Seattle's City Hall: Get the hook!
Two recent votes, committing to big transportation projects without answering the tough questions, convince one observer that 2009 is a fine time to send packing the City Council and Mayor Nickels.
A country seeking change has put Barack Obama in the presidency. It is more than high time that we opt for similar change in Seattle.
Much has been made of the Seattle Mariners' cost inefficiency, parlaying a nearly $120-million 2008 player payroll into the second-worst record in the major leagues. The Mariners' cost inefficiency is topped locally only by the Seattle City Council, whose pay of $104,000 makes it second-highest paid in the country (after Los Angeles) and surely the weakest in any American big city.
A couple weeks back, I was reminded of this as I sat through a ridiculous council meeting in which, by an 8-1 vote (only Nick Licata dissenting), that body overrode its own earlier resolution requiring that Mayor Greg Nickels provide basic financial and other information before moving forward with the Mercer Project. That project is intended to reconfigure traffic patterns in the notorious Mercer Mess off I-5 to conform to the development plans of Vulcan's South Lake Union commercial and residential real estate development. The information was not provided but the council gave the go-ahead anyway to spending of $30 million toward the $230 million project. The project is opposed by community groups in Queen Anne, Magnolia, Interbay, Fremont, and Ballard because, according to the City's own traffic study, it would not ease present congestion in the area but would instead make travel more difficult for commercial and commuter traffic.
Councilwoman Jan Drago, as usual, served as Vulcan's lead agent on the project (as she had, earlier, on behalf of the Allentown Trolley from Westlake Center to South Lake Union). Only Licata asked that the council stick by its earlier position and require facts from Mayor Nickels before approving the Mercer money. Drago and other council members suggested the data could be supplied by Jan. 15 — although there is nothing now to require Nickels to do so— and that the $30-million start should be authorized because federal public-works money conceivably could be forthcoming for the project. (There is no factual basis at this point for that assertion). Councilman Richard McIver had been expected to vote with Licata but, at last minute, voted "yes" on the basis, as he put it, that "it looks as if we are going to approve this so I guess I will vote for it."
The Mercer Project has been discussed over many months within the council but Councilman Bruce Harrell, in his remarks, exhibited general ignorance of it and voted yes for no apparent reason. ("Didn't this guy say he used to run a law firm?" my seatmate asked, "how could he be so ignorant of such a major issue?"). Council President Richard Conlin, who earlier had voted for submission of the required data, reversed himself with accompanying comments to the effect that big cities should get used to dense traffic. Councilman Tom Rasmussen asked good questions but, in the end, also voted yes. Councilwoman Sally Clark voted procedurally with Licata in asking that the required data be provided but, in the end, voted to go forward without it. Councilmembers Jean Godden and Tim Burgess asked no relevant questions but also reversed themselves and voted to give Nickels the money.
John Fox of the Seattle Displacement Coalition declared after the vote that "at no time in 30 years of our observation of city politics have we seen such a gulf between the citizens and our politicians on the critical issues."
Then, this past Tuesday, they did it again. Spearheaded again by Drago, the council's transportation committee voted, 4-2 (Licata and McIver dissenting), to support development of a streetcar system connecting neighborhoods to downtown and to buses, ferries, and trains. Such a system would be extended from the present Allentown trolley line and, perhaps, a revived Alaskan Way line. It would include lines in Ballard and the University District. Price tag: $600 million.
Again, there were lots of difficult, unanswered questions. Where would construction and operating money come from? Would the streetcar system be a more efficient use of public money than expansion of present bus transit service? (That is, would it carry more people to more destinations for less money than buses?). There were no answers to those questions. Just a go-ahead for the spending of $600 million for a vague streetcar idea.
The proposal will go to a vote by the full council perhaps as early as next week. Innumerable studies have indicated that streetcars would carry fewer passengers more slowly and expensively to their destinations than buses do. Who in Seattle is asking for them, beside those who would profit from them and their foils on the council?
The Mercer Project exemplifies the carelessness and irresponsiblity of the council in allowing Nickels to spend major public money without providing minimal information that would be requested in advance of a routine home repair. The streetcar fiasco demonstrates the council's willful foolishness — perhaps it is not willful but merely silly, sloppy thinking — in pushing forward another expensive transportation-related project which has no rational basis behind it. Licata, speaking charitably, characterized the transportation committee vote as being based on "misguided good intentions."
This is the same council that allowed Nickels to spend highway, bridge, and road maintenance monies on other things for several years and then signed onto a ballot measure socking citizens with extra taxes to pay for maintenance work that should have been included in the regular city budget. It recently backed ballot measures authorizing new taxes for Seattle Public Market and city parks — more purposes which should have been included in the regular budget.
What are these people thinking? Most of them, I have concluded, are not thinking. So what should be done? Mayor Nickels deserves strong opposition for mayor in 2009. Four council seats are to be contested, with incumbents Drago and McIver both thought unlikely to seek reelection. (If Drago does run, she deserves to be defeated one-sidedly.) Conlin has discussed for several months the possibility of a mayoral candidacy, although recently indicating he was finding great satisfaction in his council role. He comes across as moderate and eager-to-please but keeps making truly dumb proposals, such as that for the streetcar system. He also should be replaced. Licata (whose seat is also up next year) has been a constructive councilmember with some sense of the Seattle community's greater good. That was also true of Peter Steinbrueck when he was on the council. Either Licata or Steinbrueck should challenge Nickels in 2009. If neither does, some other substantive and serious person should do so.
A state legislative candidate told me recently that, in his extensive canvass of his district, he found a huge majority of his constituents wanting Nickels gone — and most of the council sent packing, too. I agree. These people are the most incompetent I have seen over 50 years' observation of executive and legislative bodies at federal, state, and local level. They appear not to recognize that they are supposed to give critical scurtiny, not rubber-stamp approval, to the mayor's spending and other proposals. Moreover, they clearly do not recognize the financial and economic squeeze presently besetting both the city and its taxpayers. To borrow a phrase from 19th century Virginia Sen. John Randolph, their performance "stinks like a mackeral in the moonlight." If you care about the city, step forward and run for the council next year.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Dec 5, 7:25 a.m. Inappropriate
My my Ted. The Seattle City Council and Mayor perfectly reflect the idiocy and lunacy of the liberal mind which also lacks any notion of common sense so I'm pleased (but surprised) that you would suggest replacing them.
Of course if you replace them with Obama types then you are changing socialist loons to Communist loons so where would the difference be?
Posted Fri, Dec 5, 9:18 a.m. Inappropriate
Ted, I can't agree with you more. As a retired Seattle native, I have attempted to communicate with the Council and Mayors' office for the last couple years. I innocently thought they were interested in citizen input. What a fool I was! I would have to say the funniest one was when Bruce Harrell was profiled in the Ballard Tibune; about wanting to come up with a system for having better interaction with average citizens. I emailed him encouragement in that idea: I never received a response. The usual response of our officials (I don't like calling them leaders), is they know better then you, or they shuffle their responsibility to someone else.
Posted Fri, Dec 5, 1:31 p.m. Inappropriate
Ted,
Thank you for this article, I'm sending it to all my politically active friends. If we are to unseat Quimby---er, Nickels and his brood, we have to start now.
If it were just these crazy transportation plans it would be bad enough, but its also the zoning rulings, the pie in the sky environmental aspirations, and the friend to development, and foe to labor, commerce, the homeless and the middle class stance that the city has adopted under this guy that makes me wonder if I will be allowed to live in Seattle in the near future.
Quimby must go.
Posted Fri, Dec 5, 2:26 p.m. Inappropriate
I don't live in Seattle, so am not quite as impacted by the Council's decisions. However, if we're really serious about fighting global warming, then we need to set some goals of reductions in vehicle miles traveled, reduced CO2, etc, then figure out what some realistic alternatives are to get there. Tax dollars are not a bottomless pit. I applaud Councilmember Licata for asking the questions and for sticking his neck out.
Posted Fri, Dec 5, 3:07 p.m. Inappropriate
Hey Ted,
If they're all so inept and you're so smart, so experienced, and so well-connected, why don't YOU run?
Posted Fri, Dec 5, 5:44 p.m. Inappropriate
its the seattle liberal way, vote for the liberal banner, don't concern yourself with what they do - it's easier than thinking !
Posted Sat, Dec 6, 6:47 p.m. Inappropriate
In the times article, it was stated that ridership was fractionally above original projections (good) but over 80% of the riders (surveyed somewhat informally without much detail provided) used their Metro bus-passes to pay for the ride. Hmmm, $600 million for the streetcars which run on dedicated at grade tracks, which stop for every light? 80% of the ridership are displaced bus passengers, so no real revenue stream...Why would the council even consider this? The solution can be had for much cheaper by adding more buses running more frequently, and congestion based parking downtown.
Instead, the council and Emperor Nickels want a bright shiny system of congestion producing, static, expensive and traffic-accident prone street cars rather than ad-decked buses (after all, the county runs buses, and we must have our own duplicative mass transit system--we need one more transit agency, the 25 we have are not enough...)
Posted Sun, Dec 7, 7:41 a.m. Inappropriate
JayDee23 is correct on all points. Moreover, the Times story to which he/she refers related that the reports of better-than-projected ridership on the Allentown trolley came from drivers' informal estimates. I have ridden the Allentown trolley twice, and observe it frequently, and have never seen more than a half-dozen passengers aboard it.
The demand for an expensive streetcar system does not come simply from the mayor's and council's wish for shiny toys. As a council member told me, after the vote authorizing the Allentown trolley: "What could we do? Vulcan lobbyists were flooding city hall and dispensing campaign contributions." I suggested to him that, if they thought the trolley a bad idea, they should have voted no. His reaction indicated that option had not even been considered.
Posted Sun, Dec 7, 8:10 p.m. Inappropriate
Ted:
Regarding the Allentown trolley, I think you are spot on.
Posted Sun, Dec 7, 9:22 p.m. Inappropriate
Ted, that is scary. When a body does not even consider the option of voting 'no', it's time for that body to go.
Posted Sun, Dec 7, 9:56 p.m. Inappropriate
Actually the 9 member city council has had 18 different members over the past 10 years, a fairly large turnover rate. That is higher than among the county council, ensconced as they are in their carefully crafted and secure district seats.
Looking at the margins by which the Sound Transit proposal passed in various Seattle Legislative districts, the 36th 71% to 29%, the 37th 68% to 32% and the 43rd 81% to 19%, I would be very surprised if Seattle voters would not approve a large trolley expansion by an overwhelming margin.
Ted Van Dyk is out of touch with the voters of his adopted city. His choice for governor of Washington was rejected by well over 80% of his fellow Seattleites and his recommendations on the two bond issues and the Sound Transit proposal were also soundly rejected.
I share Mr. Van Dyk's dislike for the current Mayor, but the Mayor has no credible opponent on the horizon at this time and he will have an enormous war chest going into the campaign and will use City Hall, staffers and resources, as an instrument in his campaign. He did it last time and will do so again. There will be two, maybe three, new council members. That is the extent of change we will see. No Hook at City Hall this time.
Posted Mon, Dec 8, 9:45 a.m. Inappropriate
Very well stated, RCR. The availability of 2-3 new council seats will draw all the political energy this cycle, leaving Conlin to run essentially unopposed and giving Nickels a third term. You've also hit on the essential weakness of Ted Van Dyk as a local political commentator--he doesn't have much experience with Seattle politics and he's really from Washington D.C., not from here.
As for Mayor Nickels, his go-go pro-development and pro-business policies have left Seattle in a far more prosperous place than just about any other jurisdiction locally (King County) or nationally. Greg needs to rein in his ego, but his folks go to work every day and it's unlikely that anyone viable will take him on, much less beat him.
Posted Mon, Dec 8, 10:44 a.m. Inappropriate
Good comments all around. Yes, I have spent far more time in my working life in Washington, DC than locally. However, all told, I have spent some 36 years in the Puget Sound area, graduated from the UW, worked here on two previous occasions, and have spent the past eight years observing and writing about local and state isues.
RCR makes useful comments about the degree to which local voters went for this year's Prop. 1, investing billions in a grossly cost-ineffective light rail system, and the fact that they also approved local levies and endorsed a second term for Gov. Gregoire one-sidedly. Seattle voters indeed have a consistent history of taxing themselves, even for highly dubious purposes, and of voting heavily Democratic in all circcumstances.
I have been an active, lifelong Democrat but am first and foremost someone favoring responsible, serious governance. That is why I have opposed
policies and candidates favoring single- and special-interest agendas over
those benefitting the general welfare.
Yes, I think Seattle voters were mistaken in going for light rail, which was presented as something entirely different than what it is. It is a streetcar line which will move far fewer people between far fewer destinations, more expensively, than alternative bus transit systems.
The monies devoted to light rail not only will divert resources from
less costly transit systems but from other public purposes far more important to the region. We love our parks and public market. But the mayor and city council should have provided for them through the regular city budget and not through new taxes. It was a close call but I endorsed
Rossi over Gregoire because I thought she had contributed greatly to the
perilous financial/economic condition of the state and should be held accountable for it.
Voters should cast ballots according to their best judgment. But it is my job to call 'em as I see 'em and not endorse ideas or candidates merely because they are expected to prevail. Similarly, in our system of representative government, it is council members' job to cast votes for
proposals and programs which they believe are good for the city---not to go along passively with mayoral or special-interest proposals because it is the path of least political resistance.
The current proposals for the Mercer Project and streetcar-line extensions
are, by any measure, unnecessary wastes of scarce public money. No city
can continue to pursue such expensive and inefficient projects without harming its economy, burdening business and individual taxpayers unfairly and, in the end, creating a populist revolt. The revolt will come, perhaps in 2009, perhaps later, but the present course cannot be sustained.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.