Joe Mallahan is running for Mayor of Seattle.

See his:

• official campaign website
• Twitter
• Facebook
• campaign-finance disclosure reports with the Seattle Ethics & Elections Commission

Table of Contents

• Discussion forum on the candidates for Mayor of Seattle
• Analysis by Friends of Seattle
• Joe Mallahan's Interview Videos (NONE)
• Joe Mallahan's Questionnaire Responses

Analysis

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.

Interview

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.

Questionnaire Responses

Table of Contents:

• General Questions
  • Friends of Seattle's Mission
  • Candidate Qualifications
  • Representing Seattle
  • City Council Committees
• Issues
  • Waste Reduction
  • Alaskan Way Viaduct
  • Transit
  • Bicycle Infrastructure
  • Pedestrian Infrastructure
  • Land Use and Multifamily Housing
  • City Governance
• Creative Response

General Questions

Friends of Seattle's Mission

• How does your candidacy support Friends of Seattle's values, goals, and mission?

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.

Qualifications

• Please describe any professional accomplishments that demonstrate your effectiveness as an elected official (if you are an incumbent) or would demonstrate your effectiveness as an elected official (if you have not yet held office).

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.

Representing Seattle

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 an elected official representing Seattle, how would you work with King County, regional governmental entities, the state legislature, and the governor to ensure their budgets and policies address Seattle's needs?

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.

Issues

Waste Reduction

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.

• Do you support the green fee? Why or why not?

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.

Alaskan Way Viaduct

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.

• Do you support the plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a bored tunnel? Why or why not?

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.

• If you support the tunnel, what would you do to address the cost-overruns issue?

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.

• If you oppose the tunnel, what would you do to prevent its implementation?

N/A

Transit

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.

• If elected, how do you intend to improve the in-city transit system?

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.

Bicycle Infrastructure

Background: The City of Seattle has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan, which provides a vision for improving bicycling facilities in Seattle.

• Do you support the Bicycle Master Plan? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

• If you support it, do you have ideas for improving the plan?

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.

• If you support it, how do you suggest the City fund the plan?

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.

Pedestrian Infrastructure

The City Council is considering whether to adopt a draft Pedestrian Master Plan.

• Do you support the Pedestrian Master Plan? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

• If you support it, do you have ideas for improving the plan?

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.

• If you support it, how do you suggest the City fund the plan?

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.

Land Use and Multifamily Housing

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.

• Would you support legislation to allow backyard cottages to be built in all single-family zones? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

• Would you ever support a contract rezone or a broader rezone allowing for more housing to be built on a site? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

• If you support the concept of rezoning, what criteria would you use in deciding where more housing should be built?

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.

• Do you support the proposed revisions to the multifamily housing zoning code? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

• If you support the revisions, do you have ideas for improving the proposed revisions?

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.

City Governance

• Do you support the "Vote Clean Seattle" plan, which is supported in principle by the City Council, to create a system for publicly funded campaigns in Seattle? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

Creative Response

• If you have additional thoughts on how to improve Seattle's city government or to make Seattle a more livable and sustainable city, please note them here.

[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.]