Seattle City Council member Bruce Harrell is the latest to throw a punch in the mayor’s race fracas over whether Mayor Mike McGinn was wrong to advise against sacrificing a city-owned alley for a Whole Foods development, given that the grocer is famously anti-union. Peter Steinbrueck had claimed this amounted to “corruption” and Ed Murray claimed the mayor was “unilaterally trying to override an extensive review process” to approve the development. Those arguments don’t make sense. Murray, in particular, shows he doesn’t understand that making recommendations on alley vacations are the mayor’s job and this was just a recommendation—not the mayor “unilaterally” doing anything. Murray either doesn’t know what the mayor of Seattle actually does or Murray is being deliberately misleading about the mayor’s position.
Harrell, as a member of the council, knows this is only a recommendation and he must ultimately vote to approve or deny the alley vacation, so he takes an informed, nuanced approach. In a statement released today, Harrell says the mayor is allowed to “shift the burden to the City Council to navigate through the process and determine whether this is good policy or good precedent.” Of course, that is the council’s job. Still, Harrell argues the mayor’s explanation was “very shallow in substance and provides a weak argument as to why we should drastically change historic practice.”
Harrell’s statement is posted after the jump.
Meanwhile, PubliCola reports that Murray is polling messages on the Whole Foods issue, testing whether voters are persuaded more by claims that McGinn is divisive or Murray is uniting people. That may work on some voters, but Murray is the one using this as a divisive wedge—and even worse, Murray is being dishonest in his divisive attacks.
Finally, because this is just bananas: Yesterday in his column, Danny Westneat at the Seattle Times claimed that opposing an alley vacation was “vaguely communistic.” Christ almighty, Danny. This city owns its own power supply, if we want to talk about things that are vaguely communistic. Considering nearly all development in Seattle involves some sort of community benefit in exchange for a city giveaway (ponying up cash for the affordable-housing fund in exchange for more building height, greener construction standards in exchange for lower taxes, saving a historic facade in exchange for more floor area) I suppose Westneat will be declaring lots of stuff “vaguely communistic” from now on.
Harrell’s statement:
The Mayor is well within his rights to express our city’s values when the city evaluates what public benefits should be derived from a private development when public assets are sold. In this case, the issue is fair and living wages for employees. This is a huge mega project and will define the character, culture and future of this neighborhood. Indeed our Street Vacation Policies allow almost any public good to be considered when the city is vacating an asset owned by the people of Seattle. The problem here is that the Mayor has prematurely articulated a concern without any context. There are so many public benefits to be considered during alley vacations such as useful park and open space, street amenities, and improved set back requirements to improve the pedestrian and bicycle experience. We also do not want our small local businesses to be hurt; we want to support them. These are all components of the public benefit package presented by this development and they appear to be significant and valuable to the public. Arguably, our low income housing needs, our provision of human services and City’s other needs should also be considered.
How does the compensation practice of a private tenant, in this case Whole Foods, weigh against the other competing public benefits and why should this one issue be the basis for disapproval; particularly when they may be paying a living wage to their employees? Is there precedent for this kind of practice for other street vacations and sound legal advice as to whether this is the proper role of government during the process? At first glance, the answers seems to be “no” but the point is, this discussion should be achieved openly and publicly, accompanied by legal advice. Here, the Mayor is allowed to take what is perceived as the “high ground” to fight for workers’ wages and then shift the burden to the City Council to navigate through the process and determine whether this is good policy or good precedent. Should the compensation practices of a private tenant now trump the other benefits we traditionally consider or is this a special deal?
We must look at the entire package of public benefits, not just one component. The Mayor’s recommendation is very shallow in substance and provides a weak argument as to why we should drastically change historic practice. A good executive would work with the community affected, the developer community, the tenants, and the City Council in order to develop a good set of public benefits and avoid grandstanding for political gain.”