Belt-tightening time for the Mercer Mess?
Nothing concentrates one's mind, it has been said, like the imminence of hanging.
This is the case as policymakers and ordinary citizens consider options to shore up the financial system and avoid an economic depression. People are concentrating as well on state and local decisions knowing that, at the least, an economic downturn lies ahead and that tax revenues will be reduced. Belt tightening is in order. Projects involving big public money, such as plans to fix the perennial Mercer Mess from I-5 to Seattle Center, will be getting increased scrutiny. Or so I hope.
Vulcan Inc., which has received 9-figure subsidies from Mayor Greg Nickels and the Seattle City Council for its South Lake Union commercial real-estate development (including money to build the streetcar), convened a rally Wednesday morning at the Port of Seattle offices of the Mercer Stakeholder Committee, a nominally independent group loaded with supporters of Vulcan's preferred version of a Mercer Mess redo.
Vulcan and Nickels want a Mercer retrofit which would not reduce traffic congestion in the area, would actually increase point-to-point travel times to and from the Mercer area, and would cost an estimated $200 million or more to achieve. An alternative plan, originally drawn in 1999 by former Mayor Paul Schell and now sponsored by City Councilmember Nick Licata, would cost an estimated $40 million. It was originally approved by the then City Council and the Neighborhood Council but was rejected by Nickels when he became mayor. The Schell/Licata plan would not facilitate sidewalk-widening and later construction of high rises as the Vulcan/Nickels plan does.
The Vulcan/Nickels proposal has never been the subject of a formal City Council hearing. Nor has it been been vetted for cost-effectiveness and traffic facilitation as compared to Schell/Licata. Vulcan/Nickels has been publicly opposed by the Magnolia Community Club, Rainier Beach Community Club executive board, Queen Anne Community Council, Southeast Seattle Crime Prevention Council, Othello Neighborhood Association, Columbia City Community Council, North Seattle Industrial Association, Aurora Avenue Merchants Association, Fremont Chamber of Commerce, Ballard District Council, and Seattle Community Council Federation.
A first showdown between Vulcan/Nickels and Schell/Licata will take place at a public hearing next Monday, October 6, at a 6 p.m. City Hall forum sponsored by Licata but where state and city transportation officials and advocates of the Vulcan/Nickels plan have been invited to participate as well. Licata proposes to redirect a $43 million bond now allocated to the Mercer Project to citywide transportation improvements.
Nickels did not mention the Mercer Project in his budget presentation Monday, but since then he has reiterated publicly his intention to drive it forward. Vulcan and its supporters will assert that its version of the Mercer Project would lead in time to a neighborhood with greater amenities and liveability. Now, traffic along Mercer flows in one direction, eastward, and the westbound traffic from I-5 has to weave around in a large S. Opponents will claim that alleviation of traffic congestion was the reason a Mercer Project was proposed in the first place and that public costs and benefits must be taken fully into account before final decisions are made about the project in any form.
My own view is that while I like the look of Vulcan's South Lake Union development and wish it well, public officials have a responsibility to see that public money is spent efficiently and for the right purposes. That is why our mayor and council members should not be rubber stamps for a commercial venture whose success should not depend on public subsidies.
Comments:
Posted Wed, Oct 1, 1:52 p.m. inappropriate
I AGREE: " mayor and council members should not be rubber stamps for a commercial venture whose success should not depend on public subsidies"
but still, most of the criticism of this project (at least that I have seen) chews fiercely onthe movement of vehicles. Is it possible, I wonder, to improve the city without increasing traffic capacity? well, obviously it is. But what I am asking is whether changes to street configurations must, as it's dominant pursuit, increase traffic handling capacity?
I can remember when Mercer St. was two-way and I think I would prefer it that way again. $200 million? well that does seem costly.
Posted Thu, Oct 2, 2:21 p.m. inappropriate
Hello Ted: On my fourth day in my new job at Vulcan, I'm starting to miss the blogging world. So I welcome the chance to comment here in my new role as the company's spokesman.
I was at the meeting Wednesday at the Port. Were you? I didn't see you. If you got your information second-hand that may be why you described the meeting as a "rally." It was anything but a rally. There were stakeholders who announced they were going to break with the group and no one seemed shy about asking tough questions.
But there are a lot of groups still very interested in fixing the Mercer Mess. While it seems you may have some long-simmering antipathy toward Vulcan, you'd be hard-pressed to accuse all those at yesterday's meeting as being in the pocket of the company or of the mayor.
As an avid bike rider, I was particularly struck by comments at the meeting from bicycle advocates. They are committed to sticking with the stakeholders group and want to see the city make good on its promise of fixing the Mess.
As I said, I'm new at Vulcan. I don't have all the answers. So I've been asking folks here for an explanation of what you describe as a "9-figure" subsidy from the city. I know there is state and federal money at work. And I know that property owners in the area voted to tax themselves to pay for the streetcar. But I can't find the subsidy. Can you give me any details on how you come up with that number?
I'm glad you like the way South Lake Union is shaping up. And I agree with you that "public officials have a responsibility to see that public money is spent efficiently and for the right purpose." That's why the city needs to make good on its pledge to fix the Mercer corridor. And I suppose that's why eight of nine city council members have said they object to taking the money to spend elsewhere.
David Postman
Posted Thu, Oct 2, 5:45 p.m. inappropriate
Vulcan designed this $200MM project: Does Mercer Street need to get "fixed" with that nice broad landscaped boulevard in the middle of the street? Part of the problem with the pricetag of this project, is that the City has to purchase land for purposes of creating the wide easement to accommodate all the lanes and median.
The City, which once owned this land, now has to buy it back for almost twice the price. How ridiculous is this.
While a landscaped median is nice, the City should be exploring other options that don't require it to buy land for a wide easement. This landscape median is there for one purpose: to add value to Vulcan's portfolio.
Vulcan Inc. began designing this boulevard for the City back in 2002, and Mayor Nickles has blindly adopted it as the City's. It's a perfect case of special interests tail wagging the dog.
Fix the Mercer Mess, but with an eye towards actually creating efficiencies and distributing traffic better. If the rush is to get this fixed before the Viaduct construction begins so traffic can be distributed, then we need a functioning roadway that creates flexible lane changes for peak hours certain ways (they do this in SF).
Regardless, the bigger point is this is a gross misuse of our Bridging the Gap funds: they deserve to be part of the neighborhood's infrastructure all around the city, not just ONE neighborhood: South Lake Union.
Posted Thu, Oct 2, 6:20 p.m. inappropriate
this does not "fix" the Mercer Mess: The "Mercer Mess" is a traffic problem -- traffic on Mercer gets congested badly every morning and afternoon. If the city wants to "fix" the Mercer Mess, it must IMPROVE traffic flow in the area, because that is what the "mess" is all about.
The current plan does not fix the traffic problem. It is primarily a design to take traffic off of Valley Street, because Paul Allen does not want traffic on Valley Street. This plan will actually make traffic on Mercer Street much, much worse in the PM peak hours. This is not acceptable to those of us who actually use Mercer Street to get to I-5 from Queen Anne, and other neighborhoods west of that highway.
Whatever the city does to Mercer Street, it MUST IMPROVE traffic between I-5 and those neighborhoods west of I-5. The current plan fails to do this, even at an incredibly enormous cost.
Posted Fri, Oct 3, 12:20 p.m. inappropriate
I was not at the meeting Wednesday morning. In the past the group has been regarded mainly as a cheerleading rubber stamp for the Vulcan agenda. Some of its key members do not live or do business in the affected area---a major beef among affected community groups which have publicly opposed Vulcan's Mercer Mess proposal. I listed some of those groups in my short piece. Their opposition, in the main, is based on the fact that their members cannot see anything but higher taxes and further traffic congestion in the areas where they live if the Vulcan version of the Mercer Project goes forward.
The Allentown trolley was not built to provide transportation to Seattleites going to or from their homes or businesses. It is, rather, a curiosity meant to make Vulcan's South Lake Union area attractive to tourists who see it as a mini-San Francisco cable car ("Look...isn't it cute?"). The costs of the trolley
resulted in reduction of funds for bus service, and a subsequent cutback in service, in Seattle neighborhoods where ordinary people depend on such service for vital trips. Its ridership has been low and presumably will be lower as the summer tourism season recedes.
John Fox of the Neighborhood Coalition has estimated public subsidies to Vulcan as approaching $1 billion. Others have pegged them at several hundred million. I met with Vulcan officials several years ago and invited them to provide a sheet listing what they regarded as the true level of public subsidies. They said they would but did not. Then I went through city documents to examine expenditures which reasonably could be characterized as such subsidies. It was hard to nail them down. But it was possible to estimate them in the several hundreds of millions. When I wrote that, Vulcan executives protested that they had received NO public subsidies and that none should be tallied until the money was actually spent---a bit like pricing the Boeing tanker project at a few-thousand dollars since no federal dollars had yet been spent in its production.
Major private developments characteristically apply for zoning variances, utility
installations, and other public help. If the public constituencies involved believe such help will lead to enhanced public revenues, it often is granted. By the same token, developers often are asked to help defray public costs necessitated by their projects. The sensible question always must be asked: What level of public support is justified by the level of public benefit anticipated? It is the job of the mayor and city council to say "no" when subsidies appear excessive or unjustified.
The difference between $40 million and $200 million for the Mercer Project is significant---especially if the more expensive alternative would increase congestion and lengthen point-to-point travel times if melding more comfortably with Vulcan's development plans. The cost of the trolley likewise was significant and could not be justified on any basis as a cost-effective public transportation alternative. What are these if not subsidies?
As I wrote, I like the look of the South Lake Union development and am not among those who see it as destroying a precious part of old Seattle. David, I would suggest you take another shot at coming up with Vulcan's version of the actual dollar amounts and particulars of public subsidies extended to it. It would be enlightening to all of us and perhaps to you. ted
Posted Sun, Oct 5, 2:43 p.m. inappropriate
Let's look at effects on people and businesses: I do business in the South Lake Union area at least twice weekly. The small businesses which I patronize are up in arms. They first were taxed to pay for the trolley and, now, are having their rents increased astronomically because of the supposed benefits brought to them by the trolley and the Vulcan development. Yet they tell me that business has fallen off during the period of trolley and other construction and they expect it to fall even further as and when the Mercer Project begins. They feel they may have to close.
I agree with others who say the Mercer Project should be about reducing traffic congestion and not about catering to a multibillionaire's company's whims on South Lake Union. We who drive and pay taxes should be heard by the mayor and council, even if Vulcan loads them down with campaign contributions. Good for Nick Licata. He seems to be the only council member who has not been bought off.
Time for Pork Barrel Nickels and his cronies to go.
Posted Mon, Oct 6, 7:03 p.m. inappropriate
You Can't Be Serious: I live just a few blocks from Mercer and take the Seattle Center exit to get home (or try to). The trolley has created a HUGE mess. Adding addtional stops, interfering with traffic flow. Now they want to change Mercer. Right now it is not perfect, but I am not sure any alternative will make it better without serious/major street addtions.
Until a comprehensive plan is in place, let well enough alone. Lets not do this just to appease a few big wigs. Some of us have lived in the area for 20 years.