|
| |
Special Election Report
April 1996
On May 21st, Seattle residents will be asked to go to the polls to vote on the Seattle Commons Park Project.
Following is an explanation of the proposal, pro and con arguments about the plan, and the League's analysis
of the ballot measure.
CITY OF SEATTLE PROPOSITION No. 1
(Commons Park Project)
If approved by a simple majority of Seattle voters on May 21, 1996, Proposition No. 1 would lift
the existing limit on regular property tax collections for five years to raise approximately $50 million. The
additional cost to the owner of a $170,000 home would total about $190 over the five-year period. On a
$250,000 home, the additional tax would cost about $282.
The levy proceeds would be combined with the
following additional funding sources:
- $23 million in Council-approved bonds to be issued in 1998 and
repaid out of the City's general fund;
- $70 million in private donations; and
- $1.5 to $3.8 million
in taxes from a newly-formed Local Improvement District (requires property owners' approval.)
These
funding sources would produce a total basic financing package of close to $166 million to pay, over a 10-year
period, for a 42-acre park, various improvements in and near the park, and the retention of several hundred
affordable housing units in the South Lake Union area. Project funds would be expended as follows:
- Park - $121.9 million for land acquisition, business relocation, site preparation, utility work,
park preparation and development.
- Transportation - $15.3 million for boulevards and traffic modifications.
- Housing - $28.1 million (public funding.)
- Election costs - $0.4 million.
Studies of the original Commons proposal indicated that new costs associated with the park would
roughly equal its added benefit to the city; no new studies were completed for the smaller park.
Supporters of the Commons proposal present several arguments for its adoption.
In
comparison with other major U.S. cities, Seattle lacks downtown park acreage. The city needs more green
space in its downtown core, and the Commons is the only open-space or park project in the City's six-year
capital improvement plan. Some attributes of the proposal include a large green space with sports fields
and playgrounds, urban plazas, and lakefront public space.
The revised Seattle Commons plan responds to
concerns raised by voters while retaining its guiding vision. The original Commons proposal, rejected by
voters in September of 1995, was a 61-acre park that was to be funded by a nine-year, $100 million levy. The
revised plan includes reductions in size, cost, and tax impacts, but remains faithful to the century-old civic
dream of linking downtown Seattle to the south shore of Lake Union via a handsome boulevard and park set
within an attractive, mixed-use neighborhood. The Commons represents an opportunity to create a
permanent amenity through a partnership of public and private resources that will not come again if not
acted upon now.
The revised plan reduces by 30 percent the number of businesses to be relocated, and allocates
an additional $500,000 in relocation assistance, for a total of $7.3 million.
The current proposal responds to
the need to save affordable housing in the South Lake Union neighborhood. In addition, with its mixed-use
zoning, it includes significant opportunities to upgrade land values and absorb growth impacts that
otherwise would be felt in other parts of the city.
Ongoing park maintenance and security will be ensured by
a charitable gift which will provide continuing future funding of needed services.
The new proposal
separates the Commons project from any permanent and costly fix of the "Mercer mess," while adding
additional parking and maintaining a green connection between downtown and Lake Union.
Commons opponents argue that the Commons project scarcely qualifies as an urgent
priority in light of our city's wide range of unmet basic needs (including schools, streets, regional transit,
neighborhood planning, recreation, criminal justice facilities, libraries, and the like.) Rather, the Commons
is an incongruous frill that could lead to additional burdens on taxpayers in the future. Opponents believe
that we must take care of more urgent needs before spending scarce resources on non-essential projects.
Despite
its initial failure, Commons proponents and the Seattle City Council have quickly brought a new proposal
back to the voters in order to comply with a private funder's deadline. Putting the second Commons measure
on a fast track has precluded any real analysis of less costly alternatives, such as completion of the nearby
Seattle Center as the city's principal urban park, linked by pedestrian and bicycle trails to a waterfront
park and maritime heritage center on city-owned land on the south shore of Lake Union.
Commons opponents
argue that the proposal has been designed and pushed forward with little neighborhood involvement or
support. The South Lake Union area is a thriving and desirable commercial and light industrial area,
providing hundreds of jobs and bringing tax revenues to the City. The Commons plan would force 100 existing
businesses to relocate (many out of the city), and could displace more than 1,500 family-wage jobs from the
South Lake Union area.
Seattle already has over 6,000 acres of park land. Although the Seattle Parks
Department's Comprehensive Plan lists 20 neighborhoods still in need of their first park, it does not
indicate any need for a new downtown park.
The new plan calls for closing Westlake Avenue north of Denny
Way, and John and Thomas streets within the park boundaries. These changes will aggravate traffic
congestion and exacerbate bottlenecks along Mercer Street, which, for lack of state and federal funds, is to
remain in its present state.
The Capital Finance Review Board (CFRB) has raised additional questions
about the proposal. If property values rise as anticipated, the Commons is approved, and the 1997 Family
and Education Levy is approved, the CFRB anticipates that the City will be at its maximum property tax
rate of $3.60 per thousand for at least the next decade. No additional levy projects could be proposed during
that period, and any new ballot proposals would have to be financed with bonds, which require a 60 percent
approval rate rather than the 50 percent required for levies. In addition, the City's cost assumptions for
low-income housing were based on the preservation of existing units. If new construction is required, the costs
could be higher.
While the Municipal League finds merit in several of the opposition arguments, on balance it
has determined that the Commons proposal is deserving of support from Seattle residents. The League
recommended support for the first proposal, and believes that the new plan presents a unique and rare
opportunity to create desirable downtown green space and foster growth in keeping with the Growth
Management Act.
The cost of the project, although lower, will still have a tremendous impact on the City's
budget, and, potentially, other projects. With the loss of the street utility tax, required debt payments, and
anticipated reductions in federal funding, the City is facing significant budget constraints in its 1997-98
biennium. If the costs of the project push Seattle to the legal limit of its capacity to levy property taxes, the
result could be a freeze on other projects appropriate for levy funding.
Despite the uncertainty of future
financing, the League finds that the plan is responsive to earlier criticisms regarding size and cost, and is
based on very conservative estimates of the city's future growth in property values. On balance, the revised
Commons project's drawbacks are outweighed by the promise of a major civic amenity that would
significantly contribute to Seattle's quality of life for generations.
copyright (C) 1996, The Municipal League of King County
|
