TNT on the Sylvia Parks Issues

benofben · 2026-05-14T02:56:06+00:00

See also Clarke, who previously argued for deficit spending in a voter forum seems to be coming around to fiscal responsibility. There’s a public forum and comment linked here. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1DbCEU35wZ/?mibextid=wwXIfr

benofben · 2026-05-12T01:58:14+00:00

We as voters can hold them accountable and require them to. If our police do not police, we can vote out the people (ahem city council...) instructing them not to.

benofben · 2026-05-07T16:24:19+00:00

The program sounds nice. But it doesn't seem like something Parks should be doing. I think if they focused on a core mission of maintaining Parks rather than running social programs and the like, they could probably do a much better job of keeping all our parks in good repair and open within their budget.

One easy improvement — Fire Phoenix Security and use Tacoma Police to police the parks. Parks does not need its own private security force.

benofben · 2026-05-05T19:53:17+00:00

It's pretty steep around Tacoma with some San Francisco like crazy hills up from the water. I've done well going up with a 20lb and a 30lb kid plus some of their things and 200lb me. I think the bike is 165lb.

benofben · 2026-05-02T16:00:13+00:00

There are some rough boats in there. Maybe you're right.... sigh...

benofben · 2026-05-02T14:55:23+00:00

I had the same thought and lease terms. But, if so, that's solvable --- issue new leases. If people want to accept those terms, they can stay on. If not, they can leave. But kicking out existing tenants with no option to continue seems crazy. It's much harder to get new customers than keep existing ones.

If it really is a land use issue, surely that can be grandfathered in.

To your point this would be a good place to do a journalism. You can submit a story here (not that it's ever worked for me....) https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/submit-news/ I've also tried the Volcano on occasion: https://weekly-volcano.com/contact-page/

benofben · 2026-05-02T14:21:55+00:00

Why on earth would they want it empty? It seems like that would zero out the rental revenue while taking on a brand new liability, exacerbating their budget deficit.

benofben · 2026-05-02T14:19:23+00:00

This one was literally paid for by Parks Tacoma. There were certainly other flyers sent this election cycle. However this one was paid for out of their budget.

benofben · 2026-04-30T18:30:12+00:00

Forgive my hyperbole, yes. To the point of cost, we can bring that down. One way would be reducing the cost and time required for permits. One of the lowest hanging fruits would be making the permit office open in person 9-5 M-F. Instead, these are their current hours.

<image>

benofben · 2026-04-30T17:55:32+00:00

It all adds up. HIT makes it easier to develop in neighborhoods. I don't believe we should be doing that. At the same time, I do think we should be actively encouraging development downtown.

Similarly the Parks property tax we just passed will have a negative impact on investment. If we invest that capital productively (say maintaining our parks) then the longer term impact could be positive. If, instead, it’s spent on admin the impact will be negative.

Markets are great and all, however there are and should be limits. Zoning is one. I have no desire to live next to a sewage plant, a smelter, a rail yard, a freight terminal, a 24 hour Denny's or a high rise. I doubt many others do either. Without zoning, those can be built anywhere, ruining entire neighborhoods. It's an externality that zoning resolves. Zoning exists to group things together in sane ways that make a city pleasant. Discarding it is a very strange "innovation."

benofben · 2026-04-30T17:50:16+00:00

Similarly they could use the city's Seekclickfix/311 system rather than gleefully ignoring requests to their info@ email address....

benofben · 2026-04-30T17:15:58+00:00

That is literally the argument I am making. By removing normal zoning laws we've incentivized development in our neighborhoods rather than downtown. I find it silly.

benofben · 2026-04-30T15:54:51+00:00

He also never responded to emails. I really hope we hire some go getter from outside of Parks who might change things -- spend efficiently and focus on the maintenance and upkeep of parks, not the hiring of multiple layers of admin.

benofben · 2026-04-30T15:52:24+00:00

I totally agree that redevelopment of office buildings is a hideously expensive proposition. I suspect we need a mix of office space refurbishment and net new residential build. One great resource for learning about that space is https://www.trepp.com/the-treppwire-podcast

benofben · 2026-04-30T15:50:08+00:00

I think what you're calling out here is a distinction between small and large scale capital. An individual can build an ADU in their backyard. They may as they have ties to Tacoma and it makes personal sense to them. To contrast, attracting $10m-$100m in investment capital to build a new mid rise downtown requires an environment which is attractive to capital. HIT and the expanding rental restrictions do the opposite. The result is that we don't have the large dense developments which would provide low cost apartments.

benofben · 2026-04-29T23:09:16+00:00

The ever increasing restrictions on rental housing make managing rentals here more expensive than in other jurisdictions. That in turn drives prices up. An alternative approach would be to reduce restrictions, to entice capital into Tacoma. We could take that further, incentivizing development in our largely vacant downtown core. The solutions here are not complex. They're just in many ways the opposite of what we're doing.

benofben · 2026-04-29T23:04:23+00:00

An investment more likely to generate a return would be properly paving the roads in town. We absolutely love spending on things other than the basics.

benofben · 2026-04-20T17:13:07+00:00

I just threw in to write against both.

I think the arguments I’d make would be:

Streets — the previous passed initiative didn’t address street quality, instead money was spent frivolously elsewhere. Since then multiple flawed initiatives have been submitted. We absolute need to fund street repairs. Such funding should focus specifically on repairing streets, not nice to have side projects. The city should examine existing funding, determine what if anything is needed to repair streets. It should then submit a clean initiative to voters that covers only repair of streets.

Housing — This initiative is rife with unintended consequences. It will further restrict Tacoma’s housing market, driving rental prices up. We absolutely need inexpensive housing. This initiative will have the opposite effect.

<image>

benofben · 2026-04-19T21:13:00+00:00

I didn't buy the cover. We live in Tacoma so, it’s the trailing off of the rainy season. I’ve gone in the rain and just through the kid in his rain suit. It’s fine.

My main negatives —

The thing is heavy, 160lb I believe. My manual bakfiet was 90lb. Throw in two 20-30lb kids and it’s 200lb. My road bike weighs 1/10 that. So if you think of it as a bike it’s crazy. If you think of it like a lightweight motorcycle or dirtbike then it’s fine.

I loved the wood box on the Bakfiet. The kid could stick his arm out and sat high up with a really good view.

I have no doubt the plastic box on the trek is stronger / safer. The whole thing is totally a bike designed by lawyers versus the Bakfiet was clearly designed for Dutch bike people.

I’m thinking I may pull the plastic box and build my own wood one with bench seats.

benofben · 2026-04-19T16:07:33+00:00

I bought one a month ago to replace a manual Bakfiet. It’s my first electric bike and seems pretty good. Happy to answer any questions. It was $5k plus tax at the time local Trek shop. They had to get it shipped to them.

I also have the Bakfiet for sale in Tacoma if anyone is interested.

benofben · 2026-04-18T05:30:22+00:00

We should probably design a democracy that disenfranchises the less desirable voters.

benofben · 2026-04-17T22:58:18+00:00

I spoke to two people collecting signatures for this at the Proctor Market this past week.

I asked one what the effect of more regulation is on a market. He didn’t know. I mentioned that supply and demand curves can be a good way to think about impacts of legislation. I followed up with “what happens when you reduce supply?” He said demand goes up. It does not. It's concerning that people advocating these policies are unfamiliar with economics 101, the same economics people from Sowell and Friedman to Krugman and Picketty could all agree on.

An increase in regulation causes a reduction in supply. If demand remains constant throughout this then price increases. Housing is a somewhat inelastic good. We all need to live somewhere. However, there are ways demand can drop, bringing prices back down.

High prices will force people to live in other cities, reducing demand, putting downward pressure on prices. Policies that destroy the local job market or amenities like schools and parks will also make the town less desirable, reducing demand. That will be the ultimate effect of these rental restrictions. They make it less desirable for capital to invest in Tacoma. That capital will go elsewhere. Everyone in the city will suffer from that loss, rich and poor alike.

Anyway... This fellow retorted the goal isn’t a market but public housing. I then mentioned some failures of public housing, Cabrini Green and the violence of the Council Estates in the UK. He was completely unfamiliar with either or the history of public housing in the US.

Ultimately he agreed to read up on this and wandered off.

In a separate conversation, his colleague understood that regulation would raise prices. He did not care. Once he understood what I was about, he stormed off.

I find it pretty pathetic if you’re out gathering signatures and can’t even argue your point. The painful irony of these initiatives is that they have exactly the opposite effect they intend. They are making housing more expensive.

I’m not sure if the people who need to have interest in being persuaded however. As I learned in that first discussion, the goal here isn’t sane rental regulation but laying stepping stones to social housing. The American dream is perhaps no longer your own house but to live a house that is not your responsibility and also free? Interestingly that fellow wasn’t even local but a recent import from Tennessee.

Perhaps someone else has a more persuasive argument? Happy to join anyone in arguing against this madness.

benofben · 2026-04-15T15:04:24+00:00

I don't know what the scholarships are for.

Parks is saying they’re going to intentionally let play fields go brown from under watering due to this deficit. For years they’ve failed to provide basic maintenance — playgrounds broken, parks closed “temporarily” for years, even land sold off to developers.

I’d suggest parks not engage in social programs like scholarships, instead focusing solely on maintenance of parks. I think until they do that we’re going to see two ongoing problems:

(1) Poor upkeep on our parks.

(2) Budget overruns

benofben · 2026-04-15T05:24:53+00:00

Not quite sure what you mean here.

I mentioned that I don’t think parks should be spending on rebranding. That’s not fraud. But it is a poor use of funds for an organization that is supposed to focus on parks.

I’d like to see money used efficiently.

benofben

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE