(Editor’s note: Alex Pedersen is running to represent District 4 in City Council. District 4 extends from Wallingford to Lake Washington, and, after skirting Green Lake, reaches up to Wedgwood. Alex published a neighborhood newsletter for five years called “4 to Explore” which frequently featured Wallingford. He also attended community meetings here as a former aide to City Council President Tim Burgess.)
Archie McPhee, Blue Star Café, Chutney’s Bistro, Fainting Goat Gelato, Meowtropolitan, Molly Moon’s, Ro Ro’s barbecue, Wallingford Wurst Festival, Wallingford Farmer’s Market, Wallingford Community Senior Center, and former Wide World Travel Store – these are all adorable stores and events I featured while writing about Wallingford and nearby neighborhoods in North Seattle during the past several years. If you did not receive my North Seattle community newsletter, I might have seen you at the Wallingford Community Council or while I’ve been knocking on the doors of over 12,000 voters in our Seattle City Council District 4.
With Seattle voters demanding a more accountable city government – including a meaningful reduction in homelessness — I am running for City Council in District 4 to leverage my deep background in affordable housing issues, my relevant government experience, and my commitment to the community.
To the neighbors I’ve met from Gas Work Park to Meridian Playground and from Aurora to I-5, “Accountability” means listening, transparency, and results. When it comes to Wallingford, city leaders have not listened and have not been transparent. Too many voters have lost faith in city officials as a result of backroom deals, ill-advised transportation projects, heavy-handed land use edicts, and a lack of focus on public safety, livability, and other basics of city government. It’s time to realize the true benefits of our district elections system by electing pragmatic problem-solvers who care about communities and are not beholden to their special interest groups or pre-conceived ideologies. I will craft sensible and data-driven policies based on your input; I will be transparent about where tax your dollars are invested; and I will be focused upon delivering the basic services and positive results we deserve and expect from our local government.
I served as City Council Legislative Aide to Tim Burgess during the pivotal time when Burgess chaired the Budget Committee, ran for Mayor, and then led the City Council as President. As a progressive Democrat, I focused on results:
- Crafted the original resolution and plan (#31478) that became the popular high-quality Seattle Preschool Program enacted by voters in 2014;
- Spearheaded the budget amendment enabling Seattle to become 4th city in the nation to fully fund Nurse Family Partnership – the evidence-based program that empowers low-income moms and their infants;
- Crafted performance measures to spur results from additions to the city budget; and
- Led the effort to fund innovative research with the University of Washington to improve gun safety.
This local experience follows my work on homelessness issues at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) during the Clinton Administration after earning a Master in Government Administration.
While I’m proud to be endorsed by the 46th Legislative District Democrats and important officials like Tim Burgess, Nick Licata, Eden Mack, Gerry Pollet, Ron Sims, I’m most proud of my support from community leaders, including many from Wallingford: Miranda Berner, Donn Cave, Frank Fay, Susanna Lin, Lee Raaen, Glenn Singer, Bonnie Williams, and Alexa Halling (the former chair of the 43rd District Democrats). Because my campaign recognized from the beginning the importance of small local businesses for the vitality and character of our neighborhoods, I’m endorsed by Jim Bentley, the head of the Wallingford Chamber of Commerce.
If you believe it’s time for a City Councilmember who listens, is transparent, and gets results, I would be proud to have your support. Please volunteer or request a yard sign or reach out via e-mail: [email protected] . Wallingford’s compassion, smarts, and spirit can help to create a city government that we can be proud of again. Thank you.
Alex – hope you will come see your neighbors east of I-5 as well!
“To the neighbors I’ve met from Gas Work Park to Meridian Playground and from Aurora to I-5, “Accountability” means listening, transparency, and results.”
Yes! And why are we demanding accountability and transparency? Because the current city council, and also our former one for D4, have demonstrated time and again that THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
And yet, not a peep out of Alex’s opponents about that. I guess they think the SCC’s been doing a bang-up job. Just give us more money, they say, trust us 😉
I feel the city council can be trusted to not listen to many ideas I am against. On the other hand, you feel that they can’t be trusted and are not listening. Hmmm…..
Pedersen had posted on this forum about the need for the government to do more surveys to govern. Not only is that a horrible idea by itself, the poll he has posted before were poorly-designed with intended or unintended push polling tactics. The “to the neighbors I’ve met from Gas Work Park to Meridian Playground and from Aurora to I-5” line showed the obvious selection bias also. What he’s talking about has been mostly giving preferential government access. Of course the types that support the community council ideas will be aligned closer to him.
“I feel the city council can be trusted to not listen to many ideas I am against.”
It’s not about them not listening to ideas from my side of whatever issue. It’s about them imposing their ideas and ideologies on people without notifying them and then lying about it. The 35th Ave “repaving project” that Rob Johnson tried to shove down the throats of that neighborhood is a good example.
Any policy is about imposing ideas that somebody may not like. I am not quite sure what’s the issue you are highlighting. I don’t like the current zoning rules that strongly favor single-family houses, which is based on an ideology that I don’t agree with. Not like I’ll describe it as some conspiracy of the government against me.
I don’t always agree with hayduke, but I do on this—hayduke told you what’s the issue: I call it lack of authentic engagement with the governed. The City made major decisions affecting many people “without notifying them and then lying about it.” What could be more clear?
The issue is not “single family zoning” unless you abandon the granularity of planning and decision making that makes for good urban design. Go through this basic set of slides on the topic, and think about how many good governance principles have been violated repeatedly by various City actors in the past few years. I see at least two on the first content slide (#4): “policymaking activities… build public support, and encourage a sense of cohesiveness.”
That’s the fundamental thing I am against. All these call for engagement disproportionally favor the status quo. This is a city where tons of people come and go, not a small town with the same resident for decades. Things need to be designed looking forward, quite often intentionally not listening to the current residents who are here for what the city used to be not what the city will be.
Ballard core didn’t get to be this vibrant by designing to fit the needs of thrift shops and cheap diners that used to occupy there. The removal of features original residents loved is quite often the right way going forward to make a place better, so intentionally ignoring original residents is not always a bad idea.
The city has been doing a pretty good job at communicating and working with the citizens actually. As I said, the “problem” is that they are giving much more weight to non-home owners than in the past, therefore the home-owners feel the loss of power and therefore keep complaining about lack of communication. That’s just an issue of entitlement.
“disproportionally favor the status quo”
“intentionally not listening to the current residents who are here for what the city used to be not what the city will be.”
“Ballard core didn’t get to be this vibrant”
“intentionally ignoring original residents is not always a bad idea.”
“That’s just an issue of entitlement.”
This is offensive and hostile; I don’t have any more time or energy now to spend on responding to such a pile.
One point: Take that “entitlement” argument over to the CD or Beacon Hill and see how will it plays with the “current residents” who are being “intentionally ignored.”
The 35th Avenue NE redesign wasn’t shoved down anyone’s throat. The only thing that was done without public notification on that project was Mayor Durkan’s cancellation at the last minute via executive order of protected bike lanes that had been studied, planned, and funded because a few neighbors and businesses complained about losing parking spaces that in the end they lost anyway. A terrible result that Alex Pedersen supports.
There is a difference between “public notification” and authentic engagement. I have seen very little of the latter for a number of years.
The 35th Ave bike lane was part of the Bicycle Master Plan, which had many, many opportunities over several years for the public to engage via open houses, workshops, web surveys, emails, etc. The work done by transportation planners, engineers, community members, and others was killed in an instant, and at the last minute, by Jenny Durkan’s pen.
Why are you conflating the Bicycle Master Plan with the 35th project? They are related but separate. One is the overarching plan (like a comp plan) and the other is a project implementing it (Iike a small area rezone).
I do not have a strong opinion on 35th because I don’t go there frequently so don’t know the details of how it works; how to resolve local transportation issues should be between the City, the neighbors, the businesses, the bikers, the drivers, the buses, and the pedestrians who use and know the area best. However, I have biked to Wedgwood locations many times over the years (I knew someone who lived in 7700 block of 45th NE for years); 35th up hill has never been my selected route. Just like I rarely bike up Fremont hill— I would never advocate for a bike lane up Fremont from 36th to 42nd. There are better solutions
Regarding the BMP, I’m as pissed at Durkan as anyone about not funding the bike plan. I’m planning on being in the bike demo-ride on the 16th.
Huh? Conflation? I don’t understand. The Bicycle Master Plan and 35th Ave NE design are totally connected.
The proposed design of 35th Ave NE followed recommendations under the Bicycle Master Plan. Like all projects of its type, it was studied before it was to be implemented. There were several opportunities for the community to engage in both the overall BMP and the specific 35th Ave NE project.
What has been implemented now does not adhere to either the BMP or transportation best-practices for a neighborhood arterial, probably because the neighbors and business who complained about losing parking don’t know anything about transportation planning.
See you at the ride on Sunday.
“The Bicycle Master Plan and 35th Ave NE design are totally connected.” I didn’t say they weren’t connected. I said they are separate policy decisions: one is programmatic and the other is project specific.
The project ignored the program.
That’s standard operating procedure in Seattle. A tree ordinance that doesn’t protect trees. A design review ordinance that doesn’t mitigate for project level impacts resulting from poor programmatic level planning/zoning. A hearing examiner who can see no (or very little) evil in this SOP.
Just to be clear what I meant: the original project didn’t ignore the
program, Durkan’s executive order did. And Alex Pedersen is the only
candidate in the District 4 race who agreed with Durkan’s decision. For a
guy who touts “transparency in government,” Durkan’s action in this
case seem to run counter to that.
I don’t get the connection to transparency, maybe it means something different to me.
Like Toby, it’s not my neighborhood and not my issue. All I know is that the neighborhood was real worked up about it. Under Murray, public “engagement” in something like this would mean, maybe you find out that it’s happening, and maybe you can have a chat with someone at one of the poster board stations, but it’s happening, regardless. Things that have long term consequences, like losing small business that are really essential and irreplaceable. Durkan was supposed to be Murray in drag, glad to see it isn’t that bad.
Alex- you need to make clear your plan for housing affordability. Googling did not surface a plan online from you, and you are being cast as the anti-HALA protest vote. At the Welcoming Wallingford meet and greet in Lower Woodland Park you were not there and you were being demonized by some participants. For someone like me that has mixed feeling on HALA, it would help if you stated how you will provide affordable housing. My personal preference is a city program that works with residents to add affordable housing options on their property via ADU / DADU.
I’m going to be in a quandary if he has an answer for you. I would hesitate to vote for anyone who claims to have a way to provide affordable housing, and I planned to vote for Alex. Anyway, to be precise, are we talking about subsidized affordable, or market affordable?
I’d be a little surprised if O’Brien or Johnson ever really claimed that their initiatives would provide affordable housing, beyond the very limited subsidies. I heard Murray say that, but he had no boundaries. As I understand it, city hall more or less explicitly disclaims any expectation for O’Brien’s ADU proposal, at least that’s clear in the findings from the first SEPA appeal.
I don’t conflate affordable housing with the MHA provided housing that has a guaranteed price point (plus a lottery). To me, more “affordable” housing just means that more people can afford their rent in Seattle, and rent is a strict supply and demand equation. Every landlord will charge what the market will bear, and every developer will build whatever allows for the greatest return on investment.
Given that, the point of “affordability” as a goal is to save low end housing and generate more low end housing for more people and less luxury housing for the well off (e.g. fewer McMansions replacing tear downs). One way to do that is to help people open up their basements to renters. Another is to allow for a DADU in a back yard so that tearing down a house isn’t an obvious option for a developer. So long as the WCC is just advocating “no” as a housing policy they aren’t going to be effective.
“more “affordable” housing just means that more people can afford their rent in Seattle” is not a generally used definition in the world of housing policy. The most common definition I see is something like: “a home is typically considered affordable to someone if it costs less than 30% of their income.”
I agree with you that “a goal is to save low end housing and generate more low end housing for more people and less luxury housing for the well off” are good goals. However, the City’s programmatic land use decisions often do the opposite:
• they destroy low end (“affordable”) housing, (MHA sure does)
• don’t readily generate much more low end housing (MHA produces a pittance, and by driving up land costs with up zones, social housing becomes more difficult to build in many gentrifying neighborhoods),
• more “luxury housing” is exactly what the City’s actions incentivize. Just look around.
You actually confirmed the last point with “Every landlord will charge what the market will bear, and every developer will build whatever allows for the greatest return on investment.” Of course! and the City is complicit in wanting the real estate market to go nuts. What do you think wanting more high paying jobs translates into? Especially without any mitigation for the loss of existing “low end” housing. Etc.
Well said. It’s just hard to say no to high paying jobs and more tax dollars.
Really, that’s your response? You think more high paying jobs and more tax dollars is the goal of urban governance? I thought the role of city governments should be primarily non-market items, like promoting equity and inclusion. Growth addiction and fealty to capital (they are related) and “more tax dollars” is the path to inequity and segregation. Have you read about Richard Florida’s latest book? Check it out. I think you should also check your economics.
You don’t win people to your side by talking down to them. All you accomplished was making me want to swap my no upzones yard sign for a pro hala one. Don’t worry though, I’m sure a pro hala person will push me back into your camp.
I understand your umbrage. I apologize for coming across as “talking down” to you.
I don’t consider my position to be a “side.” The fault lines run all over the place. I try to base my positions on all issues on the “best available science” (language used in a number of statutes).
Please take a look at those references and compare think about advocacy for “more jobs and tax revenue” in their framing. I think “more jobs and taxes” are asking the wrong questions (or trying to solve problems that aren’t the ‘real’ problems). There are many references that address this issue. Here’s a political economic history that’s directly on point: https://www.amazon.com/More-Politics-Economic-Postwar-America/dp/0195046463/
To try to connect back to housing affordability – the surge in growth starting a few years back, inevitably sunk that. Sure, “supply and demand”, but the supply won’t start showing up for demand like that until at least a year later, and it won’t catch up until the demand slacks off, which I hear is what we’re seeing now.
Blame Nickels, Conlin et al with the big city investment in SLU, and the pattern is being repeat next to us in the U district.
We should also look at the role of outside speculative investment. Blackstone/Invitation Homes has 1000s of Seattle are homes, acquired when the market was climbing. How many, who else is doing that, etc.? I’d like to know.
The opposition to O’Brien’s ADU proposal is particularly due to its apparent intention to open up single family neighborhoods to similar “income property” development, with 3 unit rental compounds operated by corporate entities. Is that the way to “generate more low end housing”?
Single family standards already allow a backyard cottage or a mother-in-law. People don’t build the backyard cottages because they’re expensive, and when they do, they don’t usually rent them out, for various reasons. Partly, if they have enough money to build one, they don’t need the rental income, and then there are the various kinds of grief you’re in for if you become a legit landlord. (They may rent them short-term, though, “airbnb”, more lucrative and flexible.)
So, OK, you’re convinced there’s potential, I’m looking at potential for disaster, but it depends on the details. O’Brien could have talked to his opposition, and we could have had changes that “helped” (though not helped make it cheaper, nor helped make renting more palatable.) Years ago. But he won’t budge. Maybe there are things that could have been done with the “covenant” or its application that would have addressed owner occupancy requirement issues. There’s simply no chance of anything like that happening, in the current council makeup, unless Pacheco is going to stir things up. People like Mosqueda are there on a crusade just like O’Brien. My hope is that Alex will be different, and he’ll listen to both of us, and it will make for better policy for the city.
Is this the first of a series from the candidates for the D4 seat?
I believe this is the second piece written by a D4 candidate. Cathy Tuttle wrote a piece a few weeks back.
Not a formal series, but we are happy to work with the rest of the candidates to share their voices.
Alex is a great candidate. He worked for HUD and as a City Council aide. Not only are his intensions good, but he has a experience and smarts to do the job well and make a difference.
To get more information about Alex and the other candidates, I suggest that everyone attend the candidates’ forum at 7 PM tonight at
Sand Point Learning Center, 5801 Sand Point Way NE. This forum is co-sponsored by the Wallingford Community Council and the NE District Council. I believe that all candidates are going to attend.
For a guy who’s running on a platform of “transparency,” it’s somewhat ironic that Alex Pedersen deleted the content of his blog 4 To Explore (a former Wallyhood sponsor) shortly before announcing his bid for city council. Perhaps he did so because some of his posts didn’t necessarily reflect what people in Seattle would expect from a “progressive Democrat,” especially on issues of transportation, specifically his opposition to Sound Transit 3, the Move Seattle Levy, and protected bike lanes, positions which I can find nowhere on his campaign website.
He’s big on buzzwords and has a nice smile, but I ain’t buying what Alex is selling.