Tag: UP

Urban Politics #352: Seattle’s Minimum Wage makes us a World Class City

This week the Seattle City Council’s passage of Seattle’s $15 minimum wage legislation, Ord_124490, positions Seattle as a national leader in promoting sustainable economic development while also providing decent paying jobs. Seattle will show what a true world class city is: a city where all classes live in the same world, where they receive fair and livable compensation for an honest day’s work.

The Mayor, City Councilmembers, and supporters celebrate the historic vote in front of City Hall

We must recognize that the issue of raising minimum wages was kicked off by fast food workers who walked off their jobs at franchise stores a year ago in Seattle and even before that in New York City. They risked their jobs to turn this nation around, from placing investor returns above the basic needs of our citizens.

A recent Seattle Times Editorial argues that franchises are not arms of corporations. They point out that franchises have their own tax ID numbers and payroll – they are independent business units separate from the franchiser. Typical agreements offer franchises a brand, a business model, some marketing and bulk buying power. In exchange, franchises pay about 4 to 7 percent of their gross profits back to the franchiser. So, the Seattle Times argues they are just small local businesses receiving corporate support.

However, a closer look reveals a far different kind of entity. For instance, consider Subway franchises, the world’s largest fast-food chain. It has 57 locations in Seattle, by far the most of any franchise here. Subway operators claim to be small businesses. However, Subway Corporation provides more than just a brand name. They have an integrated relationship describing everything from set-up to marketing with each store under a franchise agreement, which is found in a 500 page document filed with the State. Each owner of a franchise chooses freely to enter into a Subway contract as a business venture. They could open an independent store, but they recognize the value of being in a tight legal relationship with a national corporation. The corporation on the other hand depends on a franchise business model based on low wages. As employees begin to earn more the corporation will have to adjust their model. And that is a good thing.

Seattle is taking direct action to close our nation’s huge income gap between the very wealthy and the rest of us, because the Federal and state governments have failed to do so. Although the average workers’ wages have remained stagnant, the pay for those at the top has skyrocketed. In 1965, CEOs made 20.1 times the pay of the average worker. By 2012, that ratio was more than 10 times larger: CEOs made 273 times the pay of the average worker in 2012.

Later this month, I will be attending meetings in New York City with the national Local Progress organization to discuss how Seattle’s legislation relates to other cities’ efforts to increase their minimum wage. New York City’s second most powerful political position in the city after the mayor, City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, said the day after Seattle’s vote that she would like to see the minimum wage in her city bumped to as much as $15 an hour, nearly double her state’s current minimum wage of $8. Without a doubt, we will witness other municipal officials making similar proposals. I suspect they recognize that municipalities must do something to stop the middle class from shrinking any further.

This trend is noticeable in Seattle. According to Seattle’s Office of Economic Development, the top quintile, or the wealthiest 20 percent of households here, took home about 51.8 percent of all household income. This compares to 50.2 percent nationally. The bottom two quintiles together, the poorest 40 percent, took home 10.5 percent of income compared to 11.8 percent nationally. The wage gap in Seattle is larger than the nation’s average. And the gap is even more pronounced among minority ethnic groups. African American and Native American median incomes are 8 percent lower in Seattle than the national average. And Asian American incomes are dramatically lower, something like 30 percent.

This is a condition that apparently is not recognized by many neighborhood business organizations. An informal group of business organizations representing small business throughout Seattle completed a survey this March of its respective members regarding an increase in the minimum wage. Only 28 percent of respondents did not believe that income inequality is a problem in Seattle and only 27 percent agreed that raising the minimum wage will reduce income inequality. Respondents generally agreed that there were other avenues to consider when addressing the issue of income inequality, namely access to affordable housing (60 percent), child care assistance (49 percent), and healthcare assistance (49 percent). While these services are certainly needed and must be pursued, I believe the missing point is that these services are currently unaffordable for many. Raising one’s income is the surest path to being able to afford them.

Seattle’s new law opens the way for many workers to earn enough to meet their basic needs. It will raise their standard of living and by putting more dollars into our economy, thereby stimulating greater commercial activity. By significantly raising the minimum wage, Seattle’s prosperity will be shared by more people while creating a sustainable model for continued growth. Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago reveals that a $1 minimum wage hike increases household spending by about $700 per quarter in the year following the increase.

Seattle’s next critical step is to create an Office of Fair Labor Standards Enforcement, to assure that all businesses are being treated equally under our labor laws. We cannot expect responsible businesses that are treating their employees fairly to be at a competitive disadvantage with those businesses that are not administering fair labor practices. I look forward to proposing legislation that will have this new office operating at the start of next year.

Keep in touch…

 

Urban Politics #352: Seattle’s Minimum Wage makes us a World Class City

This week the Seattle City Council’s passage of Seattle’s $15 minimum wage legislation, Ord_124490, positions Seattle as a national leader in promoting sustainable economic development while also providing decent paying jobs. Seattle will show what a true world class city is: a city where all classes live in the same world, where they receive fair and livable compensation for an honest day’s work.

The Mayor, City Councilmembers, and supporters celebrate the historic vote in front of City Hall

We must recognize that the issue of raising minimum wages was kicked off by fast food workers who walked off their jobs at franchise stores a year ago in Seattle and even before that in New York City. They risked their jobs to turn this nation around, from placing investor returns above the basic needs of our citizens.

A recent Seattle Times Editorial argues that franchises are not arms of corporations. They point out that franchises have their own tax ID numbers and payroll – they are independent business units separate from the franchiser. Typical agreements offer franchises a brand, a business model, some marketing and bulk buying power. In exchange, franchises pay about 4 to 7 percent of their gross profits back to the franchiser. So, the Seattle Times argues they are just small local businesses receiving corporate support.

However, a closer look reveals a far different kind of entity. For instance, consider Subway franchises, the world’s largest fast-food chain. It has 57 locations in Seattle, by far the most of any franchise here. Subway operators claim to be small businesses. However, Subway Corporation provides more than just a brand name. They have an integrated relationship describing everything from set-up to marketing with each store under a franchise agreement, which is found in a 500 page document filed with the State. Each owner of a franchise chooses freely to enter into a Subway contract as a business venture. They could open an independent store, but they recognize the value of being in a tight legal relationship with a national corporation. The corporation on the other hand depends on a franchise business model based on low wages. As employees begin to earn more the corporation will have to adjust their model. And that is a good thing.

Seattle is taking direct action to close our nation’s huge income gap between the very wealthy and the rest of us, because the Federal and state governments have failed to do so. Although the average workers’ wages have remained stagnant, the pay for those at the top has skyrocketed. In 1965, CEOs made 20.1 times the pay of the average worker. By 2012, that ratio was more than 10 times larger: CEOs made 273 times the pay of the average worker in 2012.

Later this month, I will be attending meetings in New York City with the national Local Progress organization to discuss how Seattle’s legislation relates to other cities’ efforts to increase their minimum wage. New York City’s second most powerful political position in the city after the mayor, City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, said the day after Seattle’s vote that she would like to see the minimum wage in her city bumped to as much as $15 an hour, nearly double her state’s current minimum wage of $8. Without a doubt, we will witness other municipal officials making similar proposals. I suspect they recognize that municipalities must do something to stop the middle class from shrinking any further.

This trend is noticeable in Seattle. According to Seattle’s Office of Economic Development, the top quintile, or the wealthiest 20 percent of households here, took home about 51.8 percent of all household income. This compares to 50.2 percent nationally. The bottom two quintiles together, the poorest 40 percent, took home 10.5 percent of income compared to 11.8 percent nationally. The wage gap in Seattle is larger than the nation’s average. And the gap is even more pronounced among minority ethnic groups. African American and Native American median incomes are 8 percent lower in Seattle than the national average. And Asian American incomes are dramatically lower, something like 30 percent.

This is a condition that apparently is not recognized by many neighborhood business organizations. An informal group of business organizations representing small business throughout Seattle completed a survey this March of its respective members regarding an increase in the minimum wage. Only 28 percent of respondents did not believe that income inequality is a problem in Seattle and only 27 percent agreed that raising the minimum wage will reduce income inequality. Respondents generally agreed that there were other avenues to consider when addressing the issue of income inequality, namely access to affordable housing (60 percent), child care assistance (49 percent), and healthcare assistance (49 percent). While these services are certainly needed and must be pursued, I believe the missing point is that these services are currently unaffordable for many. Raising one’s income is the surest path to being able to afford them.

Seattle’s new law opens the way for many workers to earn enough to meet their basic needs. It will raise their standard of living and by putting more dollars into our economy, thereby stimulating greater commercial activity. By significantly raising the minimum wage, Seattle’s prosperity will be shared by more people while creating a sustainable model for continued growth. Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago reveals that a $1 minimum wage hike increases household spending by about $700 per quarter in the year following the increase.

Seattle’s next critical step is to create an Office of Fair Labor Standards Enforcement, to assure that all businesses are being treated equally under our labor laws. We cannot expect responsible businesses that are treating their employees fairly to be at a competitive disadvantage with those businesses that are not administering fair labor practices. I look forward to proposing legislation that will have this new office operating at the start of next year.

Keep in touch…

 

Urban Politics #349: A Seattle Park District

Back in 1999, on March 4th and again on March 21st, I wrote about Metropolitan Park Districts. At the time, State legislators were amending the Revised Code of Washington to allow more flexibility in the kinds of projects eligible for funding.

On Monday, April 28th, the City Council’s Select Committee on Parks Funding will meet to finalize its proposal for a Seattle Park District funding measure. It would go to voters in August and, if passed, would replace the city’s current levy process with a separate taxing authority authorized under the State’s amended Metropolitan Park Districts law.

In reviewing the Mayor’s proposed $54.3 million measure, the Select Committee sought to reduce the price tag to around $48 million. While some reductions to arrive at this level were technical administrative adjustments, such as staffing expense reductions, others did propose program reductions, such as reducing 25 new programs totaling $205,000 in the Recreation Opportunities for All category.

My priorities are:

View from Kerry Park

1. Restore $200,000 for the 25 new programs in the Recreation Opportunities for All category. These community-based programs benefit a wide variety of residents, including many with low incomes, and bolster the City’s Race & Social Justice Initiative at a time when demand for such programming is rising.

2. Increase the Seattle Park District Community Oversight Committee from 11 members to 15: 4 Parks Board members; 1 citizen member from each of the 7 Council Districts; and 4 members nominated by other City advisory commissions, including the Women’s Commission, the Immigrant and Refugee Commission, the Commission for People with Disabilities, the Human Rights Commission, and the Seattle Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Commission. The 2000 Pro Parks Levy and the 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy advisory committees were each formed with 16 members. This more broadly representative committee will better align with our City’s Race and Social Justice commitments.

3. Expand the duties of the Seattle Park District Community Oversight Committee. Its proposed duties are: 1) to make recommendations to the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation (“Superintendent”) on the annual allocation of the Major Projects Challenge Fund; 2) to review an annual report to be provided to the Seattle Park District and the City, including assessing performance measures and reporting to the Superintendent and Park Board on implementation issues, concerns and needed adjustments in services or spending, and 3) to hold public meetings and make recommendations to the Superintendent in connection with each 6-year update to the spending plan.

Gasworks Park

In revisiting previous Parks Levy oversight committee duties, I found they had some important additional responsibilities I believe will make the Seattle Park District Community Oversight Committee more effective. In order to empower the Committee with those responsibilities, I proposed revising the duties to read:

1. Establish a Major Projects Challenge Funds application process and evaluation criteria, and make recommendations to the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation (“Superintendent”) on the annual allocation of the Major Projects Challenge Fund.

2. Review an annual report prepared by DPR to be provided to the Seattle Park District and the City, including assessment of performance measures and expenditure of District funds including interest earnings, and reporting to the Superintendent and Park Board on implementation issues, concerns and needed adjustments in services or spending.

3. Hold public meetings and making recommendations to the Superintendent in connection with each 6-year update to the spending plan.

4. Provide to the Mayor, City Council, and Superintendent of Parks and Recreation an annual report on the progress of expenditures, a mid-term report half-way through each 6-year period, and a final report in advance of each 6-year update to the spending plan. Progress on construction of park development on the 14 landbanked sites in Initiative 4.4 will be among the issues addressed in the first mid-term report.

That last line in duty #4, above, refers to the measure’s overall balance of spending as it relates to the $3,500,000 proposed for our newly developed Central Waterfront Park annually beginning in 2019. For years 2016 through 2018, that amount is earmarked for developing 14 neighborhood Parks.

A redeveloped central waterfront is critically important for Seattle. At the same time, I feel it’s important to consider the “big picture” of how parks are being developed throughout our entire city. That’s why I proposed the Seattle Parks District receive a report on the status of developing those 14 neighborhood parks before Central Waterfront spending begins in 2019, detailing how well new parks are serving neighborhoods throughout all of Seattle.

Yesterday, I met with Diana Kincaid, the Parks Board representative on the Parks Legacy Citizens’ Advisory Committee that delivered to the Mayor the original proposal for placing a Metropolitan Park District measure before Seattle voters. She revealed that when she began her work on the Committee, she was not convinced a Metropolitan Park District should replace our levy system of funding parks. But, as the Committee met with the public and received mailed public comments, she decided a park district could best meet the needs expressed by residents. Diana supports my proposed changes to the Mayor’s proposal.

The Select Committee on Parks Funding is scheduled to discuss and vote this Monday, April 28th, on the parks funding measure it intends to place on the August election ballot.

Keep in touch…