I published the following op-ed in today's Seattle Times. Please let me know what you think by leaving a comment:

In the wake of last week's election, I've heard people across Seattle asking: What were Americans thinking? Pundits say the results were a call for smaller government and fewer services. Gov. Chris Gregoire even responded by pledging an "all cuts" budget.

But voters aren't stupid. They want government to creatively solve problems and deliver results especially at the local level, where it's most tangible.

The vast majority of my neighbors in Southeast Seattle are concerned about the basics. Most don't have time to regularly attend community meetings because they're fully occupied working long hours and taking care of their families. They elect representatives to make sensible decisions about complex issues for them.

What comes to mind first is creating jobs and opportunity. Even during the boom times leading up to the 2008 crash, the population of the city of Seattle was growing and the number of jobs was falling — a combination that eventually will mean more taxes on individuals to support city services.

To avoid that result, we need to make it easier to do business here. It shouldn't take years to get a building permit through approvals and opening a new business should be straightforward.

At a Downtown Seattle Association event earlier this year, Mayor Mike McGinn told the city's business leaders they need to share the economic pie. In fact, for the sake of everyone in the city, we need a plan to create a bigger pie, not simply divvy up what we already have.

A robust private sector is necessary to ensure support for the less fortunate. Competition is fierce from peers, ranging from Denver to Melbourne, so we need a strong partnership with places like Bellevue and Tacoma so we all benefit.

Meanwhile, Seattle needs to prepare for the economic growth that will eventually return. This means finding ways to comfortably accommodate more people, especially in so-called urban villages like Ballard, West Seattle Junction and Columbia City. Welcoming more residents into the city is the only way to handle the region's increasing population without exacerbating sprawl.

This requires improved transit between urban villages by reallocating resources to provide frequent, reliable service along trunk routes. We need to encourage more and better development in the city by providing basic amenities like sidewalks in all urban villages and more efficient streets.

Focusing development will help ensure that major investments in light rail and other infrastructure pay off. Such prioritization would be important even if there weren't a budget crisis. It's imperative now.

Another area demanding cost-benefit analysis is the deep-bore tunnel through downtown. No one should suggest tearing down the Alaskan Way Viaduct and replacing it with nothing. Yet a combination of additional transit, improved streets and reconfiguration of Interstate 5 would open up the waterfront and improve mobility more quickly and for billions less than a new tunnel.

Why not tear down the viaduct for safety reasons, improve transit and streets and then see if a tunnel megaproject is truly necessary?

Overall, government needs to deliver better returns on taxpayer investment. Would King County's sales-tax measure have failed last week if voters thought the county needed it? Government must change perceptions by delivering professionalism and treating citizens like valued customers. Calls should be answered promptly and quality workmanship should be a given.

In my neighborhood, the city has been building a turn lane for five months and a newly completed curb shows that the workers didn't care about the final product. Improving performance and rewarding those who take pride in their work will build respect among citizens and help our community prosper. That's what voters want.

During a breakfast presentation today in Seattle, the author Joel Kotkin delivered an optimistic forecast for our region that left everyone with a spring in their step. I enjoyed the message, but wonder if we got the right lesson.

The talk was in support of Kotkin's new book The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. (His previous book The City: A Global History was fantastic so I was eager to hear him. Thanks again for the invitation, Will!) Unlike many soothsayers, he thinks growing population due to high immigration means America's prospects are good. (More on that on his Web site.) The Seattle area is particularly well poised to prosper from its position on the Pacific Rim, partly because, as he put it, Seattle is "like Portland with an economy." 

But he lost me when it came to describing the sort of land use and development we'll need to accommodate more people in 2050. He said that 86% of Americans now "want" to live in detached, single-family homes, a category that presumably includes everything from mansions on five-acre lots to tall, narrow urban infill homes.  More than once he said that today's planners are going too far by "forcing" people to live too densely.

Most of the 50 or so of us at the breakfast love the houses where we live, but no discussion of "want" is credible without acknowledging incentives. People often say they "want" something because they don't know otherwise or have incentive to do so. In a region where gas is heavily subsidized and using roads is "free," who wouldn't want to drive long distances if it means no compromises on personal space? But if the cost of driving is higher (and there are good alternatives) maybe I'll decide I'm comfortable with different kind of housing.

One man in the audience asked how we'll accommodate another million people in the Puget Sound area without relaxing growth boundaries to allow more housing construction. Kotkin said the barrier probably has to go and cited California, where the masses who can't afford lofts on the coast have to move far inland to buy a house. He didn't note that the cost of living in sprawl is artificially low because it doesn't include the impact of pollution, roads, resources, etc. A reasonable alternative would be to keep the current boundaries (and preserve nature beyond) through the creative use of incentives.

A few other notes I took away: 

• There's a big real estate boom ahead. Half of the current building stock will need to be redone by 2030, which means a chance to rethink the format.  If you're in real estate, just hold on a few more years, he said.

• The biggest opportunity for commercial building is suburban infill. Most retirees don't want to live in downtown highrises. They may want to downsize to suburban infill. As an example of how it could be done right, he cited Rockville Center, N.Y., (Long Island) where retirees shop and go to restaurants during the weekdays, young people go out at night and families on the weekend. That provides life for the streets and three distinct markets for businesses. I immediately think of my neighborhood, Columbia City, as ripe for this sort of development.

• Digital technology will upend development patterns. He estimates that the share of people who telecommute at least some of the time will double over the next couple decades. This seems like a chance to implement congestion pricing to make the telecommuting times most efficient.

• For cities, the key to the future is economic growth. In other words, culture follows wealth.  "Most mayors don't get it," he said (in our case it's tempting to agree). He noted that Jane Jacobs said a successful metropolitan economy makes poor people into the middle class. Success doesn't come from chasing the rich or mobile.

I'm prepared to accept that a lot more people here in 2050 won't mean disaster. But we (including Vancouver and Portland) need to be aware of the tradeoffs.

Vancouver's congested streets can be maddening -- unless, as Hugeasscity notes, you're a pedestrian or bicyclist. However, I've got a couple quibbles with that analysis.

For one, I'll definitely have to drive in Vancouver again. SkyTrain is great you go where it goes but my recent trips took me to UBC or on detours between Whistler and Seattle, where there aren't feasible transit options.

For another, the clogged street grid doesn't necessarily make the case for congestion pricing. Seattle's hills and water are a much better testing ground for combining a) alternative forms of travel with b) tolling that varies with usage. If the goal is to use congestion pricing to make more efficient use of finite resources, Seattle would be a great place to start.

Here in Cascadia we're used to hearing that this is among the world's most "livable" places.  But does that include economic opportunity?

Vancouver regularly tops international rankings and Portland is a media darling for its hipster qualities and great refreshments.  One shared feature of supposedly "livable" cities is that not many people live in them, points out FT columnist Michael Skapinker.

Less than 2 million people live in the cities of Vancouver, Portland and Seattle combined (the city of Seattle just topped 600K) and none rank among the top cities based on global business.  I'd prefer to encourage more economic and cultural growth within Cascadia's cities since without clear benchmarks it's unclear how much progress we're making.

None of this takes away the joy of nerding-out over top-cities listings.  Monocle magazine's list of top 25 ranks Vancouver as 14 and includes just one U.S. city (Honolulu at 11). Tokyo (3), Fukuoka (16) and Kyoto (22) make the list -- but there's no Osaka, Yokohama or Sendai, which are all just as comfortable.  Try explaining that.

See also: Decisions that made a great city