An Interview with District 4 Candidates Davis and Rivera

Tuesday, November 7, is an election day. Among the offices up for grabs is the District 4 city council seat being vacated by Alex Pedersen. District 4 encompasses part of Wallingford, the University District and areas north of the U District including Roosevelt and Wedgewood. Surviving the primary and heading now into the general election are two candidates: Ron Davis and Maritza Rivera.

So, get out and vote! But before you vote, inform yourself. The Wallyhood editors got together and came up with a list of questions for the candidates. Accessible below is the full text of their responses with no editing or fact-checking from us.

• Wallyhood: According to the Seattle Times among other sources, Seattle faces a budget shortfall of about $224 million in 2025 and 2026. How should the city address this looming shortfall?
  Davis campaign response
  With a mix of smart management of existing funds and additional resources from progressive taxes, since the city’s tax code takes so heavily from regular families and comparatively so little from the very richest and biggest corporations among us.
  The shortfall is, in large part due to the slowdown in taxes from real estate sales and, of course, the increasing cost of delivering services in such an expensive city. And while spending in absolute terms has increased, it actually turns out that the way economists measure spending–as a percentage of GDP–is down at the state/local level in the last ten years.Now, it doesn’t feel that way because our tax code pulls more heavily from the poor and middle class and much less heavily from the richest among us. In fact, it’s the most “regressive” —(high tax for low earners/low tax for high earners) in the country.

  We have an opportunity to tilt it toward a saner structure. We can also stop the budget bleeding and make the investments we need in homeless sheltering, public safety, drug treatment, and behavioral health to clean up our city.

  My opponent’s answer is enormous cuts. Whenever we are asked about this existential issue, she says the primary way we should fix it is through “accountability.” Cleverly, she starts with something we can all agree on—when a program doesn’t work–we should make sure the money is being better spent in a more effective program. But then there is a sleight of hand.

  First, though, I should say as a former CEO who actually has managed a budget very tightly, I couldn’t agree more–bad programs should go and the money should go to more effective uses. That’s why I’ve noted ways we could save more than $50,000 per unit on affordable housing, get the police to show up faster, and get better results from our regional homelessness authority. (My opponent has never once publicly identified a way we could save money in the budget, and we’ve been asked this question for months)

  But even the savings I’m talking about can’t fix the budget. Just think it through to its next step. If you find a homeless shelter that isn’t getting great outcomes, what are you going to do with your savings if you shut it down? Rivera talks about reallocating money to programs that are more effective. That’s what we should do. But if we do that, not a dollar of that money goes to addressing the budget deficit. Move the money from an ineffective shelter to an effective shelter, and we do a better job of housing people (which is a good idea!). But we still have a $220M deficit. Move police hours from policing traffic to responding to break-ins and we still have a $220M deficit.

  No amount of “reallocating” fixes the deficit. You have to not spend the money at all. Or raise alternate funds. There is simply no way to say the word “accountability” over and over again and make $220M appear. It’s just a recycled version of the old Republican line about “waste, fraud, and abuse,” meant to confuse people into supporting lower taxes for the richest among us.

  Even more egregious, on Hacks and Wonks, my opponent recently suggested she may be open to cutting our only tax on big corporations. That would add another $200M or so in budget cuts. Imagine that—we are facing the possibility that we may have to shut down massive amounts of basic services, and she thinks maybe the richest corporations, who already pay the lowest state/local tax rates among us, need a tax cut and we should consider blowing nearly a half billion dollar hole in our city spending.

  Unless we start shutting tiny home villages and shelters, eliminating funding for drug treatment, cutting policing or pothole filling, closing down our libraries or selling off parks, and we’d have to do a lot of this–we are going to have to raise some revenue. And the overwhelming majority of people in Seattle say it should come from taxes on the biggest corporations or the mega-rich. I agree.

  We don’t have to hate anyone for making millions a year. We can celebrate the success of our big corporations and do our best to make sure they thrive. But that doesn’t mean we should have one of the worst tax systems in the country, either.

  There are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies from the top economics departments in the country (and the federal reserve) that show these kinds of modest tax changes do not cause businesses to move their jobs, do not reduce GDP or employment, nor do they impact startup creation. Their only measurable economic effect is on inequality. Of course, the same lobbyists who said a higher minimum wage would kill employment in Seattle are now trying to scare people into thinking if we have only the second most regressive tax system in the country it will somehow kill our business community. Don’t believe their marketing—believe the experts and the data. Let’s stick with science.

  It’s time for the very richest and corporations to (finally) pay closer to their fair share and help us pay for fast public safety response times, expand our overfull drug treatment programs like LEAD and CoLEAD that are so effective at getting people into recovery and off the street, and actually make the investments that the world’s leading business consultancy said are needed to address our homelessness crisis. Right now we have a tax system that is more regressive than even national Republican proposals. Let’s not pretend that taking steps to get it closer to the middle of the road are radical. They are decidedly centrist.

  Rivera campaign response

  Simply passing yet-another record breaking tax will not solve our pressing challenges or our budget shortfall. The City’s budget has expanded significantly in the past 10 years, with the largest increase in taxes in the history of the City of Seattle. Unfortunately, we have less to show for it than we should. This is a failure of leadership. Before rushing into new taxes we must ensure the revenue we have is effectively improving people’s lives.  I have worked at the city in various capacities including a department and for a council member. I will work to restore public trust by ensuring every dollar of public money is allocated to the priorities clearly articulated by voters and residents– homelessness and public safety. Bringing urgency to addressing the pressing issues facing our city also means being a tireless advocate for rebuilding trust that our government is a good steward of public dollars. After looking hard at our current spending, we should consider new progressive revenue sources like a capital gains tax.
  

• Wallyhood: Is the city doing enough to create affordable housing? What more should be done?
  Davis campaign response
  No. We are tens of thousands of units behind on affordable housing, and the problem is growing worse.
  We aren’t even doing enough to address the affordability issues that make homelessness so much worse here than elsewhere, let alone make this an affordable city. We can look to the research McKinsey has done on Seattle’s issue. McKinsey is probably the world’s most elite consulting firm. It works with almost every Fortune 500, major government and top tier nonprofit in the world. (It also has had some very unethical clients, but few would doubt its rigor). McKinsey did a study on homelessness in King County—what it would actually take to address the issue efficiently and effectively, and how much it would cost. We in Seattle promptly ignored it, didn’t spend at that scale, and when we have spent, have often spent in ways that weren’t evidence-based. We need to follow the straightforward guidance provided there, and other (very similar) guidance derived from other expensive cities that have been successful at addressing homelessness. I am endorsed by the McKinsey partner who led that study (he has since started another company).This is to say nothing about the tens of thousands of people in Seattle who are “rent burdened” —spending more than 30% of their income on housing, and “extremely rent burdened” – spending more than 50% of their income on housing. If this city remains unaffordable, it will be cost prohibitive for people to start a career, raise a family, or age happily and safely at home—which is the very reason I’m running. So we need to increase our production of affordable housing.

  How do we do that?

  To ensure housing is affordable, we need to address both market rate and subsidized housing.

  On market rate housing, we need to “bend the cost curve”—through a mix of significant zoning reform that is done in a way that also prioritizes livability/protects the tree canopy, and permitting reform (remove the dual track process, simplify the requirements, use objective standards, staff up at the city, and put time limits on the process). The fact that I have a detailed, nuanced plan for both housing and livable communities is why pro housing groups from the “Urbanist” to the tree canopy protection focused group like “TreePac” —often at odds with one another—have all endorsed me. It’s also notable that, even though I’m pro-housing, there is more than $200k in big real estate independent expenditures against me. The Masters Builders, the group that fought so hard to weaken tree protection legislation, is one of the biggest funders of the PAC supporting Rivera. Also the National Association of Realtors, who are trying to buy the races for Republicans in Spokane, and lost most of the big real estate brokerages for their bad behaviors, is one of her other biggest financial backers. I’m pro-housing, but I’m not in big real estate’s back pocket.

  We also need to invest much more aggressively in subsidized forms of housing—through things like the housing levy, significant new investments in our recently created social housing public development authority at the city (my opponent opposed our new social housing developer; I supported it), in permanent supportive housing for people with behavioral health issues and in tiny homes to get people off the streets more quickly. Note that my supply side reforms will also make it so we save a lot of money each time we build an affordable unit, which will make it so we can build more units with the money we spend. We also need to fund direct rental assistance where it will prevent people from falling into homelessness, as an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure when it comes to homelessness. (Once someone is exposed to the traumas of homelessness, they are much more likely to develop issues that are far harder and more expensive to address.) These should be funded by progressive taxes whenever possible, since right now we are nickeling and diming people through our property taxes, which fall hard on young families and seniors on fixed incomes.

  Rivera campaign response
  No, we are not keeping up with the need for affordable housing. On current course and speed, Seattle will need more units than will be built. Currently,  HB1110 has expanded housing options like quad-plexes, townhomes, row houses, and mixed-use development – especially along transit corridors.  I believe we can both add affordable housing while being thoughtful in our approach. It’s essential that the character and integrity of our neighborhoods are maintained, that growth and density don’t come at the cost of losing previous tree canopy, and that infrastructure needs are addressed.

  In addition to thoughtfully increasing density through zoning and our MHA program, we need to address current issues with permitting and financing that are needlessly slowing the building process.  That will take collaboration with developers and local, state, regional and federal partners at all levels of government.
  

• Wallyhood: Given Seattle’s progressive attitudes, citizens have always demanded that problems such as drug abuse and camping on public property be handled with fairness and compassion. Do you think that these attitudes have hampered the city’s response? Do you think these attitudes are changing at all?
  Davis campaign response
  I think these efforts have hampered the city’s progress in some areas, but usually only when they are paired with a successful corporate campaign to avoid paying the progressive taxes that would fund the services that are needed that make any of these changed policies successful. In other words, we have two groups who agree on not doing something, and no group that agrees on what to do in its place. And so we end up doing a whole lot of nothing!
  For instance, progressives have said we (correctly) shouldn’t sweep people from park to park, because it is expensive and doesn’t work, and so we should offer housing like tiny homes and ultimately permanent supportive housing for folks with behavioral health issues—because almost no one resists housing that comes with a locking door. But then the same lobbyists and real estate interests who are funding my opponent argue that their taxes (although much lower than ours) are too high, and so they prevent us from raising the revenue that firms like McKinsey say would be needed to pay for such an effort. So our parks remain filled with encampments and we don’t have enough housing to address it. Progressives also pointed out the abuses in big psychiatric wards and pushed to move people from giant mental hospitals like Western State to smaller, community based care centers. But then the same corporate interests fought the taxes necessary to pay for that localized health care. So now we have half the behavioral health beds in King County that we had in the 1990s, and 800,000 more people living here. And so our people with psychiatric issues live on the street and have their crises in public. And so on.Are attitudes changing? I think most people want compassion and they also want clear, decisive, effective action. That hasn’t changed. People want us to break this status quo! I do sense that the “I’m fed up” feelings are growing.

  Unfortunately, some of the same power brokers that played such a big part in creating this ugly status quo at the city are trying to buy the election for my opponent with around a quarter million dollars in independent expenditures. If I’m certain of one thing it is that Seattle does not want its elections to be up for sale.
  

  Rivera campaign response
  In regard to the issue of homelessness, we must continue to lead with compassion but it is also simply inhumane to allow people to live on the streets. The encampments continuously have problems with drugs, gun violence, and sex trafficking. They are not safe for the unhoused folks living there, or the surrounding neighbors. We need to bring people indoors, connecting them to services and living conditions that meet their needs. However, it takes time to build the permanent supportive housing capacity we need.  In the short term, we must scale up immediate, temporary options like low barrier shelters, hoteling and tiny homes to get folks indoors and off the streets for their safety and the safety of the surrounding neighborhoods.
  
• Wallyhood: Wallingford has of late suffered what seems like a crime spree. There have been a spate of murders, a constant drumbeat of broken windows at local businesses and car prowls everywhere. Are there any policies that you will advocate that might bring some relief?
  Davis campaign response
  Yes, there’s lots we can do.
  I feel the effects of this as well on the other side of the freeway. I personally have been body checked, spat on, chased, and threatened, sometimes with my kids. We’ve had murders across the street from our home and our daycare. And overdoses are destroying so many lives and neighborhoods. I lost a loved one to addiction myself.But crime and fear should not be political tactics, they should instead prompt us to take decisive, effective action. We need sober minded, fact-based, executable plans, and we have to actually fund them if we want them to work.

  Unfortunately, because of the many issues here—my answer is longer. Please forgive me—but this is serious stuff and we need to get the details right! We need to:

  1. Prevent Crime: Intervene for those most likely to offend, through proven violence intervention programming that provides access to jobs and mentors, builds violence-interrupting relationships in marginalized neighborhoods, and keeps guns out of the hands of high-risk folks. These are proven to cut gun violence.
  2. Tailor the right response for each crisis:
     1. Staff up SPD, and listen to SPD’s experts who say the national shortage of officers limits our department’s ability to grow. It is dangerous to plan around fantasy hiring numbers that are 20x what the department says is possible.
     2. Send social workers to behavioral health calls, who will be more effective and currently eat up so much police time.
     3. Use camera enforcement for most traffic violations. It is efficient and the police are overburdened. Traffic stops have been a source of racialized policing and, with civil liberties and equity protections included, should be automated.
     4. Use the saved time so police can respond where they are needed most– violence, sex crimes, destruction of storefronts, property crime or the drug trade. We need them to show up, and we also need people who are thinking about smashing in a storefront to know they will get caught, which will help with deterrence.
  3. Ensure accountable policing and rebuild trust with the community
     1. Good governance requires oversight, transparency, and accountability. CEOs have boards, and our government is based on mutual oversight. SPD needs this too, and is under a federal consent decree because of our failure to provide it. Let’s use independent oversight to hold bad actors to account, with subpoena power so they can get the information they need. This will ensure safety for all and improve the relationship with the community.
     2. Train all officers in community policing, and all first responders in de-escalation.

  You can find a more detailed discussion of my plan for crime here. This is one area my opponent has deliberately done what the Democratic party publicly reprimanded my opponent for “outright fabrications about her Democratic Party opponent.” Please view my fact check page.

  Drugs are also a huge crime related issue. The fentanyl crisis is on track to kill over 1200 people in King County this year, 15x the number killed by guns. Our families, streets, and communities all show the scars. Here’s how we do that.

  1. Rapidly stand up low-barrier and mobile treatment hubs around the city–some can be extensions of existing community health clinics. These will drastically cut the overdose death rate and get thousands of people back on track.
  2. Prohibit public consumption & channel people into either treatment or overdose prevention sites. The Biden Administration and the conservative Cato Institute both advocate for these, as they are proven to cut overdose deaths dramatically, reduce public injections, drug paraphernalia, and litter in the neighborhood, all without increasing drug use. They’re cheaper and better at getting folks into treatment.
  3. Allow all first responders to administer Naloxone (lifesaving overdose medicine) without a police officer present. This will save lives and free up police time.
  4. Use our limited police resources smartly–arrest dealers or those who are a risk to others and make pre-arrest referrals to programs like LEAD for those who are not. (Please see my fact check page again here to address Rivera’s false claim that I do not want to prosecute dealers).
  5. Divert: if people are arrested for consuming, require prosecutors to offer evidence based treatment. It is much easier, cheaper, and more effective to treat than to jail. (We don’t have capacity to do either right now–so we also need to invest in new capacity).
  6. Bring People Inside: It will take a long time to fix our housing crisis (and we should!). But we also need to get people off the street quickly. So we need to scale up tiny homes and provide services like CoLEAD, which are very effective. We need leaders with the will to follow through and pay for it.
  7. Pass a local 2% addition to the state tax on extreme capital gains to pay for the above, so we ensure effective emergency responses, deliver drug treatment, and clean up our streets.

  You can find a more detailed discussion of my drugs plan here.

  My opponent promises some of these things, but offers no plan to pay for any of it. In fact, she has indicated countless times that she is likely to cut $200M+ from the budget that funds police, behavioral health, homeless services and drug treatment (without identifying which she will cut). On a podcast she recently implied she may consider even larger cuts, saying she is open to reducing/diverting our only tax focused on big corporations.

  The fact that I don’t just talk about public safety as a crisis, but have an actionable, realistic plan is why pretty much every public safety leader supports me: 17,000 corrections workers, Seattle’s 911 Dispatchers Guild, Lisa Daugaard, founder of our best-in-the-nation “Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion” program, Dom Davis (leads Community Passageways, one of our best gun violence prevention programs) and Theresa Doyle, (retired) King County Superior Court and Trial Judge of the Year. I’m the only Moms Demand Action’s “Gun Sense Candidate” distinction winner in this race and am the Alliance for Gun Responsibility’s only “Approved Candidate” in this race. The people who know public safety stand behind me.

  I have been careful not to use fear to campaign, even though I readily acknowledge we are facing a public safety crisis. (So please allow me the opportunity to share what some of our best public safety leaders have to say in my stead):

  “Ron Davis is the only candidate in this race who understands all the layers of the public safety system and how to improve them. His realism, willingness to actually fund public safety, and his attention to the details on how to deliver, are what we need on city council. His public safety plan is what we need if we are going to get to fast 911 response times and rapid arrival of emergency services.” Davonte Bell, President, Seattle (911) Dispatchers Guild

  “So often when people run for office, they vie to be the “public safety candidate.” As a retired King County Superior Court Judge, I have appreciated that Ron is clear-eyed about the seriousness of our public safety issues, without using it as a political football to score points. His sober-minded, serious analysis is exactly the kind of reality based approach we need to prevent crime, make our justice system more efficient, without adding to the existing racial disproportionality, approach addiction in the most effective way possible–as a public health matter–and restore true health and safety to our community.” Retired Judge Theresa Doyle

  “I work in violence prevention. I see the pain that violence causes every day, and I’ve dedicated my life to fighting back. Often, candidates use violence and fear to sell us something else entirely. But that’s not Ron. Ron has an actual plan–to fund violence prevention and interruption, send the right responder to each crisis, ensure accountability, equity, and trust when it comes to law enforcement, and get people back on their feet. We need real leaders who will dedicate themselves to saving lives–not using lives lost as a marketing tool.” Dom Davis – Executive Director, Community Passageways (diversion/violence interruption)

  Rivera campaign response
  I ran in the first place to address the crisis of public safety and  won’t rest until we hire more officers and see 5-minute response times for all priority one calls. Our City Council must use every tool at its disposal to hire and retain officers. We also need innovative approaches for recruitment. This year, the first class of Seattle Fire Department’s pilot program to recruit new firefighters by building on Seattle’s 13th Year Promise will graduate. I support piloting the same program in partnership with the Seattle Colleges and Seattle Police Department so we encourage our local youth to pursue careers with the SPDs.

  At the same time, I know we cannot continue to ask our law enforcement agencies to shoulder the burden of every social problem. Three years after the City Council voted to defund the police department, we still have not scaled up the promised alternatives to policing. I’m in full support of Mayor Harrell’s recently launched pilot program CARE and proven programs like Health One.

  We also need to work with small businesses, non-profits, religious institutions, and centers for community, and reinstate neighborhood walks with city departments to address neighborhood issues such as broken street lights and safety.

  The best solution to our public safety crisis involves ensuring our public spaces, neighborhoods, and commercial corridors are vibrant and welcoming for people from all backgrounds and abilities.
  

• Wallyhood: Each of you has been accused of some type of impropriety. The Davis campaign was fined $1000 by the city for failure to disclose who paid for two mailings while, according to the Stranger, Rivera mistreated staff while in a leadership position at the Seattle Arts and Culture Department. What have you to say about your own “transgression,” and do those of your opponent indicate any pattern of behavior that should concern voters?
  Davis campaign response
  Regarding me: My campaign was fined for an incomplete disclosure on two mailers. The rule is you have to identify the source of the mailer. I wrote that it was from Ron Davis, and I included the return address of the campaign. However, this was a violation because it was incomplete. It should have included the words “paid for by” and “For Seattle” in the disclosure. I was so disappointed to learn we had missed this. We were using a new vendor and it was a clerical error. I took responsibility and paid the fine promptly. That’s what grownups do. I’d encourage any reader to watch our four minute interaction (from minute 2:40) with the commission and see how the commission reacted to my behavior. Does this indicate a pattern? Certainly I will make some sort of errors of some sort at some time in the future, though hopefully not in compliance. Either way, when I make mistakes, I will own them. If you see a pattern here, please don’t forget that part.
  Interestingly, my opponent sent out emails about this, what she called my “illegal mailers,” trying to make great hay out of an obvious clerical error. But it turns out that Rivera herself failed to mention that she has an outstanding complaint with the same commission for failing to disclose payments over $12,000 to her husband, in this case from a political campaign (these are supposed to be disclosed on our F-1 statements). This after she spent months delaying the requirement to disclose some of her husband’s other financial ties. I don’t say this to suggest there is some great conspiracy involved in hiding this payment. I say this to note that everyone makes clerical errors, and surely that if my error indicates a problem on my behalf, her months of delay and subsequent failure to disclose major financial conflicts of interest is a greater error and indicates a greater problem. Perhaps instead it just indicates we both made a mistake.This double standard unfortunately fits with a pattern of inexcusable behaviors on the campaign trail by Rivera. We are both Democrats and we both receive data from the Democratic Party. And it is pretty rare for the Democratic party to publicly reprimand one of its own. But that is exactly what the party did a couple weeks ago in Rivera’s case:

  The King County Democrats are saddened to see Rivera excuse away MAGA money support while claiming she represents Democratic values, and it is unacceptable that Rivera has increasingly been engaged in a mix of gaslighting and outright fabrications about her Democratic Party opponent. Defending support from MAGA donors is one thing; adopting their deceptive gaslighting is quite another. This is disrespectful to voters and has no place in the Democratic Party.
  https://twitter.com/kcdems/status/1712648175725773244

  I’d encourage people who want to cut through all this gaslighting to watch us actually discuss the issues without the help of consultants and hundreds of thousands of dollars of money trying to spin issues. Here are four forums/debates edited down to still include our full answers, but without other candidates.

  Regarding Rivera’s issues at Arts and Culture. She worked in the Office of Arts and Culture for more than a year. And 26 of 40 of her employees said she created a toxic work environment, made it difficult to do the basics of city work, and shouldn’t be trusted with taxpayer money. And this was before running—so has nothing to do with politics. That 2/3 of her employees who worked closely with her day in and day out over a long time period said she was ineffective and abusive in a way that undermined the basic functioning of an office is far more indicate of a pattern than five missing words from two mailers sent out through the same vendor within a few days of one another. Rivera was asked about this on “Hacks and Wonks” (October 3 episode). She said she was proud of that work. (That is not owning a mistake, and it’s a mistake that has been far more damaging to many people). And what of the arts community she was supposed to be serving? I received the endorsement from Allied Arts.
  

  Rivera campaign response
  I wish I’d had the opportunity to hear about, and respond to, the alleged criticism from employees, rather than read about an anonymous letter that I have no way of knowing is truly representative of people’s experiences.

  The truth is, when I joined the Seattle Office of Arts and Culture in 2022, Interim Director Alley-Barnes was undertaking a complete reorganization of the department. Because of COVID, many employees had been working remotely without meaningful direction, supervision, best practices, or procedure. Change is hard for people, but we were determined to restore high expectations and deliver nation-leading services to Seattle.

  I am proud to be endorsed by Mayor Harrell, in part because of the good and important work that we did at  the Seattle Office of Arts and Culture.
  

• Wallyhood: It’s nice to have access to the new U District light rail station near 45th, but getting there by bike is a hazardous proposition. There are sharrows on 45th in Wallingford, nothing on the bridge going over I-5 and more nothing on the U District side. Are there changes you would push for to make this journey safer? More generally, how do you feel about adding more bicycle infrastructure? Cool? Luke warm? Hot?
  Davis campaign response
  This gap in bike connectivity is extremely frustrating, and also dangerous. I’ve been involved in efforts from the other side of the freeway to ensure a full (protected) bike connection, and am working with Lid-I5 on a longer term and even more ambitious connection for our neighborhoods as well. We absolutely need protected bike lanes across the freeway at 45th and deep into Wallingford and all the way at least to the Link Station.
  I’m “hot” on adding protected, connected bicycle infrastructure all over this city—because we know that this is one of the key pieces of how we make it as easy to get around this city without a car as it is with. That’s necessary if we want to reach our climate goals, our livability goals, reduce cost of living challenges created by forced car ownership, and if we want to use space more efficiently and effectively (which we need to do as the city grows). It’s also important because streets with (well designed) bike lanes have lower death rates for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers. I am endorsed by Cascade Bicycle Club and every organization that has weighed in on behalf of sustainable mobility in this city.
  Rivera campaign response
  I will be a strong advocate for more bicycle infrastructure throughout our district because it is crucial for our transportation and safety goals. I look forward to working with transit and neighborhood groups to design a plan for pedestrian and bicycle transit to the new U District light rail station on 45th.Bottom line: every neighborhood should have access to safe, reliable, and quick multi-modal transportation options, including foot, transit, bike, or car.
  
• Wallyhood: What is your interest in and priorities for transportation, most importantly regarding public transit in Wallingford? Would you support a renewal of the Move Seattle capital levy in 2024?
  Davis campaign response
  Very much, and yes.
  I want to make it as easy, safe, reliable, convenient and comfortable to get around this city without a car as it is with one. That is a tall order. But it means a mix of creating complete neighborhoods where people can meet most of their needs, and building a fully connected, disability-accessible walking, rolling and transit network. (And it means getting public safety right—which I discussed above. The bus drivers’ union endorsed me because they felt my public safety plan would make buses safer).I have been working in this area for years. I was on the Sound Transit Citizen Oversight Panel, and the Board of Seattle Subway—where we passed a law in Olympia that will make it so Seattle can raise its own money to accelerate the development of light rail (or expand locally without having to get the suburbs to join in and pay for other projects in their neighborhoods every time we want to do something in Seattle). I’ve worked on transit and transportation related issues on the board of the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association, sometimes in partnership with nearby neighborhood groups (particularly the University District).

  I support renewal of the levy, and I support making it much more ambitious. Like we did with the Crisis Care Center Levy this year, we need to include workforce development money, so we can ensure that the operator shortage does not become a longer term constraint on our ability to deliver frequent transit. We need to set aside dedicated space for east west transit (a little paint goes a long way for speeding up busy bus corridors). Also, at minimum, we need to make sure that we ensure frequent transit along 35th in the “Frelingford” area, and also through Wallingford on 40th, 45th and 50th. We need to ensure bus priority (even if just through timed queue jumping) on the Fremont Bridge and need to work with WSDOT to provide protected transit space on the Aurora Bridge. Many people rely on our bus system to get downtown, and we cannot assume that because we have Light Rail we don’t need to provide prioritized North/South bus service.

  I’m endorsed by the Transit Riders Union, The Urbanist and The Sierra Club (because of my sustainability plans, which involve transit/transportation issues), among others.

  Rivera campaign response
  I look forward to working closely with transit and neighborhood groups to assess Wallingford’s transportation needs, to ensure we are planning for the future.

  While my support for any specific plan or levy is ultimately based on the final details of the proposal, I will always be the strongest possible advocate for multi-modal transportation options including foot, transit, bike, bus, or light rail. My priority is to ensure that we deliver on the promises made to voters, so that we can begin to rebuild public trust. Additionally, we must ensure equity in our approach– as far too many neighborhoods are facing disproportionately less funding for pedestrian or transportation investments, and far too often this occurs with historically or racially inequitable impact.