Print
Email
The Puget Sound region looks to Seattle for leadership yet also resents it. In economic tough times and while planning for growth in the future, many are calling for more coherent, even cooperative, planning. But it's tough to overcome the competitiveness that's been in our genes since the pioneer days. Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, and scores of smaller cities are still competing for a share of the regional pie.
Seattle is the 900-pound gorilla of Pugetopolis, a job center, the biggest city in the state, the essence of the region's identity: Boeing, Starbucks, Amazon. Even Microsoft, headquartered in Redmond, is almost universally referred to as a "Seattle company." But the region isn't content basking in Seattle's glow.
Seattle became the regionally dominant force after the Klondike boom more than a century ago, but as Pugetopolis has sprawled and its cities have flourished, strong interests still exist outside the city limits. The Puget Sound Regional Council was brought into being to help the region cohere around planning, yet it is not, by design, a regional government. Its vision for the future sees growth and prosperity shared among various urbanized hubs (Lynnwood, Bel-Red). But underneath the vision, on the ground, there's still a sense that one place's success comes at the expense of others. No one really trusts Seattle to lead, except, perhaps, by asserting its primacy.
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is about to leave the stage and the transition is resetting the discussion of Seattle's regional leadership role. Nickels is not the first Seattle leader to prove unpopular around Puget Sound (see the disillusionment with Sims, Ron), but during his time in office Nickels did manage to piss off the provinces, and vice versa. He whined publicly that the region was not lining up behind his agenda for Seattle and complained (or joked) to Seattle City Club that the city ought to secede from the region, a venting statewide editorialists called "arrogant" and "absurd." The tantrum was mostly staged to remind everyone just how big and important Seattle really is.
That kind of "it's my ball and we play by my rules or I'll go home" has not made the city popular around the Sound or state, or in Olympia (or as the primary demonstrated, in Seattle.) Seattle, in fact, is ringed by circles of resentment that in some ways recapitulate the way Seattle's own neighborhoods regard downtown and city government: a top-down bully that serves the powerful entrenched interests at the expense of the the people.
The most recent Seattle outrage was the Nickels-led effort to entice the Frank Russell investment company to re-locate in downtown Seattle — competing with a neighbor as you might compete, say, to keep Boeing from moving factory work to South Carolina. The Seattle-Tacoma rivalry is long and deep, and the railroad-run Tacoma was once the dominant "City of Destiny" but lost out. Mired in second-cityness, it's a city of endless potential where critical mass seems always to be just out of reach. After untold numbers of urban "Renaissances," Tacoma's destiny still eludes.
Seattle did bag the Russell company, thanks mostly to the Great Recession. Russell was able to pick up the emptying WaMu tower for pennies on the dollar. But Tacoma isn't likely to forget Seattle's stealing its largest downtown private employer. Seattle looked bad in victory by bigfooting a neighbor striving for similar urbanization goals. It damaged itself as a regional leader. Few cheer for Godzilla to stomp on Bambi.
Seattle should realize there are consequences to such behavior, especially if the city you enrage is a key part of regional transportation strategies — and even more so when you hurt a town with powerful patrons, including earmarking Congressman Norm Dicks and an Olympia delegation affectionately referred to as "the Pierce County Mafia." The Tacoma News Tribune issued a post-Russell warning to Seattle, and in the process reminded the city of an earlier slight:
There's a pattern in the way some Seattle leaders appear to view the rest of the Puget Sound region. The Russell courtship is reminiscent of the way King County Executive Ron Sims went all out to build light rail transit through Seattle — then suddenly decided Snohomish, South King, and Pierce County didn't need rail when it came time to approve a second round of construction. Regionalism cooperation is important, it seems, only if Seattle is the prime beneficiary.
The problem with stiffing the neighbors is that Seattle still needs the support of those neighbors for its big transportation projects — the Alaskan Way viaduct replacement, for example — and other expensive improvements.
Memo to Nickels, et al: If regional cooperation isn't a two-way street, it's not cooperation, and it doesn't exist.
No need to send the memo to Nickels. Now it's mayoral candidates Joe Mallahan or Mike McGinn who need to get it.
So too with King County exec candidates Dow Constantine and Susan Hutchison. As the TNT editorial reminds, Sims turned out to be a disappointment as a regional player, especially in his own county. The primary election demonstrates that the farther away from Seattle you get, the more people voted for the outsider-at-any-cost change that the rookie politician Hutchison represents. Seattle comprises only about a third of county residents, but the county is perceived as being driven by Seattle interests. The seat of government is downtown Seattle. When Sims was first elected, he was seen by many as a pro-business New Democrat with whom the 'burbs could do business. By the end, he was just another Seattle liberal chasing butterflies.
Back in the '90s, it was east King County that rattled the secession saber, but even as the property-rights movement had died down, the people most closely governed by King County (in unincorporated areas) are still the people who hate it most. It's the devil they know all too well. Whether it's the perceived top-down meddling with the Critical Areas Ordinance or recent fights over roads-rail-transit priorities, Seattle-dominated King County seems captive of urbanist visions, out of step with regional needs, and always dealing itself the better hand.
Hutchison, a Seattleite herself (Laurelhurst), recognizes the mood and pledges to reach out to the greater county by meeting with its 40-some mayors and city managers on a regular basis, something her predecessors have not done. She says many of them are competent, creative, and can teach us something. That will be music to suburbia's ears, which felt largely dealt out after the King County-Metro merger in the '90s stripped away representation of suburban cities.
Hutchison's attitude could resonate in the rest of the region. Already some urbanists are pointing to Bellevue as a model for density and Transit Oriented Development planning, and giving Tacoma high marks for some some of its zoning innovations and its downtown amenities (museums, UW campus). Former mayor Cary Bozeman — who has been mayor of both Bellevue and Bremerton &mdash was enthusiastically received by some regional leaders earlier this year when he openly questioned Seattle's status as a role model, criticizing its waterfront development (or lack thereof) and its neglect of Pioneer Square. He called Seattle out: Who are you to tell the rest of us how to make a great city? You could learn something from the rest of us.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 7:09 a.m. Inappropriate
Knute nailed this. King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties share not only a watershed and a regional identity, they also share a job market, a housing market, a workforce and a transportation grid. Seattle's success depends upon the success of this larger region and vice versa. The same can be said about the region and the state: it's myopic lunacy to think "hey, the view is great from my end of the canoe, too bad your end is sinking."
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 8:12 a.m. Inappropriate
Agreed, darn good piece. There are a lot of little things that support this lack of cohesion: PSRC's charter gives the counties weighted voting sufficient to derail good policy ideas that favor municipalities, should the cities reach collective agreement, and the boundaries for county council districts slightly favor Seattle pols. Much of this elbows-out competitiveness is driven by the cities' dependence on sales and property taxes to pay for services. Urban regions, world-wide, are complicated systems ... and the quality of regional leadership is critical to their individual and comparative success. I'm worried about us ... and hoping some new leadership will reinvigorate us ...
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 8:47 a.m. Inappropriate
Nothing symbolizes the failure of Sims' regional leadership quite like when he quit supporting light rail extensions as soon as the plans for the Central Link in Seattle were essentially complete.
Tacoma needs to be connected to the airport too. Interestingly, plans for that extension were in large part a casualty of the Sierra Club's opposition (led by Mike O'Brien and Mike McGinn) to the first roads and transit package in 2007. Now most of the roads projects in that package are being built anyway, and there's no certainty that light rail will ever connect Tacoma to SeaTac.
If I still lived in Seattle I might actually vote for McGinn and O'Brien for their generally progressive outlooks, but there's no question that principled (to a fault?) Seattle enviros need to be better about incorporating a regional perspective as well as a global one into their local decision-making.
As a tangent, Crosscut should consider how the current Tacoma mayoral race fits into this debate. Marilyn Strickland and Jim Merritt have a pretty compelling race going on with real implications for regional issues, and it's received very little media coverage so far.
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 9:44 a.m. Inappropriate
This is the best regional-culture article... Hell, the best article of any kind, that's appeared in Cross Cut in over a year. I'm sure that the Seattle Establishment will vomit all over it. Cool.
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 9:55 a.m. Inappropriate
An excellent article with insight into history and bullyism. When big cities use their economic clout to lure business away from smaller communities they not only damage the economy of the smaller cities, but compound their own problems by the need to provide more expensive housing, transportation and infrastructure. All of which make excessive demands on energy, and natural resources.
The new urbanist cheers claiming dense cities eliminate sprawl, but fail to comprehend that existing small cities are already there. They have schools, government, public services and affordable housing with unused capacity going to waste. The greed of the big cities to grow even bigger and denser strips the small town of the jobs that support their existence. Beware the politician who believes that infinite growth is possible without affecting the economy and quality of life for everyone.
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 10:07 a.m. Inappropriate
Excellent article and very accurate. Many of us here on this end are tired of all the tax/ transportation/ etc. benefits tilted towards Seattle first and left overs to the rest. It was a HUGE insult for the Gov. to "let" us keep the funds they had earmarked for keeping Russell....
I hope the backlash from this gets our inefficient local govt. to finally cut the transportation con led by Seattle Govt. and end the partnership so we can finally get up to date transportation packages here.
Seattle has been great with its " me first- everywhere else gets the dregs attitude" so let it stand alone. And our state officials better start changing their favoritism, cause next election there's a ton of pissed off folk.
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 10:19 a.m. Inappropriate
And now Mike McGinn is going to dismiss the balance of the Light Rail region to build a system to Green Lake.
A recent question posed to Mallahan: when was the last time you rode a bus?
My questions to Mallahan, McGinn, Hutchinson and Constantine: 1) when was the last time you were in Everett or Fredrickson? 2) where is Smokey Point 3) where is Maltby? 4) who is the mayor of Fife?
Excellent article. Am sure the Seattle spin doctors are working overtime at discrediting its message.
Posted Fri, Sep 18, noon Inappropriate
Interesting piece. Perhaps capturing the psychology, but frustratingly anecdotal.
I honestly don't think Seattle had to try hard at all to attract Russell. If you're a CEO trying to attract hot-shit talent to your international investment firm, where would you want to be? And with a gorgeous, brand-new, ready-to-occupy, marquee downtown building going for super cheap, why not pick Seattle? Sorry, Tacoma, but what should we have done? Put up roadblocks?
From specific funding streams I've seen up close, Seattle is most often a net donor to the region and the state. And gets no thanks whatsoever for it.
It would be supremely interesting, and worthwhile, to see a comprehensive flow-of-funds analysis of federal, state & regional taxes and fees -- how much of the different revenue streams come from Seattle and how much returns to Seattle. That's a doable empirical research project and would inform a comprehensive discussion of how well Seattle plays with others in the region. Any takers?
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 12:26 p.m. Inappropriate
I'll chime in with the praise for this article. As a jilted Tacoman, I can say that down here there's a whole lot of frustration not only with Seattle but with Sound Transit, which has really ticked off a lot of people. First they built us a light rail line 1.5 miles long that only connects one end of downtown to the other. It's useless as a commute reliever because it doesn't connect to any neighborhoods so people still need their cars. ST2 includes $80 million of matching funds to extend it, so in order to get those dollars (our tax dollars, mind you) we have to chip in even more, and it becomes a $160 million tax burden. Now the outrage du jour is that ST wants to build a huge dirt berm through downtown so they can extend Sounder service to Lakewood. It's a $150 million project, yet they refuse to spend the extra $4 million to build it in the way that the community wants.
Of course, we don't even need these hugely expensive transportation projects if all the good jobs weren't in Seattle/Bel-Red, thus demoting all the surrounding cities to bedroom community status. So much money to address the effect, ignoring the cause.
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 3 p.m. Inappropriate
This is probably my biggest problem with Nickels. He was always talking about bringing more jobs into downtown, as if that would make a more balanced and livable city. Meanwhile it's actually quite easy to get, for example, from Belltown to downtown Tacoma via ST 590 series express buses, so why not encourage job growth in Tacoma? I actually like the PSRC's multicenter approach, and I hope whichever candidates take the price can work regionally to make it happen.
As for the dig about the viaduct... which cities or counties want that $2.5b in gas tax to go to SR-99? Wouldn't some of that help a bit with the shortfall on replacing SR-520, which I understand is rather important regionally?
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 3:45 p.m. Inappropriate
Greater Seattle/King County is the economic hub of the state, pays more in taxes to the state than it gets back in benefits, and is routinely snubbed in Olympia. This sometimes gets to self-defeating levels, such as when the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement is left in Seattle's lap, even though it's an important regional link. (Oops, just noticed joshuadf said much the same thing above).
This is all Nickel's fault, of course, because he's a Chicago-style bully. Right.
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 4:28 p.m. Inappropriate
Cost and capacity was never a primary concern for a viaduct solution. All the leadership wanted was a way to tear it down to create real estate and amenities for the core area. It really is an important regional link that should be retrofitted or replaced...still the most efficient, most economical solution and still preferred by voters. I don't think Gregoire left its replacement in Seattle's lap...she caved and gave them just what the movers and shakers wanted...a way to tear it down.
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 5:42 p.m. Inappropriate
The only problem with this article is that Seattle did not do anything to get Russell to move, Russell made its decision largely based on the fact that they could pick up the almost-new WaMu Tower at a fraction of what it would cost to build a new headquarters. Both a smart business decision and a smart investment decision.
This is yet another disappointing article by Knute Berger, who is always looking for shortcuts to prove his vision of how things work in yet another shallow 2-3 page article. The overall theme may be spot on, but as usual, Knute's sloppy analysis ruins the piece.
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 6:29 p.m. Inappropriate
Not true, Sierra Girl. The FACT that Seattle actively wooed Russell was well documented in local media -
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009295085_apwarussellinvestments.html
It is ironic that your anti-Berger agenda led you to shortcuts to prove your vision of how things work in a 2 paragraph comment, though.
Posted Sat, Sep 19, 1:14 a.m. Inappropriate
Dollar for dollar, the top priority light rail extension should be to Federal Way, followed by a spur to Southcenter, then the I-90 Bellevue line. These are regional extensions that will do the most to reduce rush hour traffic congestion and direct the most development to further reduce the need for long-distance commuting.
I testified as much before several monthly Sound Transit board meetings in 2000 and 2001 when the budget for their planned 1st Phase tunnel to UW went bust. "It's important to include Southcenter on the route" I told them, but they answered, "Bypassing Southcenter will save a whopping 3 minutes travel time from the airport to downtown hotels!" Tukwila wasn't too happy about this and got their arm twisted nearly clean off for complaining and a lot of street trees there suddenly got declared ailing and needed to be cut down.
The ridership figures for the so-called U-Link tunnel are a total fabrication - bus riders becoming rail riders, not enough new transit users to be given top priority. A bus express from Convention Place Station would suffice for the present, but Sound Transit renigged on building that Link station, though it's still possible to build it. Capitol Hill too is already well-served with transit.
The tunnel must extend to a Northgate terminus to be operationally sufficient. Put the tunnel on hold. Use the money on the other extensions! The world's not going to end if Sound Transit gets another spanking.
Oh. I almost forgot. The Deep-bore tunnel has a fatal flaw: lack of access at Western/Elliott dumps 40,000 vehicles onto the new Alaskan Way through 15-20 stoplights. Grid Lock.
DO NOT BUILD THE DEEP-BORE TUNNEL!
BUILD THE 4-LANE CUT-N-COVER, WsDOT's SCENARIO 'G' BECAUSE:
...it maintains Western/Elliott access. Duh. "Boo hoo, the waterfront will be all messed up." It'll be all messed up anyway to remove the AWV, rebuild the seawall and Alaskan Way. Seattle has some dumb planners in charge, let me tell you. God, that Amazon building is ugly. Go McGinn.
Posted Sat, Sep 19, 8:02 a.m. Inappropriate
In recent history Seattle has come to global prominence, but what did the leaders of this City choose to do? Actually win more global business? Or, I allege, extort both their own citizens and the rest of the State with their 'importance'?
The Mercer revitalization was fine, but the profit has been not in making a new biotech global center but rather in the public subsidies of those projects.
It's time to pay back the citizens of Seattle and the State for the frauds of this fraudulent 'business' community operating under the control of the King County Courthouse.
Posted Sat, Sep 19, 9:26 a.m. Inappropriate
I don't recall Nickels ever saying that Seattle should divorce its neighbors in the region. He said that the regional nieghborhood should consider leaving the state. The message was aimed at Olympia - which often projects that it might as well be in Greece for all its serious attention to more urban issues around the Sound.
The state's dealings with the region are generally ham-fisted and lame, made worse because Olympia salaries and lifestyle generally keeps the good people home. The agency people are too often self styled statewide-ists, who get rewarded for playing to the hinterlands instead of the big important place that keeps everyone in the game and pays the bills, statewide.
Seattle City Hall really didn't lift a finger to draw Russell to Seattle. It really didn't need to. Downtown development interests didn't need to either. Looks like their were two draws: 1. rock bottom prices on a move-in ready building with plenty of space to grow (versus building something new in Tacoma) and 2. Russell is under new leadership that doesn't have ties to Tacoma and believes the company's future is better in Seattle. (What's the average age of the top Russell team?)
The promise of the same middling tax break does not appear to be a factor in Russell's departure. Russell's agent (and the Company itself), aided by downtown development interests, are to blame for gamesmanship with city leaders that will help Russell's bottom line, but not by a deciding factor, or a factor at all, in the move.
There does not appear to be much hope for improvement in regional matters by relying on the new county executive or a new mayor in Seattle. Both races appear to be close, meaning the candidates are likely to focus on the home turf. Although the Republican candidate for county executive seems likely to run for higher office if elected, which could mean some self serving outreach beyond the county line. Statewide ambition is typically the attraction to investing in regional relationships. Nickels had none.
For all the bashing of Nickels, he did pull off one of the biggest regional hat tricks ever: passage of the Sound Transit package last fall. There is no candidate for Seattle Mayor right now who appears to has the wits or the desire to try anything like that, let alone succeed at something that regional. Nickels spent a good portion of his career creating and sustaining the one true regional government: Sound Transit. Its not going away.
Posted Sat, Sep 19, 10:08 a.m. Inappropriate
It's a good article. A good bit of anti-Seattle whining is entirely normal and to be expected from those caught in the city's orbit; I think that's true of any city/suburb relationship, and the tension in that relationship is probably healthy. And there is much common ground: I think the Sound region generally shares a forward-looking outlook in terms of business and technology, for instance, and protecting Washington's natural environment generally is as much a left-wing as right-wing issue in this state.
Yet, while Seattle probably is a bit too "provincial" in its lack of awareness of places outside the city limits, the Sound region is probably a bit too close-minded on social issues. These two things create a feedback loop, in my opinion, that no one seems interested in breaking--for the time being.
Posted Sun, Sep 20, 5:52 a.m. Inappropriate
The last two paragraphs are very out of place. What are they all about and why did you choose to end the piece with them?
Posted Sun, Sep 20, 12:35 p.m. Inappropriate
Back in the seventies and eighties the green fields of suburbia filled up with new one and two story buildings that sheltered high and low tech businesses, housing all kinds of skilled people that were generally well paid. Microsoft was just the biggest; there are hundreds of low buildings surrounded by parking lots in Bellevue, Redmond, Renton; they go on for miles in the Green River Valley. That was and is the alternative to a Seattle-centric region. Knute would have you believe that Seattle is too aggressive in promoting it's job creation. He does not, at least in this article, acknowledge the very real advantages of a regional center that retains as many well-paid jobs as it can and that leads culturally and economically.
The suburbs have all the advantages, cheap land, generally better schools and houses with trees and lawns. Tacoma and Everett have some of those advantages too. Seattle has to work hard.
Posted Sun, Sep 20, 11 p.m. Inappropriate
For as long as I have lived in Pugetopolis -- 1970-1983, late 1986 onward -- Seattleites have always been vicious bullies, not just toward those of us from distant elsewheres (as I am), but even toward folks from local elsewheres. Note for example the slogan of a popular Seattle t-shirt in the late 1970s and early 1980s: "if god is on our side, why is there a Tacoma?"
Posted Mon, Sep 21, 12:38 p.m. Inappropriate
Well, BOO-HOO. I've lived here all my life and all of these whining not-Seattle places have had more say in how they grew than Paris Hilton. In every small town, and I'm including Tacoma as a small town, the locals had their say, zoned the way they wanted to zone, and handed out building permits with one thought in mind- 'Please, sir, can I have more?'
While all this was going on Seattle was experiencing redlining by the mortgage and insurance industries, with a large proportion of the population earning less than a white person would earn doing the same job. And suburbia liked it when the plan was for people to work in Seattle and live in a bedroom community. And it's not like Seattle never lost any jobs- starting with the Boeing cutbacks in 1970 and forward, steel mills have closed, the marine industry has moved, and numerous smaller (or even larger, when we consider the changes in Sears Roebuck) plants and factories have closed.
Now Seattle, through the hard work of the citizens over 40 years, has emerged as a very attractive place for people to live and work. Maybe these not-Seattle places should do an opinion poll and ask just why it is people like to live in Seattle.
Having had a ringside seat to this circus for well over 50 years, I can't sympathize with the communities who got just what they wanted, and regret it now. Especially when we consider that most of the not-Seattle places had themselves elbowed out and tramped down the wonder local agriculture we had here before the state built freeways so the local boosters could pave over the farmland. Enough already.
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 5:19 p.m. Inappropriate
*sigh*. I grew up here in Seattle, left for other cities, and came back here to have my family and settle in for the long haul. Interestingly, I lived in Boston (which dominates Massachusetts) and Chicago (which dominates Illinois and its region) for the longest periods. Political and Economic issues with those 2 cities is much the same, but the history is much, much longer. Here are some observations based on my experiences:
1.) We live in a democracy. Ask a down-state Illinoisan why, ultimately, Chicago controls a lot of state-wide politics and they'll tell you it's because more people live there. In statewide, popular elections, that means more power. That said, Seattle, while MOSTLY politically homogeneous, is not COMPLETELY so. And certainly not on every issue.
2.) In my opinion, the problem generally with Washington and Oregon cities/large towns is that they have a chronic problem of denying their city-ness. Chicagoans and Bostonians take pride in living in a "real city." They are unapologetic in advocating for their unique demands as such. Many Portlanders and Seattlites bristle at the idea of being compared to "real" cities, and like to embrace how we're different up here. And THIS from the 2 MOST urbanized cities/large towns in the region. The rest of the region is in even greater denial about what it takes to build and maintain a sustainable urban center. Indeed, many would deny they are urban centers at all. In other words, Tacoma, Bellevue, and other large towns or cities want to be treated like urban centers, want the political and economic influence that a large population gives you, want the amenities and conveniences, but simultaneously want to deny they live in a city.
3.) The track record for cities that become TOO arrogant and take too much from the region is bad. Chicago has suffered some political backlash from downstate at regular intervals; a constant reminder that there is SOME balance, even if it will be slanted toward the urban center in the region. This is good. Has this happened here in Seattle and our region? Certainly not to the extent that it has in either Boston or Chicago in my opinion
4.) Seattle pays out more in state taxes and fees than it gets back. And with few exceptions, the more rural your county, the more likely you are to get MORE from the tax dollar pool than you put in. This is, in fact, the way it SHOULD BE. But there is a balance here as well. Seattle should not expect a penny-for-penny payback on all state and regional revenue, but neither should other regional players expect Seattle to finance so much of the region's development without competing for resources. If the expectation is for Seattle to be ever magnanimous and the region to be ever spiteful, then I think we can see that is unsustainable. Likewise, if the expectation is for the region to meekly accept being steamrolled while Seattle gets everything it wants.
One thing has been near constant, to my eyes. Tacoma has always resented Seattle. Bellevue has resented or is beginning to resent Seattle. But residents and leaders of both would recite a litany to you about how they DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE SEATTLE. Insofar as that reveals their desire to NOT BE a major demographic, economic, and (resultingly) political hub, then they have found the formula for eternal frustration. Resent power because you wish for more and disdain that power at the same time.
Posted Sun, Sep 27, 12:49 p.m. Inappropriate
Wow. What a hot mess of an article! Knute, you've outdone yourself. You've pretty much lumped in as much anti-density animus into one article, with little rhyme or reason to it at all.
So who exactly are you talking about here, and why?
"Seattle", in your words, alternately includes the Seattle City Council, the Mayor, the King County Executive and Council, Northwestern Mutual, the Puget Sound Regional Council, and others. Their collective sins noted in this article include the relocation of a Tacoma business to Seattle to take advantage of a depressed CBE market (IRRESPECTIVE of whether they managed to get a tax break from Seattle or not), the allocation of transit and transportation funding to cities versus suburbs (which some in Seattle would argue is balanced towards the suburbs), and the "role model" status of Seattle (which should be wholly irrelevant to Bellevue, Tacoma, etc.).
Your proposed solution? Seattle should NOT zone for dense development, so that we can KEEP land for farming, hunting and grazing? King County should promote policies to get businesses to leave Seattle, in the vain hope that they would relocate to Bellevue or Federal Way? Light rail should have been extended to the airport from Tacoma as opposed to Seattle?
Sorry, Knute. There are times when I kinda get what you're saying, but this smacks more of you trying to bang a very large square peg into a very, very narrow hole. Trying to tie this in with your anti-density crusade is ludicrous.