We’ve been obsessing over the candidates for a while, including interviewing candidates in our local races. Here are our recommendations.
District 4: Maddux over Johnson:
- Michael prioritizes the issue of wealth inequality and is focused on reforming our regressive tax structure. We believe he will be a capable replacement for the retiring Nick Licata on social justice issues and will do a great job of speaking for the most down and out, whether they are going to be displaced by HALA or are impacted by a property tax increase. While Rob tries to solve every problem with a property tax increase and bigger government, Michael is more thoughtful about the adverse impacts of our regressive tax system.
- Michael favored district elections while Rob Johnson didn’t, and it shows in their approach to neighborhood issues. Michael speaks with passion about working with neighborhoods to craft solutions that make sense on the ground. The mayor proposed the Move Seattle Levy without any input from neighborhoods and also proposed new zoning rules without any visits to or input from impacted neighborhoods. We think Michael will fix that disconnect for District 4. Michael has been demonstrating his interest in local issues by coming to more community meetings than Rob and speaking genuinely with us about issues, even when we disagree. On the other hand, Rob has built his career working downtown and we expect him to be an advocate for the people that could help him from downtown with his next career move, not for our community.
- While both candidates believe Wallingford should be upzoned, Rob also believes that we should raise taxes on people after they are upzoned in order to force redevelopment of their properties. While Michael emphasizes issues like developer impact fees and displacement issues, Rob emphasizes the need to impose downtown urban planning goals and development interests on neighborhoods. Rob might be the more polished and articulate candidate, but only Michael will be speaking for us.
- For more, see their priorities here.
District 6: Weatbrook over O’Brien:
- Catherine Weatbrook has proven herself to be exceptionally hard working with several visits to Wallingford in the primary and has been a strong advocate for neighborhoods for many years in Ballard, working to resolve homelessness situations compassionately and effectively. Catherine supports the good parts of HALA, like easing ADU / DADU restrictions and providing multifamily tax exemptions in exchange for guaranteed low income housing. She also opposes the bad parts of HALA, like blanket upzoning of our neighborhood, believing neighborhood residents should have some say in how they are developed.
- Catherine is passionate on the issue of developer impact fees, and so are we. Developer impact fees have been legal for many years and are in place in other cities in Washington State. They provide a progressive way to collect funds to pay for the new schools, parks, and infrastructure that new density requires. While all of city council pays lip service to developer impact fees happening some day, they also take developer campaign contributions and have avoided taking any action on impact fees. Catherine is tough enough to push on the issue until it happens.
- Catherine will pay attention to what the city is actually going to do, not just to the politics of an issue. She gets upset by examples of sloppy governance like the half-baked Move Seattle levy and will see to it that government actually visits the places it is going to impact with its plans. We have been very impressed with the depth of her understanding of issues both in chats with her and in her responses to our District 6 Wonkathon. For instance, Mike supports spending all of Wallingford’s meager Move Seattle rations on cycle tracks on Green Lake Way and 50th while refusing to explain how cycle tracks could connect to bike lanes on Stone Way or even to visit the location. Catherine agrees that a cycle track on Green Lake Way and 50th needs to connect to Stone Way. Our impression is that Mike gets involved if there’s a progressive rallying cry like when we walked the 45th street bridge, but doesn’t do the follow through, like actually working with us on language to get bike and pedestrian access added over the 45th street bridge.
- We reject the idea that progressives must vote for Mike as he is a good cheerleader for progressive causes. Catherine is also progressive, but will demonstrate follow through and fix government when it gets sloppy. We need a progressive auditor and neighborhood representative more than we need a progressive cheerleader. Vote Catherine Weatbrook.
School Board Position 2: Rick Burke over Laura Gramer
The wonkathon interview we ran made this vote crystal clear. Rick Burke is pretty much the ideal candidate- fully versed in issues, not an ideologue, with a strong background in education and students in Seattle Public Schools. Laura Gramer sounds like she means well but is clearly not qualified. Vote Rick Burke. For more on their priorities, see here.
Interested in other races further afield? We can’t help as we haven’t met those candidates and interviewed them. One trick is to look for recommendations that conflict with each other, like the Seattle Times vs the Stranger. The Seattle Channel also has great debate videos on all the races, and after you glaze over watching that then Doug’s Voter Guide offers a more entertaining take.
Thank you so much for the endorsement! I’m honored and I will work my hardest representing this district for the full 4 years!
I already voted by mail and voted for Rob Johnson because I agree with his positions more overall than I do with Maddux’s. Having said that if Maddux is elected I hope he reigns in the utter handouts and sellouts going to developers and the massive upzoning of the neighborhoods that the mayor wants. Money talks in this town and developers seem to be in firm control of our local government, disgusting. However, I personally do not think Rob Johnson is representative of that sellout.
Voting for the guy that is going to give hand outs to the developers is a very odd way of trying to stop the developers from getting hand outs.
To each their own, but seems odd.
Let’s see: Vote for the geek who wants to kick me and my family out of my house so people who don’t even live here can replace me, or vote for the other guy. Decisions, decisions….
Good writeup! Aside from the details of their positions on various issues, it comes down to whether these people will represent us, and on that I think we have a real choice in both Wallingford districts. I’m starting to get my hopes up that it could happen.
So when did a neighborhood “info” website decide it was entitled to try exert its personal political views on its neighbors? You have overstepped yourselves in my view.
Of course they’re entitled to an editorial position! They write this site, host it, and do all the work. They even graciously invite a bunch of riffraff like us to respond in the comments. Sheesh. Either you’re trolling or just have a real weird perspective.
How do they stand on developer impact fees? Are they strong enough to stand up to developers? I would like to know the answer to that on Maddux/Johnson.
Barbara, I don’t claim to know much about either candidate. But if you’re worried about developers, as I am (especially with the talk of upzoning everything between 45th and 50th), I’d steer you to Maddux. Read Eric’s bottom paragraph on the two candidates. If we are to take Eric at his word, “…Rob also believes that we should raise taxes on people after they are upzoned in order to force redevelopment of their properties.” Nice, huh. Kick people out of their homes to fulfill your utopia of Apodments up the yin yang.
On a more positive note, I do know know that Maddux has been endorsed by Nick Licata, who has been known as more of a neighborhood advocate than most of his peers on the Council, as well as The Stranger.
If you want proof of Rob Johnson advocating for taxes to maximize development of upzoned land, see 24:12 of the video here where he speaks on the issue:
http://www.seattlechannel.org/publicAffairs/?videoid=x58992
(like I said, we were obsessive with these recommendations)
Thanks to both of you. That information helps a lot, as does knowing Nick Licata endorses Michael Maddux.
Only Maddux has been speaking about revenue reform, including new taxes on developers. See their answers from our primary interview here:
http://www.wallyhood.org/2015/05/district-4-wonkathon-low-income-supports
Voting for Rob Johnson. Came across as a mild mannered listener and doesn’t jump on bandwagons without careful thought knowledge and understanding of issues. And I agree with Confused this neighborhood post strayed long ago from serving as an unbiased source of information.
Maddux seem one of the most capable candidates in terms of getting things done. And he’s, if anything, a bigger, better-informed wonk than Johnson. No, Maddux is not mild-mannered, but I would rather have someone willing to call out BS and get results than another pleasant, oh, Sally Clark.
I haven’t voted yet and now will vote for Maddux…because of the comments here and mainly because of Lacata’s endorsement. Sorry, I should have stayed with my main concern which is being for Mike O’Brien after watching the council for over a year…..and talking with him. I wasn’t well informed about Maddux….and he does represent more what I think about development etc.etc.
Leslie, perhaps you should take a few more classes. There has never been such a thing as an “unbiased source of information” and there never will be, that is, until we live in a world of robots. Even then robots will be “biased” by whoever writes their programs.
I think Wallyhood has lost it’s mind. Anyway, I feel really lucky Mike O’Brien represents me on the council and I’ve had his sign up in my yard forever….Have been going to a lot of Council meetings in the last year and O’Brien, Sawant, and Licata were the ones who voted with their hearts as well as their minds and who represent real living things like people and the planet and animals, etc. Anyway, I’m also for Johnson…..
Have lived in Wallingford since 1970 and it’s changed A Lot and not entirely for the better…..I liked it better back in the day and I liked the values then better too
Penny: “Have lived in Wallingford since 1970 and it’s changed A Lot and not entirely for the better…..I liked it better back in the day and I liked the values then better too.”
And you’re voting for Rob Johnson why?
You’re right hay duke, maybe I won’t vote for that position….Maddux just seemed like more of a politician politician which I’m tired of, but I’m certainly not for Johnson’s ideas about property
It’s too bad you don’t live in district 6, I think Weatbrook might be a regular throwback, in a good way. If I understand her positions, she’s business friendly, but particularly local businesses that have been part of the local economy for in some cases generations. Along with the other things mentioned in the article above.
Glad to help, Penny. Now if I can just convince some more….
“I liked it better back in the day and I liked the values then better too”
Does it have something to do with Maddux being gay?
Actually the part of the day I was in back in the day was about loving everybody and having peace and that’s part of what I miss (I mean we were fighting for all that back then and I can’t believe we still are, or aren’t, as the case may be) I just got the impression he was more of a politician politician (i.e., say anything and do nothing or the opposite )
I am in one of those single family zones just outside an urban village. I have seen first hand the type of new development that occurs in our zip code. It’s not affordable at all. And this is without the upzone! A side yard turned into a 3 story monolith that has a roof top deck. It towers over the houses next to it. The developer was able to pocket close to a million dollars for this house. The houses right next to it probably lost 100-200 in value.
The politicians want to sell you housing affordability, but developers are actually demolishing affordable rentals and replacing them with million dollar houses.
Rob Johnson has publicly said (just heard it on NPR) that he would like to see Urban Village boundaries expanded. If you are in a single family zone relieved that you are not in the urban village, let me tell you it’s not over yet.
The homes nearby only lose value if potential buyers are looking for a suburban environment. Most affluent people who’ve lived in other major cities have lived in–or for that matter aspired to live in–neighborhoods that are 100% row houses. Having a 3-story neighbor with a roof deck is not some onerous burden for many people willing to spend a lot to live close-in-city, it’s “normal.” (Including, of course, practically everyone from San Francisco.)
I believe I know the house in question, and that seems to me to be a conservative estimate of the effect on adjacent property value. It’s partly the cheesy construction design and materials, like they put it up from a kit they bought at Target, partly the small lot. I don’t think they could do it today, as the small lot piracy has been reined in a bit. But it did sell for that much, and given that, no developer is likely to build to higher standards or ask less, so it’s fair to hold this up as an example.
So you’re taking the fact that folks were willing to pay seven figures for a house very close to existing houses on a smaller lot and also made of shoddy materials as a sign that existing houses on larger lots of superior quality the same distance from it are worth less, rather than more? That doesn’t really make any sense.
Worth less than they would be without a junk tower next door, obviously. This developer has done more to set back the developers’ cause than his funding of Roger Valdez’s salary have helped it. Valdez can say what he wants, but these buildings have sprouted up all over and anyone can see what’s going on.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say potential buyers might be put off by a house inches next to them with a rooftop deck that is 2 stories above their own. If you are not willing to accept that as a fact, then you really aren’t be honest with yourself. But I suspect this is a case of astroturf and not a genuine comment.
The couple who bought really like the deck so they are on it a lot. The noise they make having normal conversations definitely carries. It’s annoying.
Because they don’t want people to see their roof?
The side walls and back decks of the old bungalows to our right are 10′ from each other. The big house on the corner is 10′ from a 1970s infill on one side.
On one side of our (seven figure) house we could jump from our kitchen window onto the roof of the (shorter) house there. On the other the window looks straight at the peaked roof of the bungalow. Our back patio and our neighhbors’ back patio are like 10 *inches* from each other, separated only by a fence.
All these houses are super valuable because most people who prefer close-in city living (including us) take this for granted–and there are more then enough to make up for folks who might be put off because they prefer a more suburban environment.
Johnson is backed by big developers. Johnson has advocated for a land value tax to try and make it unaffordable for families.
What I believe is that he’d like to raise taxes on property and have an additional land value tax all hit around the same time. This will force many people to sell their houses which developers will then buy for cheap because the market will be flooded.
For my vote that was a big deal. Some density will have to happen, but Rob has all the big developer money and I believe he’ll want to work for them and Michael will work more with the community as evidenced by the many times he has met with our community (not just at forums)
Before the primary, my partner and I sent the following email to all the candidates. Not everyone replied but both Michael Maddux and Rob Johnson did. I’ll post their replies shortly because I think they might be useful to other people who live inside the Wallingford urban village boundary.
Dear [candidate],
We live inside the boundary of the Wallingford Residential Urban Village and we are voters in Seattle City Council District 4. We would like you to explain your position on the mayor’s proposed changes to zoning within Urban Villages. In particular, we would like your opinion on HALA Strategy MF.3, which would “convert land within Urban Villages zoned primarily for detached single family development to the City’s existing Residential Small Lot (RSL) zone or Low-rise multifamily zones.”
Thank you,
[leafz and partner]
Here is Michael Maddux’s reply:
[leafz and partner],
Thank you for reaching out! I’ll dive right in –
I’m not opposed to this strategy at the 10,000 foot level. Part of the affordability crisis extends to home ownership opportunities, and this is potentially a method to create more chances for middle-income families to purchase. One of the areas that we run into issues with this, of course, is how “affordable” new units built using this strategy really are. I’m not sure how legal it is, but looking into policies that would tie some performance level with long-term covenants on a certain percentage of units built using this method (similar to inclusionary zoning) I think is worth exploring. Or looking to New Holly, partnering with organizations such as Habitat for Humanity on constructing mixed-income units so there is a reduced profit incentive.
However, two other areas where I share concerns with folks I’ve spoken with on this issue are setbacks for more walkable neighborhoods (avoiding lot-line to lot-line construction), and parking mitigation. Combined with the “how” on missing middle type housing (which is touched on in MF.4), working out these details in cooperation with the neighborhood I think can lead to positive results. I don’t view this as a zero-sum game, rather there is opportunity to maintain the unique nature of our neighborhoods, while adding housing options. By having some early design guides that help developers better design to the desire of the neighborhood, and working to bring neighbors and developers together early on, I think we can ease a lot of the consternation that we see around development.
A quick anecdote – in my neighborhood, Daly Partners and Brian Ramey met early to discuss a proposed redevelopment of the old Azteca site. I’ve served on the steering committee of the East Howe Steps Park Plaza project, and seen first hand developers 100% willing to work with neighborhoods leaders and neighbors early, and we have a great project going in, changes were made that were relatively minor to make it more walkable and aesthetically pleasing, and the developer is going in on a good chunk of the costs to finish the East Howe Steps from Capitol Hill down to Lakeview Ave. I have heard similar stories of positive results coming from neighbors working with developers.
But moving back, to the extent there are zoning changes such as this, I do think it is important to not try to implement policies specifically designed to price families out of their homes in order to encourage them to sell for redevelopment purposes. I was actually meeting with some volunteers on the campaign over beers last weekend discussing this very thing, and an idea to prevent massive spikes in property taxes for SF homes in re-zoned areas until after sale for existing residents, or other measures that would specifically be designed to create some sense of stability for residents of the city as we engage in a community conversation about how/where zoning changes should happen, how they should be implemented, and what investments in transportation infrastructure will concurrently happen, along with parking mitigation.
I apologize for the novel, but hope that this answers your question! Please let me know if there is something I should expand on!
Best,
Michael
Here is Rob Johnson’s reply:
Hi [leafz and partner]- Thanks for your note. As you may know, I’m a supporter of increased density in and around light rail stations and near frequent transit lines. With a proposal in front of council next year around heights in the University District, we may be able to accommodate the density we have planned in NE Seattle mostly through that proposal and then may not need to act on some of these recs. It will likely be more than a year before the council will take up the proposed MF3 recommendations that you’ve cited. I’ve heard neighbors across the city express concerns about the recommendations, but I’ve heard just as many (if not more) people talk about their interest in downsizing from their existing homes and wanting to be able to age in place. Recommendations like this one would allow for more people to be able to live near transit, jobs, and economic opportunity. I’d be happy to talk with you in more detail if you’d like; [phone number redacted]. Best – Rob
Sent in transit
Thanks for sharing these replies to your letter, Leafz. I just watched the discussion that Eric linked and Maddux is definitely the vote winner in my opinion. I think that Johnson’s idea about taxation on potential property value rather than on the actual property is appalling. His plan will force SFH owners to sell up to developers or face a huge tax hike. How is that fair to those people who live in this neighborhood? The only people that will serve is the developers – business interests over residents, once again. I’m sure he’s not prepared to do the same thing where he lives in Ravenna. Wallingford does not need to become the next high rise megaopolis in order to meet housing needs.
Well … these people are a scary combination of conviction they’re doing the right thing, and the financial backing at various levels of the people who stand to gain big money from it. I bet he’ll do it to his own neighborhood, too. If you go to the hearings to tell them how crazy this is, they’ll have people there with sad stories about their brothers who have to live in their basement and can’t find anywhere else to live, and pretty soon Rob Johnson will be weeping and calling for an end to exclusionary zoning, and everyone else will too if we don’t start thinking this stuff through.
It isn’t enough to tell them we don’t want that, or point out that it’s unfair. We’re just people who don’t understand what needs to be done. The real problem has been that we’re ignored no matter what we have to say, and it has been that way for years. I do think they’re wrong, and I believe that in Wallingford and other neighborhoods we have people who can make a damn good case, but right now I doubt any council member would acknowledge they heard any of it. Maybe Maddux and Weatbrook would. I think part of the problem down there is that you aren’t a team player on the council if you start taking the citizens seriously. Like Licata hasn’t been a team player, bless him.
Donn, I think you’ve jumped the shark on who backs Michael.
Downtown developers are all-in for Rob Johnson and John Goodman Real Estate is Rob’s 4th biggest contributor by employer.
Maddux has gotten his donations from friends, neighborhood groups, and social justice organizations. Which is why Rob has about an 80k lead in amount raised, plus an 80k I.e in the primary from the chamber of commerce (who haven’t done an I.E for him in the general yet.)
I don’t doubt this is true, except I don’t know what “jumped the shark” means. I’ve looked it up, but am not sure people regularly mean the same thing by it.
… but what I meant with “financial backing at various levels” was influence behind these policy directions much farther back than just next month’s elections, and my point is that no candidate is free of that influence, because it has defined the issues. If Maddux wins, the developers’ election money was wasted, but they’ll still hold the ground they’ve already won, almost unopposed unless we can mount an effective opposition. Maddux may bring an economic challenge to them, but it’s one they can afford to pay. He won’t pull the rug out from under them and they’ll continue to do what they’re doing. (I’m using “developers” here in a very broad sense, people who benefit from the development gold rush.)
I guess the question is do we elect the guy that will put up at least somewhat of a fight in Maddux who owes developers no favors after how they donates.
Or the guy in Johnson who owes them big time and wants to accelerate their development on the back of fixed income sfh owners?
To each their own, but Maddux seems more like a guy who wouldn’t back down and Rob seems different.
It’s really all about the donations.
Just wanted to thank Eric for writing this oped,and the followup discussion and information posted in followups by forum members (very civilly, BTW — much appreciated!) In particular, the latter really has helped me figure out who I want to vote for.
Much obliged!
I appreciate the recommendations based as they are on diligently acquired information. I, too, support Catherine Weatbrook. Formerly I was impressed with O”Brien, but his willingness to up zone the city coupled with his unwillingness to re-examine the effects of apodments on neighborhoods has totally turned me around. His pretty face will serve him in good stead, and he had some impressive credentials on climate change, but he jumped into bed with the developers and insists on staying there, so he has extinguished the hope I had for him. Too bad. I really like Maddux’s approach to the problems we face in the city, the county, and the state. He will serve the people well, not the big money. He is the kind of politician we need–honest, knowledgeable, and able to stand up to pressure.
Couldn’t agree more with the above statement.