Monday, February 19, 2007
Walter runs for re-election to the Lakewood City Council
Thus begins one of the hardest things a candidate has to write: an explanation why he or she thinks, of all people, he or she should be elected to office.
My loyal readers, both of you, will recall my first column in The Lakewood Journal was written with a dance metaphor. I remember sitting on my second or third day on the job in the old white building on Bridgeport - now a tanning salon, of all things. I remember trying to think of what to say to people who only knew me as a stranger, but who I wanted so badly to serve as their 'own' newspaper editor.
"And so I came up with the dance metaphor - a stranger approaching someone for a dance. I was asking, in my own way, "Please give me a try."
I ask again for your vote. You'll find the full reflections on my Web page.
Here it is. My campaign statement. Let me know what you think. If you would be interested in helping me and the campaign, you'll find some ways to help here.
Forward this post
My loyal readers, both of you, will recall my first column in The Lakewood Journal was written with a dance metaphor. I remember sitting on my second or third day on the job in the old white building on Bridgeport - now a tanning salon, of all things. I remember trying to think of what to say to people who only knew me as a stranger, but who I wanted so badly to serve as their 'own' newspaper editor.
"And so I came up with the dance metaphor - a stranger approaching someone for a dance. I was asking, in my own way, "Please give me a try."
I ask again for your vote. You'll find the full reflections on my Web page.
Here it is. My campaign statement. Let me know what you think. If you would be interested in helping me and the campaign, you'll find some ways to help here.
Friday, February 16, 2007
How we taxpayers pay people to build apartments in Lakewood
I don't know a lot of folks who think we need even more apartments in Lakewood. Lots of folks would say that people who come to town already have plenty of apartments to choose from. The latest stats I've seen say that 52 percent of households in Lakewood are renters, versus, for example, 45 percent in Tacoma. And we all know some apartment complexes are not well-managed, and can cause problems.
Here's a funny and sad thing: Lakewood provides tax incentives to people who build apartments in the central part of town.
Here's a funny coincidence: On a recent Monday, we had a study session about this tax incentive. I was the most vocal critic, calling for one more public hearing and then a vote. I said my preference was to eliminate the tax incentive, though I am certainly always willing to hear from people. But most everyone else in the council chambers encouraged further study, arguing that the tax must be a good idea since Tacoma has it. I don't necessarily blame them. The feeling was based on the best information we had at hand.
So here's the coincidence. Guess what Peter Callaghan's column was about two days later? He did not know about the Lakewood discussion; he was reflecting on the Tacoma experience. As you read his column, you can swap out the word Lakewood for Tacoma when he describes how the tax incentive works.
Here's the column.
Among the selections from the article that jumped out at me:
"Some of the tax savings go to owners of pricey condos while poorer people pay full taxes. It also has been used to subsidize some lousy developments, especially in the Tacoma Mall area."
"Other cities in Washington and Oregon demand some affordable housing elements (Seattle, Kirkland and Portland), or design review (Eugene), or protection for historic buildings (Eugene again), or don’t subsidize four-plexes (Everett, Auburn and Portland). Tacoma (read: Lakewood) has no restrictions."
"Even schlocky four-plexes around the mall, many without curbs or sidewalks, are deemed by the council to deserve the tax break."
"...the Federal Way School Board to ask the city to repeal its exemption program. The board argued that it will shift tax burdens from exempted property owners to everyone else."
So ... should you the taxpayer be subsidizing people who bring more apartments to Lakewood? Do we need to follow Tacoma's example when we already have a much higher percentage of apartments than Tacoma does?
I still say no.
Forward this post
Here's a funny and sad thing: Lakewood provides tax incentives to people who build apartments in the central part of town.
Here's a funny coincidence: On a recent Monday, we had a study session about this tax incentive. I was the most vocal critic, calling for one more public hearing and then a vote. I said my preference was to eliminate the tax incentive, though I am certainly always willing to hear from people. But most everyone else in the council chambers encouraged further study, arguing that the tax must be a good idea since Tacoma has it. I don't necessarily blame them. The feeling was based on the best information we had at hand.
So here's the coincidence. Guess what Peter Callaghan's column was about two days later? He did not know about the Lakewood discussion; he was reflecting on the Tacoma experience. As you read his column, you can swap out the word Lakewood for Tacoma when he describes how the tax incentive works.
Here's the column.
Among the selections from the article that jumped out at me:
"Some of the tax savings go to owners of pricey condos while poorer people pay full taxes. It also has been used to subsidize some lousy developments, especially in the Tacoma Mall area."
"Other cities in Washington and Oregon demand some affordable housing elements (Seattle, Kirkland and Portland), or design review (Eugene), or protection for historic buildings (Eugene again), or don’t subsidize four-plexes (Everett, Auburn and Portland). Tacoma (read: Lakewood) has no restrictions."
"Even schlocky four-plexes around the mall, many without curbs or sidewalks, are deemed by the council to deserve the tax break."
"...the Federal Way School Board to ask the city to repeal its exemption program. The board argued that it will shift tax burdens from exempted property owners to everyone else."
So ... should you the taxpayer be subsidizing people who bring more apartments to Lakewood? Do we need to follow Tacoma's example when we already have a much higher percentage of apartments than Tacoma does?
I still say no.
Quick update about Ponders
In case you were wondering how the Pacific Highway discussion turned out:
The council, with some disagreement, decided to approve an engineering study that will "cost out" what it would take to narrow Pacific Highway between Gravelly Lake and Bridgeport to promote more businesses like the car dealership opening up on the other side of Bridgeport.
This is just an engineering study to determine such things as cost and where the property lines should fall. So you will be hearing a lot more about the subject.
I'm pleased with the council, because almost all of them agreed with my suggestion that we need to treat Ponders as more than a road. Ponders is also people and businesses. The council decided to not only commission a road study, but also a study to look at zoning and land use regulations specifically along Pacific Highway. The idea would be to work with the landowners and determine if, for example, parking rules need to be adjusted.
The area needs special treatment if only because of its odd configuration, sandwiched between a railroad line and a major highway.
I hear a lot of people say they want to see more economic development in Lakewood. The council's action to develop what's called a 'sub-area plan' will give us a chance to pilot very specific forms of business development. It's a good move.
Forward this post
The council, with some disagreement, decided to approve an engineering study that will "cost out" what it would take to narrow Pacific Highway between Gravelly Lake and Bridgeport to promote more businesses like the car dealership opening up on the other side of Bridgeport.
This is just an engineering study to determine such things as cost and where the property lines should fall. So you will be hearing a lot more about the subject.
I'm pleased with the council, because almost all of them agreed with my suggestion that we need to treat Ponders as more than a road. Ponders is also people and businesses. The council decided to not only commission a road study, but also a study to look at zoning and land use regulations specifically along Pacific Highway. The idea would be to work with the landowners and determine if, for example, parking rules need to be adjusted.
The area needs special treatment if only because of its odd configuration, sandwiched between a railroad line and a major highway.
I hear a lot of people say they want to see more economic development in Lakewood. The council's action to develop what's called a 'sub-area plan' will give us a chance to pilot very specific forms of business development. It's a good move.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
National recognition of an unfortunate kind
Lakewood has made the national online newsletter of the heaviest hitter in preserving old buildings: The National Trust for Historic Preservation. We can all be grateful for this supportive article. (note: if you are seeing this post a few days after it has appeared, you may need to search their site for an article about Fort Steilacoom)
Forward this post
