That’s why today’s Seattle Times guest editorial by Edward D. Lazowska on STEM –  science + technology + engineering + mathematics – caught my attention. Mr. Lasowska is chair of UW’s computer science and engineering program. He argues the importance of computer sciences for our state economy.

I agree, but I believe just as important is innovative thinking and creativity within the sciences. Without it, science is merely an exercise. How do we infuse creativity with science? Arts education. It is time for STEM to evolve into STEAM: science + technology + arts + engineering + mathematics.

Sarah Pease edited a compelling edition of ARCADE magazine recently, in which she observed that we are trained at a young age to separate art from the core subjects of our studies, rendering it unimportant in the shadows of science and math. She and other contributors argue that the areas of art and science are more closely related than not, that their overlap is more relevant now than ever.

ARCADE contributor John Maeda wrote that when he was young his teachers praised him for being good at math and art. But, his father would tell people “John is good at math.” Maeda felt he had to choose between the two. He chose the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

After many years there, he saw technology succeeding in making everything cheaper, faster and smaller—but failing to make things emotionally rich. He became convinced something else was needed to inspire true innovation – design and art. It was that realization that propelled him from MIT to the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD), where he is now president.

Check out his related TED Talk from June of last year.

And, please stay in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Well, the Post’s interpretation of the FCC’s announcement turned out to be a little misleading. Rather than building such a network, the FCC is merely considering making available for free unlicensed high-bandwidth digital spectrum that would allow for such networks. It would be up to others – cities in partnership with non-profits, community groups or tech companies – to create and operate them.

Offering such a spectrum for free is remarkable, considering that large telecom companies paid tens of billions of dollars to buy similar spectrum from the FCC in 2008. The FCC realizes that freeing up more unlicensed spectrum could bring competition and the resulting innovation to a cellular market that seems headed for domination by just a couple of carriers. It could also help meet the growing demand for video and other high-bandwidth functions on mobile devices.

The Mayor recently announced an intriguing partnership with the University of Washington and a company called Gigibit Squared to utilize the City’s unused fiber optics system to provide ultra high-speed fiber to over 50,000 households and businesses in 14 demonstration neighborhoods. But, once that demonstration project is built out, it won’t be free to users.

While the FCC’s plan is still just a proposal, I would like to work with Councilmember Bruce Harrell, Chair of the Council’s technology committee, and my fellow member on that committee, Councilmember Mike O’Brien, to organize a possible brown bag discussion on this topic. Chair Harrell has been a long-time advocate of providing more affordable digital access for all Seattle residents.

My staff recently contacted the FCC in D.C. to request a speaker be available at such a brown bag to answer questions and explain how the program might work. A date hasn’t been chosen yet, but the FCC representative sounded hopeful that, if not in person, they could make someone available via Skype or conference phone. The brown bag would include City staff, Councilmembers Harrell & O’Brien, representatives from Seattle’s tech industry, community interest groups, and non-profit organizations and would be open to the public.

Would you be interested in attending such a brown bag discussion? Please let me know.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

By Seattle City Councilmember Nick Licata

SOCIAL MEDIA AND URBAN POLITICS

I wonder how many of you remember receiving my first e-newsletter, Urban Politics (UP) #01, back in 1996? It addressed transferring the Freeway Park garage to the Washington State Convention and Trade Center. In 1996, one would start their modem, wait 30 seconds to log on, check email, perhaps spend a few minutes chatting with an AOL buddy. One could browse, but there was no YouTube, Huffington Post or Wikipedia. There was no FaceBook, Twitter or Google Search to browse to. There was no such thing as a blog.

16 years later, I still email UP to my subscribers. In a world of 140 character limits and shortening attention spans, UP continues to provide readers a more in-depth analysis on timely public policy issues than other mediums tend to offer.

I have recently expanded UP to include social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and my City Council blog. As a compliment to my more comprehensive UP emails, I now post short informational items and announcements to my City Council UP blog, to Facebook and to Twitter. Each has a specific function.

My UP blog allows for photos, embedded videos and web links leading to additional information and resources related to the topic of the entry. In order to keep in touch with my blog, one needs to subscribe via an RSS feed (really simple syndication. see below). RSS feeds send notifications to a subscriber’s web browser. When one clicks on the notification, it redirects the browser to the source of the feed, in this case my blog. Facebook requires a free membership for access and reaches a much broader audience than does my blog. There, I post both links to my blog as well as short informational items and announcements. Twitter serves a similar function as does Facebook, although it only allows for 140-character-or-less posts, offering abbreviated links to posts exceeding that number.

Some of my recent UP blog postings that may interest you address the anti-poverty initiative called ONE, the City’s Transit Master Plan, trends in King County health inequities and a recent Film Forum film screening at one of my committee meetings.

While I will continue to email UP newsletters, I invite you to consider subscribing to my UP blog, liking me on Facebook and following me on Twitter. That way, you won’t miss postings there that I don’t address in the email version of UP. Instructions on how to do so are below.

Thanks!

COUNCIL MEMBERS & MAYOR’S EMAIL ADDRESSES

Sally.Bagshaw@seattle.gov

Tim.Burgess@seattle.gov

Sally.Clark@seattle.gov

Richard.Conlin@seattle.gov

Jean.Godden@seattle.gov

Bruce.Harrell@seattle.gov

Nick.Licata@seattle.gov

Mike.OBrien@seattle.gov

Tom.Rasmussen@seattle.gov

Citizens are directed to the following website to complete a form to send an email to the Mayor’s Office. http://www.cityofseattle.net/mayor/citizen_response.htm

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

The City’s Technology Matching Grant is one way of doing so.

Currently our Department of Information Technology (DoIT) is seeking applicants from Seattle organizations and community groups for its annual Technology Matching Fund grants of up to $20,000 for technology access and literacy, or use of tech tools for civic engagement and community building.

The application deadline is April 3rd. 

The Technology Matching Fund supports technology literacy access and civic engagement projects that reach technology underserved communities, thereby increasing “digital inclusion.”

The City’s grant program goals are:

Technology Literacy and Access:

* Empower technology underserved communities so that all residents have the technology skills necessary for civic and cultural participation, employment, lifelong learning, and access to essential services;

* Increase technology literacy;

* Increase access to computers, the Internet, and other information technology; and

* Increase the creation of relevant online content.

Civic Engagement:

* Engage individuals not usually involved in the civic process; and

* Increase residents’ use of technology for civic engagement and community building by integrating technology tools into activities to increase awareness of community issues, to increase community problem solving and to increase interaction with government.

Descriptions of past projects are available from DoIT’s web site.

I encourage you to spread the word and, in turn, encourage those you suspect might be interested to consider applying.

The Fund is administered by the City of Seattle Department of Information Technology and is supported through cable franchise fees. The Technology Matching Fund was established in 1997.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to Nick’s Blog by clicking on this RSS feed.
• Subscribe to Nick’s Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email to urbanpolitics-subscribe@speakeasy.net. (no message needed in the body of your email)

Urban Politics (UP) blends my insights and information on current public policy developments and personal experiences with the intent of helping citizens shape Seattle’s future.

________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS:

Background

The City Council’s Energy and Technology Committee is considering proposed legislation related to the Comcast cable franchise renewal. Councilmember Jean Godden is the chair, I am the vice-chair, and David J. Della is a member of this committee, which focuses on Seattle City Light, energy rates and energy sources, information technology, cable and broadband telecommunications, Seattle Public Access Network (SCAN) and citizen technology literacy and access.

Comcast’s franchise with the City expired last year. Until a new franchise is approved, the conditions of the expired agreement remain in force.

Three bills and one resolution are presently being considered by the Committee.

C.B. 115494 authorizes the Mayor to sign the franchise agreement and the ArtsZone arts programming agreement.

C.B. 115493 accepts funding, makes appropriations, and creates staff positions for the Seattle Channel to produce ArtsZone programming.

C.B. 115492 increases the cable franchise fee charged to Comcast and makes appropriations for SCAN operations.

To view these bills, visit: http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/cable.htm.

A separate resolution would express the Council’s intent that the Department of Information Technology include in its contract with SCAN certain conditions, which are listed in items 1 through 3 under “THE COUNCL’S PROPOSAL” below.

Comcast is the largest of the two cable operators holding franchise agreements with the City of Seattle. Comcast and the City’s other cable provider, Millennium Digital Media, serve approximately 190,000 Seattle subscribers with cable television, telephone services and high-speed Internet service. Comcast service is available in most of Seattle except for the Central Area Franchise District and parts of Downtown. Millennium serves the Central Area Franchise District and parts of the Downtown, Capitol Hill and Queen Anne neighborhoods.

Cable operators are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. Local jurisdictions are extremely limited in setting cable rates and cannot dictate what channels a cable operator must provide. You can learn about how the FCC regulates cable channel availability by visiting http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cablechannels.html. To learn how they regulate cable rates, visit http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cablerates.html.

The City is also prohibited from requiring Comcast to provide operating funds for public access, use union labor, or agree to franchise obligations related to Internet or telephone service.

The Mayor’s Proposal

The Mayor is proposing a new ten-year franchise agreement with Comcast. It includes the following key elements:

1. Raising Comcast’s franchise fee paid to the City from the current 3.5% to 4% in order to continue funding SCAN. SCAN’s annual budget has been $660,000. The Mayor’s proposal would provide $500,000 each year.

2. A one-time payment from Comcast of $4,125,000 to fund ArtsZone, a new arts programming project for the Seattle Channel.

3. A $2,000,000 capital grant, $500,000 of which goes to SCAN, the rest to the Seattle Channel. Comcast has also agreed to donate to SCAN the building currently housing them.

4. A $15,000 grant for computers or technical support for the City’s community technology centers

5. Continued discounts for low-income customers, including low-income seniors, low-income people with disabilities, and residents of subsidized housing.

To learn more about SCAN, visit them at http://www.scantv.org/.

ArtsZone proposes to produce new programming focused exclusively on arts and culture topics. These programs would be cablecast on the Seattle Channel in three 4-hour blocks each week, Thursday through Saturday evenings, between 8 and 12 midnight. If it so happened that an official City government public meeting or hearing were to be scheduled during that time, it would take precedence over ArtsZone.

The Council’s Proposal

After hearing from hundreds of constituents concerned over SCAN and ArtsZone funding, I proposed that Committee chair Jean Godden and I co-sponsor legislation that changes certain elements of the Mayor’s proposal. Councilmembers Sally Clark and David J. Della are also co-sponsors. These proposed changes would:

1. Raise Comcast’s franchise fee paid to the City from the current 3.5% to 4.2% in order to fully fund SCAN at an average of $700,000 annually. SCAN would be required to hire a professional fund raiser and can receive a one-to-one match for every non-City dollar they raise. The increased cost to cable customers will be 35 cents a month (about 5 cents for each tenth of a percent of the franchise fee).

2. Before receiving City matching funds, require SCAN to develop within one year a professional business plan that is acceptable to the City’s Department of Information Technology.

3. Request DoIT to ask Comcast to provide a second public access channel for SCAN. SCAN’s programming has outgrown its single channel, requiring a lottery system to schedule programs.

Additionally, in response to expressed concerns over the possibility of ArtsZone programs displacing programs focused on government business, I asked the Seattle Channel’s Gary Gibson to consider involving the Citizens’ Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Board and Seattle Arts Commission in providing his office guidance on Seattle Channel programming. He agreed and the Committee expressed its support of the idea.

To view the March 8th public hearing held in the Seattle Center’s Shaw Room, visit: www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=2080608. To hear public comment presented during the Energy and Technology Committee’s meeting on April 12th, check out www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=2080609.

Next Steps

At its April 12th meeting, the Council’s Energy and Technology Committee members discussed the Mayor’s Comcast franchise renewal proposal and related agreements. It agreed to further discuss and possibly vote on this legislation during its next meeting, on April 26th. Visit the Committee’s web site to see the agenda: http://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/Committee_Energ.htm.

There will be another opportunity for the public to comment on Comcast’s franchise renewal at the start of the Committee’s April 26th meeting. If the Committee votes to approve the legislation, it could go before the full Council for a vote as early as Tuesday, May 2nd.

Urban Politics (UP) blends my insights and information on current public policy developments and personal experiences with the intent of helping citizens shape Seattle’s future.

________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS:

• The Lure Of Biotech Industry Jobs
• SLU & The Biotech Industry
• SLU Biotech Industry Code Amendments

The Lure Of Biotech Industry Jobs

The City, under the Mayor’s guidance, has set upon a course of attracting biotech industries to Seattle and to the South Lake Union neighborhood in particular. With Seattle’s unemployment rate being one of the highest in the nation for a major urban area, pursuing this industry appears to be a “no-brainer”.

It’s an idea that a number of other cities are also pursuing, including others in our state. More than 80% of those states and municipalities that responded to a 2001 survey prepared for a Dept. of Commerce conference listed biotech as one of their top two targets for development. In other words, there are a lot of other cities competing for these industries.

The Mayor sees making Seattle more competitive by investing significant amounts of public money in SLU’s utility and road infrastructure to encourage more bio-tech companies to lease or build out office space and join the handful that are already there. Before these investments are made, the building codes could be adjusted to accommodate some of the unique physical requirements that buildings must have to house this industry. Consequently the Mayor has sent legislation down to the Council to make these changes. These are explained below.

Before addressing these changes, I review the nature of the biotech industry and its relation to SLU in order to acquire a better appreciation of the risks and benefits in pursuing a public investment strategy to attract this industry.

SLU & The Biotech Industry

In July our Office of Economic Development briefed the City Council about the biotech industry and noted that local companies focused their work on human therapeutics and diagnostics leading to medical innovations. It costs an average of just under $1 billion and between 10 to 15 years to develop one new drug.

In the past 50 years, 170 new companies have emerged from the research of the University of Washington. Seattle is now the sixth largest biotech center in the nation with over 65 firms; however they still only provide 7,300 jobs. About a third of them are found at just one company, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center located in SLU.

Fifty of the remaining firms have less than a hundred employees. Although few in number, biotech jobs are good jobs, with an average salary of $68,000 and each one indirectly accounts for creating another 3.23 jobs outside the industry. And they are a growth industry; state tax collections have increased on average 6% per year from 1994 to 2001.

But size does matter. The San Francisco Chronicle (June 10, 2002) wrote of a Brookings Institute study, “More fundamentally, Brookings questions whether biotechnology yields as many jobs and other economic benefits as boosters expect. Even in Boston and San Francisco, no biotech firm is among either area’s 25 largest private employers.”

Their small size calls into question their ability to be in a position to buy or build a facility given the high-risk nature of their business. Joseph Cortright, co-author of the Brookings report and an economist in Portland, Oregon, wrote in the Wall Street Journal (June 11, 2002) “I don’t think many places have carefully evaluated their odds of success. It’s unlikely many of these biotech companies will grow into full-fledged manufacturing firms that produce lots of jobs.”

Even with these limitations the strong research centers at U.W. and Fred Hutch provide Seattle with some advantage in attracting an industry that in 10 to 20 years could contribute to our economy. Each of these institutions ranks near the top in receiving Federal NIH grants. Unfortunately having a pool of talented researchers is not sufficient. The biotech industry, as our OED noted, is one of the most capital intensive industries.

The key problem facing Seattle’s biotech industry is the dearth of venture capital. For instance, Seattle receives nearly the same amount of grant funding as San Francisco, but has only generated 15% as many companies. And when compared to Boston, the other major biotech city in the US, Seattle receives almost half of the amount of grant funding as Boston, but it receives more than four times the amount of venture funding as does Seattle.

Will making SLU more compatible for biotech buildings attract more biotech companies? I hope so. And as long as the public cost is reasonable then we should pursue it. But I would not stake our city’s recovery on turning SLU into a new biotech center anytime soon. Consequently we need to pay attention to how we distribute our public investments so we do not shortchange our other industrial and retail centers where there are needs for improvements. It seems that I would have the support of those who actually make the biotech industry grow: the venture capitalists.

On April 4th of this year, Donald Elmer, the managing general partner of Pacific Horizons Ventures, a venture-capital firm focused exclusively on the life sciences, wrote in the Seattle Times, “Despite Nickel’s laudable intentions, the South Lake Union action agenda is simply a city-sponsored real-estate play. Unless there is an unusual and unexpected flow of private investment for early-stage bioscience, the mayor would be wise to pause and focus the city’s money and his energy elsewhere.”

My approach to the proposed changes in SLU, like the Code Amendments described below, is to weigh their benefits to the city against any costs that may occur. These costs would include any unintended consequences that could negatively impact the city’s environment. But I recognize that concentrating biotech industry or other high-tech industries into one neighborhood could contribute to commuter trip reduction if it is accompanied by new housing. If sufficient concentration occurs there could even be spin-off retail development to support a sizeable residential neighborhood.

At this point in the proposed development of SLU there are many questions and many opportunities. I look forward to reviewing the public testimony and the city sponsored cost-benefit study that is currently underway on SLU’s future development.

SLU Biotech Industry Code Amendments

The Department of Design, Construction, and Land Use (DCLU) is proposing amendments to the Land Use Code (Title 23) to the zoning in South Lake Union to address the unique needs or features of biotech uses. These features include tall floor to floor heights and specialized mechanical equipment. The amendments include the following:

- Allow up to 10 to 20 feet of additional height for biotech development, depending on the zone;

- Apply a height measurement technique similar to that used downtown, using the street frontage of the property to determine building height;

- Exempt from FAR limits up to 15 percent of overall floor area for mechanical equipment;

- Increase the allowable roof top coverage area to sixty-five (65) percent if equipment is screened;

- Revise the minimum amount of parking required for research and development laboratory from the current requirement of 1 space for each 1,000 square feet of floor area to 1 space for each 1,500 square feet (generally, more parking may be provided than the code required minimum amount);

- Reduce the number of loading berths required when centralized facilities are provided to serve multiple buildings; and

- Clarify the definition of “research and development laboratory (this amendment would apply citywide).

The currently zoned height and design restrictions would remain for buildings within SLU that do not house biotech industries.

This coming Tuesday, September 23, there will be a Public Hearing and a Public Meeting on these code changes.

Public Hearing

The Land Use Committee will meet jointly with the Finance, Budget, Business and Labor Committee to take public testimony on proposed amendments to the Land Use Code. The meeting begins at 4:00 p.m. in City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue, 2nd Floor. Entrance to the building is on Fifth Avenue between James & Cherry Streets.

Public Meeting

The DCLU will hold a public meeting to provide information about the proposal at the Naval Reserve Building at South Lake Union Park, located at 860 Terry Ave. North. The meeting begins at 6:00 p.m.

Urban Politics (UP) blends my insights and information on current public policy developments and personal experiences with the intent of helping citizens shape Seattle’s future.       

________________________________________________________________       

   Creating A Technical Advisory Panel  

At my Neighborhood, Arts & Civil Rights Committee, my proposed Resolution 30587 establishing a Monorail Technical Advisory Panel (MTAP) was passed and will now be voted on by the Full Council this Monday.       

MTAP will provide comment to the City Council and supplement the services of the City Council Central Staff. The MTAP is anticipated to have two primary functions:       

1) provide comment to the City Council about the Seattle Monorail Project’s technical and financial practices and proposals, and the overall financial health of the Seattle Monorail Project, at key points when the City Council is considering taking action related to the Seattle Monorail Project; and       

2) be a resource available to the City Council Central Staff to provide additional technical or financial expertise and/or assistance in areas where the Central Staff may lack sufficient expertise or need assistance on particular monorail-related issues.       

The MTAP may also provide other advice to the City Council related to the Seattle Monorail Project as requested by the Council. The MTAP will focus only on technical and/or financial issues, and will not comment or provide assistance on other monorail-related issues such as design elements or community impacts.       

The MTAP and its members shall serve in a purely advisory capacity. Although the Council intends to seek MTAP comment, MTAP review and comment is not a condition precedent to Council action on any Seattle Monorail Project matter. The Council shall not be bound by the recommendations or advice of the MTAP or its members.       

The following are two examples of possible MTAP comment and assistance:       

When the City Council is considering enacting legislation or authorizing an agreement under which the Seattle Monorail Project would have permission to construct a monorail in City-owned right-of-way, the MTAP may be asked to review the Seattle Monorail Project’s proposed (or executed) contract(s) with a design-build-operate-maintain contractor or other entities, revenue estimates and collections to date, cost estimates, general financial condition, level of risk, and other factors, and comment to the NAC Committee, to enable the NAC Committee to assess the Seattle Monorail Project’s ability to carry out its work in constructing and operating the new Green Line monorail.       

As another example, when the City Council is considering authorizing an agreement to transfer ownership of the existing Seattle Center monorail to the Seattle Monorail Project, the MTAP may be asked to review the Seattle Monorail Project’s technical and financial ability to continue to operate the existing monorail until a date when service will cease and to comply with existing contracts or concession agreements related to the existing monorail, and comment to the Neighborhoods, Arts, and Civil Rights (NAC) Committee about its review.       

Relationship Between Monorail And The City       

The following is a memorandum from the City’s Law Department explaining the nature of the relationship between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Monorail Project. It is important for citizens to understand this relationship because of its unique nature. Unlike the Parks Department or City Light, the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority (SPMA) is not a City department, for instance the City does not determine the hiring, firing or wages of SPMA’s staff.       

In short, the City and the Seattle Monorail Project are independent governmental entities. The City does not exercise any oversight authority over the Project. With the exception of a limited City role in shaping the membership of the Project Board, the City’s relationship with the Project stems primarily from the fact that the proposed Green Line would be a significant project constructed across a landscape that is either owned or regulated by the City.       

Unlike the Elevated Transportation Company, which was created by City initiative as a City public corporation under Chapter 3.110 of the Seattle Municipal Code, the Seattle Monorail Project is a creature of state law. In 2002, the Washington State Legislature enacted a statute allowing for the creation of a “city transportation authority,” with voter approval, to plan, construct, and operate a monorail transportation system. That statute explains that such an authority will have independent taxing power and that its issued bonds will not be the obligation of any other governmental entity.       

Last November, voters in Seattle approved Petition/Proposition No. 1, which created the Seattle Monorail Project as a city transportation authority pursuant to the state statute. Petition/Proposition No. 1 itself emphasizes that the Seattle Monorail Project is a separate entity from the City and that the City has no oversight role over the Project. For example, Petition/Proposition No. 1 states: “the City shall not act as treasurer of the [Project], establish budgets for the [Project], issue or approve [Project] obligations, or be under any obligation to provide funds to the [Project] except as provided by ordinance, or have any oversight responsibility concerning the [Project].”       

The relationship between the City and the Seattle Monorail Project has roughly four components. First, as provided in Petition/Proposition No. 1, the City Council and Mayor play a role in selecting some members of the Project’s Board of Directors. For all of the interim Project Board positions, and seven of the nine on-going positions, either the Mayor or Council is responsible for either nominating or appointing the candidate.       

Second, because the City owns much of the property over which the proposed Green Line will run, the City will play a proprietary role when facing requests from the Seattle Monorail Project to use this property. The City has stated it intends to enter into agreements with the Project addressing, for example, right-of-way use, use of the West Seattle Bridge, and potentially use of portions of the Seattle Center. The City also has stated it intends to negotiate an agreement with the Project about ownership of the existing Seattle Center monorail system, and about the treatment of City-owned utilities under City streets.       

Third, because the City regulates land development, the City will play a regulatory role with respect to the Seattle Monorail Project. This may include, for example, review of certain aspects of the Green Line by the City Department of Design, Construction, and Land Use, the City Design Commission, and the Pioneer Square Preservation Board.       

Finally, as it does with other independent governmental entities, the City will generally engage in intergovernmental cooperation with the Seattle Monorail Project when City interests would be served by doing so. For example, the City has already extended a “bridge” loan to the Project that will be repaid after the Project begins to receive its own, independent revenue.

Urban Politics (UP) blends my insights and information on current public policy developments and personal experiences with the intent of helping citizens shape Seattle’s future.

________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS:

• FCC Proposed Changes
• Licata-Compton Resolution On FCC Proposed Changes
• FCC Public Hearing

FCC Proposed Changes

Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act deregulated of radio ownership
rules we have seen a national trend of massive media consolidation and
dramatically decreased competition.

In particular it has damaged local accountability and content diversity,
in part by shifting control and resources away from local programmers and
towards central managers, which had led to reductions in local news and
public affairs programming, and reduced access to the airwaves for local
musicians, community groups and public officials

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is now considering lifting
restrictions on further consolidation and cross ownership. This move will
seriously threaten existing media diversity by allowing further consolidation
of media ownership in an already highly concentrated market. The amount and
quality of news coverage in broadcast and print media across the country will
continue to shrink while windfall profits for a small handful of corporate
media owners will result.

I believe we will soon face the day when Seattle will find that its
largest radio stations, newspapers, television stations and even concert
venues, will be owned by three or two large companies. Already most of the
major commercial radio stations which used to be owned locally are not owned
by large corporations with little interest for the welfare of Seattle’s
residents.

The gradual disappearance of local in-depth news coverage has been a
prime example and result of this trend. With less coverage of local
political decision making the public remains blissfully ignorant of how their
tax dollars are being spent and how their civil rights may be compromised.
And the diversity of opinion on these matters does not reach the general
public.

The loss of localism also greatly harms Seattle’s cultural scene. For
instance, as our local music community finds outlets restricted because of a
less open competitive market for venues and airtime, fewer musicians and
other creative workers find employment. Meanwhile our public is denied a
diversity of music that often represents minority communities.

Licata-Compton Resolution On FCC Proposed Changes

I am sponsoring a walk-on resolution (co-sponsor is CM Jim Compton) for
this Monday’s Full Council Meeting supporting diversity in media ownership
and urging the Federal Communications Commission and the Congress to protect
content diversity and press freedom by retaining and strengthening existing
media ownership regulations, including regulations that limit the number of
stations one owner may hold.

Furthermore we are calling upon the Congress to exercise its oversight in
the area of federal communications policy through public hearings on media
ownership issues; and to pursue legislation aimed at protecting our
democratic media by prohibiting further media consolidation.

We recognize that freedom of the press and public access to diverse media
are prerequisites for a functioning democracy. And we need to remind the FCC
that the broadcast airwaves and the Internet are owned commonly by the
public, and should be managed to serve the public interest

FCC Public Hearing

It is critical that the Seattle City Council make this public statement
now because the proposed changes are moving quickly and FCC Commissioners
Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein will be holding a public hearing on
media consolidation at the Husky Union Building on the campus of the
University of Washington on Friday, March 7. Our resolution will be presented
at that time to the FCC.

Urban Politics (UP) blends my insights and information on current public policy developments and personal experiences with the intent of helping citizens shape Seattle’s future.

________________________________________________________________

Seattle Cable Customer Bill Of Rights

Last month at the Full Council’s Monday, April 22, 2002 meeting I voted to approve Ordinance number 120775 (Council Bill number 114137, sponsored by Councilmember Jim Compton), legislation that strengthens our city’s Cable Customer Bill of Rights by revising sections of Seattle Municipal Code 21.60. The ordinance passed 8-0, with Councilmember Pageler excused. This legislation is significant because it specifically defines, for the first time anywhere in the nation, how a municipality can implement existing Federal laws regulating cable services. I see four important aspects to this legislation.

First, it requires that cable companies notify cable customers at least 30 days before each separate instance the companies intend to share personal customer information with third parties. Federal Law simply states that cable providers must “give notice” to customers when sharing their information with third parties.

Second, this ordinance requires that a specific form, a post card, include specific and plain language that discloses how cable companies share personal information and to inform cable customers that they may “opt out” of such sharing. Federal Law simply states that cable providers must allow subscribers to “opt out” to prevent providers from sharing their personal information with third parties. Often, I have heard complaints that cable company notices lack clarity, are confusing, and do not provide clear direction on how to remove oneself from personal information sharing.

Third, if a cable company shares a customer’s personal information after the customer failed to opt out of such information sharing, the cable company must notify the customer within 45 days of having shared their personal information that the customer has another opportunity to opt out of future information sharing. When a customer opts out, it is permanent. No further opt out notices need to be sent by the cable company or acknowledged by the customer. The cable company may, however, ask the customer to consider opting back in at a latter date.

And last, this legislation looks to the future by defining interactive television as one of the “other services” covered within the ordinance. The City anticipates that cable set-top box software and other interactive technology will one day be able to collect personal information on customers. So, the City extended to that technology consumer safeguards on personal information sharing, as well.

As a result of the Council having successfully passed this legislation, several cities are now looking to Seattle as a model they can use when shaping their own legislation on cable customer rights. I commend Councilmember Jim Compton and his staff for their leadership on this groundbreaking legislation.

Federal Ruling On Cable Modems

In a Declaratory Ruling announced on March 14, 2002, the FCC concluded that cable modem service is properly classified as an “interstate information service” rather than a “cable service” as defined by the Communications Act and is therefore not subject to local regulation. The FCC also said that cable modem service does not contain a separate “telecommunications service” offering and therefore is not subject to common carrier regulation. In other words, cable companies cannot be forced by local government to share their lines with other internet access providers.

If you are a cable modem subscriber, you might have already felt the impact of this ruling: your monthly bill has shrunk by a couple bucks. That’s because, as of April 1st, cable providers have removed municipal franchise fee taxes from their customers’ cable modem bills. Presently, the city levies a 10% utility tax on cable services. Cable companies have not yet asked the City to remove cable modem revenue from that tax base. The city puts into reserve 4% of that tax in anticipation of cable companies eventually requesting to be taxed at the lower telecommunications services rate of 6%. But, although cable modems are considered a utility, there is not yet a taxing category for “interstate information services,” which the FCC has declared cable modems to be.

While taxpayers obviously benefit from these lower cable bills, the City is losing revenue. Although specific figures are not yet available, the budget office anticipates that the hit on Seattle’s coffers could amount to about three hundred thousand dollars for the rest of this year.

In response to the FCC’s March 14th cable modem ruling, two interest groups have acted. The Washington State Association of Telecommunications Officers is in the process of submitting comments to the FCC challenging their determination that cable modem service is not a cable service. And the National League of Cities, U. S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and National Association of Telecommunications Officers announced jointly on April 24th that they have formed the Alliance of Local Organizations Against Preemption. ALOAP was formed in direct response to the FCC ruling and has appealed it to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That’s the same court that unanimously decided in 2000 that the regulation of cable modems is properly the jurisdiction of federal, not local government.

Look for updates on this fast-changing issue in future Urban Politics.

With assistance from my Legislative Assistant Newell Aldrich on this issue.

Urban Politics (UP) blends my insights and information on current public policy developments and personal experiences with the intent of helping citizens shape Seattle’s future.

________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS:

• The WIN Franchise
• The Need For A Master Cable Franchise Ordinance
• Updating Our Citizen Review Process
• The Possibility Of A Municipal Institute Network

The WIN Franchise

Today the City Council unanimously approved a new cable franchise to allow Western Integrated Networks (WIN) the right to lay a new fiber network throughout the city. The existing two cable franchises cover only sectors of the city. WIN’s entrance into our market means that there will be more competition between the cable companies to deliver improved and quality cable and high speed, broad band internet services to Seattle residents.

I have been in contact with some of the most vocal critics of this new franchise agreement and listened to their comments. In essence they have argued that the City could have received more benefits from their negotiations than what it did receive. However even the harshest of critics agreed that the WIN franchise is a very good thing for the City and will usher in a new era of telecommunications.

Under the direction of Council Member Jim Compton, Chair of the City Council Committee responsible for leading the negotiations, the City hired one of the nation’s best cable franchise consultants, Adrian Herbst, to evaluate our efforts and issue a report.. In a number of instances he praised the City for its work, and in the cover letter to the report he wrote, “It is clear that the City has negotiated an outstanding franchise agreement with Western Integrated.”

And he concluded that the tone of the entire franchise gives the City the opportunity to bring WIN back to the negotiating table if conditions so require. If used wisely, this provision enables the City to exercise substantial leadership in keeping WIN’s facilities and services at or near the state of art.

On the road to exercising that leadership I strongly believe that the City Council needs to take the next three legislative actions.

The Need For A Master Cable Franchise Ordinance

The first step should begin the task of writing a Master Cable Ordinance. Mr. Herbst recommended that Seattle develop one to establish uniform standards and requirements when granting cable franchises. And we should begin as soon as possible. It is my understanding that before summer we could see applications coming from AT&T and Millennium, the two current cable operators in Seattle, requesting permission for city wide buildovers similar to the WIN request.

Negotiating these contracts takes a tremendous amount of City staff time. We need to give them guidance before they undertake that task again. A Master Cable Ordinance will let all future cable applicants know what the City expects of them. It can address the issues as varied as limiting street cuts to maximizing public access.

In essence it will allow Seattle to maintain legislative control over all cable franchises in the future.

Updating Our Citizen Review Process

The second step would be to update our franchise laws to allow our citizens an effective voice in reviewing franchises and all related documents in a timely fashion.

For example our current Municipal Code only addresses the requirement for the public to review cable applications, but in fact it is the franchise that is critical these days, not the application. In this recent exercise in franchising WIN, there were only 7 days for the public to review the 60 page franchise contract before the public hearing.

And there was no time allowed to review the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with WIN before the public hearing. Although this document does not have nearly the legal standing as the franchise, it does create a set of expectations between the two parties and as such can become an important political tool in future negotiations.

Unfortunately our consultant’s report reviewing the franchise agreement was also not available until after the public comment period ended. Since it was paid for with public funds it should be made available to the public in a timely fashion. If it had been released before the public hearing a number of criticisms of the franchise might not have been made.

Given this experience, it appears that the City would benefit by updating our ordinances so that all important documents relevant to a cable franchise can be disseminated to the public with sufficient time to be reviewed and commented on. Such an open and transparent process will allow our citizens to better shape our public policies.

The Possibility Of A Municipal Institute Network

The third step we should take is to have a strategy and a policy on how we can maximize the great potential of a high speed, broad band, fiber network for all of our citizens. Some citizens have argued that this can best be met through a functioning Municipal Institution Network, else known as an I – Network. At a minimum this would be a fiber network connecting our city facilities.

Currently we may have several city facilities connected by fiber but we could go beyond that. For example, advocates have asked why not have a publicly owned and operated fiber spine connecting not only public buildings, like libraries and fire stations but also made available to non-profits and possibly even businesses? Council Member Jim Compton has cautioned going down that road in light of King County’s low satisfaction with their network.

And yet I-Networks appear to be working in some other cities and have been used to promote economic development. We could explore the possibility of having a publicly owned and operated fiber spine going through Southeast Seattle to help promote economic development in our Empowerment Zone.

I want to make it clear that an I-Network is not a substitute for private cable franchises. We need them and we want to encourage them to come to our city as WIN has. But there may be a place for I-Networks to supplement them. At a minimum it is an issue that we should seriously explore.