I cannot agree more with the story. The Mayor seems to only want to block, destroy and argue with every idea or capitol improvement. Too many “leaders” find that it is easier to be against anything than for anything. If you build something and people disagree, you risk the losing the role of leader.

For progress, you must move forward. For years, I have instructed any apprentice that has been assigned to me: “We can fix anything you do, if you do nothing, then nothing gets done.” Progress requires risk, 520 as designed and the deep bore tunnel as designed are risks. Not everybody will approve. But, the only other option is to just close the existing structures and let people get really angry.

I can support a person who is willing to risk their reputation on a decision. I cannot tolerate a person who does nothing without having someone to blame and will never take a risk. I believe the Mayor falls into this latter category.

In this era of finite resources, it's more important than ever that we get things right when it comes to capital megaprojects. I agree with the mayor's cautions and concerns over the big-bore tunnel and the rail-less 520 bridge, and I lament his bumbling communications over these issues. Being a transformational leader includes communicating your values and goals in ways that bring people along. McGinn hasn't found this yet.

For Seattle's sake I look forward to the day McGinn builds a coalition in favor of anything...really, anything. Agreement on pizza toppings would be a fine start if it gets the ball rolling.

One problem will always be the case in this city: on a lot of big issues, there will NEVER be a majority behind any one solution. That means that the "no" side will always be viable, and doing nothing will always be a distinct possibility. I only hope we continue to have some governments and levels of City government that function better than the Mayor's office.

I am confused. Did you interview him or is this conjecture?

The "we know what you are against, but not what are you for" complaint is bogus when we consider the familiar consequences of the business as usual mega-projects the mayor was presumably elected by a majority to question. The need to find creative solutions that are not so dependent on fossil-fuel consumption has been evident to the wider public for only a few years, and there are still many deniers. It's unfortunate that our governor and her state department of highways won't fix what needs to be fixed for the short term and then take the time to come up with solutions appropriate for the future. Our growing understanding of climate change and the pathfinding but neglected governor- and legislature-mandated Health Impact Assessment for the SR-520 project's account of health implications for communities as far as 300 meters from a highway project should make us by all means think again.

Blocking a bad idea is a good thing. If it took WSDOT 13 years to come up with a bad design, we should give the mayor a little time to come up with, or the state to hire experts to come up with, better ideas more suited to the times the Oil Spill, for one example, is screaming must be much different. His Honor's successive approximations are fine with me as we feel our way toward better ideas and get out of unfortunate commitments made for us by our governor, legislature, state agencies, and county government.

Finally, I think the mayor's offer to visit Microsoft for a town hall event was a splendid exemplification of the difference between corporate fiat in civic life and the conduct of representative democracy. I noticed on the website set up by Microsoft Vice-President Brad Smith asking MS employees to advocate building 520 now was met with employee opposition to the bridge without light rail by something like 10 to 2.

McGinn was elected to buck the entrenched power structure in this town, and I think he's doing a pretty good job of it. Articles like this are just part of the push-back effort going on. But so long as the Mayor stays committed to serving the people of Seattle rather than its elite power structure, he'll keep asking the hard questions and waging the worthy battles on their behalf. Go, Mike, go!

A great example of McGinn's leadership is his decoupling the waterfront tunnel/viaduct/surface route from the sea wall project. Get that funded first, it's key in keeping the existing city waterfront structures including the viaduct from falling down in case of an earthquake.

His next chip at the edges is the Nickerson Street road diet. In spite of all the complaints from the auto driving public, it doesn't actually reduce the traffic, but it does slow it down and make pedestrian and bicycling alternatives viable. There is of course the Pacific Lutheran U, there and keeping the students safe is a good thing. As well as making it possible to bicycle to class.

The next smart move was hiring consultants to show that the "light rail ready" 520 design was nothing of the sort.

The next smart move will be to put a Seattle only extension to LINK to West Seattle and a trolley to Ballard up for a vote in 2011.

Once these projects are fully approved then the bonding for the city is done until they are paid off. That effectively kills any mega projects along the waterfront including the tunnel.

He could also hire some consultants which will likely show that with some minor repairs the viaduct will be fine for another 20 years. At which point tunneling for auto traffic will be a moot point.

GaryP, that's Seattle Pacific University, not Pacific Lutheran University. I occasionally bike along the Ship Canal paralleling Nickerson and it seems to me that only a few blocks remain to produce a separate bike path from the Fremont Bridge to the Ballard Bridge (and didn't I read something about negotiating a rail crossing down there somewhere which would allow biking west to Fisherman's Terminal and Commodore Way crossing under the 15th NW Causeway?). Well, maybe it was a dream but Nickerson does not appeal to me as a good biking street with or without sharrows. Traffic will likely remain fast unless some traffic lights are introduced. What would slow it down?

Well, there's a lot more certainty in the responses here than I have. I don't know why McGinn was elected, though others seem to know the answer. I guess he's legitimately the mayor, though. I don't know why voters approved the I-90 corridor for Light Rail, but they did, so I guess that's legitimate too. And the voters and the City Council and the Governor have approved the Tunnel, so I guess that's legitimate too. If McGinn calls these decisions into question then it stands to reason he has to call his own election into question--all three decisions are illegitimate and we have to start over. Hmmmm. What a mess.

Not sure a leader ought to pick and choose certain citizen decisions to oppose and overturn. Seems a crazy way to run a democracy . . . that is, if you're a (small d) democrat.

Bruce Kochis

The tunnel does NOT have a popular mandate. The public voted up/down on a confused, and ultimately, meaningless viaduct/tunnel measure. After the inconclusive vote, the deep-bore, was pull from that nether region typically called The Discovery Institute, and first presented here at CrossedUp. The public has endure the persistent campaign of misinformation to convince them that they were FOR the Deep-Bore, before it was even proposed.

The upside is that the cost of delay and obstruction has a far lower barrier to entry than the costs required to see the project through. Far more is required to complete than the tunnel, than required to halt it. Futher, the opposition can draw on a far more diverse group of ideas of people, and need not act in a concerted fashion to be more effective. In this case, a proper metaphor would be flys swarming to decay.

I don't think it would take much work to write a story about what the mayor has been actively for: transparency, democracy, green jobs, walkability, ecologically sustainable and attractive urban forms, mass transit, reducing our carbon footprints, etc.
Much of the reason McGinn is seen as Mayor No is due to all the garbage in the system that needs to get flushed out. Extricating ourselves from the influences that have driven decisions in previous years requires, by definition, saying No. That said, saying No must also be accompanied by saying Yes to alternatives.

Maybe, the battles are more about fear of change, fear of the new and the unknown.

I just want to add that it's become fashionable these days, when confronted with ideas which disagree with their own, for liberals to question the motives and/or impulses driving the persons who disagree with them--rather than engaging the issues head-on. (Take all the analysis of the Tea Party movement going on right now.) In cases where liberals disagree, the rest of us get to enjoy seeing what it's like when one liberal applies such patronizing treatment to another. So McGinn hates the Deep Bore Tunnel? Oh, it must be due to some character flaw or the one-sided effect of being trained as a lawyer. Couldn't possibly be because of any problems with the plan itself...

My point is simple: McGinn is not a democrat, he's a populist. He and his supporters are captured by a belief that they know better, that all previous decisions by legitimate representative bodies were "confused" (a la counermeme) or that critics are grounded in ad hominem attacks (a la cocktails42, whose response is itself an ad hominem attack, i.e., going after the motives of the critics not the issues). I have no idea if the deep bore tunnel is the absolutely right solution or not, but I do know that the City, State, and County worked out this compromise and that the City Council has unanimously approved it going forward. The citizens did emphatically approve the I-90 corridor route for Sound Transit. To reverse the will of the citizens because you think you know better or that you think you know what they really want is demagoguery, not democracy. The City Council is the voice of the people, not Mike McGinn.

cocktails42 got me thinking about the approach of the other side of the aisle to issues it disagrees with and to internal disputes. It is more nebulous, something like: stick head in the sand and repeat the same message; don't get mad, get even. Notions like planning for the next one hundred years cause as much harm as having no foresight at all. The egotistical hubris from both sides swells the ranks of independents smart enough to see that a choice between flat-out status quo and artful cover for more-of-the-same is the same as no choice at all.

The grace cast aside by contempt-all-around is empathy— the everyday kind, not just for catastrophes and the human interest stories that serve as distractions and occasionally as wake-up-calls. We don't have much chance without getting empathy back and advancing it —it's not as though we ever had it down pat.

I agree, this mayor is different. He wants to impose what he wants without any concern about the taxpayers, i.e. there doesn't seem to be spending he doesn't like. This includes - but is not limited to - the viaduct surface option, which would leave Seattle without the viaduct for a few years (as opposed to several months if the current plan works, which we don't know yet), light rail to Ballard and West Seattle and SR-520 without even recognition about what's been done to date, as that is agaist what he wants and thus doesn't matter. His plan to abolish certain city positions based on their title alone shows a lack of understanding and further lack of questioning before arriving at a conclusion, i.e. he seems to lack critical thinking skills. I'm told that Chief Braziel was to be offered the chief job here, but it was what he saw in his potential counterpart that turned him away, leaving that process in a quagmire, but this mayor refuses to acknowledge that there may be a problem. On the other hand, this mayor is the same. He recently went to the North Helpline food bank building, which also houses a free health clinic, the latter accessed by going through the former's door. Since the clinic was closed, a food bank worker had to wait for the mayor so as to grant him access. One of the mayor's entourage said, "You might want to go to the food bank, too" and the mayor was heard by about 30 workers in the food bank saying "I don't have time to go to the food bank, I only have time to go to the (free health) clinic." Those waiting in line at the food bank heard about it. What he also doesn't know is the food bank workers were told they could meet the mayor, so some of them had stayed for that opportunity. His staff also didn't check that the food bank funds the clinic by providing the location and helping them with their supplies. This from a supposed liberal Democrat who supposedly cares about those in need. In short, I am not impressed so far by this mayor.

abcs: Much of what you said about the Mayor's visit to North Helpline--and about North Helpline and the food bank--is not true. I was there at the time of his visit; I live in the neighborhood and am familiar with those facilities. I'm not sure why you can't criticize the Mayor without making things up.

It remains to be seen whether McGinn is any leader at all. For now, he has successfully created a new power center at City Hall - the City Council - and pretty much marginalized anything that happens on the 7th floor.

I do agree that he might have a chance to wake up and change his style. But the trend seems to foretell a very long and unproductive four years in which Seattle will experience a marginally useful Mayor who served as mostly a placeholder.