That regional government we so desperately need is called a county council
A brief history of King County government, and a question: Instead of creating a new regional transportation authority, as proposed in the Legislature, why not just empower our existing county councils to jointly convene?
The centerpiece of the debate over today's decision on Proposition 1 is our old regional standby, roads vs. transit. Supporters say we need both; opponents on opposite wings of the political spectrum say one, but not the other. A peripheral but important issue is governance. We have been arguing about regional governance at least as long as we have been arguing about whether to lay asphalt or tracks. People on all sides of the debate seem to agree that the region needs a new governmental entity to manage transportation. The irony is we have a working, proportional, directly elected regional governance structure already in place. They're called county councils. Unfortunately, we just don't trust them.
In the beginning, cities governed and provided intense levels of local urban services, while counties were responsible for the unincorporated rural area. That is how our state constitution and tax structure were set up. After World War II, however, urban growth, and the need for more services, spread into what had been farming communities, creating new problems. No one had the authority to run a bus system into and out of Seattle or build a regional sewer system. A new form of urban government was needed for the region.
Establishing a pattern, instead of empowering King County, our forefathers created a semi-democratic, appointed regional governing body, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, known for short as Metro. Governed by its own appointed council, Metro was given a wide array of regional responsibilities, but the only two it utilized were the authorities to develop and govern regional bus and sewer systems. The Metro Council was comprised of city and county officials, elected locally but given broad regional authority.
In 1990, a federal judge ruled that the Metro structure was unconstitutional because some officials appointed to the Metro council represented far more people than others did, violating our basic protection of "one man, one vote." Regional leaders reluctantly responded by merging Metro with King County – sort of.
The King County Council has final say over sewers and metro buses, but they must first submit sewer and transit plans to regional hybrid committees made of county council members and elected officials from Seattle and the suburban cities. Similar appointed, federated bodies abound throughout the world of regional governance: the Growth Management Planning Council, the Sound Transit board, the Regional Transportation Improvement District board, the Puget Sound Regional Council, the Board of Health, and on and on and on. All of these bodies are comprised of county and city officials appointed by their respective jurisdictions - just like the old Metro Council.
In addition, when a major road project crosses jurisdictional boundaries, such as Highway 520 between Seattle and the Eastside suburbs, or Interstate 90, every jurisdiction has a voice and a vote in the siting and planning process.
Through annexations and incorporations, the area and population of unincorporated King County has steadily shrunk. As King County's direct service responsibilities have declined, the county is supposed to have transitioned to a government focused on big regional issues, such as land use and transportation. But like Gulliver on the island of Lilliput, the county finds itself a giant unable to move and function. The King County Council is the one legislative body which proportionally represents all the people and regions of the county, and the county is the one government charged with planning for the future of the entire county, yet it is not empowered to act as the final decision maker on most major issues, including transportation. Why?
Seattle and the suburban cities vigorously assert their right to have someone "at the table," representing their interests. This argument ignores the obvious fact that County Council members are elected proportionately, by district. Seattle has four representatives on the County Council, elected by the people of Seattle, so why do they need more seats at the regional table? U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott represents Seattle in Washington, D.C. The legislative delegation does the same in Olympia. Why not trust Bob Ferguson, Larry Phillips, Dow Constantine, and Larry Gossett at the regional level?
City leaders are simply unwilling to voluntarily give up their traditional role as regional leaders, and cities, especially Seattle, have powerful friends. The County Council is partisan, and suburban and rural members have real authority over many issues. The County Council is culturally more akin to the state legislature than it is to the quiet, consensus-seeking city councils. These differences make city leaders nervous, and through the years, the cities and their good government allies have succeeded in preventing the county from becoming a true regional government.
Now the Legislature is debating creating a regional transportation commission to govern all forms of transportation. Some commission members would be appointed, some elected. The bill passed the Senate last year but died in the House. It is sure to be back in some form next year.
Comments:
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 6:02 a.m. inappropriate
The Fight Between Cities & Counties: The fight between city government and county government is as old as the fight between roads and transit. Chris presents the standard county-centric view.
What Chris seems to have proposed here is a takeover of Sound Transit by the RTID, which today consists of all county councilmembers, 21 of them, in King, Pierce and Snohomish, and already operates by a population wieghted vote. If Prop. 1 passes, RTID moves from a proposal to a real new regional government. If it fails, RTID can get another chance with voters. Who knows?
When the RTID was dreamed up, the GOP leaders from the suburbs who created the opportunity crowed about finally creating a regional government with a better suburban GOP edge that would be more interested in roads than transit. We'll see tonight how that works out. It took so long for the county council members to agree to anything that many of the suburbs have since turned a Seattle shade of blue.
One problem legislators will have with Chris's proposal is that there are no new high paying government jobs involved. Bills promoted in Olympia on the regional topic almost always include drawing new districts and paying each new elected official the same pay as a member of the King County Council, which is the highest paid of county councils. Quite often county councils have become pay boosting homes for former legislators that pay dividends in boosting pensions.
It remains to be seen whether a plurality of legislators in Olympia will have any interest in regional government without the new opportunity for higher pay attached.
Sound Transit is doing real well right now. It doesn't need a risky takeover by a new government to slow down what it is building and operating, and might be building in the near future. It'd be better to consider providing Sound Transit with the tools to pay for road improvements in addition to its transit duties within the urbanized parts of the counties Sound Transit serves. Sound Transit has a proven track record. (Cue ST bashers here.)
An alternative would be for King County to actually find some common ground on transportation within county government sometime within the next decade.
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 6:15 a.m. inappropriate
Merge all Municipal Governments into King County: I agree that our infamous process is facilitated by too many government bodies involved in decision making. There would be a tremendous savings in money and time to make decisions if the various governments in King County were merged into one representative body.
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 9 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Merge all Municipal Governments into King County: So no more North Bend city counsel or Shoreline or Seattle? Are you really suggesting that decisions that are currently made locally should be handed over to a greatly expanded county counsel? Why not do away with local government all together and make all decisions at the State or Federal level?
No, local government has an important role to play. As it is Seattle neighborhoods chafe at the neglect the counsel often showers on them. For an example of how the county mega counsel would neglect the rural areas of the county look to the state legislature where Eastern Washington's 11 legislative districts have to compete with the more than 20 Puget Sound districts for a voice in government. Local issues should be dealt with locally. Regional governments should stick to the things that affect the region as a whole.
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 9:22 a.m. inappropriate
If it isn't broken, don't fix it: Here I was so certain Crosscut had lost it quite badly on the transportation issue, when there's a post I can't stop from commenting on.
The first fact is that Sound Transit is broken - the lack of accountability of this particular agency is not an isolated event locally, or for that matter, nationally.
Sound Transit is broken. The legislature did create the RTID with some awareness of these problems - that has nothing to do with the any favor towards roads. However, I suggest, that road supporters are better able to design and manage projects.
Although I can't say I agree exactly with Vance, certainly going back towards the counties is prudent. Worst case is that regionalism goes on the shelf and everything is done by County, hopefully not completely forgotten.
I've had an idea out there as well - and I am certainly not one to say it is the way to go, just one worthy of consideration, is the election of a single Regional Transportation Executive. This person would be responsible for creating a single coherent vision of transportation and his or her re-election would be a way for the electorate to express ongoing approval, or disapproval, of the implementation of funded plans.
Requiring this elected, responsible, official to also get approval from the County Councils - either seperately, or jointly, makes a lot of sense to me. And, like the brokenness of ST, the issue of accountability in America is not one that can be avoided - especially with projects of the size and time frame as ST2.
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln, Tacoma
P.S. Is Crosscut showing signs of strain?
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 9:40 a.m. inappropriate
No. Seperate regional and loca: City Councils should decide local city issues, but the County Council should have complete control over regional issues.
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 1:03 p.m. inappropriate
The Mystery of History: As it turns out, I grew up in a locale with a strong county government with a megalopolis of some clout at its center. The transit district was a separate entity and, eventually, both a subway and light rail were foisted upon the populous since it took 30 years to build the final link in the freeway system.
Counties are their own world of dysfunctional fiefdoms at times and, arguably, any patch of government that springs up to address a 'new' multiple jurisdiction requirement exhibits the same characteristics.
Having said that, I don't believe that either government or its elected and employed leadership consciously sit down each day to say, "How can we screw things up for people today?" By-and-large government employees are no different from any other employee. The primary problem is that government thrives on patronage - the essence of politics.
So does a county council, a super-regional governing body or any OTHER public entity have the ability to get it right, to do a better job? Depends. Sometimes when the frustration level reaches a certain threshhold among the elected and their constituencies, it IS time for a new convening of the minds and organizing of the priorities.
I don't think any county council is either particularly effective or ineffective but there are examples of super-regional governments that have fared well. Indianapolis is one to consider. So, while it's great to hear from Vance that the KCC is the place to parse the various issues of transportation, that obviously hasn't happened in a way that has met the needs of the transportation infrastructure.
And therein lies the dilemma - could the counties have come together on their own to manage a Sound Transit or other regional initiative? Methinks not.
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 1:24 p.m. inappropriate
Not with two quarters to buy a newspaper!
The process by which we find ourselves in the transportation mess we're in is emblematic in the KC Council...and then some! Time for a change.
And "region" concompasses more than King County with hunks of Pierce and Snohomish thrown in for good measure. Mossback's "Pugetopolis" is a more apt description, and it's all the space between Olympia to Mt. Vernon (probably beyond in both directions) that needs to be seamlessly considered for transportation purposes.
Right now, the King County Council is so Seatttle-centric that anything outside the Seattle City Limits is considered one giant Cootieville. I talk with elected official friends not on the Council, and they uniformly gag at its mention.
Time to scrap it, not add on to it.
What's needed is a genuinely region-wide transportation authority whose sole job it is to plan for, build, and maintain transportation assets that don't favor this city or that company or anything other than the people who pay the freight. We will never get that from the King County Council, which has neither the time, inclination, talent, courage, or whatever to do it.
Now there are some on the Council who are as good as anyone in public life. Redmond's Kathy Lambert stands head and shoulders above her peers, and it's time she was promoted out and up.
But as for the rest? And the inherent flaws in the Council's structure and substance? Forget it!
It went from 13 to nine without missing a beat. Why not from nine to nothing? Would we notice the difference? Especially since so much of unincorporated King County moves toward annexation to any number of cities, it won't be long before there's nothing for the KC Council left to govern save Metro. And with the transportation function parcelled out to the new Pugetopolis Transportation Authority, all that will be left for King County to do is run the sewar. Appropos.
Sorry, Vance, but the KC Council is not only unequal to the transportation task, it's time has passed for any task.
Adieu, Council, we hardly knew ye!
The Piper
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 1:29 p.m. inappropriate
I think you missed my point: The County Council hasn't failed to deliver on transportation infrastructue. They haven't been given the power to succeed or fail.
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 1:47 p.m. inappropriate
Organizational principles for government agencies: I've never worked for the government, but I have worked for a very large well known corporation on the eastside. Given what I've observed of government from the outside and the corporate world from within, it seems that many of the same organizational principles apply to both.
One principle is that without some sort of overriding authority or shared financial interest (for example, a strong CEO or valuable company stock options), separate agencies that depend on each other will not cooperate and will always underdeliver. They'll fight with each other over project definition and implementation, they'll waste hours managing impressions so that they get credit for successes and other gets blamed for failures, they'll miscommunicate (if they communicate at all), they'll sabotage each other's efforts, they'll miss handoff dates, etc. When you divide people into groups, rivalry and discord seem to be the natural result.
So, I think Chris's idea of using the agencies we have rather than continually spawning new ones is on target. The above suggestion of electing a transportation tzar with ultimate authority over the various groups involved is also a good idea.
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 1:53 p.m. inappropriate
No, trust the people: Trust the King County Council? Trust Phillips, Constantine, Ferguson, Gossett, and Patterson?
The reformers all say we need a directly elected regional government. My point is we already have one! If you don't like who represents you on the Council, elect someone else.
If you think the Council is Seattle-centric, try the Sound Transit Board. Five of the 18 members live in Seattle! A perfect example of our current forms of regional governance.
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 2:40 p.m. inappropriate
But the mindset on the KC Council as it's currently constituted is Seattle-centric. As long as the whatever transportation governance we have is primarily King County, it will very likely stay that way. The only way you get the inside-the-city-limits types out into the County at large is under duress and force of arms. Again...time for a change.
All of it...fold all of it into a large enough truly regional authority such that no one city or transportation option is either unduly represented or operates to bully (Sound Transit, are you listening?) anyone into pork barrel cross base anythings. Keep it strictly transportation: no utilities, jail, PAO budget, new administration building, old fashioned cocktail hour politics, etc. Just transportation.
And find another Robert Moses to head up the staff. Someone not afraid to step on toes or call B.S. to stupid plans like $27mm for bicycle paths for 2,273 (per The Times) cyclists, which equates to around a $12K/cyclist subsidy for a transportation modality that conributes not one red cent (aside from sales tax on the bikes and ridiculous spandex clothing no one dares wear except while riding one) toward the construction of the paths.
A huge argument in favor of I-25 and the initiative process in general is that sometimes it's necessary to carve out a function or an issue for special attention by the people because "legislators," be they city, county, or state, can't or won't. Whether limited by time and attention or mired in the seamier aspects of their "profession" (ask Jim Dunn), the necessary focus on the one issue isn't there.
Taking the KC Sheriff out from under the County Excecutive proved to be a good move. If I-25 passes, I'm very confident that will prove to be a good move, too. Why not transportation? Because of the shear size and importance of it, shouldn't we have an agency/authority/gaggle that does nothing but focus on transportation? No sewar, jail or any of the other stuff I mentioned above?
When I want a horse in the Derby, I don't go looking on the front end of a plow...
The Piper
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 3:50 p.m. inappropriate
The County Council is proportional!: That's the point! By law it must represent all areas of the county equally.
If you are worried about Seattle having too much power you should support my idea. A majority of the members of the County Council do not live in or represent Seattle.
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 5:34 p.m. inappropriate
No thanks: If you are worried about Seattle having too much power you should support my idea. A majority of the members of the County Council do not live in or represent Seattle.
Any transportation governance "reform" ever pitched by Chris Vance GOP-types is always centered on a premise of taking away the pro-transit voters of Seattle and marginalize their political power. It would take a heck of a sell job to convince Seattle residents to divest themselves of their power.
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 11:05 p.m. inappropriate
Counties aren't Regional Bodies: How much representation does an Edgewood voter get in the King County Council?
How much sway do Federal Way voters have on the Pierce County Council?
Do they have any influence at all on the Snohomish County Council?
In most of the U.S., an area as populous as Puget Sound would have a regional government called a "state" that would take care of regional transportation issues. Since our Legislature has apparently abdicated regional transportation responsibilities, we need something larger than a county, something not beholden to individual county districts.
Posted Wed, Nov 7, 9:02 a.m. inappropriate
VANCE WINS: Mr. V's argument is devastating. We coddle ourselves into inattention thinking that quasi-anonymous group of career planners and engineers can solve our transportation problems.
Or even point us in the right direction. Or, especially, take responsibility for mistakes.
Larry Phillips has represented me on the County Council for longer than I can remember and maybe if he were actually responsible, clearly responsible, for something (anything) he would lose an election. That's probably more than I can hope for with Metro.
Posted Wed, Nov 7, 9:40 a.m. inappropriate
Regional vs. Local, Private vs. Public: and off we go again.
Transit and Sewers are regional issues that can only be solved, or even delt with effectivly at a regional level. Solutions for Transportation should include every available tool, even bicycles (sorry Piper)...
Ironicly, the best examples of previous large scale projects that worked have lessons that seem hard to replicate.
The regrades of Seattle, and the Cedar River Water Supply system are just two examples of issues led basicly by one high profile engineer, R.H. Thompson. He was also behind creating the Spokane Street Viaduct, and getting the Great Northern to Tunnel under Seattle, rather than choke the waterfront (from which Tacoma still suffers under). A CITY engineer, whose forsight forever changed the region.
Our initial streetcars, and cable cars were for the most part PRIVATE enterprise funded, built and operated. As the model changed, the city tried to step forward to save it, but paid too much, and the system folded under it's own weight and changing paradigms.
The third bit of history that should never be lost is that the first two floating bridges across the lake were TOLL bridges. In a bow to three arguements(slows traffic, regressive taxation, and once we have funds to pay for maintainence, excess tolls are gov't excess --all easy to refute) we pulled them OFF once the bridges, forgetting that SOMEDAY we would have to replace them. If we had kept the 35 cent tolls all this time on 520 for the basicly wealthier demographic that can usually uses this for their commute, we would have had cash in hand to pay for it's replacement.
If only.
If only we had kept the interuban right of way
If only we had kept the street cars
If only we had kept the cable cars
If only we had voted for rapid transit in 1968
If only we had kept some of the Mosquito Fleet running
If only we had kept the water taxis on Lake Washington running
If only...
We were once told to pay to pull OUT overhead wires because they were ugly(1967-71 in my foggy memory)
We got to pay to replace them when the first gas cruch hit (71-73) .
We were told that once the bus tunnel opened, our half billion dollar investment would take the busses OFF Third Avenue. The Street "experiment" of returning the busses to street level was so "successful", Third remains a bus corridor part of the day every weekday. This is very frustraiting to those of us who said why not make Third Avenue a perminent Bus Corridor (Like Vancouver BC did)so we don't have to spend the Half Billion tunneling under Third Ave)
We continue to NOT make good transportation choices. CHINA is investing 700 BILLION in rail systems, while we balk over 900 million for Amtrak.
Almost 100 years ago, we had an interuban that went from Tacoma to Everett.
After 3 billion plus dollars, we will get to go to the Airport from Downtown. About 16 miles of the original 60 mile long system.
I DO think Sound Transit is doing some good things... Ditto Metro, Pierce Transit and Community Transit. But Portland got MAX with Private investment to get it rolling, and then by MERGING 3 area transi systems into one REGIONAL transit company, and they are now building another line.
A few modest ideas and possible successes would go far to letting us trust a new or current regional approach...
Posted Fri, Nov 9, 10:14 a.m. inappropriate
RE: No. Seperate regional and loca: 10-4
The County should close down it's District Courts and transfer all authority to the municipals, if not even the 'neighborhood' courts.
The District Court folks have a chip on their shoulders being second class citizens to the folks in Superior Court (though perhaps not the RJC in Kent.) I truly think that if you were to get the average district court clerk in a private conversation they'd tell you all of em are totally wacked. They even elected a sex predator for their current presiding judge. (their law, not mine)
Perhaps even Madame Reichert, a (former?) Federal Way clerk of the highest class would testify to same.
-Doug
Posted Fri, Nov 9, 10:19 a.m. inappropriate
RE: The County Council is proportional!: I'll trust Phillips and Gossett. Ferguson, Constantine and Patterson seem to be following Hague in her degeneracy, in that order.
Did anyone hear Constantine's radio ads on KIRO? Is anyone complaing about 'f' you money, however it might be collected?
-Doug
Posted Fri, Nov 9, 10:21 a.m. inappropriate
Harrassers.Org: True, the Seattle voters know exactly what the 'f' they are talking about. (Your words, not mine.)
-Doug
Posted Fri, Nov 9, 5:26 p.m. inappropriate
large counties: Surprisingly, I largely agree with Vance.
The three counties of central Puget Sound, Snohomish, King, and Pierce, have good government through good structure and good elected officials. Vance may have given too little credit to the executives. The interplay between the two branches of county government that keep the fiscal houses in order and keep policy sharp. That interplay was and is lacking from governments without two branches: the old Metro Council, the ports, and Sound Transit. The appointed or elected boards tend to have low pay, no paid staff to do research to challenge the bureauracies, leaving them too much power. Decisionmaking involves politics; it should be open, efficient, and balanced politics.
The Legislature may have made strategic errors in establishing the two three-county governments, the RTA (ST) and the RTID. Those powers would have been better off if given to the counties. The RTA was set up when there was distrust of King County. The RTID was first established without a role for the Executives.
Transit is inherently a local service that extends the range of pedestrians. High capacity transit makes the most sense when connecting pedestrian oriented urban centers that are relatively close together and in which bus transit is slowed by traffic congestion.
The large three or four county districts will have difficulty making sound decisions and in making fiscal choices.
The three ST-RTID counties are each quite large and regional in scope alone. They are each about twice as large in area as the three counties of TriMet.
Perhaps the ports should be merged into a new four county body with the PSRC and granted power over tolling, fare integration, and negotiation with railroads. The RTID could disappear. The other powers could devolve to the counties. If King County had more to do, it could have stayed at 13 members and had better representative democracy with smaller districts.