Strains in the green-growth coalition
The battle for candidate endorsements reveals some ideological divides between local environmentalists, developers, and independent thinkers who wonder if all urban growth is good.
People in Seattle are green green green. We're a leader on Kyoto, we hate plastic bottles and shopping bags, and our politicians often jockey over who is more green than the other. Candidates for office vie for key endorsements from groups like the Cascade Bicycle Club, Washington Conservation Voters, and the Sierra Club.
But candidates also need business support too, and Mayor Greg Nickels has led the way over the years in forging a lamb-and-lion coalition of green and development interests. You'd think these two would be more at odds, but part of the secret to Nickels' success has been exploiting an urban green paradigm that essentially equates urban development with the true green agenda.
Making Seattle into a denser city will save undeveloped outlying lands from growth; in-fill is more carbon-friendly than sprawl. In this world, high-rise office and residential towers are the way to save the planet. Density, walkability, transit-friendly, and sustainability are the watchwords. Whether a bigger, denser, light-railed Seattle will actually result in less sprawl in our region is still mostly theory, but it's accepted as gospel by many. A pro-development stance pleases greens, business, and the labor unions. And politicians.
Erica Barnett writing at Publicola offers an interesting window into how the green-growth coalition is finessed. She writes about how city council candidate Jessie Israel managed to get endorsements from both pro-density Washington Conservation Voters and the pro-growth Seattle/King County chapter of the Washington Realtors Association. One group hates sprawl, the other thrives on growth, including sprawl.
She's not the first Seattle candidate to get the endorsements of both, but it's interesting to see at whose expense the endorsements were made. Both groups found Israel more to their liking than her opponent, incumbent City Councilmember Nick Licata, one of Seattle's most progressive politicians. Barnett wanted to know why Israel over Licata? There were several reasons:
Asked why the Realtors supported Israel, association public-affairs director David Crowell pointed to two issues, both of which would appear to conflict with her environmental-community support. First, Crowell said, Israel told the group she would not let tree protections stand in the way of development within growth management boundaries (i.e., in cities). "She remarked that trees are very important, but if it's a question between trees and density...in urban areas...density would trump trees," Crowell said.
Israel also apparently opposes home sellers having to conduct mandatory energy audits to let buyers know just what they're getting. As to why the WCV made its choice, Barnett reports:
Sudha Nandagopal...says the group decided to endorse Israel because she "really showed that she'll be an environmental champion" on the council, by supporting "walkable, transit-oriented communities — things that are also very important for tree canopy protection."
As for why WCV didn’t endorse Licata, as they have in the past, Nandagopal said, "Nick has been a strong opponent of Sound Transit for many years, and he's not really on same page with us on density issues. When it comes down to it, Nick Licata is not running with the environment as a priority."
Pretty amazing that Licata is now considered some kind of green apostate, despite his backing of numerous green efforts, including the Green Line monorail project which was the very definition of "transit-oriented" and the darling of the pro-density crowd. It's also interesting that one group sees Israel as willing to sacrifice urban trees while another believes her overall policies will protect urban trees.
Israel gives voice to a green segment, echoed by some Sierra Clubbers like city council candidate Mike O'Brien, that urban trees are expendable, an easy trade-off. If you cut a few urban trees to save a patch of suburban trees, you are ahead of the game, carbon-footprint wise. At the same time, however, many Seattle grassroots greens, and city council members, are fighting to get stronger tree protections. There is worry that in-fill will cut down too many trees in a city whose tree canopy is already a little more than half of what it should be. Cleaner air, cooling, preventing Puget Sound run-off and erosion — urban trees are an essential part of this. And then there's the livability factor: people like their trees.
The city itself has embarked on a major tree-planting effort to re-green the city. Protections are being sought particularly for mature trees, which do much more for the city canopy than newly planted trees. They're also wonderful in themselves, something you would think you wouldn't have to explain to Sierra Clubbers, a group founded by a man who loved trees and who hated cities. (By the way, there's a lively debate over whether the Sierra Club supporters running for public office are green enough, or practical enough, too. Check out the controversy at Horsesass.org.)
One growing point of tree contention is whether to allow in-fill with detached dwelling units, a way to increase neighborhood densities without relying solely on high-rises and big apartment blocks. But the city's own studies show that the greatest depletion of tree canopy and habitat has occurred on private property. Accelerating the cutting of trees on private property and failing to protect bigger, older trees will exacerbate an already serious problem. Tree advocates like Michael Oxman fear a boom in detached dwelling units could be "catastrophic" for the urban forest.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Wed, Jul 1, 7:19 a.m. inappropriate
I see you are still riding that "we are losing trees" myth. Why do you persist when you know that the City has no studies to show that in fact Seattle is losing trees? You agreed with me that there is no factual basis for that view, though I admit that it is a useful lie in pushing public policy in your retrograde and unimaginative anti-growth direction.
Didn't we learn something from GW Bush about what happens when there is no concern for basing public policy on reality?
Posted Wed, Jul 1, 7:58 a.m. inappropriate
Some years ago, working with the group Forward Seattle, I recall we were surprised at studies that showed that Seattle was in fact two cities when it came to trees. The better-off neighborhoods were very leafy, while the poorer ones were surprisingly devoid of trees. The combined figures put the city toward the lower part of the charts. The other surprise from our look into the subject was that many of the South End neighborhoods did not want more trees: they drip on cars, they blot out needed sunlight, they interfere with views.
Posted Wed, Jul 1, 9:32 a.m. inappropriate
Knute, how can you reach the conclusion that Nick losing this race would leave us with one less critical thinker in office?
Jessie's "conflicting" endorsements show that she's willing to cut trees strategically when it serves a greater good. She's not pushing for an ideology that says, "Let's save every tree in the city because they're more important than development in every single instance." Nor is she pushing for one that says, "Let's raze every tree in the way of someone's development plans." She's finding common ground. For me, that's pragmatism.
The problem with the environmental/density debate is that it's a battle of the ideals. No politician, no policy is ever going to meet all of those ideals. We need people in office who can navigate through competing priorities and, in the end, get arch enemies to work together. Not everyone's going to love the solutions they come up with but at least we'll have reached a solution instead of debating things to death.
Posted Wed, Jul 1, 9:47 a.m. inappropriate
As a transplant to Washington, I've noticed a certain naivete in the politics of the "environmental" community. Groups tend to be single issue, which leaves out the bigger questions of balancing all interests and accommodating the future.
One real problem I've observed is that many groups rely on government (state and federal) funding for their existence. This means there is a serious gap in accountability and push back against bad public policy. They see politics as an "access" issue rather than as a way to change policy.
Seattle has many challenges and there is only so long that articles about how "green" it is or how "progressive" it is will carry the day. If it is truly to stay within its current footprint and maintain a better quality of life for all its neighborhoods, Seattle needs to abandon debates over band aids like whether detached units kill more trees and look to truly progressive cities that have rebounded with measurable site development standards - like Chattanooga, TN.
Posted Wed, Jul 1, 11:39 a.m. inappropriate
Again, you push an intellectually false notion that trees will save us from ourselves. You imply that tree "protections" will provide "Cleaner air, cooling, preventing Puget Sound run-off and erosion..." But tree "protections" are nothing more than cosmetic. We talking about an overbuilt environment. Trees are not going to stem the deterioration of our air, water, and soil quality, when the built environment is driving the deterioration.
Posted Wed, Jul 1, 3:13 p.m. inappropriate
As someone who has built a career on helping to save acres of open space at King County parks, Jessie Israel clearly believes in the importance of foliage. However, she is also a pragmatic leader who realizes that our region will face a large amount of growth in the next 20 years, and if we don’t prepare for that growth by building compact urban communities, our environment will suffer much greater losses than a few trees. It is refreshing that Jessie can find common ground between competing interests and even find ways for them to work together.
Posted Wed, Jul 1, 5:47 p.m. inappropriate
"..seeing it is a system that will only work if massive redevelopment takes place in transit corridors, development that will favor big developers and drive up housing price(s).."
Massive development takes place (increases the supply of housing, yes?) and this, of course, drives housing prices UP. Knute, I think your keyboard wrote that. Automatic pilot; "big developers" "high housing prices" bad things happen.
Posted Wed, Jul 1, 7:43 p.m. inappropriate
First of all, Israel has no chance against Licata, so that's not worth discussing.
But, more importantly, all this talk about "smart growth" is a total load of crap. "Smart growth" is the ultimate oxymoron -- all growth is STUPID.
How can anyone be so dull as to not understand that there are way too many people on this planet right now, including in our state and in our city. That being obvious, how can any intelligent person think that any growth whatsoever can be "smart", or good for us?
The only thing that matters is STOPPING GROWTH. Then we must reduce the population as quickly as possible, by reducing birth rates well below death rates.
As long as the "environmentalists" are talking about what sort of growth is best, they are just playing with themselves. If the population keeps growing, nothing is going to solve our environmental problems. I suspect most people realize this, but the majority of people are so in love with money that they just reject anything that will keep the economy from growing, so they can make more money. Love of money is what is behind growth, and growth is destroying the environment.
If you care about the environment do not vote for any candidate who favors growth of any sort.
Posted Wed, Jul 1, 8:41 p.m. inappropriate
"..seeing it is a system that will only work if massive redevelopment takes place in transit corridors, development that will favor big developers and drive up housing price(s).."
Massive development takes place (increases the supply of housing, yes?) and this, of course, drives housing prices UP. Knute, I think your keyboard wrote that. Automatic pilot; "big developers" "high housing prices" bad things happen.
— kieth
So Kieth what have you to say about this great recession that awoke some, but apparently not enough for long enough, to the hazards of ownership mania? Massive development takes place (increases the supply of housing) and drives housing prices UP-- unless conventional wisdom is not producing the usual mass mania and for once is moderated and truly sustainable and the market does not need a restorative collapse.
Figure out the difference between those two states of affairs and we'd all be seeing as a system. Trouble is the difference has been known for centuries. It's not lack of knowledge that is the problem.
Posted Fri, Jul 3, 10:49 a.m. inappropriate
Nick Licata has chased the urban wine bar vote to its conclusion. He may be able to hang on as the general opposition person on the council, but that depends, in part, on Greg Nickels and his running mate Jan Drago being favored in the Fall. They are not that now, so, drawing anti Nckels/Drago support in a council position is watered down by a fist full of direct mayoral challengers to the Mayor of Downtown.
About the trees:
The city is littered with limbless trees, telephone/power poles. Where people, or the city, have made the error of planting an actual tree near one of those things it has often resulted in a block-long hatchet job, lopping off the tops of the trees, with a reverse mohawk.
Bury the lines, open the skies.
Posted Sun, Jul 5, 1:56 p.m. inappropriate
Curious, here in Tacoma we've been seeing a strategic push by Seattle based astroturf nviros with a very well orchestrated astroturf pitch.
Initial reception was good, but I think folks are starting to clue into the typical Seattle craziness.
Oh, and just how obvious it is, if you are capable of standing back just a bit.