Not yet ready to put a LID on it: Q & A with downtown activist Gene Burrus

Earlier this month, the Seattle Hearing Examiner denied a challenge by over 400 downtown residents and small business owners, upholding the City’s right to create a $160 million Local Improvement District (LID) to help fund the proposed $730 million Seattle Waterfront Park.

Despite losing round one, the battle wages on. Appeals are now scheduled for December 1st when downtown property owners will have an opportunity to appeal their case before a committee of the City Council.

Downtown resident, attorney and former City Council candidate Gene Burrus has led the charge against the LID.  DRA asked his thoughts on the prospects for continuing to challenge this controversial assessment method.

DRA:  For the record, what is your objection to the Waterfront LID?  What funding mechanism do you think would be more equitable?

GB: What I found most objectionable about the LID was the fact that those of us being taxed had no opportunity to vote or express our consent to being taxed.  It offended my sense of democratic values. It is also apparent that the City’s assertion of “special benefit” to downtown property owners was arbitrary and detached from the realities of living, working and owning property downtown.  The vision for the park was clearly to attract visitors from all over the region and the world. The funding should have been from sources like taxes on cruise ships and hotel rooms that would most use and benefit from the Waterfront projects.

DRA: The economy and downtown have changed drastically since the LID was conceived and passed. Is there still strong support for this project among our state and city governments that committed to fund almost half the Waterfront Park bill?  

GB: Sadly, I think there is still very strong support for collecting the LID assessments among the Council.  They are not about to walk away from any money they think they can collect.  It’s not as clear to me that there is commitment for prioritizing the rest of the at least $185 million that the city will have to allocate to complete the projects.  Indeed, the proposed budget released by the Mayor yesterday shows cuts of at least $91 million dollars to the Waterfront projects, calling into serious question the resolve and ability of the city to complete the projects as designed and on time as they will become legally obligated to do once they collect the LID assessments.   Sadly, when they fail to deliver those completed projects in 2024, another round of lawsuits to seek return of the LID money will likely ensue.  If the Council was acting with any fiscal responsibility at all, they would not commit the city to the at least $185 million they will have to find from other sources.   That this would take priority over the many other more pressing issues that this city now has is incredibly irresponsible of the Council.

DRA: How would you describe the Hearing Examiner experience?

GB: I felt it was an exercise in going through the motions to rubber stamp what was, to everyone involved, an obviously made-to-order assessment that was completely detached from reality.  It demonstrated the contempt that the City has for its citizens.  Frustrating was all it was.

DRA: What do you expect at the City Council hearing and, if not successful there, what are the options going forward?

GB: I don’t expect a fair hearing.  We haven’t ever had one up to now.  This has been imposed on us.  And I expect more of the same.  The system is especially stacked against the individual property owners, for whom hiring attorneys just isn’t cost effective for the size of the significant assessments they will have to pay.  A large office building or hotel might be able to justify the legal expenses to challenge the City in court. An individual condo owner is unfortunately at their mercy.  And they have no mercy.

DRA: Given the level of resistance to this LID, do you think the City will be discouraged from implementing future LIDs?

GB: To the contrary.  I expect the City to increasingly turn to this mechanism for funding projects.  They have demonstrated that it is a way for them to bypass the will of the voters to collect massive sums of money.  Their ability to assert ridiculous “special benefits” without any meaningful oversight or standards, and then simply impose those assessments on a small number of property owners means we will see much more of this.  They don’t have to seek the voters’ consent for levies.  They just take their money.