Another very insightful article and well written. Let us hope that the Mayoral candidates will take notice of this good advice.

Jordan, though you may not have intended to, you make yet another argument for electing city council members by district.

No, Districts reduce the power of a citizens vote. The Developers and downtown monied interests all love the district idea, I bet.

Absolutely 1000% historically incorrect - developers and downtown interests led both of the campaigns that successfully defeated the last two attempts to create Council districts in Seattle.

Back when there were discussion of trying again with a 6-3 mixed system after the initiative was defeated in 1995, one prominent district supporter I spoke to pooh-poohed the idea, saying "why give downtown 3 seats?"

She was right then, and she's still right now.

Districts make it cheaper for wealthy interests to buy politicians. Districts reduce a citizens vote for city council from 9 votes, to one vote, or with the recent plan, 9 votes to 3 votes. I would rather vote for all 9 council seats. The district plans disenfranchise citizens. It is cheaper to buy an election with districts. So what makes you think that wealthy interests would not purchase the district candidates?

"Once in power, politicians know they must focus on making sure the [downtown economic] engine runs smoothly so they can use revenues to fund services throughout the city."

This conclusion assumes that the downtown oligarchs must be appeased or the engine will stop working. This is a false assumption. Good examples are Seattle's neighborhood planning and empowerment in the 90s and San Francisco's gradual shift in political power toward neighborhoods and progressives (see http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/local/san_francisco.html).

In neither case did the power shifts result in a decline in quality of life. To the contrary!

Seattle's "neighborhood planning and empowerment in the '90s" was a complete sham. It was nothing more than a cynical exercise in co-optation, to be ignored by city hall whenever a billionaire waddles into the room with a suitcase full of cash.

Anyone who ever becomes involved with the city on anything is a fool. The city council is corrupt, and so is every mayor. Seattle has the best city government money can buy. The only difference between this city and Chicago is that Chicagoans at least talk about the corruption.

Why even talk about it, then, Notfan? Shouldn't we consider you a fool for doing so?

I hope the camgaign discusses issues, as there are plenty. In transport, pavement management and sidewalks are major, pratical, and common sense needs that get too little attention. Implementing the pedestrian master plan requires a major fiscal lift and a variety of funding mechanicisms (e.g., drainage fees, LID, gas tax). Bridging the Gap was approved in 2006; the next mayor will help design its extension in 2015. I hope Seattle puts their streetcar desires to bed as unaffordable or at least has a rational discussion about them in the context of all its other transport needs. I hope Seattle helps convince King County to ask voters to approve the local option gas tax; the county all its cities need basic maintenance funding and the gas tax is the most fair and efficient to raise those funds. I hope Seattle becomes an advocate for systemwide variable tolling; it would improve flow for all modes and raise funds needed to restore I-5 pavement; Executive Sims almost did that in his last term. In other areas, Seattle has under funded operations and maintenance: libraries, community centers, and parks. Could the candidates discuss the basics? Seattle and the other cities and the counties need excellent relations with the Legislature; the locals need help; the state needs to overcome its outdated highway building approach; the State Senate mess will not help. I hope the candiates discuss how well they will get along with the council and the state, but will be tough when needed.

Seattle's city government has plenty of money. After all, they can afford to give the vast majority of the $350 million for a new basketball court to a California billionaire and his bondholders. And whenever McGinn needs to find a few million to "study" one of his favorite boondoggles, he never seems to have much trouble doing so.

I see no reason to vote for any levies of any kind. Seattle's city hall is obviously swimming in an ocean full of cash.

Systemwide variable tolling is abusive of the citizenry; and nothing but class warfare.

If the idea is to "improve flow", then why not start "access rationing", that way even the wealthy individuals that you seem to think the roads were built for, would have their use of the road reduced the same as any other citizen. The way it would work is that all citizens with a drivers license would get a set amount of time per month that they could be on the road. A billionaire would get the same set time as someone on welfare. This would reduce congestion and "improve flow" and would not be class warfare. I am for neither systemwide tolling or access rationing; but it interests me that the more equitable rationing is never proposed by the so-called progressives. No it is always about carrying water for the wealthy, and sticking it to the non-wealthy with the progressives. Systemwide variable tolling is a proposal of class warfare. If systemwid variable tolling is ever imposed, some wealthy people and progressives need to get their butts severely beaten.

Funny, the ration x by price crowd never seems to want straight up equal rationing. The idea seems to be "Me and my wealthy friends have plenty of money for tolls, so it would be a nicer driving experience for me and my wealthy friens if all the riff raff were tolled off the road". See, a wealthy person driving on a road is not congestion, only a non-wealthy person driving on a road is congestion. Stuff systemwide variable tolling.

Oh, and just to balance things out, I agree with you 100% on the proposed 3rd (3rd!) stadium and the elitism of toll proposals.

I will vote for the candidate who will stop the arena. It is a simple choice for me. I will wait for the candidate who says straight out that he will work to stop the arena, and I will assist, and vote for that candidate. So, scratch Mcginn, scratch Burgess at the start. I will see what the others say. The arena is the big issue for me as it has many aspects of corruption and is a good test of the trustworthiness of a candidate.

Sorry, but the arena is a done deal. I can say this much: I will never vote for another levy for any reason. There is no shortage of government funds here.