Joe Who? and Mike Who-Dat?
The public had long ago soured on Mayor Nickels, but we ended up with two very unknown challengers. Here's how the political cards might be reshuffled.
Earlier this summer, Seattleites worried whether or not there were any qualified candidates to take on a vulnerable Greg Nickels. Tim Burgess, Peter Steinbrueck, Richard Conlin, Greg Smith, and others passed on the challenge this time around, leaving the campaign so bereft that sex columnist Dan Savage threatened the city with electoral extortion: If no one else better qualified runs against Nickels, I will.
Staring into that abyss, the dynamic of the race changed when Jan Drago jumped in. She might be Nickels-in-a-skirt from a policy standpoint, but she was credible and willing to make the challenge. Nickels had coasted to his first re-election four years ago by scaring out the talent. This time around, the retiring-from-the-City-Council Drago had nothing to lose by taking on Boss Hoss' machine (and Tim Ceis' glare).
This mayor's race has been a case of the people being way ahead of the politicians: Nickels has been unpopular for a long while, and the citizens are restless. As the field shaped up with Drago, Mike McGinn, and Joe Mallahan, the question wasn't superstar status, but could any of these candidates offer a credible alternative to the status quo? Drago ran a poor campaign and faded, though she may have shaved off some votes that otherwise might have gone to Nickels. Mallahan and McGinn became not the perfect candidates, but the good-enough candidates.
Few expected Nickels to be "Schelled" in the top-two primary, an ignominious fate reserved for the likes of WTO mayor Paul Schell and Mt. St. Helens governor Dixy Lee Ray. But it looks like that's what's happened, if Nickels late numbers don't unexpectedly surge in a new direction. So far, his opponents are solidifying their positions in the top slots.
So the city is shifting from having one experienced, though disliked, mayor, to the possibility of choosing between two better liked, but very much unknown quantities who are the products of the voters' own disenchantment. It's not just new over the old, it's the very much unknown over the known. A case of the devils we don't know being better than the one we do.
The mayorship may be a poisoned chalice, looking a bit more like the King County Executive office which presides over a rapidly collapsing bureaucratic empire. The city is faced with a massive budget hole &mdash: the newest number is $72.5 million. Terrible news for the city, sobering news for the growth-at-any-cost crowd, and a figure that will help frame the debate over the downtown bored-tunnel project. Can we really afford the damn thing after all? Is it an over-priced boondoggle that resulted from too many compromises and too much stakeholder appeasing? Could it be the tunnel version of the Green Line monorail, a fancy flub dub with a very high price-tag? McGinn based his campaign on being the tunnel monkey-wrencher, bringing together an odd coalition of urban greens and fiscal conservatives. There's something almost Charlie Chongish about that coalition.
McGinn is a big thinker himself, a guy who talks about making Seattle a "great city," which I hear as "watch out for this guy." Greatness is not what we need; how about the basics, please? Yet he's more in tune with the immediate times, an adjustment of the Nickels era sense that Seattle's pockets are bottomless, that every almost project can get the nod (trollies, rail, roads, Mercer, tunnel...). One thing old-school environmentalists and sustainability advocates used to be about was conservation of resources and doing more with less. The Great Recession may force us to scale back our appetites, especially since there's so much expensive stuff in the pipelines already (the next phase of Sound Transit, the 520 Bridge replacement).
I read the bag tax defeat as an indication that the people want to slow down the flow of cash from their pockets these days. It's easy to blame the big bad chemical industry, but the bag tax from the very beginning was opposed by a majority who felt it was all stick and no carrot, both trivial and painful, like a bee sting. Proponents will argue that eventually, from a policy standpoint, fees like the bag tax make sense because they make transparent and charge the user the true cost of dealing with the bags in the waste stream. Interesting policy theory, but an irritating, even alienating, way to make a point.
From folks I talked to, Joe Mallahan is an unknown, but seems like a stand-up guy, one who comes with less baggage than a Sierra Club populist. Business interests might well coalesce around him as more acceptable to the powers that be: a corporate executive with real management experience, someone who's not going to unmake the Alaska Way Viaduct replacement compromise. If McGinn is working the trick of creating new oddball urban coalitions, Mallahan seems more like a real "Seattle Way" kind of guy. I expect mainstream supporters like the Seattle Times editorial board which mildly endorsed Mallahan in the primary along with Nickels, to warm up to his approach over McGinn's. That "Outstanding" Mallahan received from the Municipal League is a badge of normalcy that says to the Chamber and the Alki Foundation types, "he's not too out there."
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Fri, Aug 21, 7:06 a.m. inappropriate
McGinn and Mallahan made it through the primary with negative campaigning against Mayor McCheese. With the bogeyman gone they will have to either shift into constructive dialogue, or start a good ol' Irish civil war. Neither is good at the former, so it is likely to be the latter.
Posted Fri, Aug 21, 7:39 a.m. inappropriate
What will Nickels do for the next few months? Lame ducks last longer with this early primary. Looks like a downer for a few months.
Look for a much stronger City Council, which is likely to run over either one of the newbies in the contest for Mayor while they're still getting organized.
A couple of council members with their eyes on the Mayor's job four years from now are about to become the leading characters in the next City Hall drama.
Posted Fri, Aug 21, 8:18 a.m. inappropriate
Can we really afford the bored-tunnel project? Yes we can, if we forgo luxury projects such as the $500,000,000 total makeover of SLU, about half of which will be aimed a gussying up 6 blocks of Mercer Street. makeover. SLU is Paul Allen's sandbox, so let him pay for all that, because $5 bil is chump change to him. That would free up half a $ billion to pay for a big chunk of Seattle's share of the viaduct replacement.
If we don't suck it up and get cracking on the the tunnel, the Viaduct will eventually fall down and not just kill people, its repair (in situ or elsewhere) will cause ongoing, massive traffic disruption the ongoing mashup of game nights, ferry landings, cruise ship landings, and Port traffic trying to work their way around a big nasty pile of rubble.
McGinn is a dreamer if he thinks the Viaduct can be replaced by a surface option that will seamlessly handle all this within a corridor that is permanently constrained by the Amtrak line at the north end of Alaskan Way. Funneling an extra 110,000 vehicles per day through downtown streets and I-5 won't cut it. Increasing the traffic capacity of I-5 downtown is inconceivable because of permanent space constraints (e.g., buildings that span the freeway) and a construction traffic nightmare that would go on for years.
Posted Fri, Aug 21, 9 a.m. inappropriate
Now that the primary smoke (blown by candidates and interest groups) has cleared, perhaps the lackadaisical media will explore some of the over-the-top campaign promises of the winners. For starters, here’s one of Mr. McGinn’s that needs dissection: “TECHNOLOGY: Seattle needs to upgrade its Internet infrastructure to faster fiber optic networks to connect more people and stay competitive in the world economy.”
As a daily Internet user for both pleasure and business, I’ve not experienced a disconnect from the world that Mr. McGinn seems to be talking about. Does he want the City to build a network? If so, how much and where’s the money? Will I then have the choice of a public option and be able to cancel my adequate 1.5 Mb MSN/Quest broadband account, get even faster service, and save money? What about the private companies that ply me daily with offers for upgrades and have already built fiber optic networks leading to my block? Will they start a big fight and perhaps a referendum against Mr. McGinn’s Internet tax? Help! Somebody, please explain.
Posted Fri, Aug 21, 10:21 a.m. inappropriate
Any solution for the viaduct that does not maintain at least its current capacity is a giant mistake. Voters knew this all along in spite of the hurricane of political scamming, PR and spin by experts, stakeholders and speculators who saw it only as a hugely profitable amenity for downtown, rather than the critical transportation element that it is. It is irresponsible to assume that cars will not remain the transportation of choice for years to come. This issue alienated a lot of voters.
The rebuild or retrofit solution utilizing contemporary construction techniques is still arguably the best solution. If the elevated or tunnel solution was voted on tomorrow, a choice never offered to voters, the tunnel would lose and the elevated would win.
Posted Fri, Aug 21, 10:38 a.m. inappropriate
I personally think the surface option makes the most sense to replace the Viaduct. First, in terms of cost, the surface option is a no-brainer: way cheaper. Plus, you only need four through lanes plus a turn lane to have the same lane capacity, and rerouting rail or arterials minimally as needed.
The problem with the rebuild option is that the Viaduct is possibly the most hideous structure in Western Washington, sending car exhaust and noise into neighboring buildings, blotting out the sun, and creating a desolate, tourist-unfriendly industriscape along our historic waterfront. If Paul Allen had assets along the waterfront, the Viaduct would have been torn down ages ago. The Viaduct should never have been built in the first place, and our forebears who built it were profoundly myopic in doing so.
I *personally* think reducing traffic capacity on 99 through Seattle would be helpful because over a few years it would force people to live closer to their jobs and switch to transit more and more; I understand that lots of people don't like that kind of paternalism, but it's not like we have unlimited ways to squeeze road capacity into downtown (and it's not like a tunnel would be expansible to accommodate future traffic loads anyway).
A deep-bore tunnel could *always* be added in the future when we have the money, if we wanted it. But it's kind of a stupidly pricey adventure to embark on with $75 city deficit in the middle of a recession.
One thing no one points out is that a huge portion of traffic on the current Viaduct is traffic heading through Seattle, not into or out of Seattle. Yet, the tunnel funding mechanism apparently puts Seattle property owners up for cost overruns--to pay for a road that takes a lot of people through and not into our city. How lame is that? Seems like property owners from Everett to Tacoma and out to Redmond and Bellevue should also be on the line to pay for cost overruns.
I think Seattleites like me oppose the tunnel might be more open to it if we felt like the region were really anteing up for something that benefits them way more than it does your average Seattleite.
Posted Fri, Aug 21, 10:51 a.m. inappropriate
Nice piece Mr. Berger.
"Interesting policy theory, but an irritating, even alienating, way to make a point."
I would like to say that the quote above is disingenuous. I think that you would agree that there are certain costs associated with certain human activities that are not borne by the individual(s) inflicting that cost. Grocery bags are just a small example and perhaps not a perfect one. It's not just the petroleum used to make plastic bags, but the landfill costs, blocked drainage costs and harm to wildlife and trees that the users of such bags are not paying for, by receiving them gratis from their grocer.
Paper bags present different, but still negative cost externalities. While more easily degradeable, inefficient use of them can lead to excess harvesting of paper trees.
It is far more efficient for the ultimate, read end-user, of the external cost inducing product to pay for the internalizing of those costs. To extend this argument, this is why most economists and policy experts understand that a carbon tax is more efficient than a cap-and-trade system for the cessation of increases in CO2 emissions.
What is difficult is deciding how much the fee should be. It is a hard job to determine the actual cost in dollars of these externalities. Equally, determining how much pollution is the optimal amount is fraught with peril. Still it should be done as best as it can be.
You may be right that it is irritating to pay such fees and taxes, but these measures are not undertaken to "make a point" as you put it. They are undertaken in order for polluters (a confederacy in which we all take part) to pay for the privilege of polluting.
For this vote in particular, I'm curious about the demographics. I read the median age of Seattle voters in this election was around 57. I would imagine that older people who have had the opportunity to do all they like for their entire lives without having to pay for the consequences (really a tidy summation of the baby-boomers and to a lesser extent their parents) were the most reticent to embrace this particular type of change.
Posted Fri, Aug 21, 5:13 p.m. inappropriate
I agree with the comparison with Paul Schell.
Posted Fri, Aug 21, 6:59 p.m. inappropriate
Joe I-don't-have-anything-better-to-do-so-I-might-as-well-run-for-mayor Mallahan? I work(Ed) for T-Mobile so I can manage a City of 500,000?
Seattle, are you kidding me?
McGinn's focus may be narrow, but at least he has one. Everyone who believes the deeply boring tunnel will be delivered on WSDOT's budget can covet my share of the overruns.
We need a tunnel to maintain capacity for freight and drive-thru traffic? Make 'em drive at night!
Time to change with the times, downtown business, Muni League etc. are not going to lead the charge.
Posted Fri, Aug 21, 11:36 p.m. inappropriate
Mudbaby & jmrolls, The Deep-bore isn't the best tunnel option because it directs too much traffic onto the new Alaskan Way -- 40,000 daily or 2500 per hour (plus or minus depending on the time of day) which now access SR-99 at Elliott and Western. Don't forget the 13 sidestreets between Pike and King will have stoplights. Even half that much additional traffic there will produce gridlock all day long. WsDOT video shows the new Alaskan Way with 4 lanes. Get a clue. WsDOT will quietly make it 6 lanes, and even so, gridlock will prevail.
The next mayor must shake up SDOT and WsDOT. How could SDOT department heads have proposed running the streetcar line right through the middle of the wide plaza for 5 years and not known from the start that this is completely unsafe and operationally difficult? How could WsDOT have taken 7 years to produce so many completely unfeasable AWV replacement options? How could city leaders let this farce go on as long as it has?
The best tunnel option is WsDOT's Scenario 'G' 4-lane Cut-n-cover tunnel, designed after voters rejected their 6-lane version in 2007, and designed to reduce construction disruption. Coincidentally, the 4-lane version is about $900 million less expensive than the Deep-bore and handles traffic better. It has enough capacity, jm, if speed is limited to 40mph, a good idea anyway. The 4-lane Cut-n-cover would also create probably twice as many construction jobs. It includes a probably permanent bridge over the railroad tracks at Broad St. The smaller trench is built while leaving the AWV in place up til the Lower Belltown segment. Normal Alaskan Way traffic is diverted around the trench (built in 2-block segments) under the AWV and returned to the surface above completed segments. It's a manageable construction process, even admirable.
The powers-that-be say they don't want the Waterfront District to go through too much construction disruption. But, there's no avoiding the disruption of removing the AWV, rebuilding the seawall and Alaskan Way. There's something more afoot here than Seattlers are led to believe by the current leaders in City Hall and Seattle's Big Business interests. Mallahan will go along to get along. McGinn has taken a hard to believe though credible stance against waste and for practical and necessary solutions. Mike McGinn is a phenomenal candidate and could become a great mayor. Those who are settling for the Deep-bore, really aren't thinking it through very well.
Posted Sat, Aug 22, 4:33 a.m. inappropriate
George, don't slam all older Seattleites as wasteful boomers, please.
I'm 63, have lived here since 1983, and have long reused my plastic and paper shopping bags. I voted against the plastic bag fee, just as I opposed the latte tax: both were nuisances, more likely to irritate, than promote change.
If we really want to get rid of plastic bags, let's ban them entirely!
Posted Sat, Aug 22, 8:30 a.m. inappropriate
The best solution — and the only one politics allows and the only one Seattle is capable of doing — is to repair the existing Viaduct.
No other solution can gather the political or financial support.
Seattle will not vote to pay for its share of the cost of a tunnel.
The so-called "surface/transit? option is too complicated, with too many moving parts, too much risk to get popular or political support.
Politicians talk a good game about both but they don't have the money for the tunnel or the desire to commit political suicide. Both main alternatives have a great many many rabid opponents.
The bottom line is that we face political stalemate and the default solution is to keep doing what we are already doing: repair the viaduct.
The viaduct is by no means the blight that Seattle group-think considers it to be. All that babble about how "the viaduct cuts off the city from its front door" is PR flack nonsense. In fact, there are realistic options to make the viaduct a positive element in the city and I have discussed some on my blog.
As a former board member of Allied Arts and author of a highly-regarded )by Jane Jacobs, for example) book on urban design, I think that repair is the best of all possible worlds, at least right now in 2009. Plus, repair is what is going to happen so get used to it.
Posted Sat, Aug 22, 9:27 a.m. inappropriate
I'd actually give the NIMBYs to McGinn. He's always been a neighborhood guy about sidewalks and concurrence.
Posted Sat, Aug 22, 11:43 a.m. inappropriate
Mallahan was quoted as saying he would kill the Paul Allen beautification project Mercer, at spend that money where it was intended to go, sidealks and road repair.
Two birds with one stone.
So, Nickels will be voting for... and the people that voted for Nickels... McGinn's sliver of a lead is a hole since he is not actually facing Nickels.
Posted Sat, Aug 22, 12:15 p.m. inappropriate
The return of the choppaduct.
Posted Sat, Aug 22, 6:06 p.m. inappropriate
One of the biggest tragedies of the Nickels and Co. years is the 'scaring away' of any competitive and constructive opposition. Mallahan and McGinn both have the chance to revitalize a healthy civic debate which will hopefully persist past this race - and into the next Council battles.
Mallahan might well be the better manager, but he is also much, much more likely to fall under the sway of the 'greater' Nickel's crew. No doubt he is having these conversations as we speak. The result of this will be Mallahan's measure, not just as a candidate, but as a human male.
Posted Sat, Aug 22, 8:14 p.m. inappropriate
Surface plus transit will be fine.
And not everyone wants the potholes filled. In my neighborhood the potholes are the only way to slow down the vehicles that race through narrow streets past residential/family dwellings.
Posted Sun, Aug 23, 1:57 p.m. inappropriate
The new Mayor of Seattle will either be Richard Conlin or Nick Licata.
I simply cannot see political newbies having any effect as Mayor. McGinn or Mallahan will spend the next four years learning how to be a politician.
Nickels steamrolled the council when he became Mayor. I'm certain the council will not let that happen again, especially with the lack of experience either of the candidates bring to the job.
Posted Mon, Aug 24, 11:26 p.m. inappropriate
Qualified candidates: while for most with the lust for political office-fueled by friends and others disgusted with the status quo-so long as someone else is doing the running-face the reality of the need to raise tons of money, having a lot of such folks biting at him like a flock of mosquitoes coupled with a weak campaign by the incumbent, reminiscent of the Governor's first campaign, brought Goliath down. It just goes to show what it takes to draw votes! There will be no such cover in November. Councilmember Drago may have been credible on paper, but doesn't present herself that way in the handful of times I've observed her-in action and inaction. I disagree with Mr. Berger, she did have something to lose-her donors' money, which is real money that could have been spent more productively in this economy.
Posted Tue, Aug 25, 1:22 p.m. inappropriate
Why do you fall into the trap of assuming Mallahan is anti-union because he works for a non-union company? He has repeatedly stated that he supports unions and the right to organize. Labor made a huge mistake when they funded very negative TV ads opposing him. Now they need to suck it up, sit down and find out who he really is. A public apology is in order--like a full-page ad in the Seattle Times. It's hard to imagine that Labor will either back McGinn or sit this one out.