Are We Surprised By High Unemployment?

During the last decade we not only failed to create jobs in this country, we went backwards in terms of population growth (we grew) and job creations (we eliminated).

And for all the talk about small businesses and innovation, a recent City of Seattle order to a parking lot near our brand spanking new light rail, to stop selling parking spaces because some urban planner has a utopian vision that people should live, shop, and walk to and from transit rather than park and take the train. So now we have a parking lot attendant unemployed. Great.

What is that giant sucking noise?

Signs of Economic Problems

Elliot Bay Book Company, an iconic book store in an old Seattle brick building is either going to downsize and move or go out of business.

"Bookies" will lament that this is another in the decade long epic battle between bricks and mortar independent book sellers and big box/Amazon retailers. Or they will say electronic media readers like Kindle are making books themselves obsolete.

I think this tale may have something to do with those struggles, but more to do with the current economy and the failure of government agencies in Seattle to understand the difficulties, the actual difficulties, of small businesses.

First, Elliot Bay is not a small independent book seller. Years ago the original owner sold the business to it's current owner who is well versed in marketing, book selling, and owning businesses. He owns two other book stores as well as several other retail operations. However, Elliot Bay is a different animal than the other two stores, one located in a smallish mall and the other is a used book store. Elliot Bay has been part of Seattle for over 30 years. It's a landmark.

But the City of Seattle has been on a mission to reduce automobile traffic, so finding parking in the Pioneer Square area takes obsessive zeal. Just darting out to buy a book is not that kind of obsession. And the location of the book store is a mere few blocks from the professional sports stadiums. Seattle Department of Transportation and the police make getting in and out of the neighborhood on a game day a navigational nightmare. And add to it last winter's debacle with the City of Seattle failing, no neglecting, no intentionally NOT plowing the streets for two weeks during a snowstorm (the key two weeks for holiday shopping when most book sellers make the bulk of their annual income) and the recipe for failure is written. Then of course, there is credit. The book store's credit (used to buy inventory) is tapped out and no lender wants to write a new loan (you know, those banks we bailed out?).

For all the talk by politicians that they want to help businesses, they really don't know what to do. So-called business lobbying groups, like the Chamber of Commerce really don't have small business interests at heart. They really represent their own professional staff and large mega-businesses, like, say Barnes and Noble who would be delighted to see Elliot Bay shutter it's windows. And politicians take money from the Chamber of Commerce's Political Action Committee, not from small time owners of little shops in Seattle. So the mayor and city council will wring their hands (it's an election year) about the loss of Elliot Bay, but really, nothing will get done.

But the story of Elliot Bay is applicable to every town and city in America right now. And sooner or later there will be shuttered windows and empty store fronts unless those in power in finance and in managing cities and towns figure out there are ways to help this economy and it ain't bailing out banks too big to fail. That really it's helping out small book stores so small they need to succeed.

Puget Sound Energy's Clout

Ok, I am going to admit right off, this is a personal rant. But I happen to know there are several thousand people in Seattle with my same situation.

Several years ago I called Puget Sound Energy, our local, privately owned, gas utility. Most people in Seattle are customers of the public electrical utility. But, I have an oil furnace and the price of oil per barrel was going through the roof. Natural gas was not. So I wanted to have a gas line installed in my house, then convert to gas for heating and cooking.

The call was going along smoothly until I gave the customer service person my address. "Uh-oh," she said, "you're on an arterial." Apparently my city government makes me replace the whole concrete panel on my street for a 4' x 3' hole. The worse case came true in the gas main is across the street, making my problem doubly expensive. I would have to replace two concrete street panels to the tune of $15,000. I didn't and don't have that kind of money laying around. I appealed to the city, and they agreed that I didn't have to replace the whole panels, just most of it, reducing my cost a whopping $2,000.

As I type this, Puget Sound Energy's contractor is outside, on the main arterial, replacing a gas line for my next door neighbor. It's their maintenance, not the neighbor's request. They have dug their 4' x 3' hole. And they will patch it, not replace the concrete panel (which, by the way was replaced by the city last year, but not close enough for me to connect with the gas main). And what really upsets me is Puget Sound Energy is reducing their rates by 17% while my oil bill continues to sky rocket, and the City of Seattle just raised my electrical rates (I use electricity to cook) again!

I guess if you're a large monopoly you have much more clout with government than a solo citizen, and rules don't seem to matter. But why am I surprised?

Grumpy and Insecure Voters

Prior to his concession speech last Friday, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels stated the reason he thought he was losing was because Seattle voters were grumpy and insecure. Since his concession, there have been numerous articles analyzing what went wrong during Nickels eight years. Most commentators have been looking for Big Themes, such as Nickels intimidated and bullied too many people, he didn't know how to manage an increasingly complex city, or this blue collar boy didn't know how to manage a Microsoft suburb. I tend to think the reasons are far more complicated that a Grand Theory, but rather are a conglomeration of all those little annoying things that build up in you.

An accurate assessment of Mayor Nickels governing style goes something like this: he cobbled together an odd assortment of allies: environmentalists, developers, unions. Each feeding off each other. Developers deftly learned the language of environmentalists, talking about increasing densities in the neighborhoods and downtown as a way of mitigating suburban sprawl, an anathema to urbanista enviros. And the unions saw jobs in any sort of development. So, Mayor Nickels rode this coalition through the bling years, giving developers anything they asked for: tearing down ugly freeways, cute, European looking trolly cars slowly going from downtown to new development only two miles away, and permission to build cookie-cutter townhouses without adequate parking making Seattle's once unique neighborhoods homogenous collections of ugly and cheap condos.

Through all of this the Mayor rammed through revenue generators: photos at intersections intended to catch red light running cars, parking meters in neighborhood shopping areas (replacing free parking), fees on plastic and paper bags at grocery stores. And he arbitrarily closed neighborhood streets for "walking days," blithely towing cars that remained parked and telling people anxious on how to get to work to "chill." He reduced traffic lanes with street diets, forgot to plow the streets during snowstorms but then gave himself a "B," for his management. Figuring out garbage became stressful and he empowered garbagemen to riffle through your cans to decide whether you got a ticket for forgetting to compost the banana peel. But big business and landlords became exempt from all the rules. Travel to and from downtown became laborious. Seattle employees became arrogant. And the daily lives of everyone got slightly more difficult every day.

While governing can be sexy if you get to ponder all the big questions, it's really the little things that build up in people's minds. They remember the day they got a parking ticket in an area that was once free, or a city employee hung up on them, or when the Mayor tells everyone to ride bikes but says he can't because he has a security detail or when his park department decided to ban beach fires because of bogus environmental reasons. It's the slights that add up. And finally tumbled out in a grumpy vote.

Of course, now the pundits are wondering, like the morning after a drinking binge, what did we do? We now have two political newbees running for office. Hopefully they spend a little bit of time thinking just how they will manage the little things. Will they rein in the city's Department of Transportation that seems to think a "listening" session is merely a show and tell then cram a decision down citizen's throats? Will they figure out how to stop powerful stakeholders from controlling decisions at City Hall? Will they stop trying to figure out how to ding people for revenue at every moment? Will they find balance between government intervention and government intrusion?

It's a tough job. Probably the toughest in electoral politics. It's a balance between policy making and managing, unique in management structure. In the end, Mayor Nickels showed some of his true colors, gracious and magnanimous to his opponents, apologetic for the snowplows (again). But did he really understand that part of the tsunami that swept him out of office had to do with so many little things?

Do We Need Elected Experience?

We had a primary for mayor in Seattle yesterday (well, it really lasted for weeks since it was done by mail in ballot). The race is still too close to call, but it appears the incumbent mayor is either out of the race, or will have an uphill battle for re-election. The two possible candidates for mayor may be election newbees. They have never held an elected office before (although both of them have been active in a variety of community issues). We also have one candidate for county executive who is an election newbee. And that is the rub against them. Or at least, that is what the political "elite" are saying.

I also have been having a little discussion with friends throughout the country about term limits in the context of how much money is thrown around in politics and for political issues.

I have a ton of thoughts about this criticism, this idea that to run for higher office, you know, something other than dog catcher, you have to have elected office experience.

It seems that in slightly more than 200 years we have gone from citizen "legislators" to professional politicians. You know, the folks who have spent their whole careers in one elected office or another. I can name dozens: Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Jerry Brown, Warren Magnuson, Maria Cantwell, Chris Gregoire...and Seattle's current mayor who didn't go to college so he could begin working in politics and has done nothing else for 40 years. 40 years.

There are many professions where having experience, lots of experience, is a good thing. Plumbers for instance. A policeman who has street instincts. A general who has seen battle. But in politics, really, there is a huge body of knowledge already in existence for the elected officials to learn from and draw upon. When you're mayor you're not out fixing the water main, but you are having to make it happen. Is someone who has held an elected office their whole life any better at making that happen than a former banker or car dealer or lawyer?

Plus, entrenched elected officials begin to care about one thing, it seems, and that is getting elected. Over and over again. So decisions about fixing the pothole become political calculus because so much more rides on making a decision. Pleasing a donor, for instance. Which isn't to say newbees don't make decisions upon the same math once they are elected. But when you have been there forever, doesn't it become habit?

Then there is the invincibility factor. I think it is just human nature to believe once you're elected over and over that you're infallible in the eyes of the voters. You may become a little cocky. Seattle's mayor ungraciously called the voters grumpy and insecure (hmm, could he be "projecting?). One of the reasons President Bush's incredibly high favorable ratings went into the cellar so quickly is because he could not admit he made mistakes about Iraq or Hurricane Katrina. The same can be said about Seattle's mayor. When you come to believe your invincible you don't have to admit mistakes. Heck, you don't make them!

What is ironic here in Seattle is the same folks who think the two remaining candidates (or who may be the remaining candidates) are not "seasoned" enough are the same folks who voted, enthusiastically, for an unseasoned, Freshman US Senator as President of the United States. Seems like he is doing ok so far, eh?

I tend to think novices to elected office, while a risk, have a lot to offer. Fresh ideas, little corruption, humility, fire in the gut to prove yourself. And these days, there is nothing wrong with those qualities.

Government and Social Engineering

The City of Seattle has finally fessed up to what many city park users already knew: they are removing garbage cans.  In an attempt to, apparently, save money, the city is removing garbage cans from parks and asking users to "pack it out."

While this "pack it out" system works fairly well for backpackers in wilderness areas, urban picnickers with tubs of chicken, potato salad, and a case of Coca-Cola, along with baby strollers, toys, and other assorted "day in the park" items will have a hard time packing it all out.  Already, neighbors of Seattle Parks are reporting their garbage cans are being filled by park users.  

It seems to me that this is a perfect example of government trying to social engineer behavior in ways that might look good in discussions at the conference rooms but in reality is forgetful of the role of government and the relation with the governed.  

In the Pacific Northwest there is a push to have urban areas like Seattle and Portland increase their densities.  In the past ten years thousands of multi-family units have been built, pushing out single family dwellings and low scale buildings in favor of multi-use multiple story structures.  Both Portland and Seattle have gone from being small urban areas to New York wanna-bes.

The idea of increasing densities is good if it stops the expansion of growth into the lowland forested areas surrounding both Seattle and Portland.  Recent studies, however, are showing that sprawl continues to edge into these vital lands despite urban growth.  

Nonetheless, cities must make themselves attractive to multiple generations if they are to continue to house and employ large numbers of people.  Making amenities like parks difficult to visit, or "work," will not accomplish that goal.  Rather, it will encourage people to get in their cars and find places to picnic where they can conveniently get rid of their trash by throwing it into a garbage and recycling bin.

Sometimes great ideas have rather bad consequences and the social engineering of city staffs usually flop.  Often it is far far better to continue to provide good service and as a result people will enjoy living in the city.  Seems simple, huh.