More for West Seattle in transportation levy? Two amendments on the agenda for councilmembers’ discussion tomorrow

Tomorrow morning at 9 am, the City Council – meeting as the Select Committee on Transportation Funding – takes another look at the revised transportation levy destined for this November’s ballot. Councilmembers are proposing a variety of amendments, and we’ve found at least two that include West Seattle-specific language:

*Under the section proposing spending $35 million for “transit corridor improvements,” Councilmember Tom Rasmussen – who chairs the transportation-funding committee – proposes adding the language “including planning for access and egress improvements to the West Seattle peninsula.” See it on page 6 of his amendment:

Rasmussen also has a separate amendment that redefines the “core categories” in which the levy would seek to make “transportation improvements” – instead of “safety … interconnectivity … vibrancy … and repair,” his categories would be “safe routes, “congestion relief,” “maintenance and repair.”

*Under the “Safe Routes to School” section, Councilmember Tim Burgess proposes adding language mentioning two West Seattle elementaries while requiring that SDOT “Complete projects within the first three years of the Levy in walk zones of the following schools that have high levels of poverty: Bailey Gatzert, Martin Luther King, Jr., West Seattle, Dunlap, Dearborn Park, Wing Luke, Northgate, Van Asselt & Wing Luke, Emerson, Concord, Rainier View, Roxhill.” See it on page 4 of his amendment:

The committee meeting taking up these and other proposed changes to the now-$930 million levy intended for the November ballot starts at 9 am tomorrow at City Hall; you’ll be able to watch live on Seattle Channel (cable channel 21 or online at seattlechannel.org). As for your role in the process – more amendments, discussions, public-comment opportunities are ahead before the ballot language has to be finalized in August.

8 Replies to "More for West Seattle in transportation levy? Two amendments on the agenda for councilmembers' discussion tomorrow"

  • AceMotel June 8, 2015 (6:37 pm)

    >>>> instead of “safety … interconnectivity … vibrancy … and repair,” his categories would be “safe routes, “congestion relief,” “maintenance and repair.”
    .

    YES! Thank you, Tom Rasmussen. The core category of “vibrancy” is ridiculous. What does vibrancy mean and how is it measured? The “safety” red herring is meaningless if SDOT does not understand the streets it proposes to change.
    .
    Their motto “vision zero” is unfortunate. There are so many ways to read it and many are not favorable. Please SDOT get a new marketing company.
    .
    meh. I have ZERO confidence in SDOT after witnessing the Admiral Way circus. SDOT understands nothing about Alki; for example, a traffic study in December, for one. No understanding of the dangerous sides of the street. No understanding of the visitors to the beach. And it goes on…….

  • Captain Dave June 8, 2015 (6:51 pm)

    I am confused about the reason tax rates need to be increased beyond what was previously allowed by law. Property value assessments are escalating… so is the number of people who pay all sorts of other taxes. Will excessive taxation magically translate to increased prosperity for Seattle? if it does, it will be first anywhere in the world.

    My house taxes have nearly doubled over the last decade, yet we have less roads to drive on, fewer busses to catch and far less parking options.

    Why would we put so much trust in a City Council and Mayor who has failed to spend the money they already get in a responsible manner?

    Is “everyone” really on board with the super concentrated anti-car living arrangements foreseen by our civic leaders? …or are central planners selectively appeasing a small vocal minority?

    Why has there never been any talk about putting parking lots on the fringe of the City so that public transportation can be concentrated at locations that can more effectively serve the driving public? Maybe the Port can lease back some of its immense empty land holdings as “Park and Trek” lots?

  • AmandaKH June 8, 2015 (6:55 pm)

    Fantastic. The West Seattle Transportation Coalition has asked for the City to fund a plan that includes a scope of work and a timeline to solve our egress / ingress challenges. Thank you Tom Rasmussen for including this into the amendment.

  • No Levy June 8, 2015 (9:12 pm)

    Here’s a thought. Let’s give a BILLION dollar check to a corrupt bureaucrat from Chicago (or DC, whatever) to take away our parking, further choke our ingress/egress and put bike lanes where nobody uses or needs them. Scott Kubly needs to go, we need a Director of Transportation with integrity, intellect and a realistic agenda. Mayor Murry, it’s time for a change, PRONTO!

    No Levy.

    Zero Vision.

  • Trevor June 8, 2015 (10:20 pm)

    Move Seattle will do very little to actually move people in and out of West Seattle, arguably this peninsula’s greatest challenge. How about something meaningful, like widening the ramp onto NB 99 and adding a bus only lane? Completing the link for most buses heading into town. Unless the package changes dramatically from sidewalks and speed bumps, I’ll be voting no.

  • Nick June 9, 2015 (6:29 am)

    If this gets passed this mayor will have added almost 2 billion in new levies and then if st3 gets passed it will be even more. The small raises I get will basically be nullified by all of these tax increases. That 15$ an hour means nothing when Seattle is taking 5$ of it in taxes This levy does very little for the price tag also I’m against it. Licata’s approach is a least more fair but I’m just tapped out with all of these tax and fee increases.

  • Mickymse June 9, 2015 (12:55 pm)

    @Captain Dave & others, we have Tim Eyman and his ridiculous voter initiatives to thank for this. Several years back, voters supported a proposal to limit the growth of property taxes to 1% + new construction. While we certainly have lots of new construction going on in Seattle right now, you might note that 1% doesn’t come close to keeping up with inflation. Then you have to consider that the cost of many items, especially in construction industries, has increased MORE than inflation. Finally, you need to consider that we have added ~60,000 more people to the City in just the last ten years.
    .
    So, the problem isn’t that City officials are spending all of your money and now they want more. The problem is that City officials have less spending power each year as more and more people move in demanding services. That is not a workable math problem.
    .
    The Eyman proposal said that if officials wanted to increase property tax revenues beyond the 1% cap, they could do so through voter-approved “levy lifts.” So THIS is why you keep seeing property tax levies on just about every ballot the last several years. Because this is now the only way to continue getting the tax revenue growth that the City used to get automatically.

  • sam-c June 9, 2015 (1:23 pm)

    Nice that they added these amendments, but it is disappointing that there is no mention of Sanislo. There’s a few miles of street in the school’s ‘walk zone’ without any sidewalks. It doesn’t seem like 21st is getting new sidewalks in the Delridge/Highland Park Neighborhood Greenway project, is it?

    http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/delridgehighparkgreenway.htm

Sorry, comment time is over.