There's an elephant on the horizon. It's called annexing North Highline in unincorporated King County. In the August primary, the southern part of North Highline will be voting whether to join Burien. That leaves Seattle open to annexing the rest of North Highline--something Mayor Nickels has been advocating for several years. He has a city employee whose working day is dedicated to making this annexation happen.

It will be the next City Council that can put the brakes on this annexation. So my question is do you want a person on the City Council who is already knowledgeable about this, and who knows if annexation would be a plus for the city? Then you should consider voting for David Miller for City Council. As President of the Maple Leaf Community Council he spoke against this issue before our current City Council. I believe the city has a difficult time keeping up with today's needs of the city. Do we want to take on more needs?

"He lacks a long background of involvement in local issues, but he clearly possesses the energy, intelligence, independence, and managerial temperament to do the job well. He understands the world beyond government and politics."

Actually, Mallahan has had about zero involvement in local issues and there's tens of thousands of people in our City who possess the "energy, intelligence, independence, and managerial temperament to do the job well," but that does not mean they would make a decent Mayor. Those tens of thousands of people also "understand the world beyond government and politics," but we're electing a Mayor who's primary job will be to understand the actual world of government and politics (in a recent interview Mallahan stated that it's not the Mayor's job to make political decisions, seriously? Then what's the Mayor's job?); why in the world would we want someone running our City who doesn't understand the things that actually matter to his job and knows virtually nothing about the issues and policies that they'll be dealing with on a daily basis?

Add in Mallahan's poorly run campaign in which he's demonstrated almost a complete lack of knowledge on the issues, no vision of where he would take our City, continual flip-flops on positions or a lack of a strong position on the issues, a nasty negative tone (constant attacks on Nickels) and the fact that he either lied in an interview about where his money comes from or just has no idea what's going on with his campaign finances (publicola.net/?p=10768); and you get probably the weakest candidate in the Mayor's race. We should all be ashamed of ourselves if this guy buys the election.

Wow, Van Dyk. Your selections are somewhat schizophrenic -- you're choosing all of the business people running, and then choosing the radical independent minded people in the remaining council slots. Doesn't make any sense to me.

I am voting for the smartest candidates with clearest track records:
starting with Mike McGinn for Mayor. I think O'Brien is going to be better than Rosencrantz, but I do agree with your Bloom pick. The KC executive race is the most interesting--and there your rationale may be compelling.

I wonder if it would have been appropriate for Ted to at least talk to the candidates before publishing an endorsement piece? He might have discovered that not only have I pushed back on the Mayor, I've won.

When the Mayor is going down the wrong path, the fact I have the broadest set of endorsements in the race for Position 8 will mean I can bring more supporters to the table. Making better decisions for Seattle is not all that difficult. You build a strong support base, energize them, and come armed with facts.

If you're looking for a council candidate with solid and real-world business background, I'm shocked you didn't choose David Miller for position #8. He TEACHES people how to successfully start a business, and owns one himself that advises biotech companies. Seems like an easy choice to me.

So, this is where the David Miller supporters gather.

About Nick Licata, it is not that he says no, it is that he looks for the no, predisposed to the no.
One of his challengers, Jessie Israel is predisposed to the yes, so I am likely opting for Marty Kaplan. I think an architect on the council might cut down on the ugly ideas. The FoS endorsement nearly driving me off that pick.

Huh? "Seattle School District: I voted for Betty Patu and Kay Smith-Blum."

How did you do that, Ted? In primary elections, Seattle School Board candidates run in separate districts. You can't lawfully be registered to vote in both Betty Patu's district 7 AND Kay Smith-Blub's district 5.

Or did you cast a spoiled ballot?

"Referendum 1: No on the shopping-bag tax, which has been misrepresented to voters and would be a stupid nuisance."

Seriously, that's Van Dyk's incisive analysis?

Mis-represented to voters how exactly? In fact, it's been demonstrably misrepresented to voters by the opposition, which most folks know is mainly Big Plastic (Dow, Exxon, et al) that has dumped $1.3 million into fighting this a purely referendum.

That it would be a "stupid nuisance" sounds like the reasoning of an 8 year old. Some reasoning would be in order, as the article's title implies that Van Dyk will tell us why he's voting the way he is.

I find it interesting that Crosscut as an entity cannot endorse candidates but that its writers can publish endorsement's via their columns. This skirting of the restriction shows how useless it is.

Ted Van Dyk issues his annual "kiss of death" endorsement list. We now know who's NOT gonna win.

R on Beacon Hill: Van Dyk doesn't sweat small details like that. He doesn't even live here half the year. When Crosscut pitched themselves as "news from the great beyond," Van Dyk took it seriously.

Rhino: if The Evil Mayor is fer it, Ted is aginst it. You haven't figured that out yet? Van Dyk spent decades pimping for "the Man". Now, he's gotta pretend like he's some kind of renegade rebel.

Thanks for your comments, some of them constructive, others not. The always angry, always nasty Madison Avenue is back again with typical comments. "The Man?"..."rebel?"...what nonsense. My views on candidates and issues, as always, flow only from my concern for the public interest. My piece makes clear the criteria on which I based my own votes. In other circumstances, I might have applied different criteria and cast votes for others. With the national, state and local economies in difficulty, and with public revenues diminishing, I believe it is particularly important this year that we elect men and women not associated with single issues or causes but with independence and the inclination and ability to weigh costs and benefits of the options facing the city.

A couple points: As most Seattleites, I recycle conscientiously. I oppose the bag tax---whether you call it a tax or a fee---because it is a new tax in the midst of an economic downturn. It will add direct and indirect costs for consumers, stores, and the city. The program must be administered and I do not believe for a moment that two city employees will constitute the staffing necessary. Consumers not wishing to pay the tax will need to purchase their own bags. For those who buy groceries filling multiple bags, as most people do, their new bags are unlikely to be as handy or flexible as those presently being used. I think in particular of senior citizens, the handicapped, and others who must carry multiple bags. I could care less who supports or opposes the measure. Many citizens, as I, probably regard this as one intrusion too many by a city government which has not shown itself efficient in administration of almost any program.

Nick Licata, contrary to the comment above, is not disposed to say no.
He is disposed, however, to exercise his responsibility as a Council member to question and examine mayoral and other proposals, as members of a legislative body are supposed to do. Many of his colleagues say yes without anything but the most superficial analysis of the proposals before them---or, often, with no analysis at all. The result has been an unhealthy imbalance of power. A U.S. Congress at national level would never cede its turf to a President as the Seattle City Council has ceded
it to Mayor Nickels.

Ted,

Thanks for elaborating your position on the bag fee. A couple of questions however:

1. You still haven't explained how the fee is "mis-represented" to voters by the proponents of the fee. (Clearly, it's been mis-represented by the main opponents, however.) Moreover, I don't see how a referendum being mis-represented would constitute a substantive reason to vote for or against it.

2. In your arguments against the fee you cite two temporal factors: the current recession and the current city government. Should we take this to mean that when the economy recovers and when we have a new city executive that you would support the fee?

3. Can you explain how the the bag fee would create "indirect" costs for anyone? The costs to consumers are quite clearly direct, and then only in the case of forgetfulness. The cost to the city is probably negative, and it may even be a small revenue-generator. The cost to grocery stores is also almost certainly negative because they get to keep a percentage of the fee, which explains why virtually every grocery store supports the fee.

4. Are you aware that the city (as well as many nonprofits, community groups, and even retailers) are distrbuting free reusable bags? Even when purchased, a reusable bag is rarely more than $1; it's an investment which quickly repays itself, even today, with the 5-cent-plus rebates that virtually every grocery store in the city already provides.

Finally -- and at the risk of sounding snarky -- I have two bones to pick with your argumentation. First, it's irrelevant that you personally recycle. Also, it's a cheap strategy to assert that you don't care who opposes the measure and then in the very next sentence claim that "many citizens" share your belief that it is an intrusion as if these many citizens somehow shore up your position.

There's nothing so terribly wrong with the city's or the county's budget that won't be fixed by economic recovery. Mr. Van Dyk seems to be arguing that we should always be managing for Black Friday. Could we be more prudent? Certainly. Could we have been so prudent that the recession wouldn't have squeezed either government? Unlikely. And if we had somehow managed to pare those budgets down to the point that they were recession proof, we'd be getting a chorus of complaints about how the city and the county aren't doing enough, dammit!

T.M. At national, state and local level we have made commitments which
are structural and which will not be remedied solely by a recovery from the present deep downturn. That is a fundamental problem which must be addressed.

rhino: The imposition of a new tax always imposes new costs on those affected by it. Moreover, it would be levied on people already among the highest taxed in any U.S. city. Yes, it would be particularly untimely now, during a deep downturn, when any tax increase should be avoided.

Later, when recovery comes? I would accept it far more easily but still would have a conceptual problem with it. If new taxes are to be levied, is this the best place to spend them? And is this sort of compulsion--pay a new tax or modify lifelong behavior--appropriate to the problem? Do we have confidence that our bumbling city administration---let us pray it shapes up after the next election---could administer the program as easily and cheaply as it claims?

I did state that I did not care who opposed or supported the measure.
Many appear to support or oppose it because of their like or dislike of environmentalists or the plastics industry. I prefer to judge it independent of such considerations. No, I do not regard as snarky your comment that it is irrelevant that I recycle or that I suspect
many citizens share my instinct of suspicion toward well-meant initiatives which would give greater power over routine daily activities to a local bureacracy. I do suspect many citizens share that view. If the measure fails, it may do so because of that factor rather than on a resistance-to-new-taxes basis. "Many citizens" do not constitute a pro or con interest group. I stated I recycle because I wanted to make clear I am not a bah-humbug resistor.

Voters will be heard Aug. 18. At this moment the measure appears headed toward defeat but that could change.

Ted -- thanks again for your willingness to engage here. I appreciate it, but I find myself frustrated by your argumentation.

In your earlier comments you said that the bag fee would impose "indirect costs." I ask again, what are these indirect costs? Clearly, the fee imposes a modest and occasional -- but direct -- cost on consumers. I can't see how it imposes an indirect cost on stores or the city as you claimed. (Except perhaps in the academic sense that every policy -- and every state of affairs, including business as usual -- imposes indirect costs.) In fact, the bag fee is almost certainly cost-negative for stores and the city.

Also, you still haven't explained how the measure is mis-represented to voters, as you claimed in your original article. (This strikes me as an exceedingly curious objection given the drastic distortions that the opponents have engaged in.) Nor have you explain why a mis-representation to voters would constitute a reason to vote against the fee.

I don't share your cynicism about our city government's administrative capacity, though I suppose reasonable minds can disagree. My understanding is that objective measures of government performance consistently show Seattle to be an exceedingly well-run, efficient, and forward-looking government.

I also don't share your perplexity about the conceptual structure of the fee. It is, in effect, a modest and sensible Pigovian tax -- one, in fact, that already functions well in cities and countries around the world to substantially reduce the needless waste of single-use grocery bags, as well as their attendant natural resources. We may be getting off topic here, but I'm not clear whether you object to Pigovian taxes per se or only to this one in particular?

Mr. Van Dyk,

Thank you for your many explanations. Could you also explain how you can vote for a school board candidate in district 5 and another in district 7? While you are voting in multiple districts, can you explain why Michael DeBell in district 4 did not earn your vote?

You give no explanation for these "votes" only than your dissatisfaction with Director Bass. But why Ms Smith-Blum instead of Mr. Helmstetter or Ms Cullen? In District 7, can you tell us why you prefer Ms Patu instead of Mr. Chin or Mr. Mas?

Which of these candidates is "not associated with single issues or causes but with independence and the inclination and ability to weigh costs and benefits of the options facing the city"?

coolpapa: Thanks. I marked my voter guide and, then, marked my ballot accordingly and mailed it. I wrote the piece thereafter with referral to my voter guide, which contained both the School District 5 and 7 contests and candidates.

A few years ago, when the system was in near-term crisis, I followed Seattle Public School issues quite closely and regularly attended School Board meetings. Since the last School Board election, I have done so less intensely. I voted for Smith-Blum over Cullen and Helmstetter after conferral with several people who follow School Board activities closer than I presently do and whose judgments I trust. Cullen or Helmstetter also would be preferable to Bass, who has been an irresponsible force on the Board for eight years. Cullen and Helmstetter, as well as Smith-Blum, had kids in public schools and had been actively involved in those schools. I also liked Smith-Blum's long experience as a business owner and operator accustomed to making difficult budget and related choices.

I favored Patu because I admire her fierce dedication over a long period
on behalf of kids coming up from the bottom. I think it important that the Board have such a member.

The options weighed by the School Board are, of course, not the same options facing the city and county. But they, too, require tough-minded examination by people who put kids' interests first.

Well, if Ted Van Dyk can vote in two different districts, I'm gonna weigh in from Tacoma - where I've lived for the 5 plus now. Definitely deja vu all over again down here - our mixed use center planning, a linguistic variation on Norm Rice era 'urban villages' is just now getting started here - as it should be, and, unfortunately, following the same corporate/regulatory mediocrity which results in spectacular failure.

As to 'schizophrenic' choices - is the new buzz word for diversity in politics?, if so, please commit me, forthwith. ...if that's what it takes to have a real discussion about real issues and to make a real decision about a community with 'schizophrenic' needs, so be it. Hopefully the feds, and Wall Street, can handle the cost.

For a good current issue in Tacoma check out the TNT's Peter Callaghan writing on Sound Transit. Not credited here is the work of Tacoma mayoral candidate architect Jim Merrit who led the behind the scenes diverse effort at creating an outstanding alternative to the Sound Transit plan.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/callaghan/story/833070.html

FWIW, it is definitely nice to go to a public meeting and see sanity break out.

Oh, Ted, it ain't gonna happen quick in Seattle, it might here.

Interesting.
You are so consistantly raving maniac anti-Nickels, you are almost not credible anymore. Why is 4 more years of Nickels unthinkable?
There is not a candidate out there w/ a vision for the city they are selling. They are all different flavors of anyone but Nickels.

Then you go on to say accurately...

Rep. Ross Hunter is a smart, independent, tough-minded manager unintimidated by interest groups or by county bureaucrats. His critics say he is too tough minded and not sufficiently "collaborative" (shorthand for the lazy, go-along local political style). But that is a plus.

I agree.
But then, isn't this precisely the same type of City Executive Nickels has been? Nickels is too Chicago but we need more people like him at the county and on the school board? I too support Smith-Blum.

I'm just sayin'...

"Nick Licata, contrary to the comment above, is not disposed to say no." - Ted_Van_Dyk

Yes he is disposed to say no.

You are only the authority of your opinion, Ted_Van_Dyk, not mine. You offered nothing more than your opinion as a counter-argument to my opinion.

I like the color blue, and am willing to debate that as well.

I do agree that many of the others on the council are willing to just say yes, but Nick is not running against them.
So, maybe make comparisons between people running against each other?

Anyway, here are my primary top two endorsements (if the Times can, then I can).

http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/search/label/Endorsements%202009

I agree with much of his rationale. I don't know of all of the mayoral candidates, but I haven't been impressed with Councilmember Drago, and I've likened Mayor Nickels to the Daley machine for quite some time. For KC Executive, Ross Hunter has my support, because he's the only one to issue frank talk about examining processes in KC government vs. taking the lazy way out with throw-away solutions such as hiring freezes and across-the-board cuts which merely preserve today's inefficiencies.

"...city government badly in need of shaking up... need independent new leadership..."

Joe Mallahan was not being independent when he decided to NOT 'shake up' the systems' decision to go with the Deep-bore tunnel.

"...in the current environment, our public budgets are overstretched."

The Deep-bore tunnel is far from the best tunnel option, and, it isn't the least expensive. Higher authorities have bet their political futures on the Deep-bore. The 4-lane Cut-n-Cover is the better choice because it maintains the Elliott/Western access, without which 40,000 vehicles daily or 2500 per hour will be directed to the new Alaskan Way with 15-20 stoplights. Even half that much new traffic there will produce bumper-to-bumper gridlock all day long. Ruthless WsDOT directors are watching this farce like Seattle deserves what it gets. It took 7 years for WsDOT to produce the best option... and Seattle's so-called leaders reject it. What a farce! It's another fiasco, that's for sure.

"... these new leaders might be more prickly than those to whom we have grown accustomed, but that would be a plus..."

More prickly than Greg Nickels? How is having a new mayor that's more prickly than Greg Nickels a plus?

McGinn seems to be a personable guy. He has a piercing gaze, unafraid and yet not fearful. This is a quality Seattlers need from the new mayor. Mallahan seems all business, like he's ready to be impersonal.

Sorry Ted. You picked a loser, even if Malahan were to win.

For Mr. Van Dyk to say "I favored Patu because I admire her fierce dedication over a long period on behalf of kids coming up from the bottom. I think it important that the Board have such a member." would be equivalent to endorsing a former beat cop for the City Council. That's a choice that you certainly can make, but just as the skill set for beat cops and city councilmembers are not the same, neither are the skill sets for drop out intervention specialists and school board directors.

Charlie Mas, with long experience and deep knowledge of districtwide issues, is a better choice for the board job of policy and accountability.