Politics Accidental Hedonist on Pike Place Market Levy
posted by on November 3 at 12:52 PM
Kate Hopkins, a Seattle food writer who blogs at Accidental Hedonist, has this to say about the Pike Place Market levy (also endorsed by the Stranger!):
Pike Place is one of the few institutions that I have faith in. It provides, and it provides well. When others praise their local food scene, all a Seattleite has to do is mention PPM, and others nod their head in agreement. It’s the trump card in any discussions surrounding Seattle’s validity as a food destination.It’s also iconic, and brings more value as such than the other Seattle tourist destination, the Space Needle. You go to the Space Needle once, stand on the observation platform and then eat at the restaurant, and you’ve done all there is to do there. Pike Place Market can be a different experience with every visit. It has an Italian Deli, several fish stands, oodles of vegetable stands, fresh flowers, a Mexican grocer, a German Deli, Starbuck’s first location, an East Asian grocer, two decent butchers, and, oh yeah, it has a kick-ass comic store deep within its recesses.
It also needs money. It needs it for a variety of reasons which you can read here. Some of the updates include basic maintenance, such as Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning upgrades, others are more pressing, such as seismic upgrades.
The cost? $37 per year for each Seattle resident for the next five years.
Think about what Pike Place means, not only to you, but to the city of Seattle. It is an integral part of our community, as well as part of our national persona. For what we get in return, $37 a year is a bargain.
If you haven’t voted yet, consider saying “yes” to Seattle Proposition 1. This one-time levy is a smart investment in the city’s cultural and economic future.
still, another property tax levy?
Why don't we have a property tax levy for Cafe Presse, then? Or maybe Smith or The Saint? Or heck, why don't we all pay $37 a year more for the privilege of having Fred Meyer in town?
Your argument is absolute bullshit, ESPECIALLY in light of Initiative 91.
Pls. be sure to decry rising cost of housing in the SAME issues in which you support every tax on the ballot, ok?
Agreed. If homeowners are the only people paying for it, how come everyone else gets to use it?
Hate to sound like an anti-tax crank but has anyone asked why an institution that is visited by basically every tourist that comes into town, most of whom no doubt spend quite a few tourist dollars there, cannot afford to pay for its own upgrades?
Pike Place should not need a cash infusion. All the space is being used and there is currently a waiting list for vendors to get space in the market. If malls operate successfully as private enterprises and make money doing so, why can't Pike Place Market at least break even, to pay for the repairs and upgrades? I would really like to see the finances of the market, and see where the money's currently going.
As much as Pike Place is a Seattle institution, and as much as I like the place, I can't bring myself to vote for this levy.
I work in the market and the employee bath rooms in the triangle building are constantly flooding, it's hot as balls in the summer, my boss told me if there ever is an earthquake that I should run the hell out of the building (it was built in 1910 and is an unsupported brick building). The market brings in more tourist dollars, than even the space Needle (I know the needle gets more visitors, but a hell of lot more people have jobs at the market). For the love of god please vote yes on this!
I am undecided on this one...I was on board to say YES(and am a homeowner)..but then my husband who worked at the Market for more than 10 years said..WAIT. He is voting NO.
He claims: The Market should make enough to pay for it's own repairs. Just where does all their $$ Go?
Even so, $42 isn't much money(a weeks worth of dog food at our house) and I'll probably still vote Yes..mostly b/c he told me not:)
Since Nickels is talking about taking some unallocated part of the hotel tax and (illegally) using it to fund Key Arena work, isn't there then money available for Pike Place Market work. Not only that but isn't this just the sort of thing the hotel tax is for?
I want to see PPM fixed up, but it's ridiculous to be asking tax payors for money to do it just becuase the mayor wants to use available funds illegally (i.e. in violation of the voter intiative that prohibited exactly what he want to do with it).
The Market is managed by an organization called the "Preservation & Development Authority," or, the PDA. The PDA is essentially a non-profit, public, corporation that acts as landlord and property manager for every resident (hundreds of people live in the market) and business (again, hundreds of them rent space in the Market).
The PDA's mission is to promote small, locally-owned businesses AND provide housing for low-income people.
Unlike a mall management company's mission in life is simply to make the most money it can possibly make. This isn't wrong, but it does stand to reason that comparing the Market to malls is like comparing apples to oranges.
The very fact that the PDA is not soley profit-driven (like mall management companies) is the very reason why the Market is eccentric, historic, and a DESTINATION for locals and tourists alike.
I couldn't bring myself to vote down a funding measure for the Market. I tried to think it might be a nuanced issue. Like, gosh, perhaps it should be able to get funding some other way, or let's cut some sort of bureaucracy, or let's soak the tourists more instead. But I was overwhelmed by the realization that the anti-Prop 1 opinion leaders are all mostly scumbuckets, while Prop 1 organizers and prominent supporters appear to have integrity to spare.
Mayor Nickels doesn't like it and took the time to say so. I say, add this to the long list of reasons he oughta go fuck himself.
The author of the voters' guide opposition signs herself "Geri Kraft, concerned citizen." A quick Googling reveals she was VP for local developer Herman Sarkowski when he built the hideous highrise that is now Seattle Municipal Tower. Now she's a real estate broker. Tried to remember last time I agreed with a developer view of the Pike Place Market. Couldn't.
Meanwhile, most everyone I actually respect supports Prop 1, warts and all, so I did too.
@1 - that's why I voted against the Parks Levy, which should be paid for from general revenue.
But I did vote for the Pike Place Market Levy, cause they need it and it's way overdue.
@9, the hotel tax is for the convention center, through and through. Frank Chopp took money that the convetion center had been accumulating and tossed it towards "afforadable housing". now they want to take some of the future money and push it towards key arena...
The entire thing is, we lose tens to hundreds of millions of dollars each year because our convention center is wholly inadequate for many prospective business. We need to upgrade and expand the convention center or we risk falling behind the competition of other cities.
@12 --have you not heard the news -- Eyeman initiative means that property taxes, and the general fund, are limited unless you go to the public for approval. That's why we have levies for schools, fire stations, streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, additional bus service, housing, emergency medical services, libraries, etc. Parks fit right in. Without the parks levy, capital funding for parks will decline dramatically, and we will miss the opportunity to invest in parks and open spaces as our city continues to grow more dense. There is not another revenue source for parks that can accomplish this. The levy is also a renewal that costs less than the expiring levy. see seattleparksforall.org
I live in an apartment, so property tax levies will not directly affect me. That said, whenever my landlord feels they need to offset higher costs (e.g. the 12-month renovation of the building that was completed last June), they have no qualms about raising my rent. In light of the fact that:
1. The Market is a huge tourist destination
2. The Market is a profit-generating enterprise
3. Vendors at the Market pay rent
4. There is such great demand for the limited space at the Market that a waiting list has been established
I see no reason why the management at Pike Place Market cannot and should not raise their tenants' rent. The people who benefit fiscally from the upkeep (vendors and management) would be directly responsible for said upkeep, and the general populus of Seattle would not be saddled with yet another levy in an economy which is already circling the drain.
I'm so sick of hearing Pike Place Market compared to a mall! Just come down and take a look around, there isn't a single Abercrombie, Cheesecake factory, or Bath and Body Works within the walls of the Market. . .and that's what I love most about it!
Malls don't have room for quirky. They don't provide the sense of community that you find at Pike Place. The Market is just that. . .a quirky little community where people live and work, and where you can successfully run a business without the backing of a national chain. It's a place where you can visit a museum to shoes, hear really great music (and some bad music too)and leave with a sense of what Seattle's all about.
And if it means I pay an extra $42 to keep this treasure, I'm all for it! And I hope you do the same!
This was a no-brainer for me. The Pike Place Market IS Seattle. Every time Seattle is in the national spotlight, the camera crews flock to the market to watch the flying fish. The market is not a mall. With the exception of the "Very first" Starbucks, there are no chain stores that are paying high rents. It is not just a destination of out-of-towners but of people who live in the city that buy their daily groceries there.
I understand that when you add up all the levies it is a lot of tax to pay, but I would sacrifice the park levy over Pike Place because Pike Place's needs are more pressing and it's survival reflects greatly on the citynd its residents.
@14 - translation, still unconstitutional, as contracts can't be severed by initiative.
figures, Tim E always did hate our state constitution.
F that. i'm done with paying higher property tax to benefit everyone. let the renters pick up the tab on this one.
The market is publicly owned and run as a non-profit, so it needs this small public investment to keep it going. The tenants don't make much money and pay far below market value rents, which is why such eclectic small businesses are able to stay in the market. What rent they do pay is indeed invested back in the Market.
This is such a small increase in taxes, less than $.10 for every $1000 a house is worth. In the 70's, citizens rallied to save the market, why won't Seattlites do that now?
I vote YES for this Proposition, you're a cheap bastard if you don't as well.
That the tenants 'don't make much money' and can't afford a rent increase to upgrade the spaces they lease kind of defies credibility. Is there any data to back this up? I'm researching this and I can't really find anywhere where other options for funding improvements are even being considered. Why is it that the PDA cannot ensure that rental income is sufficient to maintain the place? It kind of sounds like the attitude is why bother stressing our tenants when we can go to the dippy liberals of Seattle who never met a levy they were unwilling to roll over for.
I wholeheartedly agree with Kate Hopkins. The Market is a true community, a family. Much more inclusive than exclusive. This is more and more rare to find these days - here in Seattle or anywhere else in this country. You cannot simply create or plan this kind of place in a shopping center, or mixed use development. In addition to the vast mix of shops and restaurants, there is the wonderful mix of people, entertainment, housing and services. Within Pike Place Market there is housing for seniors and the disabled, a health clinic, food bank, senior center and child care and preschool. Really, wander around the Market...it is an amazing place and deserves our support.
PLEASE VOTE YES ON SEATTLE PROP 1!
It's a market. Its atmosphere is very different from a mall or shopping plaza, but it essentially serves the same function. Why shouldn't it be able to support itself? I guess the problem is the distinction between a capitalist marketplace and publicly underwritten landmark. It's both, and this makes for some confusion as far as Seattle residents paying taxes into it.
I just don't feel the market is doing all it can to generate funds on its own, and is asking the taxpayer without pursuing funding alternatives.
Parks cannot pay for themselves and we need therm in our neighborhoods, near our work and in between. However, Pike place can and should be required to pay for things, upgrades, on their own. I will be voting NOI, and yes to parks, which benefit me more often.