There is an interesting contrast in perhaps the most meaningful race in Snohomish County this year, that to succeed Gary Nelson in the 3rd Council District (southwest Snohomish County). Renee Radcliff Sinclair's low-key but effective service in the Legislature is seemingly a good fit for the largely nonpartisan issues usually before the County Council. In contrast, Mike Cooper is a hyper-partisan, prone to the use of his bombastic voice in a manner oddly discordant with his stature, but which aligns with his true persona.
One aspect of Cooper's shtick used to perplex me. He routinely plays fast and loose with the facts. Yet, until I served with him on the County Charter Review Commission last year I wasn't clear whether it was due to ignorance of the facts themselves or willful disregard of the truth. In my experience on the Commission it turned out to be an uncomfortable combination of both.
Not surprisingly, he's at it again. At a recent candidate forum hosted by the League of Women Voters in Lynnwood Cooper spoke on the issue described at some length in this Seattle Times article, saying:
In the meantime, the county is still issuing building permits, within the urban growth boundaries of these cities that will have to - that will eventually annex those substandard housing. Many of them are not livable; many of them do not have appropriate set-backs, landscaping, sidewalks, and other infrastructure measures in place, because the Planning Commission refused to move design standards forward to the County Council, and because when Council Members Sommer [sic] and Gossett attempted to put design standards before the County Council, the County Council voted it down, and only adopted the amendments that were put forward by the Master Builders Association who are largely funding my opponent's campaign.
The errors in Cooper's statement are many, contradicted directly by the Times coverage. He paints a picture of the Master Builders running roughshod over Councilmen Dave Sommers and Dave Gossett. In reality, Gossett worked with the Master Builders and Snohomish County Fire Chiefs Association to pass legislation that addressed the core housing code issues in question.
What the Council rejected, and what Cooper appears to support, was the moratorium on such housing proposed by local cities. Such a moratorium might serve the interests of cities who have continually refused to accept the housing density necessitated by the GMA (leaving the county to absorb it), but such a stoppage would do nothing to serve the interests of working families who are struggling to find affordable housing in the district Cooper seeks to represent.
Cooper is at least consistently hostile to affordable housing. As the cost of basic services like law enforcement and fire departments rise, local governments are in a funding pinch. Cooper's position is to place the burden entirely on fees assessed on developers. That translates into higher housing prices, passing on cost inflation in service delivery solely to potential homebuyers rather than the community at large.
Ironically, Cooper bemoans the contributions of homebuilders to Sinclair's campaign. These businesses want to build homes that interested consumers can purchase at an affordable price. Meanwhile, Cooper's own list of contributors is dominated by organized labor, supposedly representing the working families who are currently struggling to find an affordable home to buy in the area, a problem that would only be made worse under Cooper's policy preferences.
Take a look at the six pictures in the Seattle Times article cited above. Cooper calls this housing "substandard" and "not livable." There's a lot of this newer, denser housing in the northeast part of the 3rd Council District I live in around Ash Way. Is Cooper telling these voters they own "substandard" housing that is "not livable"? That's not a message you'd think he'd want to take door-to-door.
Bluntly, Cooper is out of touch with a significant portion of his district. Most people don't share his experience of living in the home once owned by their parents in the "Edmonds bowl," where many long-time residents couldn't repurchase their own homes on the open market if their lives depended on it given the way that area's house values have exploded in recent years. Cooper's policy thinking essentially amounts to a "Young Families Not Welcome Here" outcome that doesn't do any community any good.
It's a reminder that given the relatively non-partisan atmosphere of the County Council, Renee Radcliff Sinclair is the better choice for a livable community. Mike Cooper isn't. The only question is whether or not he'll whip out the same antics at tomorrow night's candidate forum in Edmonds, a traditionally well-attended and long-running gathering also hosted by the League of Women Voters. If so, he deserves to be called on it.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 08, 2007 07:46 AM | Email ThisMr. Cooper, the reason your unions have as many workers as they do is because of the homes the many, many thousands of workers build.
And what happens, Mr. Cooper, if we stop growth, which is what you are espousing? That means fewer teachers, fewer municipal employees and fewer jobs for your kids. Not exactly a democratic solution if you think it out.
If you hate these developments so much, why don't others and why is there such a demand? If setbacks, etc. among a myriad of excuses aren't enough for you, are you espousing lesser density? And if you are espousing less density, doesn't that make your liberal utopia even more difficult to achieve- i.e. rail transit?
And as far as Sinclair goes, I don't care if she is a Republican, I would vote for her no matter what her party affiliation. She is one of those "special" people that we need more of in government.
Posted by: swatter on August 8, 2007 10:01 AMI was at last Thursday's debate and every one of Cooper's housing recommendations would dramatically INCREASE the cost of housing in this county.
With all the growth we're experiencing and will continue to experience, Cooper would be a disaster to this county's economy.
I didn't notice any reporters there. Hopefully, someone recorded Cooper's idiotic remarks.
It's pretty hard to solve problems when you don't even understand what's causing the problem to begin with.
Posted by: Mitch on August 8, 2007 11:07 AMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjfTqu4nSEQ
Let's look at the excerpt statement by statement:
1. "In the meantime, the county is still issuing building permits": TRUE, the county is issuing permits for houses in the LDMR zones
2. "within the urban growth boundaries of these cities": TRUE, the LDMR zone is used extensively in the county's southwest UGA, an area that is currently carved up among the various cities and slated for eventual annexation
3. "that will have to - that will eventually annex those substandard housing": OPINION, there is no claim that this housing does not meet code or regulations, this is clearly an opinion statement
4. "Many of them are not livable": OPINION, I would like to point out that he says many, not all, as some comments have failed to recognize
5. "many of them do not have appropriate set-backs, landscaping, sidewalks, and other infrastructure measures in place": OPINION, again Cooper does not argue that the set-backs etc are code violations or otherwise illegal, just inappropriate
6. "because the Planning Commission refused to move design standards forward to the County Council": TRUE, it is true that an amendment proposed by Councilmember Gossett to require some design standards failed to make it past the Planning Commission, incidentally, it failed by one vote, and Sinclair voted no
7. "and because when Council Members Sommer [sic] and Gossett attempted to put design standards before the County Council, the County Council voted it down": TRUE, Councilmember Gossett, with the support of Somers (one M since we are being picky about spelling), did propose the same design standards amendment that was defeated at the Planning Commission, and it was once again defeated 2-3, Gossett and Somers voting yes
8. "and only adopted the amendments that were put forward by the Master Builders Association": UNCLEAR, the amendments that passed had all been vetted by the Master Builder's and other interest groups, and reflected a "consensus process", so they were supported by the MBA and developed through a process that included them, so they could possibly be viewed as proponents, although not the exclusive proponents
9. "who are largely funding my opponent's campaign": UNCLEAR, a rough survey of Sinclair's contributors indicates that $24,450 of $57,145 (43%) comes from individuals or companies involved in construction or development, the dictionary defines largely as "in a large manner, to a large extent" and I think it is not unreasonable to describe 43% in that way
So again, I just don't see the factual missteps? There are clearly some very strong opinions, but opinions are not facts. Indeed, a number of local leaders from both sides of the political spectrum have expressed concerns about LDMR development. Edmonds Mayor Gary Haakenson is a self-described Republican and Lynnwood Mayor Don Gough a self-described Democrat, and they both call these developments inappropriate.
Additionally, fire officials in the area have expressed concerns about the distance between buildings and lack of parking, both of which would potentially impede safe rescues in dense developments.
So, in summary, it is clear that Cooper has strong opinions on the issue. But, he was not factually incorrect in the excerpt, and his opinions are shared by Republicans and Democrats in the area.
Turning to another subject, Sinclair did appear to make some factually vague statements herself, so I think it is important that we be critical of both candidates.
In reference to property taxes, she said "we need to take a look... a closer look at where we can cut the percentage, as was noted previously by one of the city council candidates, Initiative 747 would have allowed jurisdictions to raise the property tax by 1% a year, I don't think we need to do that..." which would suggest two things:
1. the tax rate has not declined
2. that the county has taken 1% increases allowed by I-747
Both are not true, the county has not taken the 1% increase over at least the last four years, and consequently, the tax rate has fallen for the county portion of property taxes
In reference to Paine Field expansion she said, "Well uhh, first of all, umm I think we need to be clear that in order to manage commercial traffic Paine Field doesn't need to expand, its already big enough to do that..."
This statement suggests that Paine Field could currently accomodate expanded commercial air service, which is not true. There is no terminal at Paine Field, which would be necessary to conduct security screenings etc. Also the transportation infrastructure surrounding Paine Field is inadequate for air service. The county has plans for a terminal, and there have been some preliminary studies to evaluate what road infrastructure would be neccessary, but neither have been constructed.
I do not mean to pick on Sinclair, rather I think it is important to remember that candidate forums are an opportunity to get general views on broad issues, not nit-pick and parse language.
It is clear that the two candidates have differing views on issues facing Snohomish County and how the County Council can or should play a role. I believe that the voters should evaluate the candidates on the basis of their general views, and focusing on name calling and parsing words are not really the best way to make an informed choice.
Posted by: voice of reason on August 8, 2007 10:19 PMOdd isn't it. You failed to state where COOPER gets his money?
But your FAIR right?
Just asking.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 9, 2007 06:29 AM1. Yes, the county is still issuing permits in the zone designation of LDMR. So what? The negotiated amendments were incorporated into the ordinance that dealt with the safety concerns of the fire community and the cities.
2. No problem here. The cities will eventually incorporate these areas as required by the growth management act which encourages density in urban areas.
3. To say that the homes built in the LDMR zone are substandard is more than opinion. It suggests that they have been built below code and that is factually not true. It is also a slap in the face to those who have purchased homes in these communities.
4. Ditto
5. If Cooper has read the ordinance, he knows these issues have been resolved. To try and stir public anger about them now is disingenuous at best.
6. The Planning Commission moved all the design standards forward except ARCHITECTURAL design standards. Those would dictate things like what kind of windows a home will have, how many, paint shades, pitch of roof, etc. Is that really something the County needs to monitor? Sinclair supported all by the ARCHITECTURAL deign standards and to suggest otherwise is once again disingenuous.
7. Perhaps the ARCHITECTURAL design standards are more appropriately addressed in the bigger context of the Uniform Development Code update that the county is presently conducting.
8. Once again it is disingenuous to say the amendments adopted were from the "Master Builders" when they were, in fact, consensus amendments with significant input from a variety of parties. The statement was designed to cast Sinclair and homebuilders in a negative light. Tacky.
9. We all know that county races only really hold the interest of two groups -- homebuilders and the environmental community. The unions are siding with the environmental community (interesting, since environmental regulations are one of the drivers of home costs) and that's where Cooper's money is coming from. Again, I say, Big Deal. No surprises.
And in regard to Paine Field, at least Sinclair said how she would discourage commercial air traffic. Cooper just took the easy road out and said bsically, "hell no". Sinclair has acknowledged she would push for airlines to rebuild a terminal, create greater parking, and improve the roads around the airport. Maybe she shouldn't share with voters her plan, maybe she should be more vague like her opponent.
Frankly, I was impressed that Eric Earling picked this issue up. I was at that Forum and I was appalled by Cooper's words and actions. This is not a person who can lead our County into the future. While Sinclair might not be as loud or simplistic in her views, I believe she has the strength of character to represent the people who elect her in a positive way.
Posted by: honestyisstillthebestpolicy on August 9, 2007 07:20 AMMonster comments on both of your parts though.
Posted by: swatter on August 9, 2007 08:28 AMMy sentiments exactly. Cooper has built his entire political career on his stupid firefighter schtick, he has absolutely nothing else. To call him the Howard Dean of Snohomish County would be an insult to Howard Dean. Every time I see Cooper, I'm waiting for a "Cooper scream".
Actually, there have been "Cooper scream" moments, I understand, but unfortunately, none of them have been caught on video.
Posted by: Cliff on August 11, 2007 10:38 PM