Podcast appearances and mentions of joe cortright

Portland economist Joe Cortright says ODOT’s projects have a history of costing much more than initial estimates. He points to proposals like the I-5 Rose Quarter project which has been in the works for nearly a decade and is estimated to cost around $1.9 billion. The estimate in 2017 was $450 million. A Statesman Journal investigation found that ODOT’s projects were over budget and the agency was unable to track some of its funds and how they were spent. Cortright, the director of City Observatory, an urban policy think tank based in Portland, joins us with details of his concerns. In a statement, ODOT writes:Transportation agencies across the state face a structural revenue issue. This issue is driven by three causes: flattening and declining gas tax revenues as cars become more efficient, consistent inflation that eats away at the purchasing power of each dollar, and legal restrictions that prevent ODOT from using available dollars to fund maintenance and operations.While the Legislature increased the gas tax in recent years, revenues are now at their peak and are expected to flatten and decline in coming years. When you account for inflation, the buying power of that revenue source is set to dramatically decrease. ODOT’s major projects in the Portland metro area, supported by city, county, state, Metro and community leaders, have seen costs grow in recent years. However, the funds dedicated to these projects are specifically directed by the legislature to construction projects and cannot be used for day-to-day maintenance and operations of the highway system. We are forced to cut back on critical efforts like plowing snow and fixing potholes independent of funding these popular projects. The public and our partners have consistently told us they want us to do both. We take our responsibility to provide safe travel for all Oregonians very seriously. The last thing we want to do is let the system we built fall into disrepair. But because of how our funding is structured, we are increasingly forced to do so. We are focused on achieving sufficient and sustainable funding for maintenance and operations in this legislative session. We are increasingly optimistic that the legislature will take this opportunity to break the pattern of past legislatures and robustly fund the maintenance, operation and preservation of our transportation system.

This week on the Talking Headways podcast we're joined by Ben Ross and Joe Cortright to discuss their article in Dissent Magazine discussing how modeling is being used to expand highways around the country. We chat about their critiques of highway modeling, politics, and some potential solutions to the problem. +++ Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, Instagram, YouTube, Flickr ... @theoverheadwire Follow us on Mastadon theoverheadwire@sfba.social Support the show on Patreon http://patreon.com/theoverheadwire Buy books on our Bookshop.org Affiliate site!  And get our Cars are Cholesterol shirt at Tee-Public! And everything else at http://theoverheadwire.com

Joe Cortright of the City Observatory addresses the rising cost of the Interstate 5 Bridge replacement project. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-hiding-the-growing-cost-of-the-interstate-bridge-replacement/ #Opinion #Columns #Commentary #JoeCortright #CityObservatory #I5BridgeReplacementProject #CostEstimates #InterstateBridgeReplacementProgram #IBRAdministrator #GregJohnson #IBR #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Joe Cortright of the City Observatory reports that the Interstate Bridge project's Draft SEIS was supposed to be complete in December 2022 — It now won't be done before December 2024. https://rb.gy/30vuj6 #opinion #columns #commentary #JoeCortright #CityObservatory #InterstateBridgeReplacementProject #InterstateBridgeReplacementProgram #AdministratorGregJohnson #DraftSEIS #twoyearsbehindschedule #I5Bridge #ColumbiaRiverCrossing #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Joe Cortright analyzes the nearly $200 million that has already been spent on the proposed Interstate Bridge Replacement Project. http://tinyurl.com/4m5u832y #Opinion #Columns #Commentary #JoeCortright #CityObservatory #InterstateBridgeReplacementProject #InterstateBridgeReplacementProgram #Consultants #ColumbiaRiverCrossing #AdministratorGregJohnson #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Opinion: Diversion – IBR tolls will gridlock I-205. City Observatory's Joe Cortright warns that Oregon's tolling plans for the I-5 Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Project, with tolls ranging from $2.80 to $4.30, could trigger a substantial drop in I-5 traffic, potentially causing gridlock on the parallel I-205 Bridge and raising concerns about traffic diversion and community well-being. https://tinyurl.com/yc2wf8et #opinion #columns #commentary #JoeCortright #CityObservatory #InterstateBridgeReplacementProgram #IBR #I205 #OregonDepartmentofTransportation #WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation #ODOT #WSDOT #ColumbiaRiver #tolling #traffic #transportation #trafficcongestion #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Opinion: What are they hiding? Why highway builders won't show their $7.5 billion freeway? Joe Cortright believes the proposed I-5 Bridge will blot out much of the reviving waterfront and downtown in Vancouver. https://bit.ly/40pxGdj #Opinion #Columns #Commentary #JoeCortright #CityObservatory #InterstateBridge #I5Bridge #BridgeReplacementProject #InterstateBridgeReplacementProgram #OregonDepartmentOfTransportation #ODOT #WashingtonState #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Joe Cortright of City Observatory states that ‘tolls don't need to be nearly this high to better manage traffic flow and assure faster travel times.' https://bit.ly/40UfFEU #Opinion #Columns #Commentary #JoeCortright #CityObservatory #OregonDepartmentOfTransprotation #ODOTTollingPlan #Tolls #Transportation #InterstateBridgeReplacementProgram #IBR #Commuters #Drivers #Interstate5 #I5 #Interstate205 #I205 #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Joe Cortright addresses the estimated cost of the Interstate Bridge replacement project, which has ballooned as high as $7.5 billion. https://bit.ly/3RPSuXT #JoeCortright #CityObservatory #Opinion #Columns #Commentary #Transportation #InterstateBridgeReplacementProject #InterstateBridgeReplacementProgram #I5Bridge #OregonDepartmentOfTransportation #WashingtonStateDepartmentOfTransportation #WashingtonStateLegislature #OregonStateLegislature #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Joe Cortright discusses the issues between an I-5 Bridge replacement with a 116-foot clearance and one with a moveable span. https://loom.ly/1KuqYU8 #Opinion #Columns #Commentary #JoeCortright #CityObservatory #Transportation #InterstateBridgeReplacementProgram #IBRP #I5BridgeReplacement #OregonStateDepartmentOfTransportation #ODOT #WashingtonStateDepartmentOfTransportation #WSDOT #VerticalClearance #RiverNavigation #MoveableSpan #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Portland economist Joe Cortright discusses the financial impact tolls on I-5 and I-205 would have on travelers. https://loom.ly/6E4pmF4 #Opinion #Columns #Commentary #JoeCortight #Impresa #PortlandBusinessJournal #Tolls #I5 #I205 #I5Bridge #ColumbiaRiver #InterstateBridgeReplacement #IBR #FinancialImpact #Oregon #Washington #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

In order to fix congestion, we need to rethink how we present the cost of roadway usage. Welcome to City Talks, brought to you by Ford Motor Company. Each week join Andrew Winston, Speaker, Author of Net Positive and Adviser to Multinationals as he facilitates conversations with experts and leaders that are working through the needs and challenges our cities face today. Come along as we explore how to make both cities and transportation more human-centered and create service-oriented approaches to mobility. On today's episode, Andrew speaks with Joe Cortright, Principal Economist of ‘Impresa,' a Portland-based, city-focused consulting firm. Listen as Joe and Andrew address city congestion. Shared mobility and rethinking roadway costs may be the keys to alleviating the hassle of the morning commute. Joe shares with us the latest findings of his ‘Young and Restless' reports on the movements of young people, what Ben and Jerry's can teach us about congestion, and what he thinks our cities might look like 20 years into the future. Follow UsTwitter @fordFacebook @fordInstagram @fordPresented by Ford Motor Companywww.ford.com

Greg Johnson, the leader of the Interstate Bridge Replacement project, and Joe Cortright, a Portland economist opposed to replacing the bridge, discuss the latest bridge project and concerns about the cost, tolling and congestion. 

This week we're joined by Joe Cortright of City Observatory and Aaron Brown of No More Freeways to talk about the local fight against freeway expansion through Portland's Rose Quarter.  We chat about the freeway industrial complex, the ping pong of travel forecasting, and what new federal discussions mean for the movement. Follow us on twitter @theoverheadwire Find us at http://theoverheadwire.com

This week on the show Crystal is joined by co-host Erica Barnett, editor of Publicola. They get in to Mayor Durkan's floundering attempts to address homelessness, developments of the convention center bailout, and grocery store workers being granted a $4.00 and hour hazard pay increase. A full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Articles Referenced: Mayor's Office Defends Hotel Shelter Plan as Council Pushes for Tiny Houses by Erica C. Barnett, Publicola https://publicola.com/2021/01/28/mayors-office-defends-low-budget-for-hotel-shelters-as-council-pushes-for-tiny-houses/ Seattle, state look to join King County in multimillion dollar Washington State Convention Center bailout by David Gutman, The Seattle Times https://publicola.com/2021/01/28/mayors-office-defends-low-budget-for-hotel-shelters-as-council-pushes-for-tiny-houses/ The convention business is cratering, and cities are getting stuck with the bill by Mike McGinn and Joe Cortright, The City Observatory https://cityobservatory.org/the-convention-business-is-cratering-and-cities-are-getting-stuck-with-the-bill/ Seattle City Council approves $4 per hour mandatory pay boost for grocery workers during COVID-19 pandemic by David Gutman, The Seattle Times https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-city-council-approves-4-per-hour-mandatory-pay-boost-for-grocery-workers-during-covid-19-pandemic/ Seattle ‘hazard pay' bonus for grocery workers likely to begin next week by Ben Adlin, South Seattle Emerald https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/01/29/seattle-hazard-pay-bonus-for-grocery-workers-likely-to-begin-next-week/   Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with Policy Wonks and Political Hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host, Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse and Recovery, Erica Barnett. Erica Barnett: [00:00:49] Hi, Crystal. Great to be here.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:51] Great to have you on again. Well there's a lot going on this week and I think we want to start out talking about Mayor Jenny Durkan's shelter surge plan that seems to be in trouble. What is the plan and what is happening with it?  Erica Barnett: [00:01:08] Well, the original plan was announced last year in October-ish. And it's to add a bunch of new shelters, mostly in hotels. The idea being that people will be taken off the street by outreach workers, put into hotels, and just sort of stabilize there - and move quickly to either permanent supportive housing which is a very kind of service-intensive, expensive kind of housing for people who can't live independently , or rapid rehousing using vouchers, essentially, that they can spend on the private market for a short period of time. And the idea is that they would then be able to pay market rate rent within a year or so. What's happening with it this week and as we reported exclusively at publiCola is that the plan is sort of or at least a large component of the plan - one of the big hotels - has fallen apart. And , and the city is scrambling to find somebody to provide those rooms. The issue is that the mayor's office and the city budget office have capped the amount that can be spent on these rooms at a rate that providers are saying is way too low for them to provide the kind of services that would actually make people ready to move into this market rate housing. And the difference, the money difference, is pretty significant. And so that - that larger of two hotels that they're planning, which is a 155-room hotel , has fallen through. And now they're scrambling to find a new provider. It was going to be the Public Defender Association, but - but no more. Crystal Fincher: [00:02:35] So they're at the point where they're saying they are getting ready to roll this out, and now they're down a provider. And the feedback that they've gotten from the providers that they're looking at moving forward with is that the money may be too low to actually provide the services and, and provide the outcomes that the program was supposed to provide? Erica Barnett: [00:02:59] Yeah, so the Public Defender Association does a program called JustCare, which got a lot of positive press. It's down in Pioneer Square in the Chinatown International District. And basically they - they cleared out a bunch of encampments there and moved people into hotels. And it's - it's an expensive program because you're talking about people who have really high needs, so they're providing behavioral health care, mental health care, addiction services. And and so the idea was to basically expand - at least the PDA's idea - was to basically expand that program. They're going to move it into the Executive Pacific hotel downtown. And this is all according to our reporting - the city has not actually said any of this publicly, but we've talked to the PDA. And they're saying we can't do this for $17,000 a bed, which is what the city is essentially willing to provide. You know, it costs - it costs about $28,000 - we need more money. And, and that's kind of where the impasse is - are we going to do this service-rich program that gets people ready to move into housing or are we going to do a low-budget program that, you know, we're just going to put people in hotels and move them on and hope for the best. I mean, I'm not saying that the whatever lower budget program they end up with, assuming this moves forward, is going to be a bad program, but it's going to not have all of the services that they were originally intending to provide when they started talking about this. Crystal Fincher: [00:04:21] One, and originally intending to provide - and that seemed to be necessary to successfully transition people out of homelessness into stable housing. You know, the, the goal of this, certainly, we want to get everyone off of, off of the streets , out of unsafe and unsheltered situations, and to have shelter first and foremost critically, but, but it is also important to provide people with the assistance that they need to transition into stable housing. And I guess the question is, as you referenced, there are different populations within the unhoused population. There are people who are recently homeless, who oftentimes just need some financial assistance to get back into a stable situation. Then there are people who have more , you know, intricate needs and more service needs, whether it's mental health issues, substance abuse issues, that, that really need those programs and support. So is there information on who our existing population is and, and does this solution work for them? Erica Barnett: [00:05:33] Well, I mean, what the - what the Public Defender Association has told me is that the JustCare clients that they've worked with have had very high needs. And, and I think you're - you hit on exactly the point. I mean, there is no one population of people who are unsheltered. But a lot of times when you're going into encampments and people who have been chronically homeless for a very long time and you know, are, are not going into the traditional shelters that are on offer, you're talking about people who do have high needs. And, and I think with anybody in the current housing market - I mean, yes, rents have gone down a little bit in Seattle, but anyone going into the current housing market with a rapid rehousing subsidy is going to need that subsidy for a really long time. And ordinarily, those are capped at three to six months. Now the city is saying they're willing to pay for more like a year, but - but then what happens when that year runs out? I mean, at that point as I've also reported, you know, you are expected to pay the full market rent for whatever apartment you've found and it's considered successful if you're paying 60% of your income on rent, which is very, very rent burdened. So there's just - there's just a lot of problems with the current sort of two tracks that we have, which are permanent supportive housing - very high needs, you're always going to have a subsidy for the rest of your life, or rapid rehousing - you know, 12 months and you better be on your feet and earning a high enough income to pay for that apartment. And there's not a whole lot for people who fall in between those two tracks.  Crystal Fincher: [00:07:03] But, you know, this seems to me - Jenny Durkan has certainly experienced criticism for not following through on the details or paying close attention to the implementation of her plans, and them not panning out as they were originally sold. This seems like it's heading in that same direction. What are the options that are available moving forward? Are they just trying to force it through as-is?  Erica Barnett: [00:07:30] Well, I think what they're doing is scrambling right now, as we're speaking, to find - to find another provider for that second hotel. And , and to - to maybe find a - there's actually supposed to be a third hotel. And so to maybe find a provider for that third hotel that'll, you know, altogether make up the 300 rooms that the mayor promised. But I want to pivot, if I can, to the tiny house village proposal that's on the table now, because you talked about Durkan making promises. She said in her campaign and, and during her first year, that in her first year, she would build a thousand new, tiny houses in villages around the city. So far, the city has less than 300 total and most of those aren't new. So Andrew Lewis on the council has proposed sort of on a totally separate track to build a 480 new tiny houses in 12 new villages around the city over a couple of years. And so that is another shelter option that's moving forward kind of without, without the, I mean, you know, with the mayor's cooperation, certainly, but the deputy mayor was talking at the council meeting the other day. And you know, he seemed to - just he was describing this as happening on a completely different track and, you know, and speculating about how it would work with the mayor's plans, which, you know, just really haven't gone anywhere as far as tiny house villages are concerned. Crystal Fincher: [00:08:53] Well, and, and Councilmember Lewis' plan is interesting and it looks like it is relying on a mix of city money, taxpayer money, and privately funded money - is that correct?  Erica Barnett: [00:09:05] Yeah, it would be city money for operations and private money for actually just the physical construction, you know - here's the land, money to build these these tiny house huts that people live in, and then, yeah - and then the city would pay for ongoing operations.  Crystal Fincher: [00:09:21] Okay. Well, I mean, it seems, at least it's - kind of the, the general conversation that has needed to move forward into more effective housing solutions. Even with the mayor's plan and where she originally started - it seems like that - and with the tiny houses, we are acknowledging that people need private spaces with shelter. That the big, huge congregate shelter settings are certainly not ideal and that hinder progress and the ability to get in a position where you can transition into more stable housing. Has that been an intentional focus? And are they looking at moving away from group shelters even more in the future? Erica Barnett: [00:10:03] Well, I think that that's a Council-Mayor difference in some ways. I mean, and there's - there's good and bad things about both approaches, right? I mean, on the one hand, everybody would prefer, I mean, pretty much universally - if you offer people tiny houses or hotels, they say yes, whereas if you offer people a bed in a shelter - and we are mostly doing enhanced 24/7 shelters now, so it's not so much the mat on the floor model and get out at 7 in the morning anymore - but people don't like those as much, for what I think are very obvious reasons. Which is that, you know, you have privacy, you have some dignity, you have a door that closes . On the flip side, I will say, that when you have - when you invest really heavily in these programs, you're investing in a program where people don't move out into housing very quickly. They tend to stay in tiny house villages for a really, really, really long time. And so there's not a lot of what they call throughput. And so, so the question is, you know, in my mind, is are we building, essentially, a, you know, an inferior form of semi-permanent housing by putting tiny house villages all over the city and sort of avoiding the larger issue, which is that people actually need permanent housing. I mean this isn't to demonize tiny house villages in any way, because I think they are obviously really desirable to people. But I think that one of the reasons they're desirable is they're kind of a quasi-form of housing. And you know, I don't know - I don't know that we want to be a city and you know, I'm gonna get in trouble for saying this, but where it's just Hoovervilles everywhere and no housing. Like there needs to be housing to move people into.  Crystal Fincher: [00:11:35] Well, there does and I guess that - that brings up the question you talked about - the city money being used for services. Are those services the types that have shown to be effective for transitioning people into permanent housing? Erica Barnett: [00:11:47] Are you talking about the hotel - the services in the hotels? Crystal Fincher: [00:11:50] The services for the, the tiny house villages. Are there going to be services provided there or is it just, Hey, here's a tiny house and, and we will leave. Erica Barnett: [00:11:59] Oh, absolutely. No - there's case management and they, and they certainly provide services. I mean, this is also the case with JustCares, which is hotel rooms. That's another option that people stay in for, for a long time. And I think it's not - the problem is not so much that the services aren't there and that - because people do stabilize in these situations where they have some privacy and they have some dignity. People get better in, you know, in their lives. But the main - the, you know, the overriding condition of homelessness, I mean, you're just never gonna address that unless you create permanent housing solutions. And I don't mean permanent supportive housing for everybody. I mean, things like long-term subsidies. I mean, there's a lot of people in this city, as we've seen with, you know, the eviction moratorium. There's a lot of people who just can't pay that last $500 a month. You know, or $200 a month or whatever it is, that's keeping them from, from, you know, from staying in their places and that's making them subject to eviction. You know, I don't know why this is something that the city has been so reluctant to do. I think it's 'cause rapid rehousing is just in vogue right now because it feels like a market-based solution. But when you're throwing people under the market, there's no safety net really if , if they fail.  Crystal Fincher: [00:13:06] That's definitely true. Well, I think that - well, I think your coverage on this, on publicola.com has been excellent. And I encourage people to continue to follow along with where this process is going and provide feedback to the council and to the mayor about how you feel about how this plan is proceeding. Are there any conversations about increasing the amount that's available per room, or is the mayor just saying, That's it, - you gotta make it work.  Erica Barnett: [00:13:36] Well, this is all - this is all happening, I should say, sort of internally right now at the city. The mayor's office will probably be willing to give a little bit. But the other day - there's this really interesting moment in the council meeting where Deputy Mayor Casey Sixkiller was saying that the - the DESC in Renton, Downtown Emergency Service Center - which has a hotel in Renton that they have - that they're using as a shelter is able to do it for super cheap so that's the baseline for what should happen in Seattle. And there's just - there's so many things wrong with that, with that line of thinking. I mean, one is that he's not comparing apples to apples in terms of what that money is paying for in Renton. The other is that Seattle is more expensive. And the other is that DESC actually put forward its own plan - and its own plan for this hotel in Seattle was much, much more expensive and very much in line with all the other plans that everybody else submitted for , for these hotels. So I think the providers are saying, Look, this actually does cost more money than you are saying that we can spend. And the mayor's office, the city budget office is saying, You know, sorry, but we need that money for rapid rehousing because the rapid rehousing component of the hotel shelter plan is about twice as much as , as the services component. So they're, they're spending pretty lavishly on rapid rehousing to kind of get people into apartments fast, but the sort of step zero of, you know, helping people with their behavioral health issues, helping people with , you know, all kinds of barriers to housing that people have , is just, is, is being kind of not invested in Crystal Fincher: [00:15:12] Just a reminder that you're  listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher, and today we have a guest co-host, Seattle political reporter, Erica Barnett. Part of the other issue with the DESC benchmarking it off of that was, was also - we want to pay people living wages. Seems like the focus is on just, Well, we just need to get people in - I'm sure the promise that she made is weighing heavily on her and the ability to say, All right, fine - there's more - we did it. I'm delivering what I said I would - is a motivating factor.  Well, we will continue to keep our eye on that and we'll transition to talking about the bailout of the convention center. Dow Constantine - I feel like it was about six weeks ago -  you know, somewhere around then, announced that he, from the County perspective, had put together a plan for a massive bailout of the convention center that is ailing and struggling. Obviously in this pandemic, there are not companies coming from across the country and internationally - to fly all their people in and have big conventions together. So they are struggling and the question is - looking forward, are they going to bounce back and be able to make good on these on, on basically this, this loan? And furthermore, does it even make sense to continue to invest in the convention center? Are we going to see a long-term shift in the way that, that these types of conventions have been? What's going on with that right now?  Erica Barnett: [00:16:51] Well, the the city, I mean, you've, you've basically laid out what the situation is. I mean, the city and state have both said that they are open to providing loans to , to bail out the convention center even further. The boosters of convention centers say that they are critical for the region's economy and they're where, you know, tourism comes from, and people could, you know, they can cite however many, you know, people come in here. I mean, it feels a lot like , like the way that boosters sell arenas - that they make their money back in the overall benefit to the economy from people coming into the city, et cetera, et cetera. I am not aware of a lot of research that backs that up. Admittedly, I'm not an expert on convention centers, but I think that by and large, the reason that people come to a city like Seattle is not to - what - to sit in, you know, a windowless meeting room. And that a lot of that stuff is being done online now and I think will continue to be done online. I mean, if you're talking about a large meeting of a you know, of the business affiliation group, for example, or a large meeting of a company - I think there are a lot of lessons that we've learned during the pandemic that are going to continue and persist after the pandemic. And one is that we don't need these large, you know, giant gatherings. And I think the city really should be promoting tourism in a way that is about what is good about Seattle, not, you know, this is a great place to have your convention because of this and such tax breaks or hotel breaks or whatever it may be. But this is a great city because of the outdoors, because of Pike Place Market, you know, et cetera, et cetera. There's lots of, there's lots of reasons to come visit Seattle. I don't think that giant conventions are by and large gonna continue to be among those in the future.  Crystal Fincher: [00:18:37] Beyond that, we are in a recession, which you know, doesn't have prospects of getting better anytime soon without any stimulus activity . Started at the federal level, which is looking bleak beyond the little $2,000 amount that they are talking about as a one-time thing. And so even, even companies' ability, even if they wanted to continue to do that, has been hampered. The convention center is in need of - they're saying a $315 million loan in order to be bailed out. The County started and said, Hey, we'll, we'll be in for a $100 million from its investment pool. And they're hoping to be paid back through hotel tax revenues from another industry that is definitely struggling. Erica Barnett: [00:19:26] I think that , you know, even if you look beyond - I mean, because I do think that it's important to look beyond, you know, current recessions and look at , you know, just kind of the, the ongoing, you know, up and down of the economy and, and assume that we will come back at some point. But even then, I mean, I would really like to know and I, and I haven't seen this, this analysis done - what would be the impact if we stopped? If we just - if we stopped building it . The argument for - from labor, for the convention center, you know, has been that it will create a lot of jobs in the short-term. And okay. So let's, let's count up what the impact of that is and then what will be the ongoing long-term impact? You can even make it the worst case scenario, you know, take it from the point of view of the convention center itself and, and, and just figure out what, what if we stop ? Because I think there is this tendency with huge projects to just keep going with the forward momentum. Because you know, we've already invested so much money, so we have to keep going, we have to keep going no matter what. Just pour, pour, pour more money into it. And and I, and I do think that the stop option is not one that we even consider because it just feels impossible. And, and I think that, you know, I, I think that the region should just take a breath and consider whether we need to keep pouring sort of infinite buckets of money into this one project in downtown Seattle that that so many people have staked so much so much on sort of mentally, emotionally , financially . You know, and maybe the answer would be, No, we absolutely have to keep going because we're almost there and it just needs this little push, but, but let's, let's find that out and let's just take a pause instead of sort of all these panicked infusions of money, which is what it feels like. And these are, these are loans, but you know, it is not unprecedented for loans not to be paid back. I mean, if, if the convention center fails you know, that is, that is a possibility. And so when the city, state, and county say, Well, these are all repayable loans and we'll, we'll make interest on them. You know, I think we need to consider that that is not a sure thing. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:28] It's definitely not a sure thing. And, and part of the, the consideration of spending, especially, you know, providing public loans is - is what is the benefit and what is you know, will it, what activity does it stimulate? How much money can we generate from this loan? And you want that to be moving in a positive direction and to have multiplier effects. And that we'll wind up further ahead in the long-term if we provide this loan right now. And it just doesn't appear that that is a solid calculation with this. But we will see - again, encourage people to continue to stay engaged with this. As always, we'll be putting links to articles and information about these in our show notes that accompany the podcast. So you will be able to get more information there. But it's certainly a challenge. But speaking of helping workers, there is a - in my view - was a very positive step taken this week. And that was by providing grocery workers with hazard pay. What ended up happening and what did the council approve?  Erica Barnett: [00:22:37] From what I understand - and I apologize, I did not cover this specific , this specific initiative because I was sort of deep in in homelessness land this week. But the upshot, as I understand it, is that grocery stores, which are defined as, you know, stores over a certain size that are, that sell groceries. Or stores over another certain size that sell, you know, 30% or something like that, of their , of what they sell, is groceries. So, so big grocery stores have to pay $4 more an hour to their workers because of evidence that, you know, well, first of all, they're essential workers. They are providing food that people, you know, obviously rely on - the grocery stores are necessary and these workers are putting themselves in harm's way. They get COVID at a higher rate. And so so this is, this, this is, you know, as, as the legislation says, it's hazard.  Crystal Fincher: [00:23:24] Yeah, absolutely. And, and it is Seattle grocery businesses with 500 or more total employees that qualify for this. So most of the grocery stores - and as we continue to learn, as, as we get further in the pandemic, just being indoors is a risk factor. And as customers, we can, you know, go in and go out. But, but they're forced to be indoors for, you know, hours and hours at a time. And so this is a recognition that they are facing an increased risk and they do deserve increased pay because of that.  Erica Barnett: [00:24:00] I totally agree. And, and slash, but I would say, you know, it does , it does feel like when we see these kind of one-off pieces of legislation that pick one category of worker , one category of essential worker ,to receive hazard pay or to receive benefits that absolutely makes sense and that are absolutely rightful. I don't know where grocery workers come from specifically as opposed to hardware store workers or other retail or garden store workers. You know, other retail workers who are also, you know, inside all day, coming into contact with people all day in the same conditions as grocery workers. And so it's , it's a little frustrating to me watching legislation being made in this way, because if the, if the conditions are the issue, let's make it across the board for every large business over a certain amount of employees, say , and that has employees that are in X condition, you know, standing at a checkout counter all day or in the indoors all day, you know, with a certain number of customers coming through. It seems to me that it is, it is very strange that I can go down the street to my QFC and the grocery workers there are rightfully getting $4 an hour more, and then I can go to Lowe's across the street and those workers aren't because they don't sell groceries there. So I just, I think if the issue is the condition - let's address the condition. If the issue is , is that people are being exposed to COVID let's, let's let's address that. Otherwise it feels a little bit like you know, like legislation being made at the behest of a particular, a particularly effective lobbying effort. And, you know, and I, I just, I don't, I don't want to see legislation being made based on lobbying. I want to see it being made based on, on, on science and fairness. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:54] Any person working in a retail or customer-facing environment that has to be indoors in that shared space should be receiving hazard pay. You know, the delivery drivers who are, who are interacting with us, bringing food and groceries and, and, you know, delivering packages and goods - in my view, deserve hazard pay. You know, this is a time when, when many people are fortunate enough to not have to have higher exposure to the virus. And we are counting on people to do that in our place in order to, you know, continue our quality of life, really. And so I think that's a very valid point. I do know that there has been data cited specifically for grocery workers. Now, whether that data is also a function of you know, industry supported research that others may not have access to is a very valid question.  Thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, January 29th, 2021. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericabarnett and on publicola.com. And you can buy her book Quitter: a Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery at wherever your favorite bookstore sells books. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, and now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. And as always, full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time. .

We’ve written a lot at Strong Towns about the problems with big box stores: the acres of valuable land they (and their parking lots) consume, the way the buildings are designed to be obsolete, the way they siphon money out of town rather than build wealth from within. Yet it’s hard to put all the blame on the Walmarts and Home Depots and Costcos of the world; they have figured out how to succeed under the rules that we—the towns and cities—have established. If we consistently get outcomes we don’t like, we need to change the rules of the game. The same is true of parking. American cities are massively overbuilt on parking. This has both real costs and opportunity costs. Some of the blame might be put on a parking developer who turns otherwise valuable land into a surface parking lot, holding onto it like a land speculator until it can be sold for a big profit. But don’t we the residents deserve some of the responsibility too? After all, parking developers are thriving within the system we made...or at least allow to continue. In a recent article, Joe Cortright of City Observatory described aspects of that system: “We have too much parking for many reasons: because we’ve subsidized highway construction and suburban homes, because we’ve mandated parking for most new residential and commercial buildings, and because we’ve decimated transit systems. But a key contributor to overparking is the strong financial incentives built into tax systems.” Cortright then detailed a proposed ordinance in Hartford, Connecticut that would begin to correct this. Expanding fees on private commercial parking lots and structures, the ordinance would, he said, mimic the important features of a land value tax. “Call it LVT-lite,” he wrote. In this week’s episode of Upzoned, host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and Chuck Marohn, the president of Strong Towns, discuss Joe Cortright’s article and how cities essentially subsidize parking. They talk about the land value tax, the way current tax systems incentivize parking and disincentivize improvements, and why all that parking is an anchor on our prosperity. Then in the Downzone, Chuck talks about a course he’s been taking on the Black Death. And Abby talks about new adventures in cooking and making music. Additional Show Notes: “How to Stop Giving Parking Developers A Free Ride,” by Joe Cortright (Streetsblog) City Observatory City Observatory (Twitter) Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Select Strong Towns articles on parking: “Detroiters Push for Parking Reform in the Heart of Motown,” by Francis Grunow “Asphalt City: How Parking Ate an American Metropolis,” by Daniel Herriges “Parking Dominates Our Cities. But Do We Really *See* It?” by Daniel Herriges “Life After Parking,” by Alexander Dukes “Parking is Important and Not Important,” by Kevin Klinkenberg “The Many Costs of Too Much Parking”

Today, host Crystal Fincher and local journalist Ashley Archibald dive into King County Executive Dow Constantine's plan for a $100 million bailout of the Convention Center, and why that doesn't make sense in a Covid-19 economy. Also, Renton is seeking to oust over 200 folks experiencing homelessness in the middle of a winter spike in the pandemic. Crystal and Ashley discuss why this is bad idea. A full text transcript of the show is available below, or at https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/post/week-in-review-dow-s-convention-center-bailout-renton-evicting-homeless-people Articles referenced: King County to bail out Washington State Convention Center expansion with possible $100 million loan by David Gutman https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/king-county-to-bail-out-washington-state-convention-center-expansion-with-possible-100-million-loan/   The convention business is cratering, and cities are getting stuck with the bill by Mike McGinn and Joe Cortright https://cityobservatory.org/the-convention-business-is-cratering-and-cities-are-getting-stuck-with-the-bill/   General Publicola news coverage by Erica C.Barnett (another friend of the show) at publicola.com.   Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii, Ashley at @AshleyA_RC, and more info at officialhacksandwonks.com.   TRANSCRIPT *This transcript was automatically generated then lightly edited, and may not be an exact replication of the audio.   Week In Review with Ashley Archibald: December 4, 2020   Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we gather insight into state and local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind-the-scenes perspectives about politics in our state. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost live shows where we review the news of the week with a friend of the show. Welcome back to the program today's guest, local journalist, Ashley Archibald.   Ashley Archibald: [00:00:36] Hi, thank you for having me!   Crystal Fincher: [00:00:39] Thank you so much for joining us again. I wanted to start out talking about something that Dow Constantine rolled out this week as something he's planning to do, which is a bailout of the Washington state convention center, which has a total project cost of $1.8 billion.   And right now is $300 million short and saying they could run out of money within the next couple months if they don't have something happen. And so Dow Constantine has said, Well, you know what? Sign the County up for a $100 million dollars of that $300 million price tag. We want to fill the gap because Dow Constantine believes that the convention center is critical and necessary, and that is the most effective use of those funds at this time. So just starting out with what is happening. I guess starting off previewing, how did you hear about this, Ashley, and what are the nuts and bolts of what this plan is?   Ashley Archibald: [00:01:45] I remember hearing about it yesterday on the Twitterverse because I'm sick like that. But the first that I've really read about the details was in the Seattle Times today. And I have to say, I'm a little confused by the overall cost benefit analysis. I clearly haven't spoken to the Executive's office, I don't know what he's looking at, but I'm struggling to understand why we would extend a publicly financed loan, using your money and my money, to save a business that isn't going to be able to open for quite some time, versus the individuals and businesses that exist now that can be served by money like this.   Crystal Fincher: [00:02:34] Yeah. And certainly the reaction to this has been swift and strong and a lot of people felt the exact same way that you have. And I have several of those same questions - but wait a minute, why are we bailing out this business in effect and not actual people who may be facing losing their home in a pandemic, losing their jobs, just a lot of people who are experiencing real pain and on the brink. And so the issue with this is, when the convention center decided to embark upon their big new redesign, restructuring, this big project, big price tag, $1.8 billion. And when initially the project was funded by a couple of bonds totaling $1.8 billion. And when those bonds were issued, revenue from the hotel tax, which is what funds those bonds was, had risen by 8% every single year since the prior recession.   And so this looked like a really great source of funds that was secure and rising. The convention center was going gangbusters. They were, they had so many people wanting to come for conventions that they were turning people away. And so it looked like at that time that this was a reasonable investment, with the thought being that, Hey, the convention center attracts businesses who bring hundreds of people into the city and County every year, who stay in hotels and eat at restaurants and go visit tourism sites and bring money into our economy. Tourism certainly is a significant chunk of our regional economy here. So that thinking was okay, this looks great. So after the pandemic, hotel revenue fell by 96% from the same period in 2019. A quarter of Seattle's downtown hotels have at least temporarily closed. Bookings on Airbnb have absolutely plummeted so the source of funding has been decimated. Cruise ships, which bring a lot of people in like just the overall tourism economy, obviously with COVID and travel and congregating being dangerous, has just eviscerated this whole thing.   And ongoing financing, the financing needed to finish paying for this project. Banks have looked at the project and said, you know what? We actually think that this is a bad idea. We think if we give more money, it's going to be throwing bad money after good money. So why don't we just not? And they're saying, Hey, we ran up against a brick wall. They're saying that we're in a money-losing business and that not only are things looking bad now, but that they're not projected to look better for years, even after we get beyond the immediate COVID threat. So we're now faced with a situation as a County. And Dow Constantine has thought, you know what? It's actually a good idea to use a $100 million of the county's ability to loan them this money, even though they're saying we actually need $300 million. So we're giving them money that comes at significant cost to the city, perhaps. And the mechanism to even fund these bonds is very shaky, and saying, but this isn't even gonna solve the whole problem. You still need $200 million more while you're telling us that banks are saying this is a bad idea. And traditional public private financing is saying, no, this is a sinking business and a sinking line of revenue. Overall tourism may come back, but giving it to this one entity and thinking that is going to stimulate the wider economy is not a realistic thought.   Ashley Archibald: [00:06:46] It surely seems to me that there should be strings attached to this if it is actually going to be funded by public money. If we are going to put up a $100 million and the actual bill is $300 million. So they're not some conditions on it? Should it not say, Hey, if you can come up with this other $200 million, then yeah, we're going to chip in. At the minimum, I feel like that's a base level kind of ask.   Crystal Fincher: [00:07:17] That is a very base level kind of ask. And that has been a question put to the development team led by Matt Griffin here and to the County, and their response has been, well we're also talking to the city and the state to maybe get that money together from them. So basically all of these public entities, with the taxpayer on the hook and in the middle of a pandemic, to bail out this one organization. And it's dicey.   Ashley Archibald: [00:07:51] How would you like to see a $100 million of County money with 1% interest spent, Crystal?   Crystal Fincher: [00:07:59] On people who are facing issues that really might cause them to die or significantly degrade their quality of the most basic elements of life. People who can't afford food, people who can't afford shelter, people who can't afford childcare, who are trying to take care of loved ones in the middle of this pandemic. We're coming up on an expiration of the eviction moratorium. And we have a record number of people out of work because of this pandemic. We have a record number of people who are late on rent or not sure how they're going to pay next month's rent. And there are no protections for them. We're going to see, unless there is some help provided to them, just an enormous amount of human suffering.   So if we have the ability to spend $100 million, I would like that to go to actual people, and keep them housed and healthy and fed. That seems like at the most basic function of our government. And as we collectively give our money to say, Hey, we want at the very basic level, to keep people safe and provided for, that keeping roofs over people's heads and feeding them seems like it should be really high on the priority list. And to not even do this in a sense of we're directly benefiting people harmed by the pandemic. If we could give this to workers who would be laid off and displaced by this project to prevent us from having to spend hundreds of millions of other dollars to finish bailing this out and complete it. We could give it to the small hotels and small businesses who are not having the resources of big national chains, but who do a lot to prop up our local economy. To help them as they deal with these closures related to the overall federal poor response to COVID. There are so many ways that we could directly help people and not give this to one organization. We're talking about one organization. We aren't even talking about the greater needs of an entire industry.   So, I guess I'll flip that question and ask you, what would you like to see happen with these funds?   Ashley Archibald: [00:10:31] I mean, from a completely personal view, I am terrified of the impending homelessness crisis that we are going to see when the eviction moratorium is end. And I know you touched on this, but that is completely capturing my attention. I mean, there are people out there who, for no reason that is any fault of their own, it's not like they're not working, it's not like they're doing any of the vices or who cares, but at the end of the day, these are people who should be housed, who are doing everything that they can, and a once in a hundred years pandemic strikes and they lose everything. And in a month or two, unless something good happens, they are going to be houseless. And if you thought, and that's a universal you, not a you, if you thought that the 2015 emergency declaration of homelessness in Seattle and King County was significant, you're about to see something that is far, far worse.   Crystal Fincher: [00:11:41] And you're absolutely right and adding onto this we're having this conversation in the midst of a Congress having discussions about another quote, unquote stimulus package that has most of the elements that actually stimulate the economy stripped out. This is now being presented as a bipartisan bill, but it's going to greatly benefit corporations. The, talking about getting monthly checks and support as Democrats talked about, Nancy Pelosi and democratic leadership at the federal level talked about, since the spring and holding out to, hoping that Biden gets elected and that there can be a robust bailout that we all know is needed to support our economy overall, and the people who comprise it, with another cash payment. But those looking at ongoing with eviction relief, with a lot of those elements that have now been almost entirely removed from that bill. So the help that was signaled was going to be on the way is no longer for most people. And any, relief that they get, perhaps there's going to be one small payment of a $1000 or $1500, but after months of being out of work, and not paying rent for months, that, is frankly insulting. So we know that there's going to be a lot of pain coming and that the reason why there isn't more now was due to the previous federal help given to States and localities that is now going to evaporate.   So now that we know we're going to have a lot more people in need of direct assistance, just to keep a roof over their head, we're now talking about giving money to the convention center, which by every metric of the business that is required to support the public money to support them, if we're going to bail them out and their ongoing prospects looks bleak and grim that they're not even going to be able to pay it back. Not even just a question of is this a smart expenditure? It just looks horrible all the way around and I'm just not sure why this is felt to be the priority right now.   This is just a reminder that you're listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher and today my co-host is friend of the show, Ashley Archibald, who's a local journalist. And as we're talking about this, educated in this exact area of the economy. Do you want to just talk a little bit about your background, Ashley?   Ashley Archibald: [00:14:35] I left journalism originally well not left, I took a pause, to go to grad school at the London School of Economics and Political Science to get a degree in local economic development. So I have a lot of thoughts on how governments use and lose their money.   Crystal Fincher: [00:14:54] Yeah, a lot of thoughts and are a subject matter expert. And, it seems like you are in agreement with many of the other experts and people who are paid to support this, that they're saying, Hey, this is not a good idea. This is being built on a really shaky foundation and just really does not look good. And, just from, in public policy today, there are a lot of disagreements, but you kind of have to stop and pause when not only people who come from those stuffy establishment backgrounds and private financing, that entire industry, and just the general public, average person on the street all looks at this and says, what in the world are you thinking? This is a horrible idea. There is no data that backs this up. The only way you can think this is a good idea is if you just think in platitudes that, Oh yeah. The convention center is critical to our tourism industry.   However, looking at the details, it is a very small percentage of our local tourism industry. And the plan that is being floated is to tax the rest of the industry and give the proceeds of that to this one organization who is counting on companies nationally and internationally traveling here to house hundreds of, to put up hundreds of people and have conventions and trade fairs. And not only is that not happening during COVID, but every industry globally is going to be feeling the effects of this recession that hopefully isn't a depression by that time. And the prospects for companies turning the spigot back on and spending on conventions and these large-scale meetings are, It's just not realistic for the next several years. And it's really questionable to think, are we even, it doesn't make sense to assume that we're going to go back to what we considered normal. I don't think it does.   Ashley Archibald: [00:17:18] I am not a public health expert. I feel like I should just throw that out. I'm not an expert in much, but I have yet to hear a single person say that we are going to go back to normal, potentially ever, but definitely not anytime soon. Like we're not going to see a vaccine that actually gets rolled out to the entire American people until 2021. And I want to, first of all, say, Oh, my gracious, these scientists who have managed to make this happen faster than any time in human history, like we have a vaccine for this faster than we have ever seen one developed before by a factor of four. Like we didn't have, I think the last vaccine that was developed took four years. And so it's exceptional that they're doing this. But that being said, people will still need to mask up. They will still need to avoid big gatherings. And they're going to have to do that for a while. And I think things are going to change, and we're going to see them change, and it's going to feel like a real relief, but I really hope that people understand that we're not going to be able to do big things indoors for a while.   And I know nothing about the convention center business, but having worked at a nonprofit who has used the convention center, fairly comfortable saying that it takes a minute to put in a reservation there.   Crystal Fincher: [00:18:54] It definitely does. It definitely does. These are big logistical events. It takes months and months of planning to have an event at the convention center. These are big, significant events that require teams to plan and execute and yeah, it is, it's hard to see, one, thinking that this is going to be happening anytime in the short term. But it is extremely presumptive, especially when the bet you're making is with public dollars that, Hey, everything is going to bounce back even after we get done.   Ashley Archibald: [00:19:35] But there are businesses right now, right, who need that help? There are local businesses who employ local workers that local people shop at. And I don't know. I mean, I think that that is, if you're looking at it just from a capitalistic, economic point of view, does it not make sense to make sure that people can keep their businesses open and to make sure that people can spend money in those businesses?   Crystal Fincher: [00:20:05] Hundred percent. And there seems to be broad agreement about that. That, Hey, if we are going to provide help, it should be, and help especially from city government, County government, it should go to businesses and people who are directly beneficial to that. So, yeah, we talk all the time. We're in a conversation right now because of the dining restrictions, about how many locally owned restaurants have already been forced to close and that hundreds of others are on the brink, and they all employ people - many of our neighbors. So yeah, why are we not talking about direct relief? And to the extent that there were federal CARES funds available and some loans to other circumstances, the need is so much greater and everyone has talked about that even the money set aside before to help was grossly inadequate.   So this just doesn't seem like a good idea at all. And based on previous data - there's a good article that we can link in the show notes, that Mike McGinn and Joe Cortright wrote early in this pandemic, basically teeing this up. Saying, Hey convention center business is cratering, and they're going to come to cities and public entities for bailouts and here's why it's a horrible idea. Lo and behold, they predicted things really correctly and they detail why it is such a bad idea and why using the convention center, even as a proxy for, Hey, we have to support the tourism industry, we have to support our local economy. Convention visitors accounted for just 7% of the room nights in Seattle hotels. They're actually, a really minor element in our local tourism economy and our economy overall. So if we are talking about that sector of the economy being important, why don't we talk about the other 93%? What supports that? Instead of doing what, accounts for 7%. That seems like it would make sense at the most basic level.   But with that, I'm sure we'll be hearing much more about that in the coming week. There's already quite a backlash against that and so many people are feeling pain and going, why am I paying taxes, while I'm in pain, to support that building? I'm not quite sure. But moving on and talking about people in need, I want to talk about, and you certainly have been following this, the issue with housing people who are unhoused and the Red Lion in Renton. Can you brief us a little bit on what's going on there?   Ashley Archibald: [00:23:07] Yeah, so I, will freely disclose that I learned about this from Publicola and Erica C Barnett, who is a fantastic local journalist. And everybody should go and look at her work and that of her colleagues. But, the Red Lion is a hotel in Renton that is being used by the DESC organization to move people who are experiencing homelessness into individual rooms so that they can escape COVID. COVID was this, unfortunately, the reason that this happened, but it was not a bad thing, right? Like people have had real changes in their lives as a result of being inside and being safe. And the Renton city council has chosen to put boundaries on that so that the Red Lion will not be used for a shelter anymore. Their plan is to designate very specific areas of Renton where people can be housed, but according to Publicola, that will only be about half of the residents who were there. So we're talking about putting hundred, like literally a hundred plus people, who are experiencing homelessness out on the street, in the middle of a pandemic, which does not seem to me to be a logical public health outcome.   Crystal Fincher: [00:24:47] It is very much not a logical public health outcome. And it specifically has been recommended against, by the CDC. And a lot of the punitive actions actually that we see being taken by governments against homeless people are specifically recommended against for public health reasons by our own Centers for Disease Control. So it is perplexing and the question really needs to be asked - what public good is being served here?   Ashley Archibald: [00:25:21] I don't know the answer to that. I am sure that the reasoning that has been extended so far is that people are afraid of increasing crime, or invasions, or something of that nature. And let's be clear. I am not here to apologize for other people's actions. What I am here to say is that at the end of the day, these people need shelter and it is a regional response to homelessness that I've been told that we want. And it is absolutely necessary for the prevention of a spread of this disease to get people inside and safe. And so I really feel on a personal level that it is a necessity that we house people. And it shouldn't have ever been this question. Obviously people should be housed anyway, but I am willing to see the argument. I have not seen it and I don't know that it exists, that we shouldn't try to prevent people from spreading COVID? Maybe if we can house them, it would be an ultimately cheaper, financially, and certainly a more moral stance to take.   Crystal Fincher: [00:26:46] Right. And this is just NIMBYism and people being classist and hating on people who don't have homes. And viewing not having a home as a moral failure in and of itself. And that these people are not deserving of human dignity and help. And it's just a shame.   Thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, December 4th. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful co-host today was local journalist and friend of the show, Ashley Archibald. You can find Ashley on Twitter @AshleyA_RC. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii (spelled f-i-n-c-h-f-r-i-i) and now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost live show and our midweek show sent directly to your podcast stream.   Thanks for tuning in and we'll talk to you next time.

In this episode, we talk cars. Participants: Yassine, Interversity, LetsStayCivilized, and Master-Thief. Links: The Disillusionment of the American Planner, or How We Became Mark Brendanawicz and How Houston Regulates Land Use (Nolan Gray, Market Urbanism) Euclidean Zoning and Japanese Zoning (Urban Kchoze) Is Covid-19 the end of cities? (Spoiler: No.) (Joe Cortright, City Observatory) Cultivating the Skills that Freedom Requires in Matthew Crawford's Why We Drive: Toward a Philosophy of the Open Road (Josh Pauling, Front Porch Republic) Europe Is the Real Home of Driving Freedom (J.R. Hildebrand, Road and Track) The Biggest Opportunity Everyone Is Missing In Self-Driving Cars (Alex Roy, The Drive) Step by step, Americans are sacrificing the right to walk (Antonia Malchik, Aeon) Brilliant designs to fit more people in every city (Kent Larson, TED) Wandering The Earth In A Rage (Virus Comix) Why don't Americans walk more? The crisis of pedestrianism (Tom Vanderbilt, Slate) Residential Parking Requirements (Seth Goodman, Graphing Parking) We Are the 25%: Looking at Street Area Percentages and Surface Parking (Charlie Gardner, Old Urbanist) Apartment Blockers (Alan Durning, Sightline.Org) Traffic Calming 101 (Project for Public Spaces) Housing+Transportation Map (Center for Neighborhood Technology) HAWK Beacon (Wikipedia) The Human Factor (William Langewiesche, Vanity Fair) Recorded 2020-10-12 | Uploaded 2020-11-08

We’ll let you in on a secret: most highway investments are not primarily about moving vehicles more effectively. If that was the main goal we would spend a lot less money on expanding capacity and start pursuing smart strategies to manage demand. The thing is, traffic engineers already know this. We have data going back decades. But what’s happened with COVID-19 is that we’re now seeing it play out in real-time, in city after city, as traffic flows shift. City Observatory’s Joe Cortright has written a provocative article on just this topic. Looking at traffic patterns on I-5 in Portland, Oregon, Joe concludes that, if we’re willing to learn, the experiment foisted upon us can teach us how to fight congestion and get a more efficient transportation system—even after the worst is over. On today’s episode of Upzoned we look closer at Joe’s article, with host Abby Kinney—an urban planner in Kansas City—and regular co-host Chuck Marohn, the founder and president of Strong Towns. Abby and Chuck discuss two tools mentioned in the article (ramp meters and congestion pricing), both their promise and potential unintended consequences. They discuss what’s really behind most highway investments. And they talk about how to replace demand for long-range trips with demand for short-range trips. Then in the Downzoned, Chuck recommends a book by Jane Jacobs that feels especially perceptive during the coronavirus crisis. And Abby recommends The Color of Law and says the history of de jure segregation needs to be more widely taught. Additional Show Notes “What COVID-19 Teaches Us About How to Fix Freeways,” by Joe Cortright City Observatory (Website) Joe Cortright (Twitter) “How the Government Segregated American Cities by Design,” by Daniel Herriges Select Strong Towns Articles on Jane Jacobs Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Recent Strong Towns articles on congestion: “The Congestion Con: How Bad Land Use and Transportation Decisions Go Hand-in-Hand,” by Stephen Lee Davis ”No, Mathematicians Have Not ‘Solved’ Traffic Jams,” by Daniel Herriges “It’s Time To Stop Repeating This Damaging Myth about Traffic,” by Daniel Herriges “‘Carmageddon’ Does a No-Show in Seattle. Again.” by Joe Cortright

Guests: Andre Perry, Fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings and scholar-in-residence at American University Joe Cortright, who blogs at cityobservatory.org and is President and principal economist of Impresa, a consulting firm specializing in regional economic analysis, innovation and industry clusters   Brookings Fellow Andre Perry has found significant disparity between real estate values in predominantly black neighborhoods compared to predominantly white neighborhoods in the U.S. today, even when their incomes are the same.  Cities Now asks why and what can be done to change it.  Joe Cortright recaps his latest findings on key city success factors from cityobservatory.org.  

Henry Turley, CEO of the Henry Turley Company in Memphis and co-developer of the Uptown neighborhood Tanja Mitchell, the original Uptown neighborhood coordinator and now director of community engagement with The Works Joe Cortright, who blogs at cityobservatory.org and is President and principal economists of Impresa, a consulting firm specializing in regional economic analysis, innovation and industry clusters   Its developers set out to create a great neighborhood in Memphis for people with low incomes.  The result was Uptown, that too-rare community in the U.S. attracting people of all incomes.  Why has Uptown succeeded and what can other communities learn? Joe Cortright recaps his latest findings on key city success factors from cityobservatory.org.

This week: Houses in Seattle are selling below asking price for the first time in four years; a new Harvard study finds that the number of low-income renters is growing significantly faster than the number of affordable housing units; and economist Joe Cortright explains why housing can either be a good investment, or affordable -- but it can't be both.

This week: Oregon state economists predicted taxpayers might receive a large kicker in 2020 - the same year an economic slowdown is forecast; economist Joe Cortright explains why blocking new housing projects in low-income neighborhoods does not prevent displacement; and Adidas breaks ground on a significant expansion of its North Portland campus, which is expected to house 1,000 additional permanent workers.

City Observatory is a daily source of data analysis and policy recommendations on how to make cities successful. The site helps readers separate fact from fiction when it comes to cities. This week, we talked with City Observatory founder and economist Joe Cortright.

This week on the Talking Headways Podcast I’m joined by Joe Cortright of City Observatory to nerd out on employment data and discuss their most recent report Surging City Center Job Growth.We learn how employment cores for many cities are growing and why this looks like a longer term shift in growth. 

Joe Cortright of City Observatory talks about their report -- Lost in Place -- explaining why consistent and concentrated poverty -- not gentrification -- is America's biggest urban challenge.

Economist Joe Cortright has been a trusted guide for urban leaders for many years. For more than a decade, he has dissected the movement of young talent through America's big cities. He calcuated the Talent Dividend and the Green Dividend for cities. He developed a way to measure changes in vibrancy associated with creative placemaking and unpacked what's really happening in the poorest neighborhoods. He is one of the world’s experts on clusters and effectively presses the case on the value of difference to cities. This week, he strongly challenged a New York Times Magazine piece on Portland that claims the city suffers from too much talent. Those are among the many reasons I am excited to talk with Joe this week on 'Knight Cities.' He is an easy-to-understand economist who uses plain talk to discuss what’s important to the success of cities. You can follow us on Twitter at #knightcities or @knightfdn. And if you have ideas for people you'd like to hear more from, please email me: Coletta (at) knightfoundation.org.

In our third snippet from the Bridge Shopping Network things go “all-CSPAN” as the show is hacked live into the Joe Cortright’s formal testimony at the Jan 29th Portland City Council meeting on the Columbia River Crossing (CRC). It's surely not what the BS Network hosts have in mind, as things become wonky and counter-productive to their sales pitch. Ride you bike to this Sunday’s Citizen’s Opposition and Alternatives Rally 12-noon at Tom McCall Waterfront Park Near the Morrison Bridge. Semi-Organized Rides to the rally are posted here. Find out more at smarterbridge.org. You can also stay up to date at bikeportland.org. See you Sunday!