleman (of Capstone Partners, technical consultant on the $127,000 parking garage feasibility study – yes that’s taxpayer money) are all members of the Streetscape Advisory Committee, and that Dr. Haggar also sits on the committee that created the Streetscape funding strategy.

It will certainly be interesting to see how this apparent hypocrisy is finessed at tonight’s meeting.


The Case of the Missing Fire Flow

Within the Water Resources Element of our Comprehensive Plan is a discussion of “fire flow”, and other water storage requirements, for the downtown water system. According to that discussion, the Winslow Water System will not be able to provide adequate service (including fire flow) for projected growth without replacement of “undersized distribution pipelines in the system”. Specific recommendations are given for Winslow Way upgrades, and Winslow Way Streetscape documents cite those Comp Plan recommendations as the basis for current plans.

Why does “fire flow” matter? Inadequate fire flow means no redevelopment of the affected properties and the word on the street is that what has kept heights down on Winslow Way for so long has been fire safety issues – fire department ladder height, the need to underground power lines and inadequate fire flow. The fire department now has the truck it needs, and in 2009, the Streetscape project will take care of the last two requirements. And so the argument goes that even the basic utility work on Winslow Way will create a special benefit to property owners and should be subject to an LID.

City staff has refuted this claim, stating that the same diameter pipes would be needed for current zoning as would be needed for proposed 5-story building heights. Putting aside proposed upzoning (a potential red herring), is the relevant issue current zoning capacity, or the actual ability to build to that capacity? Is it the City’s responsibility to use our tax dollars to provide a property owner with the additional infrastructure needed to maximize the use of his property? Or are such upgrades valuable improvements to his property?

This is how the Water and Sewer Report, produced by City consultants for the Streetscape project, describe the situation:

“The proposed improvements are the minimum required to meet projected growth along Winslow Way as discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. It is important to note the improvements are not being dictated by future multi-story build-out along Winslow Way but are needed regardless of redevelopment to meet projected domestic and fire demands.”(emphasis added)

Clearly, the infrastructure need is for future development along Winslow Way – whatever sized structures are used to accommodate the projected growth. Thus, we are talking about an improvement that is a prerequisite to redevelopment. It’s incontestable that such an improvement confers a measurable, and, in this case, substantial benefit to Winslow Way property owners.


Something untoward seems to be going on downtown. Has the administration played a role in deceiving Council and the public about the viability of LID financing for the Streetscape project in order to reserve that option for the financing of the Haggar-Scribner parking garage? Has the administration played a role in misleading the community about the relationship between the Streetscape project, the proposed parking garage and the ability of Winslow Way property owners to build taller and bigger buildings, whether under current or proposed zoning?

Without credible answers to such important questions, increasing numbers of reasonable citizens will find themselves wondering whether there might not indeed be a "conspiracy" directing the redevelopment of our downtown.