The Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission has dismissed a complaintfiled by City Council member-elect Mike O’Brien in October. . . . Both Rosencrantz and Forward Seattle sent out thousands of mailers accusing O’Brien of wanting to “toll all city streets.” Both featured an unflattering image of O’Brien taken from the same Friends of Seattle video; both included images of toll booths on neighborhood streets; and both accused O’Brien of wanting tolls “everywhere.”
Mike O'Brien's opponent, Robert Rosencrantz, sent an attack mailer to 100,000 voters making the breathless claim that Mike supports "tolling everywhere," and he cites Mike's endorsement interview video with Friends of Seattle to support his claim. See the mailer here
But at the same time that Robert Rosencrantz distorted Mike's statements about tolling of highways and city streets, Mr. Rosencrantz hid from voters that he himself has . . . yes, EXACTLY the same position on tolling.
When we interviewed Mr. Rosencrantz, his short answer on tolling:
"Tolls - great. Systemwide - yes."
In other words, Mr. Rosencrant is dishonest, and he's fighting dirty.
See Mr. Rosencrantz's entire toll-happy video statement to us at this link
Now Mr. Rosencrantz has friends. We learned today that a big-business political action committee spent $50,000 on a mailer lobbing another attack on Mike O'Brien.
You know as we do that Mike is exactly the kind of courageous, visionary leader we need on the Seattle City Council. And it doesn't hurt that he has the financial expertise -- an MBA and an economics degree -- to help the city through its budget crisis.
Mike will get elected if you help him.
If enough of us contribute $5, $20, $50, $100, $500, we can help Mike fight back.
Mike O'Brien for Position 8 is perhapsour most important endorsement in this election. Mr. O’Brien will be a visionary leader on City Council---someone who is politically courageous and well-equipped to deal with the practicalities of budgeting and policymaking (Mr. O’Brien has an economics degree from Duke University, has a MBA from the University of Washington, and was the Chief Financial Officer of a major Seattle law firm).
Mr. O’Brien’s positions exhibit an understanding of what it will take to make getting around Seattle easier. We like his approach to redefine SDOT's mission as moving people and goods (as stated in his interview) and to increasing our investments in bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure to better match their growing mode share. He was fluent with the details too, offering the most concrete ideas of any candidate for improving the Bicycle Master Plan (e.g., “the city should experiment with different models for grade separation of bicycles on busy roadways”). As a businessman, he offers smart ideas for funding – including transportation benefit districts and per-mile-driven tolling (as stated in his interview).
Mr. O’Brien’s position on the deep-bore tunnel reflects Friends of Seattle’s stance more than any other candidate for Position 8. He convincingly argues that the mobility structure needed for the 2020s and 2030s and beyond does not include a multibillion tunnel that will divert resources from other more important transportation, housing, and educational investments. In his interview, Mr. O’Brien pointedly criticized elected leaders for presenting false choices and bad options to the voters (the tunnel and the 2007 Roads and Transit measure being prime examples), and he pledged to give Seattle the better transportation choices we need.
Mr. O’Brien’s approach to land use is equally as impressive. Taking a common-sense approach, he suggests we need to better define our land use and housing goals to create a more affordable and diverse housing stock that matches the composition of Seattle’s workforce. In other words, he wants to ensure that the residents who make Seattle’s neighborhoods unique and enjoyable can continue to live there. On the Council, Mr. O’Brien will work to adjust zoning and land use policies shift toward performance-based criteria as opposed to prescriptive regulations to foster denser and even better neighborhoods.
We appreciate O’Brien’s upbeat style and ability to work with others, accompanied by his realistic approach anchored by a background in business. He lives with his family in Fremont and has worked in the community, notably serving as the Sierra Club Cascade Chapter Chair during its successful effort to defeat the 2007 Roads and Transit measure, which led – with his help – to the landslide victory of the transit-only measure in 2008.
In short, Mike O’Brien’s intelligence and vision make him the best candidate for Position 8, and for Seattle.
This week, voters took three bold steps towards electing the politically courageous leaders we need to bring change to Seattle.
Through Friday afternoon's ballot count, Mike McGinn has received the most votes for mayor so far---36,909 (27.6%). This morning, Greg Nickels conceded that he did not get enough votes to break into the top two.
Last month, we described Mike as "a courageous voice of change" and "the candidate we need to get the politics we deserve instead of the politics we have." We stand by that assessment, and we hope you will join us in supporting Mike this fall.
To get involved with the McGinn for Mayor campaign, contact Derek Farmer at (206) 303-8297 or derek.farmer@gmail.com.
We’re also happy to report that Mike O'Brien emerged as the clear choice for Seattle City Council Position 8, winning the most votes by far---34.52%---of any candidate in a crowded six-way race.
As we said in our endorsement of Mike O'Brien, he "will be a visionary leader on City Council---someone who is politically courageous and well-equipped to deal with the practicalities of budgeting and policymaking."
Volunteer to help Mike O'Brien join the Council by contacting Dan Schwartz at (206) 302-9737 or info@obrienforseattle.com.
In the three-way race for Seattle City Council Position 6, Jessie Israel received a strong vote of approval from the voters who are looking for a choice. Jessie got 35,837 votes, or 29.69%.
In the fall, as more voters learn about Jessie, we know that they will find she is a driven, experienced, and innovative leader who will bring change to City Hall.
In other election news, we're sorry to report that the Green Bag Fee is going down 46.66% to 53.34% by today's count.
Happily, however, the gap is much narrower now than it was on Election Night, suggesting that younger voters (who tend to mail their ballots the latest) support the bag fee. In the future, we’re confident that a new generation of leaders will be ready to adopt a bag fee again.
As Mike says, "we need leaders who have the courage to move beyond old approaches and short-term expediency and make decisions based on a commitment to creating a Seattle that is environmentally sound, socially just, and economically sustainable."
[Read the text of the whole email after the jump.]
City council position 8 candidate David Miller continued his near monopoly on union support today when he received three more labor endorsements. . . . Miller also has the backing of most of Seattle's Democratic districts.
His position 8 opponent Mike O'Brien has a similar level of support within the environmental community, including the backing of the Sierra Club, Washington Conservation Voters, the Cascade Bicycle Club, and Friends of Seattle.
We endorse YES for the Green Bag Fee; Mike McGinn for Mayor; Jessie Israel (Pos. 6) and Mike O'Brien (Pos. 8) for City Council
Our complete 2009 Voters Guide (Primary Election Edition), which includes a detailed analysis of each candidate, a description of the endorsements process and evaluation criteria, candidate questionnaires and interview videos, is available here.
Mike O'Brien for Position 8 is perhapsour most important endorsement in this election. Mr. O’Brien will be a visionary leader on City Council---someone who is politically courageous and well-equipped to deal with the practicalities of budgeting and policymaking (Mr. O’Brien has an economics degree from Duke University, has a MBA from the University of Washington, and was the Chief Financial Officer of a major Seattle law firm).
Mr. O’Brien’s positions exhibit an understanding of what it will take to make getting around Seattle easier. We like his approach to redefine SDOT's mission as moving people and goods (as stated in his interview) and to increasing our investments in bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure to better match their growing mode share. He was fluent with the details too, offering the most concrete ideas of any candidate for improving the Bicycle Master Plan (e.g., “the city should experiment with different models for grade separation of bicycles on busy roadways”). As a businessman, he offers smart ideas for funding – including transportation benefit districts and per-mile-driven tolling (as stated in his interview).
Mr. O’Brien’s position on the deep-bore tunnel reflects Friends of Seattle’s stance more than any other candidate for Position 8. He convincingly argues that the mobility structure needed for the 2020s and 2030s and beyond does not include a multibillion tunnel that will divert resources from other more important transportation, housing, and educational investments. In his interview, Mr. O’Brien pointedly criticized elected leaders for presenting false choices and bad options to the voters (the tunnel and the 2007 Roads and Transit measure being prime examples), and he pledged to give Seattle the better transportation choices we need.
Mr. O’Brien’s approach to land use is equally as impressive. Taking a common-sense approach, he suggests we need to better define our land use and housing goals to create a more affordable and diverse housing stock that matches the composition of Seattle’s workforce. In other words, he wants to ensure that the residents who make Seattle’s neighborhoods unique and enjoyable can continue to live there. On the Council, Mr. O’Brien will work to adjust zoning and land use policies shift toward performance-based criteria as opposed to prescriptive regulations to foster denser and even better neighborhoods.
We appreciate O’Brien’s upbeat style and ability to work with others, accompanied by his realistic approach anchored by a background in business. He lives with his family in Fremont and has worked in the community, notably serving as the Sierra Club Cascade Chapter Chair during its successful effort to defeat the 2007 Roads and Transit measure, which led – with his help – to the landslide victory of the transit-only measure in 2008.
In short, Mike O’Brien’s intelligence and vision make him the best candidate for Position 8, and for Seattle.
Two of my biggest priorities are transportation and housing, which will both be crucial as we work to keep Seattle great in the coming years. Specifically, I want to focus on creating affordable housing within the city that corresponds to jobs at all income levels, so that everyone who works in Seattle will have a viable housing option in the city. As we work to create this housing, we need to be creative about zoning and land use so that we evolve compact, pedestrian-oriented communities that are well connected to a robust transit infrastructure, encourage interaction between neighbors, and can accommodate varying family sizes and needs across the income spectrum.
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).
In 2007 and 2008 I helped lead the effort to defeat the flawed roads and transit package (RTID) and then return with a transit-only package. The pressure to go along with most local leaders, who insisted that roads were politically necessary to get transit, was immense. By being willing to fight the status quo, I showed that not only was there a better way, but that the public agreed. This chapter was finished last fall when I collaborated with many of the people we were fighting in 2007 to bring back a mass transit system without road expansion which passed with overwhelming public support. Having the courage to fight for the best that we are capable of in a manner that allows for collaboration later is a skill often lacking in elected officials.
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?
There is a tendency to assume that Seattle's priorities are at odds with other parts of the region and the state. But it's not really a zero sum game where meeting the budgetary and policy needs of one area means another has to give something up. We all benefit when the communities around us are strong. So what is needed is more dialogue between Seattle and King County, the region, the state legislature, and the governor that is based on mutual respect and the assumption that we can craft solutions that reflect everyone's needs and priorities.
City Council Committees
If you are elected, which issues would you like included in your portfolio as a committee chair?
I am most interested in serving on the land use and transportation committees, and would love to leave office someday knowing that I had left Seattle more environmentally sound, economically sustainable, inclusive, and healthy than I found it. I hope to establish a track record of making major, measurable progress on reducing our environmental footprint, making it feasible for people of all income levels and backgrounds to live here, and creating safe, vibrant neighborhoods for these people to live in.
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 adopteda 20-cent "green fee" for disposable shopping bags.
Do you support the green fee? Why or why not?
Yes. Ireland's experience with a bag tax shows that plastic bag usage is clearly a behavior that we can easily change if we decide to do so. Pollution and litter create costs for all of society, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to establish an economic mechanism to help cover those costs and encourage more responsible behaviors.
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?
I do not support the tunnel, and would prefer the surface/transit option recommended by the Stakeholders' Committee, which I served on. We as a city need transportation solutions that are cost-effective and in line with our vision of the future that we want to create. The tunnel doesn't meet either of these criteria, so I think we should focus our effort and money on improving our public transit system, fixing the inefficiencies on I-5, managing traffic intelligently, improving connections between urban centers, and adding bike lanes - all integrated with compact growth strategies. We probably have enough pavement already if we use it more efficiently and give travelers better choices.
If you support the tunnel, what would you do to address the cost-overruns issue?
N/A
If you oppose the tunnel, what would you do to prevent its implementation?
As a council member, I would not vote to approve funding for the tunnel's construction and would work to persuade the rest of the council to do the same. At the same time, I would advocate for alternatives like those mentioned above.
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?
We need to look at ways that the city can use its control of the streets to improve throughput for people and freight, rather than cars. This means exploring possible solutions like granting signal priority for buses, dedicating lanes along critical corridors, and re-evaluating on-street parking in areas where additional free lanes could significantly improve traffic flow. The city should coordinate with Metro to develop "pay-on-the-platform" systems and consolidate stops in some places. We should also consider establishing a Transportation Benefit District in the city to improve our ability to fund our own transit.
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?
I support the Bicycle Master Plan as a great start, but we have underfunded our bike infrastructure for so long that we have a lot of catching up to do. Specifically, the city should experiment with different models for grade separation of bicycles on busy roadways. Especially downtown, we should ensure safe routes to schools for all kids and safe commuter routes for workers. Car facilities like on-street parking should be gradually but steadily shifted to bike and pedestrian use-- Copenhagen had great success with an incremental approach like this, and there are many useful lessons there. We also need to increase the education and outreach component of the plan. As new transit facilities come on line (light rail and bus rapid transit), neighborhoods along the corridors served by these should receive heavy outreach and investment to encourage biking and walking to the stations to expand their reach without costly and problematic park and ride lots.
If you support it, how do you suggest the City fund the plan?
The city should look at different tolling models to help manage road demand. In addition to road maintenance, the tolling revenue should be used in part to support expanding transit, bike and pedestrian investments. The city also should look into a transportation benefit district (TBD), either alone or in combination with adjacent jurisdictions, to expand funding for transportation alternatives.
Do you support the Pedestrian Master Plan? [Yes/No only please]
Yes.
If you support it, do you have ideas for improving the plan?
I think we should experiment with turning retail corridors like 45th St. in Wallingford into pedestrian, bike, and transit-only zones. The Pike Place Market and our local farmers' markets show what a street can become, whether temporarily or permanently, when cars are excluded or given lowest priority, and I think there are opportunities to do this in various parts of the city.
If you support it, how do you suggest the City fund the plan?
Same as for the bike master plan - tolling and TBD.
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 - absolutely.
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?
We need more housing almost everywhere, but I would start in corridors with robust transportation alternatives. This includes Light Rail, Rapid Ride BRT, and major bike facilities. I would also support more housing near job centers.
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?
Moving to a floor area ratio (FAR) is a good start as it allows more units that are smaller (and more affordable) in a given lot. We need to shift to performance-based criteria as opposed to prescriptive regulations. The city should lay out some broad goals such as: drastically increasing the amount of affordable market rate housing; better interaction with the street and neighborhood; design and amenities that encourage alternatives to a car dominated lifestyle; sustainable design elements to lower the long term cost of operating the building. Then we give designers maximum flexibility to meet these goals in creative and unique ways that work best for particular sites and neighborhoods.
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.
