Discuss the candidates for Mayor of Seattle in the Member Forums.
Elizabeth Campbell is running for Mayor of Seattle.
Ms. Campbell's spirit of public service is admirable, but she offers retrograde and anti-progress perspectives on almost every point we asked her about. We recommend not voting for her.
After reviewing Ms. Campbell's questionnaire responses, we chose not to interview her. We thank her for taking the time to complete our questionnaire.
Table of Contents:
I believe from a values standpoint that the desire for a proactive neighborhood voice in Seattle affairs, from a deep and abiding love of Seattle standpoint, that I am a compatible candidate with the Friends of Seattle, and it is not that we have wildly divergent interests and goals for Seattle; we have differences that are not irreconcilable, merely ones that could be worked out through a process of education and reconciliation.
As a community advocate, I have focused on Seattle's parks, homeless housing, neighborhood planning, preservation of urban wildlife habitat, the Viaduct issue, historical preservation, and the Port of Seattle's expansion plans at Piers 90 and 91. I have also been active in assisting community groups secure Neighborhood Match Fund grants including for the Friends of Ursula Judkins Viewpoint/Smith Cove group which I chair, and for the City View Neighbors.
I served for three years on the board of trustees for the Magnolia Community Club, one term on the Queen Anne Community Council's board, and was the Magnolia community's representative to the 2004 Central Waterfront Charette, to the 2006 Seattle 2100 Green Futures Charette, a member of the City of Seattle's 2007 Re-Imagining Seattle's Streets planning committee, of the 2008 Seattle Neighborhood Forum, was appointed to King County's 2008-2009 Ballard-Uptown Rapid Ride Advisory Panel; and a founder and board member of the Coalition for Effective Transportation Alternatives (CETA), and of the No Tunnel Alliance.
I currently serve as chair of the Magnolia Neighborhood Planning Council and Yes Viaduct! , both organizations which I founded and am a 4-Year Trustee for the Benevolent Protectorate Order of Elks, Ballard Lodge 827, a charitable organization.
At the University of Washington I am a graduate student and active in promoting transparency in the UW's administration, protection for the campus landscape and heritage trees, fiscal conservatism in UW operations and capital projects, and I advocate for rights and programming for the non-traditional (older) students and students with disabilities who attend the UW. I also am involved in documentary production, including one I produced about Ursula Judkins, namesake of one of Seattle's viewpoint parks, and one being produced with fellow students about my run for the Seattle mayor-ship.
Background: Seattle is the most populous city in Washington and is the state's economic engine. At the same time, Seattle cannot address many of its problems without working with King County, regional entities (Sound Transit and the PSRC), and the state government. Yet many observers believe that Seattle's interests are represented inadequately at those levels. For example, the Muni League has criticized the 40-20-40 rule for allocating new Metro transit funding. Further, transit advocates note that the state's current tax system disadvantages transit. And the Legislature refused to allocate federal stimulus dollars for road projects in Seattle.
Well, the fact of the matter is Seattle does take a disparate amount of resources from other government entities and their citizens. I do not believe that Seattle loses out as a result of it being inadequately represented either - it has the same constitutionally allocated number of representatives as every other government, the same opportunities to make its case before the legislative and funding bodies that every other government must accede to, therefore to me, some of these claims of being poorly represented or thought of are a result of the failures of those who were elected to represent us, and a failure of them and others to recognize that Seattle is not the center of Washington's universe, that there must be balance in what Seattle needs versus what Seattle wants.
This Alaskan Way tunnel is a good example of this problem - it is not necessary - it is a want, a want by a number of special interests, it fails the efficiency test, and it takes away from other cities and counties in the state that have their own transportation needs, some of them more pressing than ours.
What this means - the answer is in a different attitude - I have a different attitude that is more respectful of others, that is more balanced, and that is more reasonable. I would expect that attitude to inform and infuse the activities undertaken by those who seek to represent Seattle; an important first step!
Background: Rather than build an expensive new transfer in Georgetown to handle the growing volume of trash generated in Seattle, the City of Seattle adopted a "Zero Waste Strategy" centered on reducing waste. As part of that strategy, the City Council adopted a 20-cent "green fee" for disposable shopping bags.
No. There are other priorities that are much more momentous and enduring than this - truth be told the retailers on their own have sought to be proactive in this matter and are doing a good job of reducing the use of plastic bags - perhaps the manufacturers of such should be targeted, encouraged to come up with alternatives, and then the public encouraged to change their desires in the marketplace - the grocers were not alone in getting the initiative on the ballot - it was the public that had a large part in that.
Background: Governor Gregoire signed a legislative bill ordering the Washington State Department of Transportation to design a bored tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. This bill contains language allocating cost overruns to Seattle citizens, although some question whether the language has legal significance. Notwithstanding that provision, the City of Seattle committed $930 million and the Port of Seattle $300 million to finance the tunnel. Although the exact tax consequences of these commitments are not totally clear, it is safe to assume that the Port's contribution would result in higher property taxes for Seattle property owners, and the City's pledge would be funded with increases in property taxes, City Light utility rates, and possibly other taxes and fees.
As a long time advocate for an elevated solution - which in translation means preserving the capacity of the Alaskan Way corridor, I cannot support the bored tunnel as it is the bypass tunnel that was discredited in 2004 and in 2007 due to the fact that it reduced capacity so much that the negative effects of it could not be accommodated through alternatives such as even an expanded, six-lane Alaskan Way (which this latest version only calls for a four-lane Alaskan Way), through increased bus services, and through reconfigured Downtown thoroughfares. Furthermore, this was brought about not through honest deliberations and facts, and is four times the cost of an elevated solution.
N/A
Personally - everything in my power - I already have started an initiative drive, I-99 No Tunnel, I will pursue every administrative opportunity that the EIS process will have to allow for objective discussion about this, and legal action such as what I pursued through the Magnolia Neighborhood Planning Council, seeking to halt the project as was done when the City tried to put a 180 high-end luxury home housing development at Discovery Park - in that instance done in the name of "homeless housing". The tunnel project is being hawked under the claims about its safety, but as has been every facet of this project - the numbers and claims get "arranged" so that they fit the narrative that the proponents of this tunnel have successfully at this point been able to use to get what they want.
Background: The City of Seattle already contributes to local transit. The City put together the financing package to construct the South Lake Union streetcar line, and the City and King County Metro share the ongoing operating costs for that line. Further, the Bridging the Gap tax package finances some Metro bus service within Seattle, and Bridging the Gap also pays for street improvements designed to expedite bus travel.
One of the major issues facing transit use is not that the routes and service offered are so poor, but the image and functionality is so poor. Rather than necessarily pouring more money into an already over-subsidized system, greater attention and resources should perhaps go into additional alternatives to transit, including private transit systems and more ride-sharing programs and opportunities.
Background: The City of Seattle has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan, which provides a vision for improving bicycling facilities in Seattle.
No.
N/A
N/A
The City Council is considering whether to adopt a draft Pedestrian Master Plan.
Have reservations about it.
N/A
N/A
Background: According to U.S. Census data cited in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, about half of Seattle's households live in multifamily housing. Further, according to the Plan, approximately 40% of Seattle's total land area is set aside for residential use-35% for single-family residences but only 5% for multifamily dwellings. That 5% dedicated to multifamily housing tends to be concentrated in "urban villages" or along arterial streets, which are noisy and dirty. However, "backyard cottages" (also known as "detached accessory dwelling units) are also allowed in singe-family zones in Southeast Seattle.
Yes.
No/with qualifications.
A couple of years ago I wrote a "manifesto" about housing in Seattle, and this is an example of the type of reasoning and thinking about housing in our neighborhoods:
The point is, equity and conservation and preservation of our neighborhoods.
Many newly built townhouses in Seattle are architectural atrocities, and site plans tend to be car-dominated. Most townhouse developments are exempt from the City of Seattle's Design Review Program. It is also difficult to find attractive new condos and apartment buildings. To address some of these problems, the City Council is considering a package of revisions to the zoning code.
Yes.
The exception I have to this is it will still result in formulaic designs. As a former owner and developer of multi-unit facilities, as someone who has engaged the services of multiple architects and artists, and as someone who has been involved in the design of my projects - psychiatric/medical campus', nursing homes, and retirement homes, there are only so many versions of design that one can come up with when faced with the need to build a building that is multiple replications of the same unit. It cannot help but be repetitious in design. I would suggest, horrors, less multi-unit construction, spaced further apart, with limited dimensions.
I am opposed to this Field of Dreams-like development occurring around town, not to mention, it is well documented that rather than reducing carbon footprints, being sustainable, land use boundaries, "sustainable" development practices and the like, drive up the cost of housing and living in urban areas and cause more dense pollution - most people keep their cars rather than foregoing them.
Yes.
[Editor's note: Ms. Campbell included photos in her questionnaire response, but we were not able to reproduce them here. You can access them on pages 6-7 of this PDF.]
Of all the mayoral candidates - whether you like some of my positions or not, I will tell you that I am the most creative and visionary of them all - and this is based on my past experiences in business and in the public work that I do, and by virtue of the values that I hold in regards to governance and what I believe a city could and should be for its people, the most likely to bring reform and renaissance to Seattle City government.
For example, I am so tired of a dull, boring Seattle, where there are pockets of areas that are kept up - and I am speaking purely about the common areas of the city right now - and then there are the street right-of-ways, parks, planting strips, and all the fixtures (see lamp post) and appurtenances attached thereto that are the responsibility of the City of Seattle to maintain and improve, that are literally in shambles.
One of the worst of the worst of this is this stretch of Marginal Way. But the fact of the matter is, and the many pictures for the last few years that I have taken of this sort of thing are testament to this, it is not difficult to find multiple and extensive places that have been neglected by the City. Furthermore, that this situation is allowed to happen by the City is not limited just to City properties, but also on private properties - the City fails miserably to enforce its nuisance laws to make private landowners maintain their property/properties.
Land speculators/developers are particularly some of the more egregious offenders, leaving their blighted vacant land/buildings for the rest of us to suffer the consequences of their neglect. The City could seek to abate this sort of thing, but no, it chooses to pretty much turn a blind eye and as a whole I think the public, at least in Seattle, believes this is the norm - trash, graffiti, water-filled excavation holes, wildly overgrown brush and grasses, buildings and houses in disrepair - all because our City government, a chief offender of this sort of practice, has failed utterly to consider the sensibilities of its citizens and to do its duty.
In general I believe that the City, if you will pardon the expression, has done a blank poor job of keeping this town up. I visit other cities, like Redmond, Kirkland, Bellevue, Shoreline and the like, and their towns are nicely manicured, their parks are immaculate, their fixtures, light standards for example, bridgework, crossing areas, signage - many are well designed, in good repair, and make the town look like a nice place. An example of this is this in Shoreline, at the intersection at 150th and Aurora Ave N.:
That these things are not done in Seattle is due to skewed priorities, a lack of vision, a lack of leadership, a lack of will, and a lack of creative talent at the top and among most of the City's departments. These sort of things are not about a failure of the City to provide its services as many of the other mayoral candidates talk about, it is a failure to do anything past providing basic services and a preoccupation with many pet City projects and with special interest groups' projects and initiatives.
On this one note alone then, as mayor I would see to it that Seattle becomes more than just a blackberry cluttered burg, that some "pop" exists across the city as a whole as opposed to just in favored areas. I would see to it that the lands and fixtures of Seattle are maintained and improved; I will restore civic pride to the list of must haves in City government.
James Donaldson is running for Mayor of Seattle.
James Donaldson played center for the Sonics and had a long career playing for NBA teams and for clubs in Europe. Drawing from that experience, Mr. Donaldson's campaign themes are, "We need a big man to look out for the little guy," "You don't just want change, you want BIG change," and an emphasis on teamwork and collaboration. Mr. Donaldson is almost singularly focused on the business climate in Seattle, and this perspective has elevated the dialogue during the primary-election campaign. Mr. Donaldson also struck us as even-tempered and cool under pressure, suggesting that he would handle the demands of the mayor's office well.
Mr. Donaldson's questionnaire was supportive of transit (he even likes the idea of expanding streetcar lines into neighborhoods beyond South Lake Union), was generally in favor of bicycle infrastructure (although he opposes completion of the Burke-Gilman Trail through the Ballard industrial area), and positive towards the draft Pedestrian Master Plan. Mr. Donaldson supports the deep-bore tunnel to replace the Viaduct---a position we disagree with, but we appreciate his blunt honesty in disagreeing with us and admire his defense of his argument.
Still, too much of Mr. Donaldson's policy platform clashes with our own. Mr. Donaldson wants to cut the commuter tax ("head tax"), the small $25 per year tax on a business's employees who drive to work alone. This tax raises $5 million per year for much-needed transportation improvements, and now (an economic downturn when city borrowing costs and contractor bids for city projects are both very low) is the right time for the city government to be building new infrastructure. In his interview, Mr. Donaldson claimed that the commuter tax and Seattle's other economic policies drive businesses out of Seattle, but he could not cite an example of a business that has actually left Seattle for the suburbs or refused to hire new people because of the commuter tax. Also to our chagrin, Mr. Donaldson opposes the green bag fee (but he does support an outright ban on plastic bags while permitting paper bags to continue in use) and does not support allowing backyard cottages to be built in all single-family zones.
Most troubling for us, however, was his lack of familiarity with his own policy proposals. In his questionnaire, for example, Mr. Donaldson argues that the environment could benefit from changes to multifamily housing zoning code so that the code requires "permeable paving, tankless water heaters, and even solar power in exchange for prompt approval." But when asked about it during his interview, Mr. Donaldson did not know what we were talking about.
There are other areas of concern we could discuss in greater detail (such as his proposal to merge all Puget Sound area transit agencies), but we've made our points. Although Mr. Donaldson raises important issues as a candidate, many of his proposed policies are off base and he has not quite demonstrated that he is ready to be mayor. We recommend not voting for Mr. Donaldson.
Table of Contents:
My campaign for Mayor seeks to improve our city by improving neighborhoods, particularly those that have been neglected by the current administration. The tax policies of the City have stifled small businesses, and harmed larger businesses, forcing many to relocate outside city limits. When we lose businesses, workers are forced to commute long distance. Concurrently, we have not done enough to allow MIL units and other gentle density measures that create sustainable neighborhoods while preserving the character of a place. When the cost of housing skyrockets again, we will again see an exodus of working class families and single individuals who will then commute long distances into the city, adding to our already trouble transportation system. I will change our priorities.
I have traveled all over the United States and Europe, and lived in numerous cities the world over during my NBA career. In so doing, I became fluent in three new languages, but also gathered a tremendous respect for alternative ways of doing things. Particularly in the ancient cities of Italy and Spain, I learned how to preserve historic sites and neighborhoods while bringing in modern amenities, businesses, and transit. Every other place I've lived has had extensive transit, something we are slowly developing here, but is still not adequately addressing core population densities. My experience building and leading teams is the greatest skill I will bring to the Mayor's office, for the old "my way or the highway" will go the way of the horse-drawn wagon. The biggest reason Seattle has floundered on potentially good policies is because we have failed to lead in a team fashion. I will change our approach and get results.
Background: Seattle is the most populous city in Washington and is the state's economic engine. At the same time, Seattle cannot address many of its problems without working with King County, regional entities (Sound Transit and the PSRC), and the state government. Yet many observers believe that Seattle's interests are represented inadequately at those levels. For example, the Muni League has criticized the 40-20-40 rule for allocating new Metro transit funding. Further, transit advocates note that the state's current tax system disadvantages transit. And the Legislature refused to allocate federal stimulus dollars for road projects in Seattle.
As mentioned above, Seattle cannot possibly lead when it acts as a petulant bully. Legislators made it clear why Seattle didn't get stimulus dollars, even though those dollars would have helped ease trade and transportation that ultimately benefits Eastern Washington agriculture trying to get to our Port. Whether we are the largest jurisdiction or the smallest, we are all in common with the State, Cascadia, and the United States, and we ought to act like a member of a team. On a team, every person, even the towel guy, has a crucial role. We need to listen more, build relationships, and ask for help. I have found tremendous mentors in leaders like former Speaker Brian Ebersole, and numerous regional mayors. I have already started the process of rebuilding trust and am ready on Day One.
Background: Rather than build an expensive new transfer in Georgetown to handle the growing volume of trash generated in Seattle, the City of Seattle adopted a "Zero Waste Strategy" centered on reducing waste. As part of that strategy, the City Council adopted a 20-cent "green fee" for disposable shopping bags.
Seattle residents are among the most environmentally responsible citizens in the United States, and adopted recycling eagerly and early. Our residents have, over the past few years, embraced mightily their tote bags. Therefore, I strongly believe that the action undertaken by the Mayor and City Council to impose a 20-cent tax on disposable bags was not just an insult to our good behavior, but counterproductive. We are reaching a point where many folks are beginning to resent the important moves, and we cannot afford to move backward. We can do more, much more, to improve our environment than taxing people who forget their tote bags. An outright ban on plastic bags would have not met my objection, especially if we spend some resources distributing tote bags to our poorer neighbors. I propose a project that uses union apprentice plumbers to install low-flow toilets in older buildings and small businesses. The cost savings Public Utilities will reap more than offsets the one-time investment. And treating less sewage offers a far bigger impact. Similarly, I propose repaving city government parking lots with permeable pavers, so that storm water is biofiltered, rather than running into our sewer system. I will do more to clean up our environment than any tax on plastic bags can hope to accomplish.
Background: Governor Gregoire signed a legislative bill ordering the Washington State Department of Transportation to design a bored tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. This bill contains language allocating cost overruns to Seattle citizens, although some question whether the language has legal significance. Notwithstanding that provision, the City of Seattle committed $930 million and the Port of Seattle $300 million to finance the tunnel. Although the exact tax consequences of these commitments are not totally clear, it is safe to assume that the Port's contribution would result in higher property taxes for Seattle property owners, and the City's pledge would be funded with increases in property taxes, City Light utility rates, and possibly other taxes and fees.
I do not agree with your suppositions. Nearly everyone connected to the DBT legislation agrees the cost overrun language is not only unenforceable, it is unconstitutional. Also, it is not safe to assume the Port's contribution will result in a larger tax burden on Seattle taxpayers. There is no majority on the Port Commission making such claim, not are the candidates for the two open seats calling for such a tax increase.
I do support the Deep Bore Tunnel. After 8 years of complex negotiations between every layer of government, corporations, trade groups, business groups, industry, manufacturing, and citizens, a decision was made. It is vitally important to have a throughway that moves people, commerce and freight through this city, rather than having 110,000 vehicles stalled for miles every single day. That said, with just 1% of the design completed, I will work aggressively to gain the "Y" option that puts a spur to the Northwest portion of our city, and address an outflow for downtown.
This is a state highway, and highways are paid for with state funds. Cost overruns can be minimized if stakeholders do not hold the project hostage with mitigation requests, as occurred with Link Light Rail, and if the project is constructed with a Project Labor Agreement. Such PLAs virtually eliminate work stoppages and protect the tax payer. Further, I will work with our federal representatives and Senators, who understand the need for efficient and linked transportation, to gain access to additional federal money.
N/A
Background: The City of Seattle already contributes to local transit. The City put together the financing package to construct the South Lake Union streetcar line, and the City and King County Metro share the ongoing operating costs for that line. Further, the Bridging the Gap tax package finances some Metro bus service within Seattle, and Bridging the Gap also pays for street improvements designed to expedite bus travel.
The single-greatest thing for Seattle transportation would be to merge all the transit agencies. However, there are already numerous transportation experts working to minimize the 128-separate transportation departments in Puget Sound. In the meantime, I will immediately pull together our King County Council delegation to work on changing the bus hour allocation so that our dense, transit-friendly neighborhoods gain more service. In addition, the street car system needs to be expanded. Although street cars are often lampooned by the able-bodied who claim to outwalk them, street cars are popular with the elderly, the ill, and those with burdens. I will work to ensure that our transit system is not merely more efficient, but more humane.
Background: The City of Seattle has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan, which provides a vision for improving bicycling facilities in Seattle.
YES.
It is dangerous through the Ballard Industrial Area and should be moved a few blocks, with greater amenities. The plan lacks tremendously in the way of bike racks, downtown bike storage, and provision of bicycles to those who cannot afford them. I propose restarting a bicycle sharing program, as well as giving out safety equipment to youngsters.
When the city installed Red Light Cameras a few years ago, it discovered a Bad Driver Tax boondoggle, and responded by installing dozens more cameras throughout the city. Unfortunately, instead of using the fines for transportation safety or any other safety program, the money is directed to the General Fund. I would redirect the Bad Driver Tax to a broader transportation fund that includes bicycles and pedestrians.
The City Council is considering whether to adopt a draft Pedestrian Master Plan.
YES.
Our sidewalks, especially downtown and in neighborhood business districts, are virtually impassable in places due to magazine racks, sandwich boards, utility boxes and telephone poles. For those with mobility or sight issues, people pushing carts or strollers, this creates a some-times dangerous obstacle course. I would work to redesign these obstructions - perhaps mounted magazine boxes - in order to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. Further, many crosswalks have been eliminated in order to direct pedestrians to a distant but safer crosswalk. This type of behavior engineering has resulted in numerous pedestrian deaths, many of which have been the elderly and children. I will work to put common sense into the Transportation Department that places greater attention on human behavior.
See Bicycle Plan response above.
Background: According to U.S. Census data cited in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, about half of Seattle's households live in multifamily housing. Further, according to the Plan, approximately 40% of Seattle's total land area is set aside for residential use-35% for single-family residences but only 5% for multifamily dwellings. That 5% dedicated to multifamily housing tends to be concentrated in "urban villages" or along arterial streets, which are noisy and dirty. However, "backyard cottages" (also known as "detached accessory dwelling units) are also allowed in singe-family zones in Southeast Seattle.
Not all.
YES.
This requires a neighborhood team building approach. While many neighborhoods automatically go NIMBY, or worse, BANANA on a zoning change, oftentimes people meet the neighbors who want to add an accessory dwelling or a MIL on top of a garage and lower their objections. These changes need to involve the neighborhoods as well as government planners and good-government organizations like this one.
Current density, the quality of housing stock, and perhaps most important, the existence of existing infrastructure such as schools, fire stations, power stations, and shopping villages.
Many newly built townhouses in Seattle are architectural atrocities, and site plans tend to be car-dominated. Most townhouse developments are exempt from the City of Seattle's Design Review Program. It is also difficult to find attractive new condos and apartment buildings. To address some of these problems, the City Council is considering a package of revisions to the zoning code.
YES.
First I will say that much of the old, existing housing stock - rental or single family - is architecturally atrocious as well. It has become fashionable to complain about the sameness of townhomes, while at the same time urging more and more density. I recall reading historical references to the "ugly sameness" of the row houses in San Francisco at the turn of the 20th Century. We have to remember that tens of thousands of people have eagerly snapped up Seattle's newest townhomes, happy to finally enter homeownership, doing so on a smaller patch of land than most of us enjoy. It is important to recognize that I embrace an approach that, rather than criticize the homes and lifestyles of others, seeks to more gently modify and change designs and approaches with carrots rather than sticks. I believe the MFH zoning code has too many sticks, while not recognizing the tremendous opportunity to do more for our environment by requiring permeable paving, tankless water heaters, and even solar power in exchange for prompt approval.
YES.
Elect James Donaldson and you will get a whole new style of government - because you don't just want change, you want BIG change.
Jan Drago is running for Mayor of Seattle.
See her:
Jan Drago has served on the City Council for nearly 16 years and is deeply knowledgeable about the issues. Most recently she served as Transportation Chair, and in that role she helped design the Bridging the Gap tax package to improve Seattle’s transportation infrastructure, and she also pushed the Seattle Department of Transportation to start developing plans to expand the streetcar network into neighborhoods beyond South Lake Union.
Yet in this election year, we are not convinced that she has different enough skills or policy positions from a successful incumbent to justify dislodging him. Councilmember Drago is more responsible than anyone for the $4.2 billion plan to replace the Viaduct with a tunnel---an extravagant capital project that will hang from Seattle taxpayers like a noose for decades, while Seattle struggles to find the money for clean, green transportation. Of course, Councilmember Drago blames Mayor Nickels for many failures. But we’re skeptical that she would have fared much better with the Legislature.
Also, we are looking for more leadership and political courage than what Councilmember Drago appears ready to provide. For instance, at our July candidate forum, Councilmember Drago responded to an audience member's quesiton by saying, "as a voice of experience, I can tell you it's darn hard to do anything in single family neighborhoods, so if you think we're going to stick density in single family neighborhoods it's probably not in our lifetime." That is the sort of defeatism that is holding Seattle back. Many light-rail and bus-rapid-transit stops are surrounded by single-family zones. To maximize our infrastructure investments and grow responsibly, we should be zoning for transit-oriented development, not throwing up our hands and giving up when the going gets tough.
On the other hand, Councilmember Drago understands many of the challenges we face as a city, and she has some good ideas (at our candidate forum, she spoke about the need for corridor tolling as we shift away from the gas tax). She can also point to a solid record from her 16-year political career.
While her experience on Seattle City Council makes it more likely that she would have a smooth transition to the mayor office, she would not bring change to City Hall. We do not recommend voting for Councilmember Drago.
Jan Drago initially told us that she would be participating in the Friends of Seattle endorsements process, but she later withdrew without submitting a questionnaire response or scheduling an interview. She did, however, participate in our mayoral candidate forum, and you can see the video here.
Kwame Wyking Garrett is running for Mayor of Seattle.
See his:
Mr. Garrett is a long-time activist in the community and deserves praise for urging the city to focus on social justice and the problem of youth violence. But making the jump to the mayor's office requires high-level experience. And for the first couple months of Mr. Garrett's declared candidacy, we couldn't even find a website outlining what he hoped to do as mayor. We do not recommend voting for Mr. Garrett.
Friends of Seattle did not send a questionnaire to Mr. Garrett or invite him to participate in an interview.
Joe Mallahan is running for Mayor of Seattle.
See his:
Joe Mallahan is a T-Mobile executive and first-time candidate for public office. After reviewing his questionnaire responses, his campaign website, and his public statements, we conclude that Mr. Mallahan's inexperience and his shallow understanding of city issues and politics make him the wrong person to address Seattle’s pressing needs.
Mr. Mallahan states on his website that he is a business leader who is good at “bringing diverse groups of people together to solve complex problems.” We have no doubt that he his able to do so when sitting as a VP at a T-Mobile conference table. As mayor, though, it’s another thing to bring together the competing interests and battling groups that array around thorny local political issues. In a for-profit company, there is only one goal: profits. In a city, however, citizens often disagree on policy goals, and a city government cannot measure its success in dollars and cents alone.
That Mr. Mallahan might not understand the challenges that Seattle's mayor will face is demonstrated by his questionnaire, where he wrote, “We have largely reached community agreement on the things we want our city to become. What is needed now is an experienced manager and leader who will help bring that vision to life.” To the contrary of Mr. Mallahan’s claim, Seattle is a community still divided on many issues, as evident from the current debates about the green bag fee, the commuter tax ("head tax"), single-family zoning changes, or the debate earlier this year about the state’s proposed transit-oriented-communities legislation. Yes, we need change at City Hall, but we also need someone who has experience in Seattle politics and a demonstrated record in working with community groups to improve life in Seattle.
Mr. Mallahan’s uninspiring policy platform compounds our concern regarding his inexperience in the public realm; in fact, his policy analysis suggests an unfamiliarity with local policies and institutions. For example, regarding the green bag fee, Mr. Mallahan says in his questionnaire response, “I support this initiative, but think it is only a first step to solving a bigger problem,” and he goes on to urge more recycling and waste reduction programs to reduce costs for Seattle Public Utilities ratepayers. Mr. Mallahan appears not to realize that the green fee is already only one part of more ambitious plans---the city's new Zero Waste Strategy, a significant waste-reduction strategy designed to eliminate the need for huge capital expenditures on new transfer stations and thus to keep rates as low as possible.
As for transit, Mr. Mallahan wrote: “I will advocate for King County Metro to become its own independent taxing agency, providing mass transit across our region with speed and efficiency.” But Metro already was an independent agency---from 1958 (it gained authority to operate transit in 1972) until it was merged with King County in 1994 (see HistoryLink article on Metro), and Mr. Mallahan does not tell us why Metro should again become an independent authority---a radical proposal for which voters should demand a compelling explanation. To be sure, Mr. Mallahan correctly believes Seattle needs more bus hours. But he too quickly dismisses the idea of new streetcar lines serving Seattle neighborhoods outside of South Lake Union, presenting a false choice between enhanced bus service and in-city rail transit.
Regarding the environment, Mr. Mallahan admirably pledges to improve stormwater management and restore Puget Sound to health. But his only specific idea for managing stormwater is the small-bore idea of “rigorous street sweeping.” In his questionnaire answer regarding the Bicycle Master Plan, his only ideas for improving the bicycling experience in Seattle were “a regular street sweeping schedule” and changing Seattle’s striping material to thermoplastic.
Where Mr. Mallahan thinks big, he is wrong. He supports cutting the commuter tax (“head tax”), which will cost Seattle’s communities $5 million per year in needed sidewalks, bike infrastructure, and street maintenance. He supports the $4.2 billion plan to replace the Viaduct with a tunnel.
Mr. Mallahan declared his candidacy in May, giving him only a couple months to learn about the issues. His website and questionnaire responses show he is still winging it, not applying well-thought-out criteria to multi-faceted and difficult policy issues. He doesn’t have the appropriate community experience to be mayor, and his positions leave much to be desired. We recommend not voting for him.
Joe Mallahan scheduled an appointment for an interview with Friends of Seattle, but he canceled at the last minute. His campaign did not respond to our requests to schedule a make-up interview.
Table of Contents:
I am running for Mayor of Seattle because I believe that our City government is fundamentally broken. I look at our city and I see frustrated potential, from the lack of an integrated transit plan to our walled off waterfront, from the failure to provide basic city services to our growing gang problem. I want to restore power to our neighborhoods, return trust to City Hall. My campaign is about returning efficiency, integrity and vision to Seattle. It means affordable family housing. It means developing an integrated transit plan and supporting street-level development to encourage pedestrian usage. It means empowering the citizens of Seattle through clear communication and responsive government.
We have largely reached community agreement on the things we want our city to become. What is needed now is an experienced manager and leader who will help bring that vision to life. I believe that I'm that person.
I am an experienced business executive who has a long track record of bringing people together to solve complicated problems. I have been a part of the leadership team at T-Mobile for the past nine years. At the time I joined the company in March 2000, we had about 500 Seattle area employees and $1 billion in losses. At the end of 2008, we had about 4,500 employees in Seattle and over $6 billion in profit contributions.
Before I joined T-Mobile, I lived in Chicago, where I was trained in Saul Alinsky's community organizing tactics and worked with United Power for Action & Justice. This is a group of social justice and union organizations working together to bring the people's voice to power on issues like healthcare, affordable housing, and taxes. As part of this organization I sought to create a common civic voice in Chicago and will bring that same effort to City Hall. As Mayor of Seattle, I will bring the ethics of decisive leadership and commitment to stakeholder input that I have honed in my years in the private sector and as a community organizer.
Background: Seattle is the most populous city in Washington and is the state's economic engine. At the same time, Seattle cannot address many of its problems without working with King County, regional entities (Sound Transit and the PSRC), and the state government. Yet many observers believe that Seattle's interests are represented inadequately at those levels. For example, the Muni League has criticized the 40-20-40 rule for allocating new Metro transit funding. Further, transit advocates note that the state's current tax system disadvantages transit. And the Legislature refused to allocate federal stimulus dollars for road projects in Seattle.
City government should, first and foremost, provide core city services - public health and safety, courts, fire services, road and transit maintenance and improvements, public parks, human services, permits and planning, environmental protection and utilities.
I believe that as a regional leader, the Mayor needs to be building bridges rather than tearing them down. All residents in the Puget Sound region have similar needs from federal and state funding; those include transportation funding and infrastructure investment, environmental conservation, and regional economic growth. These are all issues that we can come together collaboratively to promote. The hard hand of the Mayor's office can only be effective to an extent and I believe the current administration has reached that extent.
As Mayor, I would work to strengthen relationships with our neighbors in the Puget Sound region. I would also collaborate with organizations such as Sound Transit, Puget Sound Regional Council, Regional Transportation Investment District, and other regional leaders to develop and sustain working relationships. Through coordinated lobby efforts as a region, I believe we could achieve so much more as a city and as a region.
Background: Rather than build an expensive new transfer in Georgetown to handle the growing volume of trash generated in Seattle, the City of Seattle adopted a "Zero Waste Strategy" centered on reducing waste. As part of that strategy, the City Council adopted a 20-cent "green fee" for disposable shopping bags.
I support the green fee for disposable shopping bags. And while I support the choice architecture that the City has tried to incorporate into its policies around Bag Fees and Containers, I believe the city could go a step further. It is important for people to have a carrot and a stick when it comes to incorporating public policies such as this. I believe the 'stick' of a tax is only half of the battle. Providing carrots such as reduced costs for similar city services such as reduction in waste management, recycling programs, etc. could be creative and less punitive ways to get Seattle residents excited about this program.
In short, I support this initiative, but think it is only a first step to solving a bigger problem.
Background: Governor Gregoire signed a legislative bill ordering the Washington State Department of Transportation to design a bored tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. This bill contains language allocating cost overruns to Seattle citizens, although some question whether the language has legal significance. Notwithstanding that provision, the City of Seattle committed $930 million and the Port of Seattle $300 million to finance the tunnel. Although the exact tax consequences of these commitments are not totally clear, it is safe to assume that the Port's contribution would result in higher property taxes for Seattle property owners, and the City's pledge would be funded with increases in property taxes, City Light utility rates, and possibly other taxes and fees.
Highway 99 is an important component of our transportation network. The current elevated structure needs to be torn down. A Deep Bore tunnel is an imperfect solution, but we cannot waste any more time. It allows for improvements along the corroding sea-wall and also provides additional green-space along Seattle's beautiful waterfront.
I am committed to seeing this project come in on time and on budget by working with the major stakeholders to ensure the successful completion of this major undertaking.
The way we address State Route 99 is a watershed moment for Seattle. After the Nisqually earthquake in 2001, we squandered an opportunity to come together as a city and address the replacement of the Viaduct. Following the 6.8 seismic quake, Seattle and Washington state had significant reason and certainly the public backing to move forward with the removal of the Viaduct. Obviously they balked.
Today, key decision makers have lined up funding to build a deep bore tunnel. We cannot afford to lose any more time or miss another opportunity to do something truly transformational for our city. We need to move forward without hesitation and ensure that the flow of goods and services through Seattle is not impeded any more than absolutely necessary, nor is the burden of funding shifted to small business owners and tax payers.
My primary concern with the way we replace the Viaduct, however, is ensuring that we reconnect Seattle with our waterfront. Elliott Bay is a tremendous resource and we have turned our back on it for years. By moving State Route 99 below ground, we will return the waterfront to our city.
I have years of experience managing projects and working with contractors to bring projects in on time and on budget. Through rigorous oversight and constant communication, I do not anticipate cost overruns to be charged to the people or businesses in Seattle.
N/A
Background: The City of Seattle already contributes to local transit. The City put together the financing package to construct the South Lake Union streetcar line, and the City and King County Metro share the ongoing operating costs for that line. Further, the Bridging the Gap tax package finances some Metro bus service within Seattle, and Bridging the Gap also pays for street improvements designed to expedite bus travel.
As Mayor, I will work to create an expanded network of mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle routes to facilitate use of alternative transportation and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
I will advocate for King County Metro to become its own independent taxing agency, providing mass transit across our region with speed and efficiency. Until we begin thinking about our transportation challenges in terms of connecting neighborhoods to each other and the downtown, and to connecting the major urban centers to each other, true progress will elude us.
I will prioritize projects that will provide the greatest return to Seattle taxpayers. This means taking a hard look at the projects that our city is undertaking in its transportation growth and identifying the ones that hold the greatest potential. The Mercer Mess is an example of a project that I would seriously consider re-evaluating. This improvement to the roadway does nothing to reduce travel time and provides only marginal improvements on reducing congestion; however the credit to fund this extremely costly project has been places squarely on the shoulders of the Seattle taxpayer.
Background: The City of Seattle has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan, which provides a vision for improving bicycling facilities in Seattle.
Yes.
More cyclists than ever are using our city streets to commute to work and run daily errands. Despite the increase in cyclist activity and our pride in Seattle's reputation for being a bike friendly city, cyclists still report basic challenges that could be easily addressed.
One of the first improvements I would make would be improving the materials used to stripe the road ways. The intent of the striping is a good one and it has been used successfully in many other cities throughout the country. In most of those cities though, the material used to mark the area is different from that used in Seattle. The City has realized only after application of the striping that much of the material did not permanently adhere to the pavement and found its way into the storm sewer system and hence our streams and waterways. Changing the striping material to the thermoplastic used by cities like Portland would be the first thing I would change about the plan.
Six months after the December snowstorms, cyclists are still reporting dangerous sand buildups along the sides of our roads. Other litter accumulates, as well. Implementing a regular street sweeping schedule will ensure that cyclists have clean streets to bike on more safely.
Increased taxation of the people of Seattle should never be the preferred option for any undertaking. Regressive taxation policies have handcuffed our region for decades as small business owners and the working men and women of Seattle have too often borne the brunt of taxation. However as Mayor I will support fair policies that will support our infrastructure growth as well as protect those that have been most impacted. I believe this project is one that fits that mold.
The City Council is considering whether to adopt a draft Pedestrian Master Plan.
Yes.
The plan currently encompasses a number of attributes that are very important to me: safety, equity, vibrancy, and health. I believe this a great first step in making Seattle a better place to live and enjoy our beautiful surroundings. One of the plan's weaknesses, however, is that it addresses mainly superficial and cosmetic improvements like better signage without tackling the roots of making Seattle a pedestrian friendly city. A key part of improving Seattle's walkability includes opening access to the waterfront again. Integral, as well, is changing zoning to encourage increased residential density in areas like Seattle's downtown, creating more of a 24/7 city culture, as well as cultivating street-level mixed use development to avoid concrete canyons of buildings. We also need to change permitting to allow street food vendors and lively "overflow" from retail stores.
Increased taxation of the people of Seattle should never be the preferred option for any undertaking. Regressive taxation policies have handcuffed our region for decades as small business owners and the working men and women of Seattle have too often borne the brunt of taxation. However as Mayor I will support fair policies that will support our infrastructure growth as well as protect those that have been most impacted. I believe this project is one that fits that mold.
Background: According to U.S. Census data cited in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, about half of Seattle's households live in multifamily housing. Further, according to the Plan, approximately 40% of Seattle's total land area is set aside for residential use-35% for single-family residences but only 5% for multifamily dwellings. That 5% dedicated to multifamily housing tends to be concentrated in "urban villages" or along arterial streets, which are noisy and dirty. However, "backyard cottages" (also known as "detached accessory dwelling units) are also allowed in singe-family zones in Southeast Seattle.
Yes.
Yes.
I support the idea of creating urban villages in Seattle, capitalizing on our unique neighborhood centers to spur density and take advantage of the clustered amenities and services already in place. Communities like Wallingford, Ballard, Fremont, Columbia City, Lake City, Northgate, 23rd & Jackson in the Central District, Columbia City, Beacon Hill, and the Junction in West Seattle all have the roots for flourishing, thoughtful density. Access and connection to mass transit routes are key components of any rezone plan, as well as community support.
Whatever zoning changes I put forth as Mayor, I will be sure to include the neighborhoods from the beginning of the process and keep them engaged throughout the planning and implementation period.
Many newly built townhouses in Seattle are architectural atrocities, and site plans tend to be car-dominated. Most townhouse developments are exempt from the City of Seattle's Design Review Program. It is also difficult to find attractive new condos and apartment buildings. To address some of these problems, the City Council is considering a package of revisions to the zoning code.
Yes.
The proposed changes purpose is to provide a review process so that new developments fit sensitively into the neighborhood, provide flexibility in the application of development standards and improve communication between the develoment companies, the city, and the residents.
I think this is a good first step, but believe the city could go a step further to determine the impact on projected growth. This would include future mass transit development taken into account. It would include a hard look at the necessity of the development and a controlled effort to avoid the housing bubble burst that we have seen in recent years.
Essentially, I believe the proposed changes are appropriate but I would like to see further improvements.
Yes.
[Editor's note: Mr. Mallahan's response to this question pertained to the Alaskan Way Viaduct, so we moved the answer and included it with the rest of his response to our question about the Viaduct.]
Michael McGinn is running for Mayor of Seattle. We enthusiastically endorse Mr. McGinn, and we encourage all those who aspire for a better city to vote for him.
See his:
Michael McGinn is a courageous voice of change, and we enthusiastically endorse him for Mayor of Seattle. Mr. McGinn is the candidate we need to get the politics we deserve instead of the politics we have. Mr. McGinn's vision is a Seattle that lives up to its environmental ideals, invests in the needs of neighborhoods across the city, and strikes a fairer balance between biking, walking, transit, and driving.
One issue that highlights his philosophy for Seattle is his opposition to the $4.2 billion Viaduct replacement tunnel, and we agree with his position. With the tunnel, we are spending billions of dollars on a piece of infrastructure that will be obsolete as soon as it opens in 6-7 years: gas prices will be higher than ever, demand for transit will continue to outstrip new transit service, and vehicle miles traveled per capital will continue to drop, especially as the state and federal governments move from per-gallon gas taxes to per-mile-driven fees.
Of course, every candidate for elected office in Seattle seems to talk about clean, green transportation, but most of them are unwilling to make the tough choices to invest seriously in transit, walking, and biking. Mr. McGinn is the exception in the mayor’s race, and in his interview and questionnaire, he clearly explained why the tunnel is a missed opportunity to invest in alternative transportation. After the City raids Seattle residents’ bank accounts to collect the $930 million (or more) to pay for Seattle’s share of the tunnel, Seattle’s already-burdened taxpayers will rightly be reluctant to pay for the transit service, new sidewalks, bike infrastructure, and street maintenance that are so badly needed throughout the city. In a similar vein as the tunnel, Mr. McGinn argued persuasively at our candidate forum in July that many candidates' support for cutting the commuter tax ("head tax") is an election-season ploy that ignores the real costs---a loss of $5 million in annual revenues for local transportation infrastructure.
Augmenting Mr. McGinn’s opposition to the tunnel are his specific and concrete ideas for how to implement his vision. For instance, Mr. McGinn explained at length the steps that he would take as mayor to help improve transit service, even though the Mayor of Seattle does not control King County Metro. The first, as he said in his interview, is to simply care and to put as much effort lobbying the state for more transit dollars as our city leaders spent lobbying for the deep-bore tunnel. In addition, as he explained in his questionnaire, “We would work with Metro on improving transit frequency and reliability by giving transit the priority it needs to succeed on city streets. This involves transit signal priority, bus lanes, parking restrictions, and bus stop location and design.” As we saw in last winter’s snowstorm, the way the City manages its streets greatly impacts the County’s ability to provide bus service.
When Mr. McGinn first announced his candidacy, our impression was that his focus on technology infrastructure was off-point, and we hoped to see a stronger fundraising campaign. As his campaign progressed, however, Mr. McGinn found his voice, and his campaign is displaying grassroots strength.
And Mr. McGinn is outstanding on the issues across the board. He is very supportive of the Bicycle Master Plan, and he proposed a menu of funding sources to implement the plan. We were also pleased to see he isn’t satisfied with the Plan's status quo and suggests “safer and friendlier” bicycle infrastructure, such as “contiguous colored bike lanes, bike boxes, striping a buffer zone between parked cars and the bike lane to minimize ‘dooring’ and placing the bike lane between the sidewalk and the parking lane.” Also, because Mr. McGinn is a member of the Pedestrian Master Plan Advisory Group, we are confident that pedestrian infrastructure also has his support.
Mr. McGinn also supports the backyard-cottage ordinance, thinks that the City’s proposals to improve townhouse designs “aren’t bold enough,” wants the green bag fee to pass, and has a balanced approach to rezoning for greater density (“Adjacency to public transportation, urban village status, other zoning considerations (various forms of NC and C), and community input.”).
Mr. McGinn's civic experience was important to us, because while we are excited about the possibility of change at City Hall, we wanted someone who understands the issues, has experience working with Seattle’s diverse community groups, and has a track record of success in community involvement. Mr. McGinn is a former partner at the Stokes Lawrence law firm, giving us confidence he has the skills to understand the thicket of laws and regulations that affect everything the city does---and how to change them. He has experience at every level: neighborhoods (he was the President of the Greenwood Community Council), city (he founded the Seattle Great City Initiative and served on several city commissions and advisory committees), region (he was a member of the Port of Seattle Environmental Cabinet), and state (he served on the Washington Climate Advisory Team).
Not only that, but he has been successful at local politics. As the Executive Director of Great City, Mr. McGinn was instrumental in putting together the Green Legacy Coalition, a broad-based coalition of businesses, developers, and community groups (of which Friends of Seattle was one) that successfully lobbied the City Council to put a new parks levy on the ballot last year, and Mr. McGinn then chaired the successful Parks and Green Spaces Levy campaign. With the Sierra Club, Mr. McGinn helped lead the victorious fight against the 2007 Roads and Transit measure. Both of these successful campaigns were waged despite the opposition of Mayor Nickels.
We hesitated to endorse a challenger to Greg Nickels unless the candidate had superior positions on the issues in addition to the political skills and civic experience necessary to be an effective mayor. Mr. McGinn’s interview, endorsement questionnaire, performance at our July candidate forum, and long history of community leadership convinced us that he is that candidate. Mr. McGinn is the best choice for mayor, and we encourage all those who aspire for a better city to vote for him.
Table of Contents:
To thrive, Seattle must make good choices to prepare for the future. I have set out a platform to support schools, technology infrastructure and local transit as good investments in our people and our infrastructure. At the same time, I am opposing the proposed viaduct tunnel. It is unfunded, risky, and threatens the ability of Seattle to fund basic services and make the right investments in our future. Friends of Seattle's vision - to have a sustainable, healthy, and livable future - is directly reflected in these statements.
Background: Seattle is the most populous city in Washington and is the state's economic engine. At the same time, Seattle cannot address many of its problems without working with King County, regional entities (Sound Transit and the PSRC), and the state government. Yet many observers believe that Seattle's interests are represented inadequately at those levels. For example, the Muni League has criticized the 40-20-40 rule for allocating new Metro transit funding. Further, transit advocates note that the state's current tax system disadvantages transit. And the Legislature refused to allocate federal stimulus dollars for road projects in Seattle.
In my work as an advocate I have followed simple rules: Focus on outcomes, say what you want to happen, listen to what others want and work diligently to achieve common goals. As an economic engine, Seattle can help the state achieve its economic goals. But we can also help the state achieve its goals of reducing global warming pollution, particularly from transportation, helping clean up Puget Sound, and reducing sprawl. These outcomes all have broad public support, but are also difficult political issues.
My experience working through the Sierra Club, my neighborhood of Greenwood, and with my non-profit Great City, is that difficult issues require tough decisions about when to say "good enough", and when to work to do even better. I am proud that even when I find myself on the opposite side of an issue from a politician or another advocate, I have maintained the type of relationship that allows us to work together on other issues. I would bring that combination of collaboration and principled advocacy to the role of Mayor.
Specifically, I would
Background: Rather than build an expensive new transfer in Georgetown to handle the growing volume of trash generated in Seattle, the City of Seattle adopted a "Zero Waste Strategy" centered on reducing waste. As part of that strategy, the City Council adopted a 20-cent "green fee" for disposable shopping bags.
Yes. The green fee is an environmentally responsible solution to a chronic problem.
Background: Governor Gregoire signed a legislative bill ordering the Washington State Department of Transportation to design a bored tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. This bill contains language allocating cost overruns to Seattle citizens, although some question whether the language has legal significance. Notwithstanding that provision, the City of Seattle committed $930 million and the Port of Seattle $300 million to finance the tunnel. Although the exact tax consequences of these commitments are not totally clear, it is safe to assume that the Port's contribution would result in higher property taxes for Seattle property owners, and the City's pledge would be funded with increases in property taxes, City Light utility rates, and possibly other taxes and fees.
No. At $4.2 billion, the tunnel already costs too much and harms Seattle's real priorities. It is the most risky, the most expensive, and the most polluting.
[Editor's note: No answer given.]
As Mayor, the city would not contribute funding toward the tunnel, and we would use all the tools at our disposal to stop it.
Background: The City of Seattle already contributes to local transit. The City put together the financing package to construct the South Lake Union streetcar line, and the City and King County Metro share the ongoing operating costs for that line. Further, the Bridging the Gap tax package finances some Metro bus service within Seattle, and Bridging the Gap also pays for street improvements designed to expedite bus travel.
Seattle is in charge of how its local streets are used. We would work with Metro on improving transit frequency and reliability by giving transit the priority it needs to succeed on city streets. This involves transit signal priority, bus lanes, parking restrictions, and bus stop location and design. Seattle would also make transit funding a priority, rather than highway funding, so that we could invest in upgraded buses and increased operating hours. The replacement of the Alaska Way Viaduct gives us a choice - more transit, or a multi-billion dollar buried highway that does not serve transit.
Background: The City of Seattle has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan, which provides a vision for improving bicycling facilities in Seattle.
Yes.
Ensuring that infrastructure gaps continue to be filled at an increased rate. Also, I would like the City to explore implementation of European-style bike facilities. These are safer and friendlier for cyclists than those recommended under current AASHTO standards. Examples may include contiguous colored bike lanes, bike boxes, striping a buffer zone between parked cars and the bike lane to minimize "dooring" and placing the bike lane between the sidewalk and the parking lane.
A combination of Bridging the Gap (and its associated taxes), redistribution of the transportation pie to prioritize nonmotorized transportation, creative thinking to uncover other funding options such as other taxes, reallocation of other funding sources, piggybacking on other SDOT programs, private partnerships, state and federal grants or allocations.
The City Council is considering whether to adopt a draft Pedestrian Master Plan.
Yes.
Increasing the funding that is available for implementation would improve the plan's chance of widespread success.
See bullet three under bicycle infrastructure. The current plan does not have any dedicated funding. I believe this is because the current administration is reserving all future transportation dollars from city sources for the implementation of the Viaduct Tunnel. The city's commitment of funding for the Viaduct Tunnel has direct and significant negative consequences for transit, biking and walking in Seattle.
Background: According to U.S. Census data cited in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, about half of Seattle's households live in multifamily housing. Further, according to the Plan, approximately 40% of Seattle's total land area is set aside for residential use-35% for single-family residences but only 5% for multifamily dwellings. That 5% dedicated to multifamily housing tends to be concentrated in "urban villages" or along arterial streets, which are noisy and dirty. However, "backyard cottages" (also known as "detached accessory dwelling units) are also allowed in singe-family zones in Southeast Seattle.
Yes.
Yes.
Adjacency to public transportation, urban village status, other zoning considerations (various forms of NC and C), and community input.
Current density, the quality of housing stock, and perhaps most important, the existence of existing infrastructure such as schools, fire stations, power stations, and shopping villages.
Many newly built townhouses in Seattle are architectural atrocities, and site plans tend to be car-dominated. Most townhouse developments are exempt from the City of Seattle's Design Review Program. It is also difficult to find attractive new condos and apartment buildings. To address some of these problems, the City Council is considering a package of revisions to the zoning code.
Yes.
The revisions aren't bold enough to get at the problem of the ground level being devoted almost entirely to automobile movement and storage. This reduces the appeal of the building at street level and increases costs. Seattle should look to other jurisdictions for townhouse styles that work, rather than attempting to merely modify its code.
Yes.
I would like to see a culture change in Seattle's city government. The past eight years have been dominated by a top-down approach to governing that has stifled innovation and alienated the public. Solving problems like making our neighborhoods more livable, reducing our dependence on single occupancy vehicles and reducing the City's carbon footprint will take a collaborative approach and will involve a wide range of people representing diverse interests and organizations and ideas.
Greg Nickels is running for Mayor of Seattle:
Greg Nickels is rightly proud of his many accomplishments. He has often been criticized for his style, but he is a leader who has cut through many Gordian Knots of Seattle politics. No one should forget that his opponent in 2001, Mark Sidran, vowed to stop the construction of light rail. Not only has light rail survived and opened its first line, but also Mayor Nickels gamely returned Sound Transit to the ballot last year after voters rejected the 2007 Roads and Transit measure. Thanks to Mayor Nickels and others, we will have the funding to extend light rail to the north and east of Seattle, and to build a streetcar line through First Hill and Capitol Hill. Further, although we think the city’s Bridging the Gap transportation funding package falls short of meeting our transportation needs, we recognize that Mayor Nickels’ initial proposal was far more ambitious (the City Council trimmed the package), and it was never certain that the voters would approve the plan. It’s an accomplishment. Further, we largely agree with the city’s work building the infrastructure to make two urban centers—Northgate and South Lake Union—places for thousands of new jobs and a home to thousands more. In his questionnaire response, Mayor Nickels lists more of his good deeds.
We have also disagreed with Greg Nickels at times throughout his eight years as mayor. Last year, we believed firmly that Seattle needed a new round of investments in parks and open spaces to keep Seattle vibrant and environmentally healthy as it grows. Mayor Nickels worried (not unreasonably) about the economic downturn and opposed the Parks and Green Spaces Levy. We oppose the $4.2 billion tunnel for the waterfront, as Mayor Nickels knows (he writes, “I supported a surface and transit option but ultimately the Governor decided on a deep-bore tunnel with reduced capacity.”).
We also wish he had shown more political courage in championing the environment. For example, Mayor Nickels initially proposed that a new transfer station be built in the Georgetown neighborhood to handle the growing volume of trash generated by Seattle Public Utilities customers. Mayor Nickels decided to facilitate waste generation instead of reducing it. Not only would his plan have brought tons of waste into landfills, but a new transfer station would have cost millions of dollars and would have negatively affected the Georgetown community. Bad for the environment, bad for neighborhoods. Mayor Nickels abandoned his proposal only after Richard Conlin showed leadership and vision with his Zero Waste Strategy. Unfortunately, Mayor Nickels needed to be persuaded that reducing waste and increasing recycling should be the city’s touchstone policy for managing waste.
An additional example of Mayor Nickels’ inadequate environmental record is his long inaction on Seattle’s outdated construction-waste laws (waste from construction sites is the second-greatest source of waste in the city, next to food waste). Also, despite the talk of creating walkable and bikeable communities, Mayor Nickels has not changed the prioritization of those travel modes in the budget to create a more significant mode shift. In fact, in 2007, he took money away from pedestrian projects
Where Seattle has really suffered the last eight years is in the built environment. Mayor Nickels’ Department of Planning and Development only just last year proposed revisions to the city’s arcane multifamily housing zoning code, which is the legal framework responsible for the terrible four-pack townhomes blighting our neighborhoods and (rightly) turning people off density. This problem should have been tackled earlier, and while we view the proposed revisions to be a step in the right direction, we find them uninspired.
In short, there are many things we think Mayor Nickels could have done better. He has accomplished much as mayor, however, and he has a clear vision for the city. So his candidacy would have excited us more if there weren’t a better candidate in the race. A vote is not merely a reward for past accomplishments, and so we recommend not voting for Mayor Nickels.
The mayor's schedule did not allow for an interview with Friends of Seattle. His campaign offered to have Michael Mann, the director of the mayor's Office of Sustainability and Environment, interview on Nickels' behalf. We declined, as our policy is to interview only the candidates themselves, not surrogates. Still, we appreciated the Nickels campaign's positive and constructive approach to the Friends of Seattle endorsements process, and we learned from the mayor's responses to our questionnaire below.
Table of Contents:
I share many of the progressive values that Friends of Seattle has. I want to make Seattle the best city it can be - that means a vibrant community with fast, frequent, and reliable transportation choices. It means a city whose government invests in neighborhood amenities, like parks, community centers, and farmer's markets. It means a city with homes that are within everyone's reach - whether you are a software engineer, teacher or restaurant worker. It means a city that takes care of those less fortunate by supporting basic social services and investing in low income housing. It means a city that has compact, vibrant, 24-hour urban centers. And it means a city that is a place for families - with good schools, great parks, and safe neighbors.
As Mayor, I have many professional accomplishments that I am proud of; such as starting the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement (which 956 mayors have now signed, representing over 84 million Americans) and leading the campaign to pass Mass Transit Now last November (and I've worked on light rail for the last 21 years, which will open on July 18). I am proud of working tirelessly to stop a new elevated viaduct from being rebuilt on our waterfront, of breaking the logjam at Northgate to encourage investments around what will eventually be a light rail station while daylighting Thornton Creek, and of initiatives like the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. My effectiveness comes because I don't let talk replace action. When I see a logjam that is stopping us from moving forward, I break it. When I see an opportunity for regional or national leadership that can help Seattle, I take it. And I am committed to working hard for this great city.
Background: Seattle is the most populous city in Washington and is the state's economic engine. At the same time, Seattle cannot address many of its problems without working with King County, regional entities (Sound Transit and the PSRC), and the state government. Yet many observers believe that Seattle's interests are represented inadequately at those levels. For example, the Muni League has criticized the 40-20-40 rule for allocating new Metro transit funding. Further, transit advocates note that the state's current tax system disadvantages transit. And the Legislature refused to allocate federal stimulus dollars for road projects in Seattle.
I have a record of accomplishments over the past eight years of bringing people together, making decisions and then delivering results. I have demonstrated this leadership in numerous environmental areas.
Background: Rather than build an expensive new transfer in Georgetown to handle the growing volume of trash generated in Seattle, the City of Seattle adopted a "Zero Waste Strategy" centered on reducing waste. As part of that strategy, the City Council adopted a 20-cent "green fee" for disposable shopping bags.
Yes. As you know, I proposed the green fee along with Council President Conlin over a year ago, was pleased when the council passed it, and am actively supporting the campaign to retain it.
Background: Governor Gregoire signed a legislative bill ordering the Washington State Department of Transportation to design a bored tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. This bill contains language allocating cost overruns to Seattle citizens, although some question whether the language has legal significance. Notwithstanding that provision, the City of Seattle committed $930 million and the Port of Seattle $300 million to finance the tunnel. Although the exact tax consequences of these commitments are not totally clear, it is safe to assume that the Port's contribution would result in higher property taxes for Seattle property owners, and the City's pledge would be funded with increases in property taxes, City Light utility rates, and possibly other taxes and fees.
As you know, I have fought long and hard to stop the rebuild of the Viaduct. That fight came at a high political price for me in Olympia but I have demonstrated that I will defend the interests of my city even in the face of powerful opposition from around the state. I supported a surface and transit option but ultimately the Governor decided on a deep-bore tunnel with reduced capacity. That compromise allowed us to meet our objective to stop a new elevated freeway on our waterfront. Now that a decision has been made, I am going to work hard to ensure that the waterfront is opened up as a vibrant public space and that we have the transit service we need in that corridor.
Seattle property owners will not be saddled with any potential cost overruns for the state's tunnel project. Even though last minute language to this effect was approved in the legislation authorizing the tunnel, no legal mechanism currently exists for the state to charge property owners for any cost overruns. Other jurisdictions around the state are very concerned about the precedent this could set it the state expects to tax local businesses to help fund state projects.
N/A
Background: The City of Seattle already contributes to local transit. The City put together the financing package to construct the South Lake Union streetcar line, and the City and King County Metro share the ongoing operating costs for that line. Further, the Bridging the Gap tax package finances some Metro bus service within Seattle, and Bridging the Gap also pays for street improvements designed to expedite bus travel.
We must identify and implement short-term and long-term strategies to improve the transit system in Seattle including:
The opening of light rail this summer presents an amazing opportunity to continue the work we have done to improve transit in the city and create compact, sustainable development while doing it. With the addition of light rail to our transit system we can support communities where car ownership is not required. The passage of Mass Transit Now was a huge achievement last year that will build a system with the capacity to carry 1 million riders a day. I look forward to ensuring sustainable communities are built around the future stations in the University District, the Roosevelt Neighborhood, and the Northgate Urban Center.
Background: The City of Seattle has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan, which provides a vision for improving bicycling facilities in Seattle.
YES.
[Editor's note: No answer provided.]
The completion of the Bicycle Master Plan was a major milestone for bicycling in Seattle, and I am proud to have worked with the bicycling community these last few years accomplish this. We are on our way to making Seattle the best community for bicycling in the US. I am committed to the implementation of the master plan and I am very proud of the work we have done just in the first couple of years. Already we have installed 56 miles of new bike lanes and sharrows. That is more bike lanes than any Mayor in Seattle's history. For the first time we are installing green bike lanes, bike route signs, and signals specifically for bicyclists, all designed to make bicycling easier and safer in our city.
With the support of groups like the Cascade Bicycle Club and Transportation Choices Coalition we passed the Bridging the Gap levy in 2006. With the levy we have a dedicated funding source that invests millions of dollars each year towards the implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan. The Bridging the Gap levy was a clear sign that we are not just going to invest in roads and bridges for cars, but in fact we are investing in a better, more complete transportation system for all users. I am also extremely proud to carry the sole endorsement of the Cascade Bicycle Club.
The City Council is considering whether to adopt a draft Pedestrian Master Plan.
YES.
[Editor's note: No answer provided.]
Just a few weeks ago I announced a major milestone for walking in Seattle. We now have a draft Pedestrian Master Plan, the first of its kind in the country, which prioritizes over six million dollars in funding each year with the goal of making Seattle the most walkable city in the country. Also with the help of the Bridging the Gap levy we will build more sidewalks, improve pedestrian crossings, and make it safer for children to walk to school. Over the past four years the City of Seattle built close to 100 blocks of new sidewalk. This is the most significant level of investment in pedestrian and bicycle facilities in a generation, and we are just getting started. We still have a lot of work to do and I look forward to working with you to continue to improve the bicycle and pedestrian experience in Seattle.
Background: According to U.S. Census data cited in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, about half of Seattle's households live in multifamily housing. Further, according to the Plan, approximately 40% of Seattle's total land area is set aside for residential use-35% for single-family residences but only 5% for multifamily dwellings. That 5% dedicated to multifamily housing tends to be concentrated in "urban villages" or along arterial streets, which are noisy and dirty. However, "backyard cottages" (also known as "detached accessory dwelling units) are also allowed in singe-family zones in Southeast Seattle.
YES.
YES.
I proposed the legislation to allow backyard cottages in Southeast Seattle a few years ago. With the success we've seen, I recently sent legislation to the City Council to expand the allowance of backyard cottages throughout the city. Backyard cottages provide an affordable housing option for Seattle's families and homeowners.
I would support legislative rezones based on combinations of the following criteria:
I think a great example of this is what's happening up in the Roosevelt neighborhood. There is soon going to be a light rail station that will be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and change the mobility in that area significantly. The neighborhood is excited to take advantage of this opportunity by adding density around the station. But they are moving forward deliberately because they want the right kind of density for their neighborhood. I am very eager to work with them on this.
Many newly built townhouses in Seattle are architectural atrocities, and site plans tend to be car-dominated. Most townhouse developments are exempt from the City of Seattle's Design Review Program. It is also difficult to find attractive new condos and apartment buildings. To address some of these problems, the City Council is considering a package of revisions to the zoning code.
YES.
I recently sent this legislation to the City Council that will be our first multifamily zoning update in 20 years and that includes better townhome design, more affordable housing, and encourages green construction and landscaping. I look forward to the council passing that legislation.
That being said, I believe that our smaller townhome development projects should not be ignored. Currently, these smaller townhomes do not have to go through the Design Review Board. I am proposing that these projects go through a design review process with my staff from the Dept. of Planning and Development, thus ensuring that even small projects must comply with a level of design standards, but also saving these smaller projects the time and money that they cannot afford to lose by going though the lengthier and more robust Design Review Board process. I intend to send legislation down to council on this issue soon and hope for its swift passage.
YES.
Through the City's Complete Streets policy, and guided by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master plans we are making better use of our limited public right of way for all modes of transportation. For too long our focus was almost solely on moving cars on our roads. We are now allocating space differently so that bikes, people, and transit are included in our transportation system and road designs. I believe we are in the process of shifting the mode priority away from cars, and I support this continuing evolution.
Parks and open space continue to be vital to our success as a city and I'm proud of the direction we're moving in. We are moving forward on covering all of our reservoirs which when finished, will create 76 acres of new open space. The Green Seattle Partnership, which began in 2004 has already restored 375 acres of forest parkland in our city.
Finally, Seattle is a leader in the nation in the number of buildings that meet LEED standard. Building on that leadership, I have set a goal of reducing residential and commercial building energy use by 20% by 2020. Based on the recommendations of my Green Building Task Force, we launched an effort to do 5,000 discounted home energy audits in the city, and to use $1.2 million of our Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant money to create a revolving loan fund for those homeowners to make the upgrades necessary to make their homes more energy efficient. (We also have an existing energy retrofit program that provides audits and weatherization services to low-income residents.) I have also directed DPD to begin work on a new performance based energy code to achieve our 20% goal.
Norman Sigler is running for Mayor of Seattle.
See his:
Norman Sigler is a passionate advocate for Seattle's future, and he shares our values. Mr. Sigler had some good moments at our mayoral candidate forum and in our interview (particularly with regard to the commuter tax). But Mr. Sigler's experience is limited mostly to the private sector. In our view, someone who wants to be the elected leader of a city should have demonstrated a prior interest in the city's public life.
Mr. Sigler offers many ideas, especially for transit, and we agree with him that the community benefits when public and private groups work together for the common good. But many of his plans are still half baked. For instance, Mr. Sigler says the monorail line should be extended to the stadiums and perhaps West Seattle. We think that corridor is served adequately by Sound Transit's new light rail line and do not understand why hundreds of millions of dollars should be spent building a duplicative mass-transit line.
In sum, we hope Mr. Sigler continues his civic participation, but he has not earned a vote for mayor.
Table of Contents:
I fully support the mission of Friends of Seattle. My campaign has had as its primary goal of returning government to its citizens by listening to their concerns, conducting all business in transparent ways, spending hard earned tax dollars wisely, incorporating sustainability in all processes, and working together with all parts of our community, region and state. We need Fresh Leadership to creatively address our most pressing transportation, education, and economic issues. It's time to work together to shape a bright Seattle future.
Over the last six years and especially during my campaign for mayor, I've heard from thousands of residents who are unhappy with the current way our city is being run - they want change. They want leadership that listens to the people, is fiscally accountable and transparent, protects our natural environment, and encourages our neighborhoods and businesses to flourish. I've built businesses around connecting people with great opportunities and each other as a corporate executive search recruiter and matchmaker. I posses effective leadership qualities of experience, ability, vision, creativity, and empathy. I have over 15 years of experience developing alliances between related and unrelated interests, managing multimillion dollar corporate budgets, and building leadership teams within non-profit, private and public sectors. Please see professional qualifications below.
[Editor's note: Mr. Sigler included his professional resume with his questionnaire response. You can view the resume on pages 6-8 of this PDF.]
Background: Seattle is the most populous city in Washington and is the state's economic engine. At the same time, Seattle cannot address many of its problems without working with King County, regional entities (Sound Transit and the PSRC), and the state government. Yet many observers believe that Seattle's interests are represented inadequately at those levels. For example, the Muni League has criticized the 40-20-40 rule for allocating new Metro transit funding. Further, transit advocates note that the state's current tax system disadvantages transit. And the Legislature refused to allocate federal stimulus dollars for road projects in Seattle.
My message throughout this campaign has been about partnerships. Government alone cannot solve our most challenging issues facing our community. We need to partner with not only other governmental agencies but with the non-profit and public sector areas of our community. Government should effectively and efficiently provide basic services of infrastructure, security/safety, and public health.
Background: Rather than build an expensive new transfer in Georgetown to handle the growing volume of trash generated in Seattle, the City of Seattle adopted a "Zero Waste Strategy" centered on reducing waste. As part of that strategy, the City Council adopted a 20-cent "green fee" for disposable shopping bags.
No. It's a burden on the people least able to pay. I do support a full ban on plastic and non-recycled paper bags.
Background: Governor Gregoire signed a legislative bill ordering the Washington State Department of Transportation to design a bored tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. This bill contains language allocating cost overruns to Seattle citizens, although some question whether the language has legal significance. Notwithstanding that provision, the City of Seattle committed $930 million and the Port of Seattle $300 million to finance the tunnel. Although the exact tax consequences of these commitments are not totally clear, it is safe to assume that the Port's contribution would result in higher property taxes for Seattle property owners, and the City's pledge would be funded with increases in property taxes, City Light utility rates, and possibly other taxes and fees.
No. I, like most Seattle voters, voted _no_ to the tunnel option and _no_ to the viaduct rebuild. It is a reactionary effort that does nothing to address the overall mobility of people and goods. It is a 20th Century approach to a 21st Century and beyond problem - not to mention it will be extremely costly. Here is my list of issues with this project:
As mayor, I will ensure that contracts are written that place cost overruns with the contractor and the State of Washington.
I will work to create a solution to moving people and goods in the event the Viaduct is no longer useful. The plan would contain 2 phases: 1. Emergency routes to move traffic through the city by redirecting streets to match morning inflow and evening outflow. 2. We need to improve our surface grid and I-5 flow to accommodate
Background: The City of Seattle already contributes to local transit. The City put together the financing package to construct the South Lake Union streetcar line, and the City and King County Metro share the ongoing operating costs for that line. Further, the Bridging the Gap tax package finances some Metro bus service within Seattle, and Bridging the Gap also pays for street improvements designed to expedite bus travel.
There are several proposals I plan to initiate:
Background: The City of Seattle has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan, which provides a vision for improving bicycling facilities in Seattle.
Yes.
Provide more education in schools, partner with regional cycling events (STP, Ride around Rainier, etc...), and bring in a world-class cycling event.
Work with bike manufacturers, outdoor equipment companies, local bicycling organizations, proceeds from a world class cycling event to the city, and a bike registration fee to fund.
The City Council is considering whether to adopt a draft Pedestrian Master Plan.
Yes.
We need to fast track eco-friendly sidewalks in all of Seattle.
General fund and small developer assessments.
Background: According to U.S. Census data cited in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, about half of Seattle's households live in multifamily housing. Further, according to the Plan, approximately 40% of Seattle's total land area is set aside for residential use-35% for single-family residences but only 5% for multifamily dwellings. That 5% dedicated to multifamily housing tends to be concentrated in "urban villages" or along arterial streets, which are noisy and dirty. However, "backyard cottages" (also known as "detached accessory dwelling units) are also allowed in singe-family zones in Southeast Seattle.
Yes.
Yes.
First criteria will be to speak to the neighborhoods to understand where they would like additional housing to be built. Second criteria will be to locate near transit centers (current, planned, and proposed). Third criteria will be to locate in areas of mixed use development.
Many newly built townhouses in Seattle are architectural atrocities, and site plans tend to be car-dominated. Most townhouse developments are exempt from the City of Seattle's Design Review Program. It is also difficult to find attractive new condos and apartment buildings. To address some of these problems, the City Council is considering a package of revisions to the zoning code.
Yes.
We should ensure neighbors have a say during the design phase of development and not after the design is completed. I would also like to see a sign ordinance.
Yes.
We need to have a government that listens to its citizens and is fully transparent and representative of our entire community. By encouraging civic participation from all citizens, we will create a society where all can achieve to their potential. Let's work together to build on our strengths by integrating science, technology, sustainability and civic involvement into the way we shape Seattle's future.