Why is Seattle trying to sack Tacoma?
Have you noticed the bidding war between Seattle and Tacoma over Frank Russell Investments? The company, which is an anchor of downtown Tacoma, asked for the best bids from the two cities to be in a few days ago. Right at deadline, Tacoma sweetened the offer again, throwing in 330 parking spaces. The B&O tax break, for instance, would amount to $56 million long term.
For a while in this drama, downtown Seattle property owners and the Downtown Seattle Association held off bidding. An old code of honor stipulates that Puget Sound cities don't bid against each other this way, since the goal is to keep the company here (as opposed to Tennessee, say), not to let local companies play one city off against the other. That code didn't survive the Great Recession (or the Great WaMu implosion), leaving all those vacancies in downtown Seattle.
No one seems to object, so I will. Not just on the obvious grounds of discouraging these kind of stick-ups, but also on regional planning grounds. The regional growth strategy, duly adopted and worshiped (at least verbally), is supposed to foster growth in metropolitan centers, particularly Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, and Tacoma. The point is to have several such centers, with residential growth alongside, so as to improve the job-housing balance — not to make everyone commute for 75 minutes to Seattle.
There's more. Tacoma's housing and cultural renaissance is coming along nicely, thanks to two big Medicis (the U.W. and Congressman Norm Dicks). Is it good policy to have the town crater like this and have to scramble for replacement companies? (It's taken decades for downtown Tacoma to recover from Weyerhaeuser's exodus to Federal Way, and these blows have a huge and lasting effect on a smallish city.) Also, is a Seattle raid of this sort a good way to make regional friends? Instead, it just revives the resentments (fully justified in this case) that Seattle grabs more than its fair regional share — and regularly pays the penalty in the Legislature.
If you were naive, you would think some leading regionalists would be protesting. One thinks of Bob Drewell, head of the Puget Sound Regional Council. Or Gene Duvernoy, head of the Cascade Land Conservancy and its 100-year plan the Cascade Agenda. Or Greg Nickels, head of the Sound Transit board. Or David Dicks, head of the Puget Sound Partnership. Or Gov. Gregoire. Or the Quality Growth Alliance, newly formed to combat global warming through smart growth, but laden with developers and their attorneys.
See the point? Just to run through that list is to understand how captive all these people are by major Seattle interests. There won't be a peep of protest. These are tough times, not times for silly old things like regional plans.








Comments:
Posted Wed, Jun 3, 11:06 p.m. inappropriate
I think the silence says it all: regional planning is just a mirage. It is really all about local politics: "if you don't dump an airport in my back yard I'll get my county to vote for light rail" - thanks Bob Drewel. There's no way when Nickels is up for election that he would say to DSA to back off.
I do wonder what the traffic impact would be? Who knows, maybe it would be reduced? I bet there are many Russell employees who would have a shorter commute to downtown Seattle than to downtown Tacoma. Or maybe a lot of people would sell in Tacoma/Gig Harbor/Lakewood and move closer to Seattle.
The net net though: the tax dollars from the cities bidding against each other don't stay here, they are flowing to Milwaukee. This is really unfortunate.
Posted Thu, Jun 4, 5:57 a.m. inappropriate
Having worked in and around finance/investments for years, I have concluded that one of Russell's chief strengths was its location. A higher percentage of Manhattanites know what Russell is, and does, than do Tacomans. That is an advantage.
Russell is as far from Wall Street's frantic (visualize Jim Cramer) trading culture as a pin stripe can get while still being within a 30 minute drive of an international airport. There must be a strong pull to relocate closer to the mother ship, like Boeing did. A mistake. Lose the distance, lose the perspective.
Moving to Seattle? It has failed as a finance town. It isn't in the air. Leave that city to the code and beaker crowd. It is theirs now.
Moving means risking a corporate culture, that once lost, will be difficult to recreate. Worse, it may take years before you realize it is gone.
Posted Thu, Jun 4, 8:08 a.m. inappropriate
anyone who thinks seattle is ``punished'' in the Legislature is not paying close attention. Money follows political power, always has and always will. If you study the appropriation of unencumbered money, Seattle and King County always get their fair share and usually much more. It is only in the area of dedicated funds, which are handed out on the basis of population or other factors, that Seattle is not able to hog the trough.
Posted Thu, Jun 4, 8:30 a.m. inappropriate
No one wants Russell to move. Russell felt the need to wake up Tacoma powers, who had been taking the company for granted. Presumably, the decision will be based on what's in the company's best interest, not regional notions about fair play.
This chat about anyone being "captive" is nonsense.
Posted Thu, Jun 4, 11:35 a.m. inappropriate
...for now.
Posted Thu, Jun 4, 12:29 p.m. inappropriate
I worked in downtown Tacoma for thirty plus years. Rather than trying to develop its own identity, the Tacoma City Council has tried to be a little Seattle. Ten year property tax giveaways have created urban blight in many areas, especially around the Tacoma Mall. The convention center is an absolute bust. Now the B&O; Tax will be sacrificed without figuring out how to replace the revenue. Yes, the city council believes granting all these benefits will keep sales tax revenue alive. But, will the Russell employees not just commute to Seattle by Pierce Transit buses or buses provided by Russell? Will a homeowner in Gig Harbor, Tacoma, Lakewood really sell their home and buy in a more costly city up north. I don't think so! Voepel's column recently indicated it is $300 per square cheaper to buy the WaMu Building in Seattle than build in Tacoma. Plus the parent life insurance company gets to keep the rental expense in house. The main players in Russell Investment no longer have roots in Tacoma. They are out of staters who already reside to the North. I challenge the city council to show Tacoma's citizens how it will balance the budget without the B&O; Tax, whether Russel stays or goes. I'm sure the city council will put forth more taxes on the citizens (who are not exempt under the ten year property tax abatement program). The plus side to Russell moving to Seattle is to free up rental space in Tacoma for other 'not so large' companies to relocate to Tacoma. No city should be putting all its eggs in one basket. Also, when Russell Investments recently canned several hundred employees, they were not the traders or upper management employees. I'm sure Russell Investments is aware of three thousand laid off WaMu employee ready and willing to replace anyone that does not want to get on the bus to Seattle. Tacoma, wake up and gain your true identity- small city not dependent on large corporations. Also, create a tax base that does not require the B&O; Tax. I wonder if the city will ever publish the amount of foregone real estate taxes given away by the ten year tax abatement????
Posted Thu, Jun 4, 7:27 p.m. inappropriate
Great column. Losing Russell would be a massive blow to Tacoma. For Seattle, the overall impact would be minimal.
Posted Fri, Jun 5, 2:29 p.m. inappropriate
Wow! Thank you David Brewster! I have new respect for Crosscut after reading this piece. So rare for a Seattle-centric publication of any kind to support Tacoma, however deserving. Seattle is one horrible big brother.
My favorite quote — which echoes a point I've made in comments to previous Russell-related posts here — is "The point is to have several such centers, with residential growth alongside, so as to improve the job-housing balance — not to make everyone commute for 75 minutes to Seattle."
I do agree somewhat with Jan's comment that "the decision will be based on what's in the company's best interest, not regional notions about fair play." That said, Seattle's actions have had the effect of swinging the company's best interests away from Tacoma — without their aggressive pursuit of Russell, Tacoma would be a more obvious best interest.
I do disagree with much of what A321196 said. You bet I think a bunch of high-income Russellites who live in the Tacoma area will move to the Seattle area to spare themselves the hour-plus commute (and those who stay will add to I-5 congestion, oil consumption and air pollution). Even worse, those Russellites help keep Tacoma's downtown restaurants and stores open.
As Brewster said, this move would severely hurt Tacoma's renaissance, which the whole region should be cheering on instead of mocking it like I so often hear. Not good for the region, and it's a real shame that the so-called regionalists have been silent on the matter.
Posted Wed, Jun 10, 10:30 p.m. inappropriate
The comment above that Russell leaving Tacoma would allow for other -- smaller -- companies to move in and use the space that Russell leaves vacant, really doesn't work. Tacoma certainly doesn't lack for vacant office space downtown right now. Small/medium sized employers are clearly needed, but a few anchors make a huge difference. Russel is definitely an anchor for downtown Tacoma.
Posted Tue, Jun 23, 9:34 a.m. inappropriate
Russell Investments wants a Seattle address, and with the real estate opportunity in downtown Seattle they are going to take advantage. Tacoma isn't innocent in this game; for years they have regularly stolen Port of Seattle customers. Russell no longer has true local ties, therefore the extortion. The same routine seems to be occurring with increasing frequency with Boeing (the 800lb. Gorilla). It would be better for Tacoma to invest local dollars in the U W branch.
Posted Thu, Jun 25, 7:30 a.m. inappropriate
Hmmm. Too bad David didn't at least mention a few of the Port of Seattle customers lured away by Tacoma. What goes around comes around, folks.
Posted Thu, Jun 25, 11:58 a.m. inappropriate
eople may not be aware of legal rules and regulations regarding some categories. Such as Attorneys,Corporate Business,Accident Attorneys Employment & Labor Law etc. But we are here to provide details on these and other laws. Which could help them. Legal x also provides with latest Law news and other information.
____________
teju
estate planning