You do not have to sign in to attend a meeting!
The sign-in sheet is only for people wishing to make a Public Comment.

Introduction

At the July 12 Port of Seattle Commission Meeting, Mayor Mahoney and Deputy Mayor Buxton spoke in favour of the Port taking the 14.4 acre slice of WSDOT land west of the current Des Moines Creek Business Park off 216th. You can watch their testimony and get my take on it here.

That afternoon, there was a post post about on the Facebook Community Page and the Deputy Mayor  wrote a lengthy defense of the City’s decision which I post below. I urge people to read her essay carefully (and the entire thread if possible, of course.) And here is my response.

My Response

At first read, Deputy Mayor Buxton’s essay sounds great, especially if you are, like most of us, unfamiliar with terms like the Growth Management Act. Most of you will not read long essays. You want it fast and simple and if at all possible, upbeat. The notion of tree plantings, cleaning up trails and one-time money will sound very appealing at first glance.

But we also have an obligation to be straightforward. So I’ll just sum it up: Deputy Mayor Buxton is entitled to her opinions re. the wonders of the free market. But those are opinions and not the whole story and some of them are not even factual. There are errors in her essay which I talk about in detail below. However, if you take only two things away from what I write, here are two facts. Everything else is just stuff to support them:

• The Growth Management Act she refers to repeatedly is not a set of regulations, as much as it is a set of planning goals. There’s no ‘GMA Police’ that required us to accept that agreement and turn the area into even more asphalt and warehouses.
• The area was originally bought with FAA money, as part of a ¹long-term agreement between the Port, King County and the FAA going back to 1973 when the community rose up in protest against the Second Runway. And the intent was that, whatever purpose the land might be put to, the primary beneficiary would be the people of Des Moines. We were meant to choose, not the Port of Seattle.

And in my  opinion, when it came to the Des Moines Creek Business Park we chose wrong. Really wrong.

RE. Deputy Mayor’s arguments

Are GMA goals useful? Sure. Having targets for housing and economic growth are very useful. It is doubtful that any small city like ours could get where it needs to go without the kind of planning resources the State provides.  But how we reach those goals is up to us.

However, in my opinion, the least useful aspect of her argument is “jobs”. My job is not to care about “jobs”, unless those jobs are living wage jobs for residents of Des Moines. For example, my enthusiasm for the FAA building was about zero because almost none of those jobs are for residents of Des Moines.

Also, because it is a Federal building, it offers zero tax revenue for the City beyond the one-time payment and nominal utility taxes the Deputy Mayor mentioned. And it is that dependence on one-time money that kept our City down for so many years. Her mentor Dave Kaplan (now Port lobbyist to us by the way) used to scream against it when he was Mayor. And ironically, I am 100% in agreement with that. We should never make planning decisions based on the promise of one-time money, because once the construction cranes are gone, we have to live with the results for the next fifty years. And in fact, our City Code now wisely requires us to set aside one-time money for future capital projects.

When I look at a land use opportunity, my interests are:

• The environment, including how well it fits with the existing neighbourhood.
• How much ongoing revenue will it provide for Des Moines; after the cranes are gone.

Low wage warehouse jobs for people living elsewhere that facilitate more cargo flights are about #71 on my list of priorities.

The deal the Port struck with WSDOT could have been ours. Simple as that. The City of SeaTac took their side and we could have taken ours. There is nothing else to say. All that ‘GMA’ stuff is a smokescreen.

The fact is, we could have done exactly as the Port (strike a deal with Panattoni and make $3.4M in annual rent.) Or we could have done something else.  But we would have been able to choose how to balance the needs of the environment and our desire for ongoing revenue.

The only limiting factor would be money. Despite recent improvements to our bond rating, we still have limited credit. If we had spent $3M on that land that would be $3M we would not have available for something else. The obvious reason we did not is because the City wants to use all its available money for Marina Redevelopment projects (like the Ferry Pilot.) But since the City Council was never offered the option I cannot know.

OUTSOURCING THE environment

Regardless, there is no world in which giving that space to Panattoni improves our tree canopy and our environment. Not a chance. I know because I’ve been aware of the deal for several years and been lobbying their real estate team to get that 4-1 deal–and a few other amenities like EV charging stations. No matter what they ‘replace’, the overall impact of all that asphalt is a big carbon negative. If we controlled the land, we could use some of the revenue to plant trees elsewhere. We could make decisions as to how much impermeable surfaces we want. They certainly won’t. That’s the problem with ‘mitigation’, it never takes into account the big picture.

Is it nice if Panattoni cleans up the path to Des Moines Creek Trail? You bet. But again, it’s a false choice because if we owned the land we could have done exactly the same things, and been sure it was done the way we wanted it done.

But this is the bad part

The Port purchased those 14.4 acres for $3M–a very good price, by the way. And they were able to take ownership of the entire Des Moines Creek Business Park and Des Moines Creek North parcels using FAA money. So for them, this is a no-brainer.

But again, all of that was meant for us. Or rather, for King County (since that part of Des Moines was unincorporated and part of the original land use agreement.) The entire area was meant to be a noise buffer and compensation for the Second Runway.

The deal I’m referring to, which King County struck with the Port and the FAA was called the Sea-Tac Communities Plan (SCP). It was not merely some money and property buyouts. The SCP was meant to be something completely new: As residents of King County, we were going to be true partners with the Port on all future airport development, something revolutionary among American airports! It was quickly followed by a Highline Communities Plan, which codified the zoning to make it real. And the most tangible evidence of it working properly was the creation of North SeaTac Park.

The Sea-Tac Communities Plan was supposed to be the ‘war to end all wars’. Even then FAA realised that the Port had made a habit of cost overruns. And we were not meant to be constantly fighting Third Runways and SAMPs and taking the odd table scrap grant for volunteers, using our own property taxes, by the way. We were supposed to have a seat at the table for every airport expansion because that was considered to be just plain good business. For everybody. As the airport prospered, ²we were expected to get some of the gravy.

(And if we’d had even half a brain, we would have become a single city called Highline, swallowed the airport, instantly become almost as powerful as Seattle and lived happily ever after. Spoiler alert: we did not do that.)

I know the idea of a true partnership in planning and revenue sharing sounds unbelievable to you, especially if you’re in the “don’t like it move!” camp, but it’s true. The unbelievable part is that both the Port and your government were able to disassemble this historic agreement and convince you it never even happened in just a few decades. People can quickly learn to content themselves with very little if it’s all they’ve ever known.

This offends me

And in closing that is why this offends me. We are so contemptuous of history that my colleagues actually believe that this unnatural situation we live in now is ‘normal’ and even great for Des Moines.

For the Port of Seattle, $3M is about 1.4% of their current cash reserves. That’s about as much of a stretch as it is for many of you deciding to buy a new TV on a whim. But for that small amount, plus the rest of that FAA-paid DMCWest land, they will rake in $3.4M every year from now on. Which is less than 5% of their annual revenue. Ho hum.

However…

I want you to hear this in the Samuel L. Jackson voice, with all the appropriate language:

DO YOU HAVE ANY MF IDEA WHAT $3,400,OOO IN ANNUAL STRUCTURAL REVENUE WOULD MEAN TO THE CITY OF DES MOINES?

That kind of money would literally solve every problem we’ve ever had and ever could have. Overnight. ³That’s the kind of money cities invest and then live happily off the dividends. It is a big screen TV for the Port of Seattle, but it would be transformative for Des Moines. It’s what we should have gotten all along. And the funny part is: they could offer that kind of magic wand to us any day of the week.

When you need new docks? Or a community center? Or even a Masonic Home? You simply buy it. In cash. No more screwing around with grants and saying how grateful you are for that ‘3-1 match’. You get the public safety you need. You get the programs your kids need. The sidewalks. The roads. The air filters. The cultural events. The human services. The everything.

Somewhere along the line our own City Council bought into the Port’s prosperity gospel: The Port owns all the resources. But don’t worry, they’ll help you grow your way to a bright future. With grants! And training! And most of all? Jobs!

If it’s all the same to you, I’ll take the land and the cash, thanks very much.

And that is what we should’ve had our eyes on all along.  Taking advantage of the boring opportunities right in front of us, just by understanding how the airport actually works and not spending decades being groomed.

Now? We’ve been reduced to an “if you build it he will come” strategy based on items like a ferry and an adaptive purpose building. Not because they come with legit economic forecasts but basically because, well, because they just sound so darned cool.

I didn’t run for office to be ‘cool’. My goal was (and is) to get paid.  Our job should be to develop plans that will provide the highest quality services to the greatest number of residents in Des Moines; not to create a sparking waterfront that does not pay. And I do not see how projects like a ferry achieve those goals better than doing the boring thing that most successful investors do: scoop up quality commercial land whenever it becomes available. After all, it was supposed to be ours all along.

^*The Deputy Mayor’s comments in full, taken from the original post. I did this screen grab not as some ‘gotcha’ but because I’ve been told that whatever ‘editing’ I might do, no matter how light could change the meaning of the post. Fair point.

¹Here is a letter from the Port of Seattle to the King County Council giving an overview of key features of the initial agreement, called the Sea-Tac Communities Plan. Lands bought by the FAA were to be administered by King County for the benefit of residents.

²One way to think about it is being similar to how the good people of Alaska  get an annual stipend in exchange for letting the oil companies use their land. That stipend has never kept the oil companies from making a profit. Similarly, in the Sea-Tac Communities Plan, the Port states repeatedly that they can provide ongoing compensation and make a profit. It was never meant to be a ‘one and done’ transaction.

³Actually, that’s what the Port of Seattle does. At any given moment, their Real Estate Division holds over fifty properties outside the airport and docks. They generated almost $20M in revenue (up 9%) in 2021. Even within the conservative limits of government investments, they average a 2.3% return year in and year out–and that’s beyond the increase in the asset value. Land is usually a safe bet–even with the occasional pandemic. The Commissioners hate it when I say it, but I coined an expression to describe this state of affairs: The Catholic Church Of King County.

Almost everything useful I’ve ever learned came from marriage counseling. 😃

I’m always fascinated how opinions about “the airport” so often fall into what therapists call “all or nothing thinking“. People will say things like

• The airport was here first!
• You did hear the airplanes flying overhead when you were looking at houses, right?
• Don’t like it? Move!

All these statements strike me as being along the lines of the “America? Love it or leave it!” argument I heard a lot when I first moved here in the 70’s.

Rather than tell you why all three of those statements are absolute rubbish ( 😀 ) I’ll just tell you I’ve never understand the attitude that seems to go with all that. Perhaps that’s why I became an engineer. For me, things may (or may not) be good enough at the moment. But they can always be improved. And we should never stop trying.

Reality Check: Economics

It’s the same way here in Des Moines. We have lots of Boeing retirees. And we definitely have a lot of airplanes flying overhead. 😀 But Des Moines is no longer home to very many living wage aviation workers–not even people in secondary industries like the construction workers who built the International Arrivals Facility. Lots of people may work at the FAA building or in the warehouses along 24th Avenue. But neither warehouses or FAA buildings generate sales tax for the City. And those workers generally do not live in Des Moines.

Former Mayor Bob Sheckler died this week. He was sort of the John Dingle version of Des Moines–in the sense that the guy seemed to be around forever. 😀 But I don’t want to take that too far. The Four Points Hotel on Pacific Highway was his big project. But he insisted it would be packed with airport people. Never really happened.

Even today. Everything the City sells in terms of ‘economic development’ seems tied to the Port. Just look at how the new ferry is being marketed.

Reality Check: Environment

If nothing else, the airport is always ranked #3,#2 or #1 among the largest polluters in the State of WA. But airports look glamorous. They do not look like a ginormous smokestack. However they are.

Our life expectancy is lower. We know enough at this point to say that it’s bad for the unborn. And we know that kids who spend their childhood under the flight path will have higher risks of various health problems, including evidence of cognitive impairment.

And the noise is bad for your health. Whether you know it or not. You may looooove Swedish Death Metal, but chronic exposure to any loud noise is not great for your entire body. (And your kids, btw.)

Keep those beaches open!

The perverse incentives for local politicians and business are exactly the same as for Mayor Larry in the movie Jaws. You know there’s a problem (Bruce The Shark/Air pollution), but you don’t want to make too big a deal about it. And you certainly don’t want to close the beach! You want to tell everyone that your town is a great place to live. So you do less than you could/should because it might create negative press for the city.

You become so convinced that the entire City would shut down if we offended the Port, we don’t even work to get sound insulation; or decent air quality monitors; or financial compensation. You forget how to even try. Which is exactly where we’re at today.

Like Detroit did for decades, we just cannot seem to keep ourselves from selling the idea of Sea-Tac Airport (and the Port of Seattle) as being that essential to Des Moines. Even though that era is in the rear view mirror, and even though the harms now far outweigh the benefits.

It’s not all or nothing…

This is a great place to live and we deserve cleaner air and less noise. The Port can afford it, and we should be compensated for it. That was actually the understanding here in the 70’s. And I’m going to prove it to you. Over the next few weeks, I’m going to be toggling between the Marina and something most of you will not remember, the Sea-Tac Communities Plan.

Summary

Unlike Mayor Larry, Des Moines is not a one-industry town anymore. But like Detroit, we got stuck in a mindset that no longer applies. And we got saddled with financial problems exacerbated by having the fortune to being next to 20th largest airport in America, which then grew into the 8th largest airport in America.

The Port is doing quite well at the moment. But the money goes overwhelmingly to the north and east of King County. We subsidise their wealth with our health. And whether you hate the noise so much it makes you cry, or you absolutely live for the sound of a good engine run-up first thing in the morning? We should be compensated.

Because it was never about anyone’s individual preferences. The Sea-Tac Communities Plan was meant to insure the well-being of the airport communities; forever. Not just us, but those who come after us.

Ironically, as I think about the future, I keep increasingly thinking about John Dingle. You get something. I get something.

I almost titled this post “This is what a sellout looks like” But I restrained myself. 🙂

At the 12 July Port of Seattle Commission Meeting, the Port voted to proceed with the Item 10b (Des Moines Creek West Ground Lease.) (Presentation.) This is the scrubby forest land west of the FAA building on 216th with the road connecting to the Des Moines Creek Trail. It will become Phase 4 of the Des Moines Creek Business Park (DMBCP).

Des Moines Mayor Mahoney and Deputy Mayor Buxton mentioned all the “jobs” and “economic development”. The Port announced that it was exceeding the City’s current tree code with a 4-1 replacement provision. As Commissioner Cho said, “What’s not to like?”

A few details…

1. *As the presenter said, the FAA paid for most of the original land. And WSDOT bought the rest as one of three possible routes for SR-509. There is also a corresponding parcel at the northern end of the Des Moines Creek Trail.
2. In 2016, both those north and south parcels were up for auction. The north was offered to the City of SeaTac, the south to the City of Des Moines.
   • In 2021, the City of SeaTac bought 8.8 acress on the north side (a large portion of it with a grant from King County), and is converting their end to BMX trails and forest.
   • The City of Des Moines turned the 14.4 acre parcel at the south end over to the Port of Seattle, who bought it for about $3,000,000 in 2021. And that leads up to today’s agenda item.
3. According to the Port’s real estate manager, the new development will generate over $3.4M in annual lease revenue for the Port.
4. The developer is Panattoni Development, the same firm that developed all three previous phases of the DMCBP. Please take a drive around the existing DMCBP and let me know how well they’ve done so far in terms of ‘tree canopy’. A 4-1 replacement program sounds nice until one asks, “How well has the City of Des Moines ever enforced our existing tree code on commercial projects?” (†Spoiler alert below.)
5. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor mentioned “jobs” and “economic development.” Please ask the City Manager of Des Moines how much money those existing projects have generated for the City of Des Moines. (I tried to get the City to create such a report and was told that it’s ‘impossible’, despite the fact that other cities do exactly that.

Frankly, I do not care about “jobs” or “economic development” for the Port of Seattle or King County–unless they’re in Des Moines.

What if…

If the City of Des Moines had bought the land, we would have control. We could explore a whole spectrum of development opportunities:

• On one end we could have done as did the City of SeaTac, extended their forest and parks.
• Or, we could have done exactly what the Port of Seattle is doing and then we would have that $3.4M in lease revenue.

Do you have any idea what $3.6M would mean for a City like Des Moines? It’s over 14% of our annual general fund. It’s enough money to pay for the entire dock replacement program. It’s enough money to power basically every project we would ever need.

Of course the Port is enthusiastic about the project. Who wouldn’t be excited? They got land partially subsidised by Federal and State dollars and they have no responsibility for the outcomes for the residents of Des Moines. But they do get all that juicy money. Forever. And they can add the project to their list of “economic development” and “job creation” wins, because so long as it’s King County, it’s all good as far as they’re concerned. Double plus good? They can also say how ‘environmentally woke’ they are by talking about a ‘tree replacement’ plan that they will ultimately have no control over.

History Repeating itself…

Mayor and Deputy Mayor got to make the exact same arguments that former Mayors Sheckler, Kaplan and Pina made ten years ago. Arguments that have been proven false with all three development phases. And what is so scary is that people are now signing off on the same same trickle down economics for a fourth go round:

• Whatever “economic development” is generated by the project will (somehow) accrue to the benefit of Des Moines. Not true.
• The area is an environmental mess, so whatever they do will be better than what is there now. Wrong. Even a crappy forest is better for the environment than acres of impermeable surfaces.
• That the same developer who stripped bare all three previous phases of the DMCBP will (somehow) embrace a different ethos on the fourth try?

If you let yourself be fooled four times, you’re not a fool; you’re in on it.

The In Private World

One last thing: in assigning ‘blame’ it’s worth noting that our City Manager did not present the option to the City Council. However, more than one of my predecessors did know about it. I certainly did as early as 2017 (you could just ask WSDOT. It’s public information, after all.)

All my current colleagues and predecessors have told me they were super-jazzed about it. And certainly nobody spoke up. The fact that they did not feel a need to inform the public is the real problem in my opinion.

Unlike every other nearby city, we’ve had no public planning commission for a decade now. I’m stunned that people don’t realise how important this is. One has only to look at every other city (who do have planning commissions) to notice all the surveys and town halls that’s the reason.

So when you hear about trying to censure me or changing Council Rules to block my access to information, this is why.  We don’t want the public to know unpleasant facts. They’d just slow things down.

In Des Moines, neither (most of 😀 ) the Council, or the public, see the design for almost every project until it comes to a vote. And none of the new CMs so far have mentioned this as a problem. We’ve become addicted to the “in private world.”

*When planning large projects, government agencies frequently buy several parcels of land in an area so that they have choices. When the final route is selected, they then auction them off. The Barnes Creek Trail is another SR-509 route that was not chosen.

†My conflict with the City Manager began literally at our first meeting after my election. He showed me a page from Chapter 16 of the DMMC and demanded an apology because of a public comment I had made before my election. During that comment I had asked why we hadn’t been replacing trees on commercial property in Des Moines. He considered the excerpt he had handed me to be proof that the City had been good stewards of the environment under his leadership. He said that my comments had damaged his reputation and that he did not know if we could proceed with our professional relationship until I offered that apology. To diffuse the situation, I told him I would do some research and if I found out I had wronged him I would issue a robust apology. I immediately did a public records request asking for a total number of tree replacements during his tenure. I was told that the City does not collate either removals or replacements and that the only way to know would be to go through every jacket by hand searching for the required form each developer is required to fill out. The clerk assumed I would not want to do that. But, me being me, I made an appointment to sit in the North Conference Room with every jacket since his hiring. I was joined by both the City Clerk and her assistance because he had required them to do so for some reason. So we all spent the afternoon together. Me going through jackets. Them watching me. Sure enough, there was a form in every jacket where the developer duly notes each tree removal on a diagram of the property. But in over 200 jackets I found zero indications of tree replacement. Regardless, one has only to take a walk around the perimeter of DMCBP to assess the tree cover. Now, here’s the punchline: I was later told by another staff member that the ‘3-1 replacement’ section of the code was put in place at the behest of WSDOT and Sound Transit in order to comply with a State law on transportation projects.