I couldn't agree more. It's simple math, really. If you shoot down 100% of all ideas with incessant bickering, then you will succeed in shooting down 100% of the bad ones. Good work!

Seattle submitted to the siren song of the car industry and abandoned its trolley cars after ww II as did all u.s. cities... the consequences being all around us... it used lake washington around husky stadium for its dumping ground....and eventually had to cover the area over.... the tiles that fell off the roof of the old stadium... the tacoma narrows bridge that got destroyed by the wind... that 520 bridge that has no walkway...the rails that needed to be replaced in the tunnell... the pollution of elliot bay... all the superfund sites all around... it becoming a one or two company town... if these are the result of process? maybe global warming with dry up the soggy brains of the slugs all around as they process along their hi and bi ways.

"Seattle decision making" is an oxymoron.

I'm having trouble telling whether you think the failure of the Commons at the polls was a good thing or not. Not like my one No vote was the deciding one, but I regret it precisely because we got the development without the park. Yes, taxpayers saved money, but I'd rather our money had gone for parks than for other purposes. (I know it's not all the same pot, but...)

The problem with process is divisiveness stemming from downtown arrogance - that is not a problem easily solved - McGinn is smart enough to have a shot at it.

As the Seattle Commons, the development that has come about was envisioned in a 'high tech' transitional zoning for the area that preceded the more public Commons vote.

FWIW, I'm still waiting for development to be sparked around Seattle Center!

The Seattle Commons - regardless of what you think about its merits or lack thereof - was not an example of the "Seattle Process" - it was killed by two public votes (granted, Commons supporters did their best to avoid those votes, which would have been an excellent example of the "top-down business elites telling the plebes what's good for us" version of the Seattle Process)

...and the idea of spending $290 million on Mercer Street beautification in a way that makes traffic markedly worse and without a public vote is certainly a good example of the latter...

The infamous Seattle 'Process' or 'Way' is surely a sign of insiders dividing the spoils. The public never gets a full airing of pertinent details in public works projects and this sets up contention and discontent, whereby the insiders stand back and watch speculative charges fly and controversy boil. Mass media insiders treat it like a spectacle beneath their royal status to honestly explain while the insiders plot gains and argue over who gets what, resulting in one fiasco after another.

"It’s as if America is some kind of despised abstraction to our ruling class: a faraway colony to plunder, a mass of humanity to use and exploit as it sees fit. In fact, there’s a pretty clear pattern developing of just how much they despise Americans and how little they value our lives and our humanity." writes Mark Ames. Personally, I consider Seattle the most corrupt city on the West Coast. The "Seattle Way" is a ruse.

Count me among those who don't quite understand your point about the Commons in relation to the rest of your article.

What the Seattle Way represents is diverse inclusion and grassroots participation. It is essential to democracy and is rightfully a point of local pride. But it is a double-edged sword. Consensus is almost impossible and sharp and lasting divisions often result. It is far too easy for the participants to fall in love with the process and ignore the goal. To me, the failure of the Seattle Way is its frequent tendency to bog down and never reach a solution. Too often that result is simply inertia.

Building Howard Hanson Dam on a 10,000 year old landslide tailout was flat out bad engineering, not the result of "the Seattle Way" or anything like it. The engineers in charge of that project knew the area under the right abutment was geologically unstable, but they felt--oh well, let's not let the perfect get in the way of this important project that will what was called for in Howard Hanson's boosterish slogan, "More Land For Industry." Back in the 50s, the Corps figured that if any dam stability problems developed, they would deal with later, which they have on several past occasions including the present repair effort.

The way the Corps rolls is the exact opposite of the Seattle way: heirarchical, top-down, military decision-making rationalized with cost-benefit analyses that can be tweaked to support desired outcomes and environmental impacts subordinated to over-arching "public needs." Howard Hanson's efforts to convert a floodprone river valley into a sea of pavement was a forerunner of wave after wave of development carried out in the same spirit (albeit with higher end architecture and better PR) by later generations of players including both Kemper Freemans, Paul Allen, Jason Schnitzer, et al. For these folks "the Seattle Way" is little more than a set of small speed bumps.

As the failed effort to create The Commons at the north end of downtown during buildout of Lake Union illustrates, developers wind up hoovering profits on real estate booms regardless of whether the public benefits or not from trinkets like the SLUT or the conversion of the east end of Mercer Street into a small, cheesy simulacrum of a Parisian boulevard.

the monorail? you mean when we were taxed to pay for a bunch of people to talk about the monorail? quality example there. aren't we in the middle of a huge deficit that is only going to get bigger and we are going to replace the viaduct with a tunnel? sounds to me like someone is in the pocket of some developers. how about we take the money from the tunnel project that is supposed to develop the waterfront and refurbish the viaduct and keep animal control. oh wait the "Seattle Process" doesn't require logic.

Snus was right-"Seattle Decision Making is an oxymoron."

I've lived here for ten years-I love the place, but as far as the politics and the "decision making"...give me a break "The Seattle process"? are you kidding me?

Ooh you gave it a name! It must make sense!

If we had half of the money in our city coffers that the "Seattle Process" has SQUANDERED endlessly trying to decide if we should spend a few million more on a group who will spend a few million more trying to decide if we should have a referendum where we try to decide.......think of what we could do? ...that is if Paul Allen will allow us to. He does own the Mayor and the Governor, so....we would have to ask nicely.

I know a couple people who have worked on these "groups who are trying to decide".......they all get paid a lot of money-more than most of the people I know......lots and lots of money, and they have assistants and secretaries...their entire job and culture is based on dragging the "process" out as long as they can. It is truly pouring money down a hole. Over and over and over. Paying people who don't do anything and can't/won't decide anything to decide to do something. Millions and millions and millions of dollars-year after year. Really astounding.

In a way, I admire them-it's the perfect job-walk around with a clipboard and have lunch on the taxpayers. If I didn't have scruples, talent, a work ethic and a sense of right and wrong I'd sign up tomorrow!

This perverse culture of "uninteligentsia" manipulates the average passive/aggresive, eco-friendly, mega-well-meaning Seattlite at the voting box to keep their little land-office business revenues flowing.......referendum after referendum. Undecision after undecision.

Before I even moved here I used to keep track of Seattle news....even then-twelve years ago I though "build the freakin train!"....It aint brain surgery!

Turns out I was right! Where do I get my million dollars?

Pick a path-make a decision....I would also recommend just electing some politicians you trust and letting them do their job....but you will have to get rid of Vulcan Enterprises first-cuz they just keep buying up your elected politicians. That is the only source of "snap decisions" that EVER get made in this city. You can always tell by watching the news when that check clears.....

That pretty much covers it doesn't it?

We are seeing a great example of the pros delaying a design effort working on a project basis - in the Dome District regarding Sound Transit's heavy rail extension to Lakewood, near the Fort Lewis and McChord military bases.

It's the Berm vs. Post and Beam issue.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/904023.html

(note the great survey at the bottom of the middle column)

This 'process' is notable in that the opponents to the Seattle elite are all professionals headquartered in this City of 200k - and they can do a better job in their spare time than the paid, insubordinate and heel dragging Seattle folks.

I appreciate Kent's point of view, but it seems to support endless debate. As a result of "the infamous 'Seattle Process'," our region's taxpayers have spent more and have gotten less. At some point, one should decide and move on. If you had been asked in, say, 1980, who would have a wider city-wide transportation system: Los Angeles or Seattle, 99 out of 100 if not 100 would have said "Seattle." Yet, instead, it's Los Angeles with BRT. It's Los Angeles with subways. Heck, it's even Los Angeles with long-operating HOT lanes while we have a demo project! Down in Portland, it's MAX, street cars, heavy rail, DMUs. In Vancouver, BC, it's BRT, it's grade-separated rail transit (Skytrain) with transfers between the two, the SeaBus, and a downtown that promotes walking, bicycles, even motor scooters. Meanwhile, Seattle has a shortened and cheaper light rail system, and is a neophyte there and elsewhere in transportation and is hamstrung by expenses that have increased while we've been hemming and hawing about what to do. I disagree that the monorail was a poor idea; I contend that it was a good idea that was executed poorly: a poor financial plan that underestimated costs in order to win voter passage where cheap is favored over what's needed. The idea of above-grade, grade-separated transit is superior to surface light rail, would've been completed before Central Link even though the monorail wasn't approved until several years later than Link. Meanwhile, light rail's car/train accidents are already a routine part of our news fabric. But, the light rail lobby was stronger. As for the sports stadiums, the Mariners' stadium was rejected at the polls, but the pols overrode that decision. Citizen input didn't matter, and as a result, the Kingdome was demolished long before it was paid off, and anybody who buys prepared food & beverages in King County pays an extra 1/2 cent sales tax as far as the eye can see. In my history with citizen input, it is important, as it always reveals some things that the politicians and staff fail to see, and/or the synergy blossoms into a better plan. However, it should not be allowed to go on forever, as the current Alaskan Way Viaduct and SR 520 processes have done. Both of those projects are costing way more than a process with a reasonable timeline would have produced, and the "Seattle way" has a mayoral as well as City Council candidates who want to start all over again with the viaduct because their outcome wasn't chosen. This might help their egos, but it isn't good for the region, as the advisory committee's work is tarnished/wasted. So, while citizen input is valuable, and it should be sought and taken seriously, carrying it to excess-as I believe has been the case repeatedly in Seattle-isn't prudent.

The Seattle Process is good at killing things like parks or the monorail. And boy, Paul Allen must have been hurtin' the day the citizens told him he could just keep his proposed land donation and develop it himself.

When it comes to a real boondoggle, like the Port of Seattle, the Process can't lay a glove on it.

The Commons park was a good idea but poorly executed, just like the monorail.

When the Commons' plans were being finalized, Seattle parks advocates were already planning the Pro Parks levy for the 2000 ballot. It would have been relatively simple for Pro Parks to wrap the Commons into its fold, along with all the other park improvements planned for all over the city -- and it would've easily passed as part of a city-wide improvement plan.

But instead, Commons advocates insisted on a Commons-only ballot measure, asking folks on Beacon Hill and in Lake City to vote to spend tax dollars on a park for only one neighborhood -- a recipe for failure that they refused to recognize.

Yet still we go back to these same folks again and again that have a very poor record at creating desirable projects and, if perhaps they are able to steal a decent idea from someone else, totally mess it up.

Kent has it exactly right pointing out the whine that is the 'process' PR strategy - besides just delaying out the effort in order to only maximize project related employment the number one goal of 'process' is to maximize the amount of boondoggle cash extracted from other taxpayers in the region and State.

And of course, if it all ends up in court, that's just another bonus, right?

Bunch of bums, very expensive bums - just like on Wall Street and Capitol Hill.