FEDERATION2007 CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE

2007 CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE

Sponsored by the Seattle Community Council Federation

Thank you for offering yourself for service on the City Council! We invite you to fill out this questionnaire; the results will be posted at http://seattlefederation.blogspot.com. Please circle Y (Yes) or N (No) -- or explain on the back why you did not do so. You are also encouraged to e-mail your answers (and any questions) to seattlefederation@gmail.com, but we require a signed paper copy of this questionnaire, so please send by U.S. mail to SCCF, 1711 N. 122nd St, Seattle WA 98133-7714.

1. Some City Council legislation is passed without being referred to and discussed in a committee. Do you support changes in the Council rules to require (except in cases when the Council specifically declares that it cannot meet this requirement and in routine cases such as the payroll bill) that passage of legislation must be preceded by referral to a committee? Y N

2. Do you oppose holding any City Council retreat or other Council meeting outside the Seattle city limits (except in the case of emergency)? Y N

3. City Council meetings are only rebroadcast once at midnight and at 5 a.m. Do you support restoring coverage in the evening and on weekends at times that are more convenient to citizens? Y N

4. Do you favor placing before the voters a City Charter amendment establishing an independently elected City Auditor and City Treasurer? Y N

5. As is currently required of other department heads, would you favor placing before the voters a City Charter amendment requiring City Council reconfirmation of the Police Chief every four years? Y N

6. As is currently required of other department heads, would you favor placing before the voters a City Charter amendment requiring City Council reconfirmation of the Fire Chief every four years? Y N

7. The City currently has a “customer service bureau” to help citizens get information, solve problems, or resolve complaints regarding city departments. Do you support establishing an independent “ombudsman” office that could investigate, resolve and report on citizen complaints? Y N

8. During most of Seattle’s history, citizens had access to Law Department opinions (except in pending lawsuits) that were published in bound volumes. The current City Attorney, Mayor, and City Council now release few legal opinions, even when requested to do so, making it unlikely that errors will be caught early and before expensive litigation. Do you support restoring citizen access to the City’s legal opinions except in pending lawsuits? Y N

9. A growing number of City agencies that are not in the Mayor’s office are being renamed to make them sound like they are: Mayor's Office for Senior Citizens, Mayor's Office for Arts and Culture, Mayor's Customer Service Bureau, etc. Do you oppose politicization of these offices and do you support legislation to remove the reference to the Mayor in the name of any City agency except those actually in the Office of the Mayor? Y N

10. The City’s official newspaper (for notices) is the Daily Journal of Commerce, which is expensive and difficult to obtain. Do you support altering the City’s annual decision process for determining the City’s official newspaper to require that all official city notices be available at no cost online? Y N

11. Current Seattle City policy allows automatic erasure of most e-mails after 45 days, requires the recording-over (erasure) of backups, and allows archiving decisions to be made by those who wrote the e-mails. Do you support a new policy to ensure that e-mails are not erased without a more selective process for determining which should be saved, and that archiving decisions about e-mails be made by someone other than those who wrote them? Y N

12. The parks and open space levy is expiring next year. Do you favor putting before the voters a new levy for parks and open space? Y N

13. Do you oppose the use and control of public parks and recreation facilities by private or non-profit sports organizations who charge for their use? Y N

14. For the transportation levy-funded Neighborhood Street Fund, do you support restoring annual district council ratings and eliminating the requirement that projects be large ones, and do you oppose SDOT’s effort to restrict the next three years of funding to applications that were received in May 2007? Y N

15. Extra-heavy transit and solid waste vehicles are damaging Seattle's roads and bridges. Do you support City actions and legislation discouraging their use? Y N

16. Non-arterial streets are about 70 percent of the City’s center-line mileage. Their repair backlog will cost about two thirds as much as the repair backlog for arterials. Yet the City’s recently approved 9-year transportation levy is budgeting almost nothing for their repair. Do you support allocating more of these levy funds to non-arterial street repair? Y N

17. Are you opposed to using special property tax levies and bond issues as a means for funding basic services, such as street and parks maintenance, police, fire, etc.? Y N

18. Do you favor some kind of permit system for tree removal, as used in many other cities? Y N

19. Development throughout the city has led to dramatic losses of large, mature trees and green space. Do you favor “one-to-one” tree replacement or a similar requirement? Y N

20. Considerably more than half of Seattle police officers and fire fighters do not live within the Seattle city limits. Do you favor financial assistance and incentives to encourage these and other direct service employees to live within City limits? Y N

21. Given the cost of new city services that would be needed by the White Center/Highline area if it were annexed to the City of Seattle, do you oppose this proposed annexation? Y N

22. Do you oppose use of eminent domain to condemn private property that would be resold to and redeveloped by non-governmental corporations or non-profit organizations? Y N

23. Are you opposed to up-zoning current Single Family neighborhoods to multi-family? Y N

24. Do you support proposals to address the proliferation of mega-houses in single-family zones that have resulted in the loss of more affordable housing and open space? Y N

25. Do you favor amending the multi-family land use code to require more setbacks and open space than currently? Y N

26. The Mayor withdrew his earlier proposal to charge developers an impact fee for street, transit, and open space needs. Do you support a proposal of this kind? Y N

27. The Mayor has proposed raising the City’s “categorical exemption” thresholds under the State Environmental Policy Act, allowing buildings larger than current ones to be exempted from “white board” notices, citizen appeal rights, or landmarks review. The thresholds would be raised even higher in urban villages and urban centers, reducing current protections where growth is most prevalent. Do you oppose these changes? Y N

28. Neighborhood plans were developed so urban villages and urban centers could grow in ways reflecting their individual nature and conditions. But in recent years, the City Council has imposed on all urban villages and centers some citywide changes, such as reduced parking, open space requirements, and increased heights. Do you oppose these changes and support allowing the neighborhood plans to determine the conditions in each urban village and urban center? Y N

29. Some neighborhood plans need to be updated, and areas lacking a neighborhood plan need one. Some within the City bureaucracy want these new or updated neighborhood plans done by City staff, instead of continuing the model that created current neighborhood plans through City- funded volunteer planning committees, contracts, performance standards and oversight. Do you support continuation of this successful grassroots model for developing neighborhood plans? Y N

30. In recent legislatures, a bill has been introduced that would allow King County and the state to impose new housing and commercial construction targets for Seattle and other urban areas, beyond what is required in the City comprehensive plan and neighborhood plans, and without requiring additional investment in parks and other facilities that keep a neighborhood livable. The bill would give the state the power to withhold transportation and other revenues to force obedience to these targets. Do you oppose this legislation? Y N


_________________________________ _____________ ___________________
Candidate’s signature date phone

__________________________________ _______________________________________
Print or type name e-mail

_______________________________________________
Campaign web site