Home
Categories
EXPLORE
True Crime
Comedy
Society & Culture
Business
Sports
Health & Fitness
Technology
About Us
Contact Us
Copyright
© 2024 PodJoint
Loading...
0:00 / 0:00
Podjoint Logo
US
Sign in

or

Don't have an account?
Sign up
Forgot password
https://is1-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Podcasts112/v4/90/6c/69/906c69ca-62c8-961e-5ea7-343f7825bf16/mza_18055694224696235755.png/600x600bb.jpg
Sightline Institute Research
Sightline Institute
60 episodes
1 month ago
Cascadia’s sustainability think tank brings you a feed of its latest research articles, in text-to-audio recordings. Learn how the region can advance abundant housing for vibrant communities; reform our democratic systems and elections to honor the public’s priorities, including its support for climate solutions; make a just transition away from fossil fuels and into a 21st-century energy economy; and model forestry and agricultural practices that rebuild our soils, ecosystems, and rural economies. View articles in full at sightline.org.
Show more...
Government
Education
RSS
All content for Sightline Institute Research is the property of Sightline Institute and is served directly from their servers with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
Cascadia’s sustainability think tank brings you a feed of its latest research articles, in text-to-audio recordings. Learn how the region can advance abundant housing for vibrant communities; reform our democratic systems and elections to honor the public’s priorities, including its support for climate solutions; make a just transition away from fossil fuels and into a 21st-century energy economy; and model forestry and agricultural practices that rebuild our soils, ecosystems, and rural economies. View articles in full at sightline.org.
Show more...
Government
Education
Episodes (20/60)
Sightline Institute Research
For Oregonians, Better Elections Are Hidden in Plain Sight
In 2024, Democrat-endorsed candidates swept all seven seats on the Bend Oregon, city council - even though city elections are technically nonpartisan. Democrats certainly outnumber Republicans in Bend, but 20 percent of city voters are registered with the G.O.P., and many more are not affiliated or are registered with smaller parties. Those voters don't get their views represented in their city government.
In southern Oregon's Jackson County, the representation failure is reversed. Democratic or Independent candidates have won more than 40 percent of the vote for every county commissioner contest over the last five general elections - but Republicans consistently hold all three seats. Even though county voters are split between the two major parties, Democrats are locked out of county policy decisions.
Sightline catalogued voting methods in all Oregon counties and the 50 most populous cities (view and download the list here). The findings: Almost all of Oregon's cities and counties operate with election methods that tend to fall into the same pattern of misrepresentation. These local governments use outdated, easily gamed voting methods.
Fortunately, Oregon's constitution, unlike those of neighboring states, enables localities to choose a more effective path: proportional representation.
Nearly all local governments in Oregon - every county and all but one of the state's 50 largest cities - use one of three methods of electing councils and commissions, or some combination. While each of them can, and often does, achieve adequate representation for residents, all three are susceptible to political manipulation and to oscillation between political extremes.
Bloc voting can shift governing bodies wholesale based on whatever group turns out the most voters.
At-large positions similarly give majority viewpoints unfair sway and set up additional avenues for political gamesmanship.
And single-winner wards (or districts) put voters at the mercy of artificial lines, including gerrymandering.
Voters in more than one-third of Oregon's 50 largest cities and many more smaller towns, from Baker City to Yachats and Lake Oswego to Redmond, are familiar with bloc voting, even if they don't know it by name; it's a common method for electing multiple people to city council at once. But those candidates are not assured to reflect the diversity of public preferences.
With bloc voting, voters get the same number of votes as there are council seats up for election. In a three-seat election, for example, voters pick their three choices from the list of all candidates, and the three with the most votes win spots on the council. Some cities use bloc voting for all seats at once, while others elect some of their members in midterm years and the rest in presidential years.
Bloc voting might seem like a simple method - choose three, elect three - but the outcomes can belie what voting is supposed to achieve. Instead of electing a council that can represent everyone, whichever group or faction gets the most votes can easily win all the seats. In partisan elections, bloc voting frequently means that the party with the most votes sweeps the board; in nonpartisan elections, candidates on either side of local wedge issues (like police funding or low-income housing) might win every single position even if voters are closely divided. A small shift in voter preference can flip half or all of a local council, so residents might have to endure dramatic policy swings; a policing or housing ordinance adopted one year could be reversed the next.
Plus, when votes are close, there's no guarantee that the top vote-getters are actually the most popular candidates. Take the city of Forest Grove, for example. In 2024, six candidates ran for the three open seats in a bloc voting election, and all received between 12 and 19 percent of the vote. The third-place winner, Brian Schimmel, beat out next-place runner-up, Peter Truax, by less than half a percentage point. With few...
Show more...
1 month ago
11 minutes 17 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
Homes on Wheels Are Filling a Big Gap in Portland
The Maine family needed a cheaper place for one of them to live. And quickly.
It was 2024. Synia Maine, 56, had just developed a back injury so severe that she had to retire from her career as a hairstylist a decade earlier than planned. Suddenly, she had increased medical bills and no income.
Her daughter-in-law, Ember DeVaul, recounted that they'd explored multiple options to try to keep Synia in Arizona, where she lived. Even the lowest-cost housing option, manufactured homes, required a permanent foundation and tens of thousands of dollars in permitting costs.
Ember and her husband, who live in East Portland, looked into converting their own garage into housing. Only one contractor bothered to reply to them after they stated their budget was just $100,000. The verdict? It would take $150,000 minimum to convert the garage, but the resale value of the property would only increase by half that amount. Another issue was the estimated six months to get through design and permitting.
"We didn't have time to wait,"
Ember said. Because Synia was an independent contractor, she didn't have health insurance, and she had used up her savings just to keep up with the bills.
"It's crazy how fast everything can change,"
said Ember.
Kol Peterson, the sole contractor who showed up at Ember's home, proposed another idea: a tiny home on wheels.
Unlike a traditional backyard cottage, tiny homes on wheels and recreational vehicles (RVs) are legally considered vehicles. This means that they aren't subject to the building permit process and its associated fees. All that the city requires is an additional utility connection, or access to the main house if the external dwelling doesn't have internal plumbing.
"It ended up being realistically our only option, other than her being homeless, really,"
said Ember.
Synia ended up settling on a park model RV, which is larger and designed as a long-term residence rather than for cross-country voyages. Even with upgrades like four-season insulation and a 35-year warranty on the roof, the total cost came to $104,000. Adding the water and sewer connection only cost another $5,000.
The new home is being delivered in mid-September. Though it's intended to be permanent, the fact that it could move elsewhere in the future made everyone more comfortable. Ember recalled,
"She is just so scared of being a burden. If she doesn't want to live with us anymore, she can take it somewhere else and not feel indebted to us."
Synia is lucky that her son and daughter-in-law moved to Portland five years ago. It's possibly the only city in the United States that has fully legalized living in wheeled dwellings on residential lots instead of just within commercial RV parks. In both of the Arizona cities where Synia's other daughters live, Synia's new living arrangement would be illegal, as it is in the vast majority of North American jurisdictions.
Portland first started creating a legal pathway to this low-cost shelter option in 2017, after Luz Gomez, an immigrant from Honduras, brought a spotlight to the issue alongside the Leaven Community, a faith group in NE Portland she was involved with. At the time it was estimated that at least 100 of these homes already existed illegally, and their residents could lose their homes if neighbors reported them. City Commissioner Eudaly, elected to city council as a housing advocate, directed the Bureau of Development Services to stop enforcing prohibitions against them in 2017. Four years later, Portland passed an ordinance fully legalizing tiny homes on wheels and RVs as permanent housing options on residential lots with an existing home.
Because so little paperwork is required, there is no official count of how many Portlanders live in homes on wheels. But it's likely more common than people realize. Peterson, the contractor who worked on Synia's project, counted more tiny homes on wheels and occupied RVs in his neighborhood than traditional ADUs on foundations back in 2020. In other ...
Show more...
1 month ago
13 minutes 57 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
How Cascadia Can Maintain Its Heat Pump Momentum
Meeting Cascadia's climate goals will require millions of households to stop burning fossil fuels for warmth. In Oregon and Washington, buildings emit more pollution than any other sector besides transportation. (The building sector is the third highest emitting in British Columbia and Idaho, and fifth in Montana.)
Heat pumps powered by renewable electricity are what the International Energy Agency calls the "proven technology of choice to decarbonize heating," and several Cascadian jurisdictions are working hard to expand access to the technology. Oregon, for example, set itself a goal of heat pumps accounting for 65 percent of new residential heating, cooling, and water heating equipment sales by 2030. British Columbia resolved for all new space and water heating equipment sales and installations to be at least 100 percent efficient by 2030, a standard that favors heat pumps, which can exceed this threshold. Heat pumps have now outsold gas furnaces and central air conditioners for two consecutive years in Cascadia; nearly three heat pumps sold for every two gas furnaces in 2023.
Still, heat pumps are prohibitively expensive in upfront costs, and that fact, coupled with tightening public budgets, could threaten their rapid scale-up, especially among low-income families.
In this challenging context, leaders in Cascadia would do well to direct their limited treasuries of funds for public subsidies toward low-income households for whom heat pumps offer the biggest reductions in both utility bills and greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, policymakers can support creative funding models, such as tariffed on-bill investments and green banks, to help more households get heat pumps installed. They can also strengthen building codes to ensure heat pumps are installed in new homes, avoiding costly future retrofits. This multi-pronged approach stretches scarce public dollars, while still reaching families that stand to benefit most from these clean, cost-saving, and comfortable systems.
Many families, particularly those with low incomes, cannot afford heat pumps. A medium-efficiency heat pump can cost between $14,000 and $22,000 in Cascadian states. The median heat pump costs $8,200 more than installing fossil-fuel heating equipment (such as a gas boiler) and air conditioning in Oregon; in Montana, that figure is $16,200. Steep costs stem from expensive manufacturing and labor, installer shortages and inexperience, the need for electrical upgrades in some homes, and the added cost of backup heating systems where required.
Governments have stepped in to help. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides rebates of up to $8,000 for low-income households purchasing medium- or high-efficiency heat pumps. These rebates have so far withstood roll-back attempts by the Trump administration; Oregon and Washington have already secured hundreds of millions of federal dollars to launch their rebate programs. (Montana has paused its rebate rollout, while Idaho has provided no public timeline.) But the IRA rebates are a one-time, capped allocation, and the Trump administration eliminated tax incentives for energy-efficient home improvements in July 2025, including heat pumps.
States and provinces also subsidize heat pumps, but tight budgets have led to substantial cutbacks. Washington scaled back funding for heat pump programs from $80 million in the 2023 budget cycle to $30 million in 2025. Oregon lawmakers appropriated $25 million to heat pump rebates in 2022 and added another $4 million in 2024, but allocated no new funds in 2025. British Columbia lowered its heat pump program budget from Can$150 million in 2024 to Can$50 million in 2025. (Idaho and Montana do not offer any state-funded heat pump rebates.)
Several utilities in the region chip in heat pump rebates of their own, though amounts tend to be modest. For example, Puget Sound Energy offers $3,900 rebates to low-income households, and Idaho Power offers $500.
Crucial as they a...
Show more...
1 month ago
18 minutes 10 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
Who Owns a Utility Matters Less for Climate Than the Rules They Play By
Cascadia's transition to safe, healthy, gas-free homes and businesses is not moving quickly enough, and the region's gas utilities bear much of the blame.
Consider a few recent examples: In 2022 Oregon's gas utilities sued the state over its landmark Climate Protection Program, setting back implementation by at least a year. In 2023 NW Natural funded a campaign in Eugene, Oregon, to repeal the city's ban on gas hookups in new residential buildings. In 2024 Cascade Natural Gas and NW Natural supported ballot initiative 2066 to keep Washington state hooked on gas, including by restricting the state's ability to incentivize electric heat pumps in new construction. The measure may now be headed to the state supreme court, after voters narrowly approved it and then the King County Superior Court overturned it.
Allowing gas utilities to explore new climate-friendly business models such as thermal energy networks (TENs) could soften their stance on decarbonization. But here, too, momentum has been halting. An Oregon bill to establish TENs pilot projects stalled in the Joint Ways and Means committee this year.
The gas sector's slow-walk on climate progress demands more transformative ideas. One that surfaces from time to time among advocates is transferring gas utilities to public ownership. It's a common model in Cascadia for electric utilities, and one that could theoretically speed electrification by removing utilities' profit motive and making companies more accountable to the public.
What we found, though, is that publicly owned gas utilities in the United States aren't moving faster toward decarbonization than their privately owned counterparts. That's likely because they face many of the same misaligned incentives and lax climate policies as their for-profit counterparts. In much of Cascadia, too, public gas utilities (there are a few) do not serve customers that want to shut them down. That's to say nothing of the practical and financial challenges of transferring aging fossil fuel infrastructure to government ownership
The good news, though, is that both those ingredients - the policy context in which they operate and the desires of the public they serve - can change, and they don't depend on first altering gas utility ownership structure. A slew of effective policies is already at work and available to copy-paste from more climate-forward places, namely the Netherlands and Denmark. Those countries do own their gas utilities, but that's not a prerequisite when it comes to decarbonization. Rather, it's their exceptionally strong gas transition policies that can apply to any type of utility, including the investor-owned companies prevalent in Cascadia today.
The takeaway: Cascadians can spare themselves the immensely challenging campaign of trying to take over the region's investor-owned companies and instead focus on pushing the measures that are already succeeding elsewhere. Which of course means a faster path off gas and toward the cleaner, healthier homes and businesses.
Government ownership of utilities is nothing new to Cascadia. More than 110 publicly owned electric utilities dot the region, ranging from the tiny City of Rupert Electric in Idaho, with 3,200 customers, to the gargantuan HydroBC in British Columbia, which serves more than 2.2 million customers (95 percent of provincial residents). Customers of publicly owned electric utilities in the United States tend to enjoy lower rates and more reliable electricity than customers of other types of utilities, according to US Energy Information Agency data analyzed by the American Public Power Association.
For these reasons and more, community members and activists have pushed for public takeover of privately owned electric companies in the Northwest and beyond. Cascadia added two publicly owned electric utilities in the past 25 years: Jefferson County Public Utility District, which split from Puget Sound Energy (PSE) in 2008, in northwest Washington, and Hermiston En...
Show more...
2 months ago
17 minutes 10 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
Seattleites Keep Their Model Campaign Finance Reform Program
With 57 percent in favor of Proposition 1 (and 150,000 ballots in; last updated August 7, 2025), Seattle voters have reaffirmed their commitment to advancing a more democratic city government. Seattle's iconic Democracy Voucher Program will have funding for another ten years.
This renewal means the city can continue to lead the way in the share of its population who contribute to city campaigns. Candidates will keep having more reasons to knock on doors rather than spend hours a day calling up the wealthiest people they know to fund their campaigns. And Seattle residents will get more choices in their elections and more power to express their views.
Along with helping to design the initial policy, Sightline has documented the impressive effects from the program's first decade:
The program has unlocked an "incredible explosion in participation" in campaign funding and empowered a much more representative group of people to become donors.
It decreased large donations and elevated small ones, and it pushed away money coming from outside the city. For example, before the program was implemented, in the 2013 election cycle, gifts of $400 or more made up almost 60 percent of campaign dollars; in 2023, those large contributions plummeted to 9 percent of funds.
The program even helped boost voter turnout, likely because of increased personal touches from candidates.
While it couldn't put a damper on dark money (no one can, thanks to US Supreme Court cases including Buckley v. Valeo, Citizen United v. FEC, and McCutcheon v. FEC), the program also didn't cause a spike in those "independent expenditures" - PAC spending is up everywhere.
Democracy vouchers have encouraged more diverse candidates to run and given them a pathway to win. Almost all viable candidates have participated in the program since it began, including people with viewpoints across Seattle's political spectrum.
The program has done all that with "budget dust," a portion of the city budget you need a magnifying glass to see in a chart.
Tuesday's vote shows Seattleites' confidence in the program and belief in the importance of doing everything possible to make their government representative and accountable. City residents face many daily challenges - and the stronger and more democratic our governments, the better equipped they are to understand and respond to what's happening in people's lives.
One component of the measure that passed is a directive for the mayor, city council, and the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (the SEEC, the entity that manages the program) to convene a workgroup to explore potential improvements to the program. While the SEEC has already tweaked some elements based on ongoing feedback, the workgroup will offer a more defined process for additional recommendations, considering input from candidates, campaign staff, consultants, advocates, and the SEEC.
Commentators have already pointed to spending caps for possible modification, particularly given the large number of PAC funds that enter city races. Others have suggested shifting the timing of voucher mailings, improving outreach, and allowing candidates into apartment buildings to meet voters. Some might look beyond the program to other ideas for making political donors more accountable, perhaps following Maine's example (currently moving through the courts) to limit donations to super PACs.
Future city elections will get another boost toward fairer representation: Seattle will start using ranked choice voting in city primaries in 2027, the next local primary election. Ranked choice voting offers similar voter-centric benefits as democracy vouchers: candidates benefit from knocking on more doors and talking to more voters because they seek out second-choice votes as well as first choices; more diverse candidates tend to run and win, because voters don't have to just pick the popular option while others get squeezed out; and voters get a more nuanced way to express their political choi...
Show more...
2 months ago
4 minutes 18 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
“If One Path Is Blocked, Nature Will Find Another”
Editor's introduction: John Vaillant is a Cascadian icon. An award-winning and bestselling author residing in Vancouver, British Columbia, he has written gripping tales, both fiction and nonfiction, on the nuanced interfaces between people and nature.
Vaillant's 2023 Pulitzer finalist book Fire Weather: On the Front Lines of a Burning World recounted the harrowing 2016 megafire in the Alberta oil town of Fort McMurray, weaving in the histories of the oil industry, climate science, and the very technology of fire in human history. His account not only won international praise; it also drove urgent conversations about our new age of ultra-destructive, climate-fueled wildfires - a topic Sightline has also researched.
Below, John Vaillant shares his reflections on developments since publishing Fire Weather, answering questions from Sightline researchers.
The Los Angeles fires this past January were a signal event that forced twenty-first century wildland-urban interface fire and urban conflagration into the international consciousness with a new urgency. The size and speed of it, combined with the scale of the evacuation (about 200,000 people), the structure loss (16,000+), the cost (likely over a hundred billion dollars when all is said and done), and the death toll (30) shocked the nation.
I happened to be in Orange Country when those fires broke out, and I did more media interviews than I've ever done in my life. Those fires, as intense and destructive as they were, were "out of season," implying that there is no longer a fixed "fire season," but rather "fire weather," which can now occur almost any time (see the hundreds of fires that burned across the Northeast last November).
That said, it's summertime now, and huge, stubborn fires are wreaking havoc in the heart of Canada, and across the American West. Particularly intense fires, burning in record-breaking temperatures, have been destroying property and also causing fatalities across the eastern Mediterranean.
Years - and in some places, decades - of prolonged drought have made many northern and western forests much more fire-prone. Milder winters, elevated summer heat, and year-round drought conditions have also enabled a variety of insects to kill or weaken vast swathes of forest, increasing flammability and transforming historic carbon sinks, like Canada's boreal forest, into net carbon emitters. Meanwhile, as highly flammable, petrochemical-heavy modern homes push deeper into the wildland-urban interface (WUI) in search of the "neighborhood in Nature" sweet spot, more and more structures are exposed to wildfire energy and embers.
As I've been learning on my now-global Fire Weather tour, communities are at very different stages of awareness and/or preparatory action, ranging from high (Hornby Island, BC; Steamboat Springs, CO) to low (Lucca, Italy; Cambridge, UK; Jaipur, India). Individuals have taken some of the messages from Fire Weather (and their own hard-won experience) to heart, abandoning synthetic (petroleum-based) clothes, gas-powered vehicles, and/or urging their town councils to build alternative routes out of their dead-end valley communities.
The biggest surprise is how fast it's happening, and how broadly. The petroleum industry, which is still insured, is destroying what was a very lucrative twentieth-century business: if you're an insurance company pulling coverage from vast swaths of the country, you may be reducing your exposure, but you're not making any money from policies either. You have to wonder if the industry is connecting these dots in a meaningful way . . .
Fire Wise (FireSmart in Canada) is a really good local program that operates through local fire departments. I think every local solution, from yard planting choices, to external sprinklers, to alternate escape routes, to fire preparedness guides can be scaled to policy level. What makes this hard and slow is that it requires a shift in consciousness and these, like attitudes toward litt...
Show more...
2 months ago
6 minutes 38 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
Oregon Decides It Was a Mistake to Let Cities Ban Homes
Over the last eight years, a bipartisan coalition of Oregon lawmakers has led North America on a new trend: state-level zoning.
As zoning restrictions spread across the continent almost exactly 100 years ago, state and provincial governments mostly delegated to cities all decisions about where and what sorts of housing should be allowed locally. During the century that followed, that led to problems. A big one: cities and towns deployed zoning to gradually ban the rooming houses, duplexes, triplexes, and small-scale apartment buildings that had always been, until then, the places you could live when you had a small household or a tight budget.
At first, this wasn't an obvious problem. A city banning apartments might reason that inexpensive homes would still be legal in the next town over. Or they might observe that the next town over had offloaded its housing needs on them by banning apartments, so it was only fair that they do the same.
It was all very rational, and contagious. And after a century of local rules upon local rules, the state's largest city looked like a muddled patchwork of zoning.
The complexity of Portland's 779 distinct zoning categories, each one restrictive in its own ways and multiplied further across hundreds of other jurisdictions, has helped create a huge shortage of homes. That's especially true for the smaller and less expensive sorts of homes, since those are the ones most frequently banned by zoning. That housing shortage and the rising prices it drives have spiraled across city lines and ultimately left many thousands of people sleeping on couches, in parking lots, and in the woods.
Starting in 2017 and with rising confidence in each year since, Oregon has been responding to this endless civic buck-passing by rethinking its 100-year-old decision to leave the details of zoning mostly up to local jurisdictions.
Instead, much of the work on this statewide issue is now returning to the place it maybe should have always remained: the state.
To see how far Oregon's consensus has moved, read a bill Governor Tina Kotek signed today.
House Bill 2258 gives the state the power to override local zoning and allow any type of housing on standard urban lots.
I'll read that last sentence again.
The bill passed the state House 50-2, and the Senate 28-2. Kotek, its chief advocate, held a signing ceremony Monday for it and others.
Aurora Dziadul, a legislative and policy analyst for the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, said by email that her state agency plans to voluntarily apply "extra parameters" that narrow the scope of the program. But she said that yes, the bill does give the state the power to preemptively give zoning and building permit approval to any variety of housing project, from a backyard cottage to a skyscraper, on any lot that:
allows housing of at least one type;
falls within an urban growth boundary (a border that, in Oregon, defines the frontier between suburban and rural areas);
is between 1,500 and 20,000 square feet has no more than a 15 percent slope;
is outside areas officially designated as environmentally sensitive, naturally hazardous, containing significant natural resources, scenic, or open;
and is vacant, including from a recent demolition as long as it results in more homes.
A key phrase in the bill is in Section 4(2)a, which says that on such lots, the state may pre-approve only "attached or detached housing" - in other words, all housing. (That's one item in a list of qualifying factors that Dziadul said includes an implicit "or.")
It's unlikely that the state will decide to use this power to legalize 4-story apartment buildings on every urban lot, for example. If it did, cities would have a strong incentive to look for ways to nullify the law - for example, with tight new regulations on demolition. Until any previous building on the site has been demolished, it wouldn't qualify for the de facto state zoning code created by HB 2258.
Another issue: the staff...
Show more...
2 months ago
15 minutes 52 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
British Columbians Could Enjoy Better City Elections
You made it! The last contestant standing on an old-school game show. "Behind Door Number One" your charming host reveals, "a pile of rocks!" Behind Door Two, he grins, "a slightly larger pile of rocks!" And, gesturing to the last door with a glimmer of gold pouring out from beneath, "or will our lucky winner pick the million-dollar mystery prize?" It's a no-brainer. But as you reach for the knob, the host grabs your wrist. "What are you doing?" he hisses. "You're only allowed to pick between the first two doors!"
Hardly seems fair, does it. But municipalities in British Columbia get the same treatment when it comes to their local governments. The province strong-arms cities, towns, villages, and districts into using bloc voting to elect their councils, a poor fit for representation in local elections. Ward (or "district") voting, the only current alternative, appears a bit more generous but has its own weighty problems: spoiled elections and two-party dominance.
This year, as a special provincial committee studies election reform, might it finally come to pass that local governments get a glimpse behind that third door? Gold-standard elections, using the new best-in-class model now operational in Portland Oregon, are so close to being in reach: only a few lines of provincial law stand between municipal governments and better representation.
British Columbia's standing election laws simply don't give local councils a fair shot at better elections. Bloc voting and ward voting - the only two choices municipalities are allowed - are hardly ideal for representing voters.
Also known as plurality at-large voting, bloc voting is BC's default voting method for local councils. If 10 seats on the body are up for a bloc vote election, voters get to pick 10 candidates. The 10 winners are the ones with the most votes.
The problem?
In partisan contests, bloc voting often means the most popular party will win outsized representation on the council. Take the Vancouver City Council election of 1996 for example. The Non-Partisan Association (a center-right party, despite the name) won slightly more than 50 percent of the total vote, but took 100 percent of the seats.
By contrast, if voters had the same preferences under a proportional model, the Non-Partisan Association likely would have wound up with half of the seats, roughly equal to their vote share. Other parties - including the Coalition of Progressive Electors, Vancouver Organized Independent Civic Electors, and others - would have split the remaining five seats, giving their communities a voice in local government.
With turnout perpetually low in BC municipal elections, it's not out of the question that an extreme faction could seize control of most or all seats in a single election. As authors for Fair Vote Canada wrote in 2022, the winner-takes-all nature of council elections causes sudden and extreme policy swings, which can be expensive for taxpayers and create uncertainty for the individuals, communities, and businesses that local policies impact.
BC offers local governments only one alternative to bloc voting, which might provide slightly more accurate representation on a council, but creates headaches of its own.
Municipalities also have the option to elect councillors partially or entirely in districts, also known as wards. Wards that elect a single councillor operate under simple plurality rules (most-votes-wins), while multi-winner wards must use bloc voting. So far, only the District of Lake Country has adopted wards, but larger cities - including Burnaby, Surrey, and Vancouver - have debated or proposed converting to ward voting.
While wards guarantee geographic areas will have representation on a council, they create concerns for fairness and representation. First off: if wards split neighborhoods or communities between districts, those communities might not win representation at all, so local governments must take precautions to draw maps impartially and fairly. (The ac...
Show more...
3 months ago
13 minutes 10 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
Seattle’s Democracy Vouchers Are Popular Across the Political Spectrum
Pop quiz: What do Bruce Harrell and Lorena Gonzalez have in common? Hint: It's something they also share with both Tammy Morales and Tanya Woo, as well as Ann Davison and Nichole Thomas-Kennedy, Cathy Moore and ChrisTiana ObeySumner, Dan Strauss and Heidi Wills, and many others besides.
These candidates are mostly on opposite sides of Seattle's political spectrum. Each pair of competitors comprises one Seattle Times editorially endorsed candidate and one from the Stranger.
So what's the common denominator? Democracy Vouchers.
All these candidates (plus many more) took part in the city's innovative Democracy Voucher Program when they ran for office. Of the 42 eligible city candidates (for mayor, city council, or city attorney) who made it to the general election between 2017 and 2023, all but five used the program.
Only two non-democracy voucher candidates have won office over those years, and they also don't share a lot of overlapping political space: Sara Nelson, the council's current pro-business, anti-tax president, and prior socialist firebrand councilmember Kshama Sawant. Both Nelson and Sawant have expressed support for the program though, and have offered varied reasons for not participating. (For Nelson, concerns about door-knocking during COVID and other logistics; for Sawant, that opposing corporate PAC funds would swamp what she'd be allowed to spend as a democracy voucher candidate.
What does this mean for Seattle politics? Democracy vouchers are position-neutral, good for all kinds of candidates, and especially powerful for the voters of Seattle.
Seattle voters have a chance to renew this popular, fruitful, and inexpensive program on the ballot this August. In the words of Council President Nelson:
it's an "investment in democracy, the currency of your voice."
Seattle's elections are nonpartisan, so they don't exhibit the same type of partisan polarization that threatens to overwhelm current state and US federal elections. But the city still has political sides - moderate vs. progressive, centrist vs. lefty, preservationist vs. YIMBY.
Endorsements from the city's leading media outlets are a decent proxy for these lines of competition in Seattle politics. On one end is the Seattle Times, the city's moderate, largest news source. On the other side is the Stranger, Seattle's irreverent and unapologetically progressive alternative paper.
The Seattle Times and the Stranger have only endorsed the same general election candidate in one city race since 2017 (plus one other contest where the Seattle Times didn't choose a candidate). Every other time, they've supported opposite sides of the local political options. Politicos might wonder then, whether a program like democracy vouchers benefits one side more than another.
The answer? Nope!
Those political distinctions melt away when examining who has benefited from democracy vouchers. Seattle Times-endorsed candidates have won using the program. Stranger-endorsed candidates have won using the program. And the two candidates who gained office without the program are from opposite political camps. What's more, vouchers fund a similar portion of candidates' campaigns, making up 32 to 88 percent of contributions to Seattle Times candidates and 35 to 88 percent of contributions to Stranger candidates.
In 2023, all general election candidates used democracy vouchers. Mayor Bruce Harrell and councilmembers Rob Saka, Joy Hollingsworth, Maritza Rivera, Cathy Moore, and Bob Kettle all won with Seattle Times backing; Tammy Morales and Dan Strauss with a Stranger endorsement. In prior years the breakdown was inverted, and more Stranger-endorsed candidates have won; but they and their competitors have almost always also taken part in the voucher program. Even Ann Davison, who won election as Seattle's city attorney in 2021 while identifying as a Republican, used the program.
Instead of advantaging one political group over another, the program has benefited a more important stakeholder...
Show more...
3 months ago
9 minutes 58 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
For Juneau, There’s a Better Way than Cascade Voting
There's a reason most experience the thrill of whitewater rafting with a seasoned guide. Rivers have forks, twists, and turns, and it helps to have someone along who can navigate them. In a tumultuous time for politics in the United States, leading election reform in a place like Juneau Alaska, can feel much the same: it's exhilarating to be out front leading a movement, but there are certain routes you must know -Not- to take - lest you find yourself stuck in a hole or plunging off a cliff.
The Juneau Assembly recently shoved off on a quest to bring ranked choice voting to local elections. For one-winner races like picking a mayor or single assembly member, Juneau is sailing smoothly toward a tried-and-tested model that gives voters real choices and encourages candidates to work together. For Multi-winner contests, though, which include those for school board and the occasional two-person assembly race, the Assembly has steered toward a little-known variation: Cascade Voting, which can be as precipitous as its name implies.
The Cascade method might look from a distance to be a shortcut to the ultimate destination: fairer, more representative elections. But Australians, Mainers, and Utahns have explored the same passage and capsized or hastily reversed course, a sign of treacherous waters ahead. Luckily for Juneau, a better route is just a few paddle strokes away: single transferable vote, also known as proportional ranked-choice-voting, offers a safe and charted path forward.
Cascade voting (also known as "block preferential" or "multi-pass" voting) -looks- like ranked-choice-voting. It -sounds- like ranked choice voting. But instead of driving better governance and incentivizing more positive campaigns like ranked choice voting, the cascade method can distort election outcomes. Voters outside the mainstream can find their voices locked out of governing entirely. And in some cases, even candidates with majority support can lose their seats.
On the surface, Cascade voting appears to be little more than a version of ranked choice voting that elects multiple candidates (like three people to fill open seats on a local school board) rather than just one (like a legislator or mayor). Just as in a regular ranked contest, voters select candidates in order of preference. Once votes are in, officials eliminate the worst performers and transfer their votes to voters' next choices until someone wins a majority.
But it's after the first winner that the cascade model veers off course. To determine the winner of the second seat, election administrators count -all- the ballots again, ignoring rankings for the winner. Simply put, so long as they ranked their ballots, voters who elected the first-round winner get just as much weight in choosing the runner-up. The process repeats until there are enough winners to fill all of the seats up for election on the body in question.
While it may seem like a simple procedural tweak to accommodate multi-winner contests, Cascade voting can have disastrous consequences for representation. Since the same voters get to elect multiple candidates, votes tend to "trickle -up" to candidates who are most like the initial winner. Take Australia, for example, which once used the Cascade model for its senate. It almost always produced single-party delegation sweeps, over-representing the most popular party with no representation for anyone else.
At the local level, things got even worse. In Australian cities, minority parties figured out how to manipulate the process and prevent those in the majority from winning at all. It's no wonder, then, that one contemporary reformer called it a "blockhead system." In 1948, the country phased out Cascade voting.
Closer to home, few, if any, would recommend following the Cascade route. For example, in Utah, the city councils of both Payson and Vineyard opted out of cascade voting in 2025 after adopting it on a trial basis six years earlier. And while Portland Maine, used the...
Show more...
3 months ago
8 minutes 15 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
Democracy Vouchers Are a Bargain
With a miniscule portion of the city's budget, democracy vouchers deliver a whopping impact.
The program's funding is up for renewal this August, and it's a great deal. The renewal budget, $4.5 million per year in property taxes, is just 0.053 percent of the city's $8.5 billion 2025 budget. Renewal is an even smaller proportion of the budget than the original 2015 levy (which you also needed a magnifying glass to see).
That's a pretty amazing price for the program's benefits. I've already covered how democracy vouchers:

empower tens of thousands more residents to support local candidates they believe in;

cultivate a more representative donor pool;

reduce the flow of out-of-state and big-dollar donations;

and encourage more diverse candidates to run, connect with voters, and win office.
It's delivering real bang for the buck. The democracy voucher renewal cost can still be referred to as "budget dust," as was the original 2015 levy. What's more, that miniscule proportion of the total budget will continue to shrink as the city's budget grows (which it's done every year) and the levy rate stays constant. Over the course of its first nine years, the $3 million democracy voucher levy compressed from an already-tiny 0.059 percent of the 2016 city budget to 0.038 percent in 2024.
The Democracy Voucher Program is at least as worthwhile as many other similarly priced items in the city's 2025 budget. Among them are:

three months of public golf course maintenance and programs;

half of the annual funds for technology investments in construction and inspections;

fewer than three weeks of park maintenance;

eight weeks of debt service payments;

and four months of benefits management for retired employees.
What does the levy mean for individual property owners? The tax rate in the proposition is $2.27 per $1,000 of assessed value in the first year, representing an additional tax rate of $0.015 per $1,000 from the existing funding rate. That comes to about $13.07 per year for a median-priced house, according to the SEEC - about a $4 per year increase, or even less when accounting for inflation.
In other words, for an annual household cost less than the price of a single movie ticket, Seattleites can continue to reshape a fundamental part of their democracy.
In 2015, the Honest Elections campaign set the program funding levy at $3 million per year. That turned out to be a pretty good estimate of what it would take to launch and run democracy vouchers for Seattle, and it's kept the program solvent for its first ten years. Spending fluctuates year to year, of course (Seattle's elections are in odd-numbered years, so that's when the bulk of the costs come through), and unused funds from one year roll over to support costs in the next.
Administrators at the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (SEEC), the entity that runs the program, estimated what it will take to fund another decade of democracy vouchers and determined that the program needs a slight increase from the past rate to keep going. With years of data behind them, they could better guess how to account for differing numbers of candidates and residents using the program.
It's true that a lot of Seattleites still don't use their vouchers, letting them languish on a forgotten shelf. But neither the original program designers (including Sightline) nor the SEEC expect 100 percent of Seattle residents to hand in vouchers; total participation is neither the program's success metric nor the budgeting baseline. They know that campaign finance reform is a tough nut to crack, and there will always be people who don't engage politically in that way.
Still, the current level of voucher dollars flowing in is impressive - enough to fund the bulk of participating candidates' campaigns and place Seattle as having one of the top, if not the highest, contributor rates of all US cities. What's more, most city candidates have opted into the program, just as the architects of the program hoped...
Show more...
3 months ago
4 minutes 37 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
In Seattle Elections, Dark Money Follows Competition, Not Democracy Vouchers
Critics of Seattle's democracy vouchers often point to one trend as evidence of the program's fallibility: a rise in local "independent expenditures." That is, dark money campaign funding vehicles like super PACs. Despite their upsides, critics say, vouchers have simply pushed millions of big-donor dollars from official campaigns into less transparent and accountable forms, rendering the program a waste of money.
Sightline led the design of the Democracy Voucher Program and has promoted and studied it for more than a decade. So, I wanted to check this accusation - and found it unwarranted.
Independent expenditures are up in many cities across the United States, democracy vouchers or not. And preliminary academic analysis controlling for other factors confirms the program has had no effect on this kind of outside spending.
Instead, Seattle's experience shows that this innovative public financing model is delivering on its promise of more people-powered elections - even if US laws hamstring the city's options for addressing every dark money dollar.
From the inception of the program, opponents raised fears of spending from outside groups - special interests not affiliated with official campaigns. The 2015 opposition statement against I-122 (the ballot initiative that created the program), for example, suggested that it, quote: "pushes more money into less accountable independent expenditures, which I-122 does nothing to limit or reform," end-quote. Recent news articles continue to reference the explosion of independent expenditures as the flip side of an otherwise markedly successful endeavor.
It's true that the city (and its voucher program) cannot limit this type of spending, although it can and has taken some steps to curtail or highlight certain offenders, such as banning foreign-influenced corporations from political spending and strengthening transparency and disclosure laws. Independent expenditures are dollars from interest groups that are explicitly prohibited from coordinating with candidate campaigns (hence the "independent" moniker). These entities can be political action committees (PACs), super PACs, or other "dark money" groups, which all have unlimited spending but different allowances on the funding they can accept.
The US Supreme Court prohibited limitations on such spending as far back as Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. It then kicked the door wide open for corporate spending in Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, giving wealthy individuals and groups carte blanche to sway elections. And research shows that these funds do influence at least some policies.
It's also true that independent expenditures have risen in Seattle in recent years. But that doesn't mean they've grown because of the voucher program.
To test the allegation that the voucher program pushed political dollars out of official campaigns and into the "dark money" arena, Sightline turned to the leading independent US scholar of the program, Professor Jennifer Heerwig of SUNY-Stony Brook. Her research casts doubt on the claim, showing that independent expenditures have increased in many cities in recent years - some much more dramatically than in Seattle.
Independent expenditures, increasingly from ideological super PACs, have exploded in US politics over the past decade, including infiltrating local elections in the years directly following the 2010 Citizens United decision. Contributions to super PACs grew more than 30-fold from $40.1 million in 2012 to $1.3 billion in 2024, according to one report. According to another, spending doubled from 2020 to 2024 alone. Notably, these dollars are difficult to track, and reported figures likely under-estimate the growth.
Seattle and other nearby cities are not immune to this trend, nor is Seattle uniquely vulnerable to these outside campaigns. To study whether Seattle's independent expenditures increase bore any connection with the city's democracy vouchers, Professor Heerwig and researcher Anna Campbell collecte...
Show more...
3 months ago
8 minutes 5 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
The 1,083-Page Environmental Assessment That Ignores Climate Change and Tribes
In 2023, Washington state legislators attempted to make it easier to build long-distance power lines. Recognizing that more wires are essential to reaching 100 percent clean electricity - and that, quote: "transmission projects take a decade or more to develop and permit" end-quote, lawmakers directed a state agency to preemptively analyze the environmental impact of these projects.
More specifically, legislators tasked the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (or EFSEC) with preparing a so-called "programmatic environmental impact statement" (or PEIS) for hypothetical large transmission lines. The PEIS's purpose is to evaluate possible environmental harms of transmission lines and identify ways to mitigate them before specific project proposals to facilitate more responsible and quicker project completion. Sightline supported the idea.
In March 2025, EFSEC dropped its draft assessment with a virtual thud. Spanning 1,083 pages, the PEIS catalogs dozens of possible impacts of transmission line projects, largely drawn from Washington's State Environmental Policy Act (or SEPA) rules. It is mind-bendingly comprehensive, assessing impacts ranging from the environmental (like soil erosion and habitat loss) to the economic (such as changes in home value) to the faintly absurd (for example "Physical Hazard to Aerial Recreation Enthusiasts").
EFSEC analyzed 72 impacts across three project phases (construction, operations and maintenance, and upgrades and maintenance) for both overhead and underground lines. To save you the math, that's 432 distinct assessments.
But nowhere in its 1,083 pages does the PEIS analyze how transmission lines would affect the biggest environmental issue of our day: climate change.
EFSEC isn't entirely to blame. The legislature directed the agency to focus on "significant adverse environmental impacts" of electric transmission facilities. Climate change does not obviously fit into this definition. (Though arguably, neither does aerial recreation.) And to be fair, the document does explain, in a two-page Purpose & Needs section, that "existing constraints on transmission capacity within the state already present challenges in ensuring adequate and affordable supplies of clean electricity."
But by failing to assess how expanding the grid would reduce climate pollution, these 1,083 pages leave decisionmakers without the full picture they need to weigh the trade-offs of critical clean energy infrastructure.
Even though the draft PEIS only tells half the story, it does offer one clear takeaway: stringing up wires can be, by and large, not hugely environmentally harmful, and most harms can be mitigated through careful planning, site selection, and design.
EFSEC rates each possible impact on a scale ranging from "nil" to "high." It then offers mitigation techniques that the agency says would bring the impact determination to a "less than significant level."
Before even applying mitigation measures, roughly a third of the total 432 assessments received a rating of "low," "nil," "negligible," or "not applicable." Public health and safety, recreation, energy and natural resources, and earth (such as soil erosion or compaction) are most likely to fall into this category. (Aerial recreation enthusiasts will be happy to know that they, too, land in this group.)
EFSEC also finds that with smart design and siting choices, most remaining possible impacts could be negligible or low. Two-thirds of the assessments received a rating with an impact range that includes low, nil, or negligible (for example: "low to high," or "negligible to moderate").
Of the 432 assessments, just four received a rating of at least "moderate" before mitigation. All four concerned Tribal cultural resources.
That tribal resources are the most likely to be affected by power lines makes another omission by EFSEC even more glaring than the climate one: the agency failed to consult with most Tribes before it released the draft PEIS.
The legislature e...
Show more...
3 months ago
8 minutes 11 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
Oregon’s Zoning Reforms Are Working, But They Need Some Upgrades
Six years after a monumental rezone, Governor Kotek's HB-2138 will fill the gaps to more fully legalize starter homes.
Almost six years after Oregon became the first state to re-legalize duplexes, fourplexes, and cottage clusters throughout urban areas, the effects have arrived.
From Gresham to Grants Pass, permits are being pulled, roof beams are rising, and first-time homebuyers are signing their closing papers. Policymakers in Oregon and elsewhere, meanwhile, have their own opportunity: learning lessons.
Oregon's 2019 state-level reform to low-density zoning turned out to be the leading edge of a wave that has since rolled to California, Maine, Vermont, Arizona, Washington, and Montana, with various cities initiating similar reforms in their own right. But through it all, some sympathetic analysts have asked: Is this reform actually worth the trouble? Is the juice worth the squeeze? And if it is, which details do we need to worry about getting right?
Well, the proof is in the permits. Oregon cities are now several years past the state's deadline for legalizing so-called "middle housing." And though it's still too soon to say exactly how big a deal these smaller home options will prove to be over the long term, the data suggests they do have potential. Most notably, within three years of legalization in Portland, they accounted for 26 percent of new residential units approved there.
Another lesson: The finer details of zoning reform definitely seem to matter. As Oregon lawmakers consider a new law, House Bill 2138, that would build on the state's 2019 bill, here are some of the takeaways so far from the outcomes of the first one.
1. Zoning reforms take time to pay off - but they can!
In a thoughtful 2024 law review article, housing advocate Brian Connolly succinctly named one of the key "structural roadblocks" to middle housing getting built: "the absence of a middle-housing building industry."
Connolly is right. You can't build a business on something that's illegal, and fourplexes have been illegal in most of North America for 70 years. Therefore, the middle-housing building industry is very small.
The good news is that in Portland, entrepreneurs have been changing that. It just took them a few years.
After a lackluster first year, production of newly legal homes in Portland quadrupled in years 2 and 3.
The year 3 total of 400 new homes per year isn't a lot in the context of a city with 300,000 homes. But, crucially, this rapid growth has been happening in Portland even in the face of a three percent population decline over four years and a huge slowdown in local apartment building. By year 3 after Portland's reforms, those 400 homes actually accounted for 26 percent of all housing permits citywide.
The main reason these homes are so popular even in a relatively cool market is probably that they have been able to come to market at much, much lower prices than homes on their own lots. The newly built middle housing homes average $300,000 less than single-detached houses:
What does it mean that this previously obscure category of the housing market has been able to grow so quickly amid a homebuilding slump? At least two things:
A lot of Portlanders would like to live in relatively small homes that are not in apartment buildings, but regulations previously prevented those homes from being built, so there was a lot of pent-up demand.
Even after Oregon re-legalized these homes, it took a few years for people in the industry to figure out how to build homes like that.
Eric Thompson, a former McMansion developer, told me in 2022 that he'd retooled his business away from building only for the richest five percent and was now signing deeds over to school-teachers and restaurant managers, people who never thought they'd be able to afford new construction. His firm, Oregon Homeworks, became one of the first to jump into this market and immediately started turning a profit. He said,
"For those of us in the know, Portland has the mo...
Show more...
4 months ago
22 minutes 16 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
How to Talk About Parking Reform - and Win
Our road-tested messaging guide to gain more great neighborhoods and the homes we need, and to kick excess asphalt to the curb.
Parking policy shapes our lives. And once you see it, you can't unsee it.
Today's rules chronically overprescribe far more parking than people really need. Parking is systematically overbuilt - by law.
First, you'll begin to notice the vast stretches of empty pavement in your city or town, even in the busiest downtown areas. Wastelands of asphalt, right where something more useful or pleasant or needed could be: a tree, a garden, a preschool's play yard, apartments for people who work nearby. Once you're parking pilled, you'll see more and more places in your community where buildings are small islands in the middle of concrete seas, where pavement dominates the landscape, and where big box chain stores and highway-like "main drags" have eroded what used to be the particular local feel of a place. Mile after mile of characterless, cookie-cutter sprawl.
And what parking policy impacts you don't see, you 'experience.'
Parking rules play a sizable role in where people live, how much it costs, and how they get around. All that paved space is expensive. Building parking costs lots of money. The wasted space and added costs are passed on to renters and buyers. And when overbuilt parking simply won't fit on a lot or eats up too much of the project budget, housing simply doesn't get built, worsening the housing shortage. When there aren't enough homes, competition for what's available drives up home prices and rents. Same for small businesses and community services: mandates to overbuild parking can make or break a project, from a mom-and-pop cafe to a daycare.
But we don't have to do it this way! We can have nice things! We can have more homes in a housing shortage. We can have more daycares in a childcare shortage. We can have more trees and fewer heat islands. We can have inviting neighborhoods where homes and businesses are close by and it's pleasant and safe for everybody, from kids to seniors, to stroll with friends, walk the dog, or window shop.
Lifting the one-size-fits-all parking mandates ubiquitous in most city code books today can give businesses, homebuilders, and property owners the flexibility to have the parking they need without wasteful, costly overbuilding. It's a win-win-win - for people, places, and our pocketbooks - to right-size the amount of parking to the specific site, use, and location of new homes, renovated buildings, or new businesses.
Of course, these wins aren't always obvious. If you asked a random person on the street whether they'd like more or less parking, most would probably say more. North Americans default to a driver's perspective, not necessarily a pedestrian's or a parent's or a sidewalk cafe patron's. It's for good reason; we often have no other choice but to drive. We're locked in. But when you point out that cities demand more space for parking than the community needs and then tick through the ways that excess costs us all, it quickly looks like common sense for most people that we should use that space for things we want, not for more empty pavement. And it makes sense to most everyone that we should dial the amount of parking to what's right for the site.
So how do we move people from the driver's default to a broader view? One that comprises the costs of too much parking and the possibilities beyond it? How do we toggle from "where to park" to "how we live in this place"?
Alongside our partners, including Welcoming Neighbors Network and Parking Reform Network, Sightline Institute has undertaken public opinion polling and qualitative message testing both across the United States and within the Cascadia region, along with on-the-ground experimentation in a handful of local and state efforts, to compile messaging guidelines for lawmakers and advocates working to reform parking rules. Winning parking reform means winning so many other things too: more of the ho...
Show more...
5 months ago
13 minutes 26 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
Six Reasons Seattle-ites Should Be Proud of Their Democracy Vouchers
A decade in, and up for renewal in August, Seattle's model campaign funding program has blasted past even its ambitious initial goals.
Money doesn't always win elections. But it sure does help.
And Cascadia's biggest city has a proven tool that democratizes who gives to city-level candidates: democracy vouchers. The program is now ten years old and has been through enough election cycles to tell if it's working as intended.
The conclusion? This program is crushing its goals.
It has unlocked
"an incredible explosion of participation"
of people giving to candidates, in the words of researcher Dr. Jennifer Heerwig of Stonybrook University (who, with coauthor Brian McCabe of Georgetown University, wrote the actual book on Seattle's democracy voucher program). The people who donate to Seattle campaigns are now a much more diverse slice of the city's population than they used to be. Big-dollar and out-of-city campaign contributions have fallen dramatically.
And it's fundamentally changed how candidates approach running for office. No longer spending all their time dialing for dollars, candidates instead visit potential "donors" - regular Seattle residents - door to door, collecting vouchers, small-dollar donations, and ideas for what the people of Seattle care about most. Since the program began, Seattle voters have been able to choose from a greater variety of candidates and seen more competition between people running. That's increased the accountability of officeholders and the transparency of elections: both wins for local democracy.
After ten years, the miniscule property tax levy that funds the program is expiring, and Seattle voters have an opportunity to renew it in August's primary election.
Ten years of democracy vouchers
When Seattle voters first adopted democracy vouchers in 2015 as part of a broader package of good governance and transparency reforms, democracy vouchers were a new idea and a break from other public financing designs that mostly offer matching funds or grants.
Under the program (of which- full disclosure- Sightline Institute was the principal designer), Seattle residents receive four $25 vouchers for each election cycle. They can donate the vouchers to qualifying candidates, who redeem them for money from the city. Participating candidates pledge to abide by contribution and spending limits, disclose their finances, and take part in a certain number of public forums. Since residents don't have to spend any of their own money to donate to candidates, the program has made political giving accessible to everyone.
The program now covers all city races and has an online option in addition to the original paper vouchers. It's benefited from a certain degree of administrative flexibility: the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (SEEC), which oversees the program, has made tweaks over the years in response to feedback from candidates and others to ensure its continued viability and use. The SEEC's management also holds campaigns that use the program more accountable, since the office tracks other campaign finances too.
Candidates and Seattle-ites have now used the program in six election cycles, and researchers have evaluated its effectiveness each time - recording just how much it's opened up the Emerald City's systems of democracy. This program has multiplied the number of everyday Seattle-ites who give to campaigns; elevated city residents over out-of-town donors; transitioned the bulk of campaign funds to come from small donations rather than large gifts; encouraged more Seattle-ites to vote; and fundamentally changed who runs for office and how they connect with voters.
Here are six reasons Seattle-ites can be proud of Democracy Vouchers:
1. More people in Seattle now give to city candidates than do people anywhere else
Before the democracy voucher program, Seattle's elections were overwhelmingly funded by rich white people who live in houses with great views. A tiny 1.5 percent of Seattle adults gav...
Show more...
5 months ago
14 minutes 4 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
How Washington State Won Parking Reform
Lessons and strategies for parking flexibility advocates elsewhere.
Last week, Governor Bob Ferguson's signature made it official: Washington has passed the strongest statewide rollback of costly parking mandates in the United States. The bill does many things, but put simply, it means that in most places across the state, onerous parking requirements will no longer limit the homes and businesses that Washingtonians need and want.
In most circumstances, the new law will restore the rights of property owners- not arbitrary, predetermined local quotas - to decide how many parking spaces they need for the homes or businesses they hope to build. This means more homes, in more shapes and sizes, to help address a deep housing shortage and help curb the resulting high home prices and rents. It means less red tape, lower costs, and less wasted space for housing and businesses in the kinds of historic main streets people love to stroll and shop and dine along. And it means undoing legal mandates that forced pollution, sprawl, and excess asphalt in cities and towns where land is scarce and opportunity costs are high.
The path to a win wasn't easy. But a few key champions, a broad coalition, and a powerful set of stories and data laid the way.
Building on years of housing conversations, Washington's parking bill enjoyed a two-year turnaround
For years, advocates in the Evergreen State have been pushing regulatory reform to tame housing costs, building relationships and growing awareness on how parking mandates contribute to the housing shortage. That said, passing such strong parking legislation was unthinkable even two years ago. A 2023 bill to end parking mandates in the tiny fraction of the state's land near transit stops squeaked through one committee but went no further.
Since then, though, advocates published more research and shared more stories on the real and present harms caused by excessive parking mandates - and the additional homes that can come from added parking flexibility: research suggests that building at reduced parking ratios, similar to the caps ultimately adopted in Washington, could make 40 percent more homes financially feasible to build over today's status quo. Alongside this growing narrative, a bigger-than-ever coalition was gathering together to elevate parking reform as a major housing priority for Washington Democrats this year.
Sponsored by superstar housing champion Senator Jessica Bateman (D, 22), the Parking Reform and Modernization Act (SB 5184) sets universal caps for both residential and commercial parking minimums and repeals them entirely for a set of key uses. It passed on strong bipartisan votes of 40-8 in the Senate and 64-31 in the House.
How did Washington move the needle in two years?

Redesigned the policy to target building types, not transit

Told real stories about why it matters

Activated a broad coalition

Leveraged local progress, garnering support from cities

Added guardrails and offramps

Consider the needs of disabled drivers

Had strong legislative champions
Washington's recipe for passing strong parking reform.
'Target sympathetic building types, not transit-limited geographies'
In the lead-up to Washington's 2023 legislative session, ending parking mandates near transit seemed to hold promise. The previous summer, Oregon adopted a suite of reforms eliminating parking mandates along transit routes and for a host of specified uses. A few months later, California passed AB-2097, which ended parking mandates within a half-mile of major transit stops.
Inspired by these wins, Washington legislators took up a bill replicating California's. Targeting reforms to places served by transit is relatively easy to justify because it gives more residents and workers the opportunity to use it, maximizing the public investment. It also neutralizes opposition from those who don't live near transit.
However, debate over the bill became overrun by concerns that transit service often isn't good e...
Show more...
5 months ago
17 minutes 31 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
Washington Takes Statewide Zoning Reform to the Next Level
Lawmakers just passed groundbreaking bills on parking, TOD, and more.
There's a healthy competition brewing between states that are taking action for housing abundance. But as of May 2025, Washington leads the pack. Its legislature just passed best-in-the-US bills on both parking and transit-oriented development, along with a half-dozen other policies that address the state's housing shortage and resulting affordability crisis in several critical ways.
These wins come on the heels of Washington's legalization of co-living in 2024, middle housing and ADUs in 2023, and an array of bills passed in both years that make it easier to build the homes Washingtonians need.
There's no way to precisely quantify it, but I feel confident making the claim that Washington's cumulative legislation adds up to the most any rival state has yet done- at least for the moment, as competitors nip at Washington's heels!
I gave a preview of Washington's 2025 housing bills in a previous article. Below, I'll run through highlights that illustrate why, together with the previous years' wins, the bills passed this year elevate Washington to best in class. But first, a little more context…
A quick recap of the interstate zoning reform race

The move from local to statewide zoning reform started in California more than a decade ago in response to local government intransigence on allowing more housing. The Golden State has had some solid wins - on accessory dwelling units (ADUs, aka "backyard cottages" in particular) - but messy, high-stakes politics continue to mire progress.

Oregon leapt into the spotlight in 2019 by legalizing middle housing, followed in 2022 by major parking reform.

Washington had its "year of housing" in 2023 with a suite of bills headlined by the legalization of middle housing, and then upped the ante in 2024's "short" session.

Also in 2023, the Montana Miracle eliminated numerous barriers to more homes in Big Sky Country, notably for mixed-use apartments and ADUs. The state just pulled a repeat in 2025, passing strong parking reform and more.

Other states that have passed zoning reforms of various stripes include Colorado, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Hawaii.

If you include north of the border, British Columbia's 2023 package of reforms took the crown for all of North America and indisputably held it- until now that is, with Washington perhaps ahead by a nose! BC's transit-oriented development policy, or TOD, is stronger, but its parking reform is weaker. What's more, it hasn't yet legalized co-living or ended roommate bans like Washington has.
Washington's Housing Billapalooza 2025
SB 5184 caps and eliminates parking mandates
Parking policy IS housing policy: laws that force the construction of too much parking thwart housing by adding cost and taking up space. Parking politics are gnarly however, and before now Oregon was the only state able to enact strong parking reform.
SB 5184, or the Parking Reform and Modernization Act, works differently than Oregon's administrative reform, but it's comparably strong. And we can also add Montana to the list, where the legislature just passed a parking bill modeled closely after Washington's.
Other states - notably California - have passed incremental reforms, typically tied to transit proximity. In contrast, SB 5184 is based on the reality that parking mandates can be detrimental to housing anywhere and everywhere. As my colleague Catie Gould explains,
bill champion Senator Jessica Bateman "flipped the debate from 'WHERE should mandates apply' (geographically) to 'WHEN should mandates apply' (in what circumstances). It worked. Instead of nitpicking over transit service, the conversation shifted to, for example, whether it's okay for excessive parking mandates to prevent a new daycare or senior housing development from opening."
SB 5184 caps minimums for all multifamily buildings - that's duplexes to skyscrapers, townhomes to small apartment buildings - at 0.5 spaces per home and fully ...
Show more...
5 months ago
19 minutes 4 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
A Climate Hawk's Guide to Northwest Data Centers
Data centers are the first real test of the region's climate ambitions. They might also create opportunities to achieve them.
A Sightline Special Report by Sightline's Climate and Energy Program Director Emily Moore. Published on May 14, 2025.
For a full list of sources, attributions, and appendices, as well as charts and graphics, please download the PDF version of this report at www.sightline.org.
Introduction & Executive Summary
"Northwest data centers' electricity use could more than double, imperiling climate goals."
"Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA's clean energy push."
"Energy demand from data centers growing faster than West can supply, experts say."
Reading these and other recent headlines, it would be reasonable to conclude that a few power-hungry data centers could force Oregon and Washington State to capitulate on their US-leading climate goals. Is that true?
In this report, Sightline analyzes the extent to which data centers have contributed to global warming pollution in Oregon and Washington. Further, Sightline examines how the industry's continued growth could affect the Northwest's ability to meet its ambitious commitments to transition from polluting fossil fuels to abundant clean energy.
To be sure, data centers arouse a host of concerns unrelated to greenhouse gas emissions. Worries include data centers inflating residential utility bills, the facilities' seemingly unquenchable thirst for water, and the biases in the artificial intelligence (A.I.) models that data centers increasingly power. This report does not touch on those topics, intentionally keeping a narrow focus on data centers' climate impacts.
What we found complicates typical media narratives.
Climate-warming emissions, including those from generating electricity, have dropped in both Oregon and Washington over the past decade despite data center load growth. Further, state policies prevent utilities from building new fossil fuel-generating plants in Oregon and Washington to power data centers, shielding the region from the alarming trend taking hold across the United States.
Data centers have, however, increased a handful of Northwest utilities' reliance on purchasing dirty electricity and likely slowed each state's transition to carbon-free energy. And if data centers gobble up electricity at the levels many analysts anticipate, they could push some Northwest utilities to rely on power from gas and coal burned in neighboring states with weaker environmental regulations for decades longer than they would have otherwise.
Still, the current spotlight on data centers' power consumption obscures the even greater electricity demand - from cars, buildings, and industry - that will follow if decarbonization goes according to plan.
Northwest leaders can transform today's challenge meeting data centers' demand for electricity into an opportunity to accelerate an economy-wide clean energy transition, drawing from tech companies' deep pockets to help pay for it. They can speed build-out of the electric grid to unlock everyone's access to the cheapest solar and wind power; make it easier for tech companies to invest in clean energy innovation; lift obsolete limits on data center operators sourcing clean resources; and transform data centers from passive energy hogs into active grid participants - and maybe even grid assets. All the while, leaders can work to make Northwest data centers the cleanest in the world.
Data centers are the first test of the Northwest's climate ambitions. How leaders respond may chart the course for the rest of the economy's clean energy transition.
Chapter 1: Baseline.
Northwest data centers' climate record.
Low taxes and cheap power attract data centers to the Northwest
Data centers have dotted the Northwest for decades. For example, the Westin Building Exchange, a data center in downtown Seattle, began leasing its server space to tech companies in 2001. In 2006, Google opened its first data center in The Dalles, Or...
Show more...
5 months ago
38 minutes 9 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
Northwest Data Centers: A Climate Test and Potential Opportunity
A Sightline report finds that - with the right policies - the region could harness data center demand for clean power to decarbonize the broader economy.
Each week seems to bring a new warning about a looming, unprecedented surge in electricity demand in the Northwest, with data centers largely to blame. Tech companies, with their seemingly insatiable appetite for power, appear to be blowing the region off its climate course. Meanwhile, stories from other parts of the country offer cautionary tales - like in Tennessee, where Elon Musk's A.I. data center, powered by unregulated gas turbines, is now one of the biggest emitters of smog-producing nitrogen oxides in majority-Black and already heavily-polluted Shelby County.
Sightline's newest report, A Climate Hawk's Guide to Northwest Data Centers, helps climate- minded policymakers and advocates contextualize and make sense of these warnings. It focuses specifically on the data center industry's energy consumption and resulting climate impacts rather than its non-climate effects, such as rising residential electricity rates or water use (these issues have been extensively covered by other groups).
Sightline's analysis offers some reassurance to the climate-concerned reader, while acknowledging the further strain demand data centers will place on our grid - a grid already trying to support a massive shift to electrification for our cars, buildings, and industry over the coming decades.
Rather than pushing data centers to regions of the country with dirtier electricity sources and weaker environmental protections than the Northwest, policymakers in Oregon and Washington could enlist data center corporations in accelerating the broader economy's transition to abundant clean energy. Sightline's latest report names four opportunities, with an eye to mechanisms that balance the realities of corporate interests in siting and profiting from data centers here with the climate-forward values that voters in Oregon and Washington have supported time and again.
Understandably, not everyone wants to see data centers set up shop in the Northwest. But most climate advocates do hope to see demand for clean electricity rise over the coming decades, since that will mean less polluting cars, healthier homes and buildings, and cleaner air and water. With concerted action from policymakers, data centers might help make that picture a reality. The fact is: data centers are here. The opportunity is: turning them into a catalyst for clean energy transformation.
Show more...
5 months ago
2 minutes 40 seconds

Sightline Institute Research
Cascadia’s sustainability think tank brings you a feed of its latest research articles, in text-to-audio recordings. Learn how the region can advance abundant housing for vibrant communities; reform our democratic systems and elections to honor the public’s priorities, including its support for climate solutions; make a just transition away from fossil fuels and into a 21st-century energy economy; and model forestry and agricultural practices that rebuild our soils, ecosystems, and rural economies. View articles in full at sightline.org.