Skip Navigation

2003 Candidate Questionnaire

2003 CANDIDATE SURVEY: Seattle City Council and Monorail Board Candidates

Historic Seattle is dedicated to raising awareness of historic preservation's relevance within our community and our government. To this end, we have solicited comments on key preservation issues from candidates whose names you'll see on the November 4 ballot, with the exception of David Della (Position 7) and James Egan (Monorail Board) who did not respond to our queries. John Manning (Position 9) responded after the due date for the printing of this text (sent to Historic Seattle members), but has been included here.

For background information on these questions, please visit Historic Seattle's regularly updated website at www.historicseattle.org.

What follows are unedited candidate responses.

SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES

1) STEWARDSHIP OF CITY OWNED HISTORIC RESOURCES

The City of Seattle is the largest owner of historic properties in Seattle. These include historic fire stations, parks buildings and historic landscapes, and extensive properties like Sand Point and Fort Lawton. What do you see as the City's role in maintaining and rehabilitating its historic resources?

Judy Nicastro (Position 1): Recognizing and supporting the historical character of our city by preserving, maintaining and rehabilitating historic sites and buildings should be an important goal of the City. Raising awareness of the importance of this effort should also be a strategy. The City needs to highlight how important Seattle's historical character is and what this contribution means to our standard of living, our economy, and our region. The City must recognize the valuable contribution of community efforts to maintain and preserve our historic resources.

Jean Godden (Position 1): The City does have a role to play in maintaining historic properties. While I believe the City should surplus properties for community use, they must ensure that the character of the building is maintained.

Peter Steinbrueck (Position 3): I initiated the first-ever documentation project of city-owned properties because I felt that the city had not always been a good steward of its own historically significant buildings. The city must set a good example for historic preservation. This survey should provide a basis for identification and better protection of historic properties it owns. I am seeking to establish a stronger city policy for better protection and restoration of city-owned properties.

Zander Batchelder (Position 3): To me it is not enough to preserve historic structures. They should be activated. That is what they were originally created for. I would like to see more programming based out of historic structures.

Margaret Pageler (Position 5): In city facilities management and maintenance, I believe our municipal commitment to historic preservation should be on a par with our commitment to environmental sustainability. Consideration and investment in protecting our heritage is as important as minimizing our environmental footprint.

Tom Rasmussen (Position 5): The City should be a leader and a role model for other property owners. I would require City departments to first assess renovation or repair and retention methods, which retain historic characteristics before permitting any changes or destruction of such historic buildings or sites.

Heidi Wills (Position 7): If there was anything positive to come out of the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake, it was to reinforce the importance of historic structures to this community and raise awareness of the vulnerabilities our most treasured buildings face from forces beyond our control. Because so many of these structures are important and active public facilities - fire stations, community buildings, etc. -- the City has been able to use a variety of tools to help fund rehabilitation and seismic retrofitting. Recognition of the need to address seismic vulnerability at our most important public safety facilities played a large part in the Council's work to craft this year's Fire Facilities Levy, which recognizes the importance of historical preservation for our fire facilities.

Supported through the voter-approved 2000 Pro Parks Levy, the Parks Department has worked to develop projects that honor and enhance historic structures, such as the Golden Gardens Bathhouse. Last year's Housing Levy presented more opportunities to preserve historic structures while meeting the growing need for additional low-income housing. Completion of the Historic Buildings Survey will enhance the City's understanding of its historic resources and allow for development of creative funding programs and partnerships that can help protect the legacy of our historic buildings while meeting important core service needs.

David Della (Position 7): Did not respond to the Candidate Questionnaire

Jim Compton (Position 9): The City must take a leadership role in maintaining its historic treasures -- those buildings and spaces which have stood the test of time and which provide Seattle with its sense of self. I worked very hard to put together a reasonable Fire Levy proposal before the voters. Our Firefighters must be housed in safe stations before the next major earthquake. If the historic stations cannot be converted to meet the updated equipment requirements, for instance, the buildings should be saved for adaptive reuse. There are many successful examples of adaptive reuse such as the fire station on Union on Capitol Hill, the Country Doctor Clinic on Broadway and Queen Anne Elementary School. There are many creative financing models such as a 99-year lease with covenants to preserve the historic character of a building. It is possible to save our historic structures if the leadership of the City and its citizens make it a high priority.

John Manning (Position 9): I value our historic resources and believe that the city has a responsibility to maintain and rehabilitate these as well. However given our current economic climate it is important to partner with the private sector and our citizenry to help accomplish this task.

2) HISTORIC BUILDING SURVEY

The City Council approved a $170,000 budget for a historic building inventory project in 2001-2002, and $62,000 in 2003. To date, surveys have been conducted for the city's neighborhood commercial areas, pre-1906 residential buildings, and in the University District, Queen Anne, North Rainier, North Beacon Hill, Mount Baker and Wallingford neighborhoods. The project, conceived as a 6-year endeavor, was planned to help the City understand its older building stock and the significance of these buildings within our many city neighborhoods. This project is supported in large part by neighborhood volunteers and the city's Neighborhood Matching Grant program. Budget cuts since initial approvals have reduced this budget substantially. Will you support future funding for the survey?

Judy Nicastro (Position 1): I supported funding for the historic building inventory project during the approval of the 2001 budget, and am pleased that some of this work has been conducted and ongoing for the past several years. With a bleak budget outlook for 2004, my highest budget priorities are to maintain public safety levels in the Police and Fire Departments; restore as many human services and health programs, transitional housing and food banks for low-income people; and minimize the cuts for libraries, arts and cultural programming. Although I find this survey work to be extremely valuable, I will have to evaluate the other worthy programs and services the City provides to ensure it will have the least direct impact on our most vulnerable residents. I certainly support the continuation of the effort, and am hopeful that the economic outlook of our city will soon improve and allow us to restore funding for this and other historic preservation programs.

Jean Godden (Position 1): Given the severe economic downturn and four years of budget cutbacks, it would be irresponsible to promise full funding of the inventory project. However, it would rank high on my list of much-needed priorities.

Peter Steinbrueck (Position 3): As the City Councilmember responsible for establishing the Historic Building Survey, I am committed to fully funding and completing the inventory as originally planned.

Zander Batchelder (Position 3): I would prefer to pursue historic designation as supported by the neighborhoods in question. For example, Belltown had some Cannery Cottages landmarked. I would be more responsive to a public survey than a survey prepared by consultants.

Margaret Pageler (Position 5): Continuing and completing the historic building inventory is a high priority for me. We lose valuable momentum when we de-fund the project for a year. I'm proposing inclusion of the inventory in the 2004 Neighborhood Matching Fund.

Tom Rasmussen (Position 5): I will support this program and will work to continue the inventory process through to completion.

Heidi Wills (Position 7): I support continued City funding for the historic building inventory, because this important project is providing a much-needed official accounting of historic resources - invaluable information for use by the City as it determines how best to protect our historic buildings, implement neighborhood plans and ensure balanced, environmentally-responsible infill development. This project provides other benefits, as it gives neighborhoods a role in documenting their own history and creates unique volunteer and learning opportunities for the public. I recognize that maintaining funding for this program and others amid the current budget difficulties is a challenge.

In recent years the City has expanded its Neighborhood Matching Grant programs to make a greater difference in our increasingly diverse neighborhoods and maximize community investments. Grants are now funding racial justice programs, innovative sidewalk and walkable community improvements, among others. But it is important that real progress made in documenting our historic resources not be lost due to shortsighted funding decisions. With all the changes that are immanent with increasing growth pressures, we must have the information -- now is the time -- that the survey will provide policy makers and community stakeholders in order to protect our unique historic legacy, neighborhood by neighborhood. The City should continue to support the Historic Buildings Survey and work with community stakeholders to ensure this invaluable project's long-term success.

David Della (Position 7): Did not respond to the Candidate Questionnaire

Jim Compton (Position 9): I will do my darndest, but won't promise anything in these hard budget times. I agree with you that there is an urgent need for the survey. The recent dot-com propelled growth in Belltown shows both the need for and the importance of such a survey. Many attractive older buildings in Belltown have recently been replaced with, at best, mediocre-quality high-rise condo and apartment towers. Many of these projects were driven solely by concerns of immediate investment return and an opportunity was lost to maintain a more human scale to the buildings, to create a lively streetscape and to design the neighborhood to increase community interaction. The question of what one does with the survey results is as important as doing the survey. The City needs the benchmark the survey would provide to keep track of how we're doing in preserving our historic buildings and spaces.

John Manning (Position 9): Yes, I would support future funding contingent upon a change in the city's economic climate.

3) FUNDING CITY PRESERVATION PROGRAMS

Given the recent economic downturn, budget cuts, and reductions across the board in most City agencies, will you support further reductions to preservation programs, as with the .5 (half time) FTE (Full Time Equivalent) cut currently proposed by the Mayor? Do you view these as "essential" city services?

Judy Nicastro (Position 1): The Council is just now beginning the review the Mayor's proposed budget and will have the difficult challenge over the next six weeks to make funding decisions for a wide range of services, programs and staffing levels. Before any positions are cut, I will take a very close look at the work that is being conducted by the departments to ensure that the loss of an FTE will not drastically reduce the level of service that is currently being provided. At this time, however, the Mayor's proposed budget is in the early stage of review by the Council, so it is too soon for me to determine which cuts will be restored or maintained.

Jean Godden (Position 1): The Mayor has proposed a three percent cutback in all departments, except for public safety. While the Council may modify his budget the likelihood is that all departments will feel some pain. It is hoped that the worst is now over and that cuts -- including the .5 FTE proposed cut -- can be restored soon. It is difficult to place historic preservation ahead of basic services, such as community health clinics or public safety, however I believe preservation is ESSENTIAL. Once a historic building is torn down it can never again be part of our lives.

Peter Steinbrueck (Position 3): The city has an obligation to provide adequate staffing necessary to administer the preservation program through the Department of Neighborhoods. I do not support more cuts in this area, as it is already underfunded. During this difficult economic time, community support and advocacy for the city's preservation program will be essential if we are to maintain sustainable funding for historic preservation. Historic Seattle has an important role in educating the public and advocating for our architectural heritage.

Zander Batchelder (Position 3): It seems to me that historic buildings are under the most economic pressure during boom times. Since we are not currently in a boom, I would be okay with a temporary cut back.

Margaret Pageler (Position 5): I believe in zero-base budgeting. I'm afraid small city programs like historic preservation will only survive these tough times with strategies like shared staffing and perhaps even voluntary furloughs. I'm deeply committed to preservation, but the funding demands of police and fire protection and social safety net services will always come first. Having said that, however, you can be assured that I look for strategies to preserve the core functions of essential programs like historic preservation - so that we can rebuild as the economy recovers.

Tom Rasmussen (Position 5): I am a strong supporter of historic preservation. When I first moved to Queen Anne Hill I joined the Queen Anne Community Council. I was concerned about the possible loss of historic Queen Anne Boulevard. The Boulevard is comprised of contiguous streets, which circle the "crown" of Queen Anne Hill. The streets have large and beautiful old trees, which are disappearing through age and destruction. I led the effort to protect the trees and to develop a plan to replace those which are dying or where there are gaps. I worked with Karen Gordon, Seattle's Historic Preservation Officer to ensure that the Boulevard is protected as a landmark. Also, during the time I was chair of the Queen Anne Community Council Parks Committee another member of the Council, who was the attorney for the Kubota family contacted me. He inquired whether I thought that the City would be interested in purchasing Kubota Gardens. I immediately said yes. At that time I worked for Seattle City Councilmember Jeanette Williams. I asked him to give me a day to speak to her about this opportunity. She was excited about the opportunity and together we worked to get Council approval of the purchase of this marvelous historic park. My role was to organize community support for acquisition of the Kubota Gardens. There was a great sense of urgency. The Kubota family was eager to sell and there were potential private purchasers who would have destroyed the gardens or prevented them from being protected. I am proud of the role, which I have played with regard to historic preservation while on the Community Council. I view historic preservation as essential to Seattle remaining Seattle. It is important to look at the entire budget and all proposed cuts and adds. I would weigh proposed cuts along with the other budget recommendations before determining if I would approve any cuts. My goal would be to keep the position and the programs in tact.

Heidi Wills (Position 7): I will give close scrutiny to all funding and staffing reductions in the Mayor's proposed budget, recognizing that such reductions can have irreversible and detrimental affects on those programs that rely upon very limited support and staffing from the City. It is important to recognize the stresses being placed on all departments due to declining revenues and increasing costs. Faced with such difficult budget conditions, the Council has prioritized public safety and human services programs. Departments responsible for those programs are not being asked to make as significant of budget reductions as other departments. All programs are being asked to find efficiencies and new partnership opportunities, and I think this framework could pay dividends in the long-term. For those programs that already are benefiting from such partnerships -- like the Department of Neighborhoods' Historic Preservation Program -- lessons learned in other tight budgets may be transferable to help mitigate the impacts to programs that do not yet have community partners.

David Della (Position 7): Did not respond to the Candidate Questionnaire

Jim Compton (Position 9): My staff has contacted the Historic Preservation office to learn just what the budget cuts to the preservation programs have been, and to learn what the .5 FTE proposed cut will mean. We are awaiting this information and will evaluate it carefully. I view these services to be "essential" -- just as I view public libraries as essential city services.

John Manning (Position 9): I would support the cuts to help balance our budget. However, as mentioned above I would look to restore these programs once a change has occurred in our economic climate. While the historical value of these programs is important to our city, I do not view them as "essential" city services.

4) MONORAIL IMPACTS:

What will you do, as a member of City Council, to protect the historic properties and districts impacted by the monorail project?

Judy Nicastro (Position 1): The monorail project will have an impact on several neighborhoods, businesses and historic properties, but this impact must be limited and carefully managed. I am hopeful that the design review mechanisms and thorough planning for the monorail alignment and stations will guard against undue impacts on this progress as I have since it began and weigh in where I think appropriate. There are many interested and well-informed parties that have been engaged in this process and providing input on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, helping ensure that the monorail becomes a transportation system that accentuates historic properties, rather than unduly impacting them.

Jean Godden (Position 1): The Seattle City Council has and will continue to have a major role in building the Monorail. This role will be especially critical when it comes to route selection through the historic Pioneer Square neighborhood. As a council member I would certainly be vigilant in working towards preserving Seattle's unique properties. My background as an editorial writer, editorial page editor and columnist who backed historic preservation will serve me well.

Peter Steinbrueck (Position 3): Seattle's distinguished landmarks and Historic Districts (including Ballard, Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square) that are in the path of the new monorail must be fully protected. Our architectural heritage must not be put at risk. We must start with the SEPA environmental review process, which will identify impacts on historic properties and provide mitigation. I will be a tenacious watchdog on the council for possible endangerment to our historic resources and ensure their full protection.

Zander Batchelder (Position 3): I have already been working minimizing the monorail's impact on historic buildings. One of the reasons I preferred a 5th Ave route through Belltown is that it would not contrast with historic buildings such as the Moore Theatre. If, and only if, the monorail must coexist with historic buildings it must do so in a sympathetic manner.

Margaret Pageler (Position 5): I'm distressed by Council's enabling the monorail to bypass the full landmarks process with respect to the landmark Alweg line. I voted "no" on that proposal and will oppose special treatment for the monorail as the line is planned out.

Tom Rasmussen (Position 5): I will not give approval to a request of the monorail project if approval would result in irreparable harm to a district or property which has been designated as historic and which is to be protected.

Heidi Wills (Position 7): It is important that the City take the long-view in all decisions regarding the new monorail's alignment and station design and location. Careful evaluation of the impacts presented by different route and design alternatives and consultation with effected neighborhoods and stakeholders will help ensure public resources, businesses and homes - particularly our structures with historic value to our city - are protected to the fullest extent possible.

A transportation project of this scale challenges us to balance citywide interests and minimize local impacts, and to reconcile protecting our community's historical assets with engineering and operational issues unique to the monorail system approved by the voters. It's imperative that the public has an opportunity to weigh in on these questions. I am committed in my role as a Councilmember to giving careful scrutiny to monorail issues and facilitating public input. We should respect historical buildings and homes throughout this process, because this is what gives Seattle its unique signature. We must think creatively, while recognizing that the monorail will be a living transportation system that can benefit neighborhoods by reducing street-level congestion while at the same time making some of Seattle's most vibrant and historic neighborhoods more accessible.

David Della (Position 7): Did not respond to the Candidate Questionnaire

Jim Compton (Position 9): The Monorail is a vital component of our transportation future, but must not be allowed to compromise the character of historic Seattle, particularly in Pioneer Square and Ballard. As Vice Chair of the Neighborhoods, Arts and Civil Rights Committee, I have been involved in the Council Monorail meetings and hearings. Both Peter Steinbrueck and I advocated the appointment of Rick Sundberg on the Monorail board, so that there would be someone with strong design expertise on the board. Despite my major responsibility for public safety related issues, I have made time to be accessible to groups such as Northwest Folklife, Historic Seattle, the Library Foundation and the Allied Arts and learn about the issues that are important to these groups.

John Manning (Position 9): I support enforcement of the current codes and regulations that govern the protection of the historic properties and districts.

SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL INCUMBANTS

What do you consider your greatest single act contributing to the preservation of Seattle's historic character during your time in office?

Judy Nicastro (Position 1): I have supported preservation efforts in the budget, especially the historic survey that will help educate Council work, especially land use decisions that I oversee as Chair of the Land Use Committee. In addition, I have been working with community leaders to help in the effort to save the First United Methodist Church from demolition and redevelopment, as it is a magnificent building that should be preserved.

Peter Steinbrueck (Position 3): As a strong preservation advocate on the council, I have had many successes, including the rescue of numerous endangered historic properties, the survey of city-owned historic properties, and the neighborhood-based historic building survey. I have also worked to enhance landmark protection through changes to the city's downtown land use code and TDR/bonus system.

Margaret Pageler (Position 5): From saving Franklin High School to preserving the Latona School, I've been a supporter of reusing our historic schools. I advocated development of design guidelines that reflect existing character for neighborhoods like the Pike-Pine corridor. Reuse of the Sand Point barracks and officer housing on transitional housing for the homeless was a preservation strategy that created a firestorm of neighborhood protest -- but I stood for preservation. I've supported preservation and reuse of vacated City Light substations where their landmark value has been established. City Council decisions about Wallingford's Good Shepherd Center, Queen Anne High School, the parks and library renewals - all were infused with preservation principles. Ensuring the preservation and renovation of the Frederick & Nelson store was perhaps the highest-profile and most controversial set of decisions I worked on. I also had a direct role in preserving the wonderful Eagles Building and seeing it turned into ACT Theatre.

Heidi Wills (Position 7): Our city's character is defined by our historic buildings and infrastructure. It is also defined by the people who live and work here. I am proud of my work to craft a funding agreement that will ensure the City does its part to assist the working families and small businesses of our culturally rich and ethnically diverse Rainier Valley when light rail is constructed. I view the City's investment in the $50 million Rainier Valley Community Development Fund as an investment in living, breathing community resources. Light rail will bring both improvements and acute challenges to some of our neighborhoods. This project can anchor a new system of public transit alternatives. However, we must acknowledge this project will impact a significant number of businesses and residents in the Rainier Valley. By making investments in this community, we not can help protect the Valley's hard-working families, but we can also facilitate new jobs and neighborhood revitalization that will have long lasting benefits both economically and culturally.

Jim Compton (Position 9): I have put much energy into the preservation of the Washington Street Pier, and have held many meetings with park and community representatives on this. It is part of a large complex set of issues involving the repairing of the seawall protecting downtown Seattle and the rebuilding of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Despite the delay because of these issues, I continue to keep the preservation of the Washington Street Pier high on my personal agenda.

Maintaining the City's historic character is a series of decisions over time, each of which takes individual deliberation. In my four years of office, the historical importance of buildings and public lands has always been part of my decision-making process. During my time on the NAC committee we have designated at least a dozen historic buildings in formal committee votes, all of which I have supported. History and historic preservation has been an important part of my personal and professional life for the last forty years. I focused on Northwest history at Reed College. As a journalist I was constantly required to interpret current events in historical context. I spent a large part of my career as a journalist living in Europe. My personal interest in architecture compelled me to travel long distances to seek out buildings by Corbusier, etc.

I am currently writing a history of the Modoc Indian Wars, which took place near Klamath Falls where I grew up. For the past few years, I have owned and restored an important historic vessel, the Ranger VII, built in 1926 to bring Rangers and foresters to the small native villages in Alaska. In the summer of 2002, I was invited by the State of Alaska to a reunion of the Ranger boats for the centennial celebration of the Tongass National Park. I feel strongly that it is not only important to preserve the best of the past, but also to make sure that what we do today will be valued by succeeding generations. I'd like to end with a story about my role in facilitating design improvements at the new City Hall. I hope these improvements helped create a building that will be historically important in the future.

Shortly after taking office, I learned of the frustration of the Design Commission and the Client Group who had not been able to set up a face-to-face meeting with Peter Bohlin, the lead architect. My efforts brought Mr. Bohlin to Seattle in about a week's time. I woke up one morning realizing that my name would be on the new City Hall as someone responsible for its design, which at that point was rather generic, and to be blunt, unexciting. Therefore, at Mr. Bohlin's formal presentation to the Council, I stated that this could be a City Hall in Topeka Kansas-that there was nothing in the design that made it a definitive City Hall for Seattle. Mr Bohlin returned a few weeks later with a much improved design. These changes might have been arrived at eventually, but I like to think that I energized the process.

Would you like to explain any actions that might have been perceived as not supporting the preservation of Seattle's historic character?

Judy Nicastro (Position 1): I voted to support preserving the columns of the original monorail, but voted contrary to the recommendation by the Landmarks Preservation Board in regards to preserving the entire monorail. This was a difficult decision, but one that I felt was in the best interest of the entire city, especially given our dire transportation situation and desperate need for a sensible, reliable alternative transportation system.

Peter Steinbrueck (Position 3): I struggled with the Landmarks Board's "system" designation of the Alweg Monorail because I felt it was problematic -- it wouldn't save the old monorail and could have resulted in futile legal appeals and delays to constructing the Green Line down Fifth Avenue. Instead, I unsuccessfully attempted to gain council support for preserving a working segment of the historic monorail. Should the Alweg monorail be torn down, I will ensure that the cars and structure are fully documented for their historic significance.

Margaret Pageler (Position 5): Providing safe drinking water and sanitary services at affordable rates are essential city services that to me take priority over historic preservation. The two goals are seldom in conflict, but when they do clash, I believe the core functions of water service and sanitation have precedence. These personal values have deep roots for me. Growing up in primitive inland China, I developed an intense love for the heritage of ancient buildings and art at the same time as I was learning the life-and-death importance of sanitary services.

Heidi Wills (Position 7): The Council's deliberations regarding historic designation/preservation of the Seattle Center Monorail proved to be a passionate and principled debate about the way in which the City should approach landmark preservation in this age of large-scale transit projects like the Seattle Monorail Project. I appreciate the thoughtful and dedicated work of the Landmarks Board, and the objectivity with which they approached this issue.

The Board appropriately discharged its duties when it designated the entire 1962 Monorail system as a historic landmark under the criteria used by the Board. I also believe the council appropriately discharged its duties by adopting limited controls on the Monorail that will see its unique legacy preserved through protections for the Alweg cars among other measures. As elected officials charged with crafting policies that best serve the wide and sometimes conflicted interests of our entire community, a majority of my colleagues and I felt information in addition to the Landmarks Board's recommendation should be taken into consideration: the intent of voters, the concerns of residents and over a hundred small businesses along the along the Green Line, and the City's stated commitment to take appropriate steps to expedite the Monorail's development. I believe the Council's decision meets the intent of our historic preservation policies while recognizing the challenges posed by a new Monorail system. I also think the City and Seattle Monorail Project should work together cooperatively to see that the current system is not removed until necessary, and that the Monorail's cars and some of its guideway are preserved in a manner that honors the unique and important role the Monorail has played in Seattle history.

SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL - NOT INCUMBANTS

What single act would you plan to make toward preserving Seattle's historic character if elected? Has the incumbent taken positions on preservation that concern you?

Jean Godden (Position 1): I would work on preserving Seattle's historic character by focusing on protecting Pioneer Square, Seattle's original neighborhood. I also will be watching the Pike Place Market -- one of my continuing concerns -- to make sure adjacent development does not overwhelm the Market historical structure and character.

Zander Batchelder (Position 3): I would request historic wishlists from the city's active neighborhood steward groups. Then I would see what could be done to landmark sites that have not yet been landmarked. Peter has taken a stand against having the monorail go through Seattle Center. I disagree. I think it should go through Seattle Center. Seattle Center was created, as a gathering place not a park preserve.

Tom Rasmussen (Position 5): The Seattle Building Code will be undergoing a comprehensive review. I will advocate that the City use this opportunity to develop creative legislation to protect historic buildings and sites. I would include legislation, which would protect buildings, which are in peril due to their location in zones, which make them more vulnerable to destructive change or demolition. Yes, I disagreed with her (Pageler's) attempts to exempt the City's reservoir coverage projects from the City's landmarks review process. Adequate legal tools exist to protect public health and to permit coverage of the reservoirs without undermining the landmarks process. Seattle must be a leader in stewardship of our historic sites.

David Della (Position 7): Did not respond to the Candidate Questionnaire

John Manning (Position 9): I would encourage greater partnership amongst the private sector and our citizenry to help maintain and rehab our historic resources. I am unaware of the position taken by the incumbent on this issue.

SEATTLE POPULAR MONORAIL AUTHORITY CANDIDATES

1. PROTECTING HISTORIC PROPERTIES

What will you do, as a Board member of the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority, to protect the historic properties and districts impacted by the monorail project?

Cindi Laws (Position 8): I currently work in Pioneer Square in the Broderick Building and have worked in this neighborhood off and on for 12 years (Hogue, Lowman, Colman buildings and Smith Tower) and have a commitment to the integrity this community. The monorail will actually improve the neighborhood by destroying one of the ugliest structures created in Seattle (or at least before Paul Allen started building things): the sinking-ship garage. There are other locations where we will remove asphalt and create new buildings that will have to blend in with older neighborhoods, but fortunately the majority of the board has a strong commitment to sensitive design that bodes well for integration. I don't want to see historic buildings taken down and would prefer to save the Earthwise building at 1st & Lander.

James Egan (Position 8): Did not respond to the Candidate Questionnaire.

Cleve Stockmeyer (Position 9): The purpose of historic preservation is a good fit with the primary purpose of urban transit to provide people with more livable neighborhoods that are not dominated by automobile infrastructure, parking lots and sprawl. That said, when putting a 14-mile monorail through a City rich in historic resources is a tough job that requires close communication with affected owners and groups to ensure that all opportunities are maximized and there is appropriate mitigation for any harm.

I would support creation of an ongoing advisory committee on historic preservation so that throughout the design and construction process there is an open line of communication and to ensure that the entire board is sensitized to this issue. Indeed, given that one of the revenue opportunities is to market the monorail as the iconic Seattle experience for tourists, I would think that the Pioneer Square historic district could benefit greatly from the fact that the monorail could bring large numbers of people, both residents and tourists, to the area every year. Notably we would be bringing people's wallets but not their cars.

There is an opportunity to use the monorail as an elevated tourism guideway, for residents and tourists that would allow riders to view interpretive panels educating them as to the historic assets along the route. The monorail board also must pay attention to issues such as pile driving, loss of business during construction, and the possibility that construction of the monorail could reduce the area protected by historic designation, meaning that some owners would lose tax benefits. In this event compensation should be paid or ways found to preserve the entire area as under historic designation for hundreds of thousands of tourists a year. There is a certain intangible loss to historic districts in building a monorail, which should be mitigated with a special fund managed by the affected owners and historic groups. I also believe the board should work hard to preserve underground areaways which are a unique and immensely important historic asset in Seattle.

Tim Kerr (Position 9): I am a fourth generation Washingtonian. Seattle's historic places and its neighborhoods are important to me. I want the monorail to leave as light a set of footprints as possible. My vision is that, after a few years of operation, that the monorail is woven into Seattle's urban fabric, accepted by all of us. I look at other great cities -- London, Paris, and New York -- as examples in which mass transit complements historic districts by respecting them and making them more accessible to the public and to visitors. I will act as an ombudsman for the public and those who protect historic properties. I welcome ongoing contact with the historic preservation community as the project plans become more definite. I like to practice the art of the possible and I have a track record of seeking solutions to issues that arise during complex construction projects. The monorail is not worth building if it is going to destroy Seattle's heritage.

2. MITIGATION FUNDING

Given that the revenue stream (Motor Vehicle Excise Tax) for the monorail system is not as high as originally estimated, how do you imagine this will effect mitigation funding for unavoidable impacts to historic resources along the route?

Cindi Laws (Position 8): I am not in favor of so-called mitigation that might better be termed bribery. Public projects that benefit the public ought to provide a benefit to the community and not be utilized to buy off society's other problems. The monorail will mitigate by improving neighborhood security with uniformed police and station attendants. The monorail will mitigate by removing thousands of vehicles that clutter tight neighborhoods. The monorail will mitigate air and water pollution that would be caused if those thousands of vehicles were driven. The monorail will mitigate for youth, seniors, the disabled and those frustrated trying to get to highly desirable locations such as Seattle Center, Pike Market, Pioneer Square, the downtown core, and the stadiums by providing clean, safe, effective and very accessible transportation.

James Egan (Position 8): Did not respond to the Candidate Questionnaire.

Cleve Stockmeyer (Position 9): We still do not know if the MVET growth rate will totally offset the shortfall in a few years. Assuming there still will be a shortfall, which is the prudent thing to do, I have repeatedly spoken out to the monorail board that they must immediately take action to deal with the revenue shortfall. I have suggested many things, including the following:

  • reduce the shortfall through immediate cuts to nonessential jobs.
  • immediately work on improving MVET collections (this is more important than finding out "why" the forecast was off, because bond investors will only look at the actual track record of collections in any event)
  • give us the price tag on every option for stations, trains, alignments, etc. now.
  • use better design that can be cheaper. An example: a vertical station configuration may reduce real estate acquisition costs.
  • aggressively pursue revenue-enhancing opportunities to overcome the shortfall. Examples include coffee or latte shops in stations, marketing the monorail at a premium to tourists (a $39, four-day pass, with a map telling them to hit the following 10 destinations (including Pioneer Square of course!).
  • As for mitigation for historic resources, it should be remembered that:
  • there is an opportunity to enhance revenue through "marketing" the historic district. If the historic district is helping the monorail enhance revenue, it should benefit through recapturing some of those dollars in mitigation.
  • some mitigation is required. For example, vibration impacts may be compensable under law. Where a historic resource is built on pilings, then, there may well be mandatory compensation costs that are associated with a particular alignment. The board must identify all such costs before choosing the alignments, of course. Many "mitigation" decisions do not necessarily involve higher monetary cost. For example, it may cost less to run the monorail down the middle of Second Avenue and this may result in less harm to businesses or areaways. Interpretative panels do not involve much cost. Including the historic resources in the marketing of the monorail experience does not increase costs. I have said that the real risk of the revenue shortfall is not that we will not build the monorail but that we would build a 14-mile monorail that we do not want, because all quality is drained out of the system. The board must push forward its detailed cost review so that the public knows as soon as possible the impact of the shortfall on what is to be built. This is the only way to preserve public input that is meaningful, so that the board will know if the public feels that the quality is compromised too much and the monorail we are going to get is not really what we voted for.

Tim Kerr (Position 9): The Seattle Monorail Project has begun mounting financial scenarios on its website that detail future revenues and construction expenses. So far, the most conservative scenario shows project cuts of approximately $300 million. Before I consider any reduction in mitigation allowances for historic resources, I will be looking for (a) reductions in agency and project operating costs, (b) value engineering adjustments to the design, (c) prioritization of the timing of station siting and construction, and (d) reductions in debt cost through the use of financial tools. The 14-mile long Green Line is a prototype. It must be built to the satisfaction of the public or there will be no additional monorail lines in the city. A major element of the public's satisfaction will be the sensitivity of the Seattle Monorail Project to the neighborhoods and historic areas along its route. To repeat myself, the monorail is not worth building if it is going to destroy Seattle's heritage.