The Stranger, Seattle's Only Newspaper: Ed Murray

Why I Oppose Sub-Area Equity for Sound Transit

Ed Murray — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:30:25 -0700

This guest post is by Ed Murray, who is running for mayor of Seattle and took umbrage with recent posts on Slog and Seattle Transit Blog about his proposal to scrap sub-area equity — Eds

The next mayor of Seattle will earn a seat on the Sound Transit Board just as critical light rail expansion plans are being determined. How effectively that mayor works with colleagues and communities to deliver needed services in Seattle will be a critical benchmark for effectiveness in office.

Given the high stakes of this process, I believe we need both a new style of leadership, and reform of divisive internal policy barriers, to assure Seattle gets a fair share of new service. Delivering on real transit improvements, including light rail expansion, will require a mayor who can bring all sides together, diffuse opposition, build a coalition and move the issue forward. Our current mayor has not done this. I can do this. I have done this.

Let me take you back a decade. In 2003 I was appointed chair of the House Transportation Committee at a dark period for the state’s transportation system. Republicans were in control of the state senate, and Tim Eyman’s Initiative 695 had effectively repealed state funding for public transportation programs and local transit agencies. Over the next three sessions, I worked to win over conservative Democrats and Republicans to rebuild state support for transit, restoring tens of millions of dollars into transit and transportation alternatives.

While others in Olympia were willing to throw in the towel and narrowly focus transportation spending on freeway expansion to serve the suburbs, I successfully fought to make significant investments in several key areas that benefit Seattle today:

• I reestablished the state’s responsibility to provide funding support for public transportation;
• I leveraged and extended private sector partnerships to reduce employee commute trips;
• I provided much-needed funding flexibility for transit agencies to serve special needs populations;
• I provided funding for innovative programs to encourage transportation efficiency, such as car-share programs;
• I made key investments in “feet first” transportation modes, including enhanced funding for Safe Routes to Schools, bicycle and pedestrian safety programs;
• And I create the highly successful Regional Mobility grant program, which is focused on projects that maximize the movement people –not just cars — through congested corridors and provides regional connectivity.

By contrast, when the mayor first ran in 2009 he promised that a Seattle-only light rail expansion measure would be on the ballot within a year, yet it never happened.

He promised major bicycle and pedestrian improvements, but halfway into the 10-year Bicycle Master Plan, he’s delivered only a tiny fraction of the needed funding. The voter-approved Bridging the Gap levy was supposed to provide additional dollars to help SDOT address the city’s many transportation needs. Instead, it has been used by this mayor and the city council to backfill the loss of city general fund dollars that were diverted from transportation priorities to other uses. City general-fund support for SDOT has actually shrunk by 25 percent in recent years. The mayor recently held a press conference to promote a new transit-capable bridge across the Ship Canal, but has failed in the basic task of uniting a majority of the council behind his vision, so nothing will get done.

Earlier this week in another publication, surrogates of the mayor pointed to his support of Sound Transit’s sub-area equity as proof of his transit credentials—and attempted to portray opponents of sub-area equity, including me, as anti-Seattle.

Sound Transit’s sub-area equity requires that any money raised in one of the five sub-areas of the Sound Transit district must be spent in that sub-area. It may seem sensible on the surface, but it is really a terrible policy, originally cooked up by light rail opponent Rob McKenna (when he served on the King County Council and the Sound Transit board) as a way of forcing transit dollars that should have been spent in Seattle to be diverted to the suburbs instead.

Sub-area equity has done more harm to the cause of efficient deployment of limited transit dollars in the central Puget Sound—and thus more harm to Seattle—than any other single decision made in the last two decades of transit planning. It allocates dollars based not on density and demand for service, but on political geography. Instead of building a system from the inside out to maximize ridership and benefit smart land use decisions, it balkanizes the region and facilitates sprawl.

Sub-area equity needs to go. And it needs to be replaced with a more sensible policy that stipulates that Sound Transit dollars will be spent efficiently to add light rail where it will have the maximum impact in terms of moving people, i.e. in denser cities like Seattle and our growing inner-ring suburbs. Such a policy would ensure that Seattle’s transit needs are better accommodated – particularly our underserved West side Green Line communities including Ballard and West Seattle – while also ensuring that hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars are not diverted to building light rail in outlying areas where population densities are insufficient to support strong ridership.

Since its inception, light rail planning decisions in this area have been made regionally through the Sound Transit board. But rather than cultivating strong relationships and engaging the decision makers in relevant discussions about the future of transit in Seattle, the current mayor has isolated himself from the board and is now largely marginalized. Perhaps this explains why the mayor clings to a bad policy like sub-area equity: because he lacks both the clout and the vision to deliver on something larger, it’s the only way he is can try to ensure Seattle gets a share of Sound Transit dollars, no matter how limited. Seattle residents deserve and expect more.

Rather than promising unrealistically that Seattle will go it alone on light rail, I have pledged that as mayor I will leverage the positive relationships I have developed at the federal, state and regional level over the past 18 years to move forward on progressive transit and transportation ideas. To make real progress on light rail we need to advance development of a Sound Transit 3 package to put before the voters in 2016—one that adopts a policy of spending transit dollars where they have the biggest impact rather than according to an arbitrary political formula cooked up by conservative Republicans in the suburbs.

I believe such a policy would actually lead to a package that makes larger transit investments in Seattle than under the current sub-area equity policy. And that’s not just good policy, it’s good politics as well, since any ST3 ballot measure must win overwhelmingly in transit-friendly, vote-rich Seattle to pass districtwide.

The real answer to Seattle’s transit challenges is not to hunker down and hide behind a bad policy that undermines our ability to make thoughtful decisions about how we best allocate our limited transit dollars. It is to develop good policies and good relationships that benefit both Seattle and its key regional partners and actually gets more light rail built. As mayor, that is exactly what I will do.

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Vote Yes on Seattle School Levies

Ed Murray — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 11:45:16 -0800

This guest post is by state senator Ed Murray.

You can’t have a great city without great schools. The effort to improve our schools begins with making sure they have the resources they need to provide a quality education for our children.

That is why I join the Stranger in endorsing Propositions 1 and 2, which renew two critically important Seattle school levies, on the February 12 special election ballot. I urge Stranger readers to stand up for Seattle’s kids by voting YES, and by making sure to send back your ballot by election day next Tuesday.

It is important to note that neither of these levies is a new tax. They both renew expiring levies, and the total additional cost of both levies for the owner of an average $400,000 home is only $13 a month. It is a reasonable price to pay for the substantial educational benefits these levies fund.

Proposition 1, the three-year operations levy, provides more than a quarter of the funding for Seattle schools. It pays for teachers, instructional assistants, textbooks, the sixth period in our high schools, bilingual and special education services, bus transportation and host of other essential components of our school’s operations. Without it, the quality of our public education system would be devastated. It must be renewed.

Proposition 2, the Building Excellence (BEX) capital levy, provides funding to repair, upgrade or expand existing schools, and to build new schools in growing neighborhoods. For instance, this levy will fund new construction, or major renovation, of more than a dozen schools across Seattle. It will pay for infrastructure improvements and major preventive maintenance at 20 schools. It will allow for much needed earthquake safety upgrades at 37 schools, and will provided the resources to wire every Seattle school with wifi access.

The need for these sorts of major capital investments in our schools is acute. Over one-third of Seattle public school buildings are over 50 years old, and the maintenance backlog is growing.

Meanwhile, enrollment in the Seattle public schools is rising rapidly. More than 1,400 additional students enrolled in the system this year alone, and total enrollment is projected to grow by 7,000 in upcoming years. That is a positive sign, but it also means we need to provide the necessary funds to meet the capacity gap this growth is creating. THE BEX levy helps to do that.

Opponents of the capital levy are trying to claim that it will somehow lead to the shuttering of neighborhood schools, or that the money will be wasted. Don’t believe them. The truth is that every project funded in the expiring BEX levy came in on time and on or under budget. And this levy is designed to expand capacity and will add new schools where they are needed.

In our 21st century economy, a quality education is essential to opening the door of opportunity to the middle class, and to those who aspire to join it. We must make sure we keep that door open for present and future generations of Seattle schoolchildren. Please make sure to fill out and return your ballot by next Tuesday, and please vote yes on Propositions 1 and 2.

(An op-ed opposing Proposition 2 can be found here — Eds.)

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

What Progressives Need to Understand About Gun Control

Ed Murray — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:02:15 -0800

This guest post is by Ed Murray, Democratic leader of the Washington State Senate.

Many of us will never forget the heartbreaking day on December 14 when indescribable violence tore through Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut and destroyed the lives of 20 beautiful, innocent young children.

The youth of the six- and seven-year-old victims shocked us all and caused us to wonder how such an incomprehensible thing is even possible.

Yet even as a tremendous grief settled over the country, many have taken heart—however heavy those hearts are—that perhaps we have reached a turning point. Perhaps the country has awakened to a threat to our communities that can no longer be tolerated. Perhaps the horror of Sandy Hook was horrible enough to prompt, finally, some kind of substantive response to gun violence.

Here in Seattle—where we recently experienced a mass shooting in our backyard at Café Racer—the hope that we are on the brink of reform is strong. But nearly as strong is the anger and frustration being directed at our elected officials who have long supported gun control but have failed for years to pass any meaningful protections into law.

I understand the frustration, the anger that many feel about the lack of progress on an issue that continues to cost innocent lives. I feel it myself. But simply attacking our elected representatives who share the goal of reforming our gun laws—while understandable—is not a winning strategy. It will not help attract the undecided, it will not change the minds of those who currently oppose gun control, and it will not move us forward.

To win, we need a base of support as broad as it is strong. As I have said before during the fight for marriage equality, building coalitions is about building partnerships with people and organizations that are different then just our traditional progressive allies. If I have learned anything from my nearly two decades in elected office, it’s that recognizing a problem is the easy part. Articulating a solution can be more difficult. But the hardest task in legislative politics is the sustained dialogue with those in the community who do not already agree with you.

This dialogue has not happened, and it needs to. By necessity, it will be an ongoing dialogue that will take time, patience, and a willingness to listen.

I know very well that, for a number of gun control supporters, this will not be a welcomed message to hear. I remember, years ago, the painful meetings with parents whose children had committed suicide as a result of bullying because of their perceived sexual orientation. The last thing they wanted to hear from me was that the legislation they wanted to spare other families their suffering, was not going to happen yet, and it was going to take time. During the 17 years over the legislative battle for marriage equality, I watched supporters become demoralized—and even heartbroken—as they realized illness and time would mean they would never marry the person they love.

I mention these experiences not because they are equivalent to the tragedy in Connecticut. I mention them because the reaction to the reality of finding is a political solution to those who wanted change to come quickly is similar—and because I think there are some hard-earned lessons along the way that will be helpful.

Who would have thought just 15 years ago, or 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago that we would be celebrating the passage of marriage equality in 2012? For many in the gay community, marriage seemed all but it impossible—or at least too impossibly far into the future to ever be able to celebrate. Personally, I have never felt more lost and alone in the political wilderness than I did as the only openly gay legislator in 1998, standing on the steps of the Temple of Justice when the state Supreme Court overwhelmingly upheld the Defense of Marriage Act, which had been passed overwhelmingly by the legislature only months earlier. At the time, the road to marriage equality seemed completely blocked.

But by the time marriage equality was finally approved this past November after many years of public dialogue and laying the groundwork for a broad-based coalition, our supporters included a number of community groups that had previously opposed our efforts, including the major members of the business community, the faith community—and a number of prominent Republicans. We brought them along not by making righteous moral demands, but by helping companies both small and large see how inequality presented a barrier to their business, and by helping churches see how inequality inhibited their parishioners’ full expression of their faith.

Similarly, supporters of gun control must engage in a conversation in our community on terms that extend beyond the moral vocabulary of traditional progressives. We must meet our conversation partners at their vantage point and on the terms they use to describe what they see from there, rather than demand that they must come to our vantage and adopt our terms.

There are many groups in our community that have a real stake in any discussion about steps we might consider in the effort to reduce gun violence. As we engage them in conversation, it will appear on the outside as though progress isn’t being made. But progress will depend on the input and involvement of educators, parent associations, health care providers, law enforcement officials from both urban and rural jurisdictions, prosecutors, churches, the business community, civic groups, and elected officials at the city, county and state level.

The terms of these discussions will vary, but each of these groups has in common a concern for our community and a commitment to improving our shared quality of life. That might be a good place for the conversation to begin.

It will take time, but we can make progress on restricting access to guns and controlling gun violence.

What is not effective	What will work
Releasing an agenda, holding a press conference or dropping a bill and expecting the world to come around to our point of view	Reaching out across our community and engage in constructive, ongoing two-way dialogue
Drawing a line in the sand or driving a wedge between us and those in the community who do not yet share our point of view	Having a discussion that focuses on what we have in common, not what sets us apart
Denigrating gun ownership	Bringing in gun owners who are supportive of common sense reforms; allowing gun owners to identify with our coalition rather than feel antagonized by it
Putting forward a laundry list of gun control proposals	Coalescing around a focused set of reforms, such as banning assault rifles, banning high-capacity magazine clips, and closing loopholes in our background check laws
Demanding action now and growing frustrated when it does not happen immediately	Being patient and committed over the long term to the process of forming, cultivating, and growing a coalition

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

What Ed Murray Says Progressives Need to Understand About the Gun Control Debate

Ed Murray — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 04:00:00 -0800

What Ed Murray Says Progressives Need to Understand About the Gun Control Debate by Ed Murray

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Don't Listen to The Stranger

Ed Murray — Thu, 25 Oct 2001 04:00:00 -0700

Vote for Mark Sidran by Ed Murray The Stranger asked why I, along with other Democrats, endorsed Mark Sidran for mayor. How could the "gay guy" who represents Capitol Hill endorse the "evil" Mark Sidran?

How could a Democratic legislator like me, who has led efforts for the largest increase in state funding for low-income housing, gotten a dam torn down on the Olympic Peninsula (this is probably news to you, given that the Seattle press doesn't write positive things about legislators), and gotten domestic partnership status for state employees (something the local gay press seem to have missed) endorse Sidran?

Given how some of Sidran's opponents sound like the far Right with their intolerant characterizations of him, I can understand why my endorsement might confuse them. Their portrayal of Sidran as a right-wing Republican--because he supports civility laws that a liberal Democratic city council voted for and Norm Rice signed into law--reflects the unwillingness of Seattle's politically correct Left to accept a diversity of ideas.

What the Sidran stereotype misses is his advocacy for programs such as mental health court and drug court, which move people with mental illness or substance abuse problems into treatment, keeping them out of jail. The stereotype ignores Sidran's ability to build coalitions with progressive Democrats and moderate Republicans (witness his diverse endorsements), coalitions Seattle will need in order to be successful in state politics. It may come as a surprise to the Left, but coalition means building relationships with those different from yourself.

This characterization also ignores Sidran's opposition to Sound Transit's business as usual and his commitment to providing transit to densely populated neighborhoods such as Capitol Hill and the University District.

Over the last decade I have worked with Mark on numerous issues, and have found him decisive, effective, and always open, even when I have strongly disagreed with him. It would be refreshing for the public to actually know where a leader stands on an issue in this state.

murray_ed@leg.wa.gov

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]