Print
Email
Mayor Greg Nickels is getting nervous, owing to his low popularity/approval ratings in the polls and the lingering anger over the snowstorm. Meanwhile, green developer Greg Smith is maybe only a week away from deciding whether to challenge Nickels, his erstwhile buddy, in the 2009 race. Smith shows signs of deciding to run: working in vacation trips, studying how he could be Mayor while his company, Urban Visions, continues to own and develop a lot of downtown property.
A telephone poll now under way, presumably for Mayor Nickels, gives an indication of the present anxious state. It asks for views about the Viaduct tunnel plan, the grocery bag tax, and Nickels. In the matchups, Nickels is paired against Peter Steinbrueck, Mark Sidran, Nick Licata, and Ron Reagan Jr. Sidran, who lost narrowly to Nickels in 2001, is thought to be a strong candidate but an unlikely one (King County Executive would be a better electoral match). Reagan, the radio commentator and liberal turncoat from the family's Republicanism, is a startling new idea. Odd that Smith's name wasn't on the list, but maybe the poll sponsors worried about the results of a Greg-Greg match.
My guesses at this point: Licata will run, mostly to espouse the populist/neighborhood causes and to see if lightning strikes. Steinbrueck will enjoy basking in all the mention but prefer his quieter nonpolitical life and not run. Tim Burgess, only two years into being a City Councilmember, will get some late-spring pressure to declare but won't do so if there's a real candidate in the race, such as Smith. Other perennials (Jim Diers, Ginny Anderson, Martha Choe) have already been asked and declined. And there will be someone quite unknown and fresh, trying to translate the Obama script to Seattle. (I'm not being coy: I don't have any names in mind.)
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Feb 6, 8:04 p.m. Inappropriate
Ron Reagan, really? Why would he put himself through that thankless process.
Posted Sat, Feb 7, 8 a.m. Inappropriate
Burgess has clearly said he won't run. No doubt he's thinking about becoming mayor though -- just not his year. The Nickels machine is a formidable challenge despite his low approval ratings. Viable candidates all know that. Remember Gregoire has never been that popular but she keeps winning. I agree, Licata might run just to find a bigger platform for his message even if it's only for two months. Sidran has to overcome the idea that he's more like Nickels than Nickels. Plus he has been out of the picture for eight years. Reagan would be an intriguing candidate, but running for office requires a lot of work and attention to detail -- something not readily apparent in the media work he has done.
Posted Sat, Feb 7, 9:51 a.m. Inappropriate
The city needs change in direction and attitude. Those mentioned are all cut from the same cloth.
Posted Sat, Feb 7, 2:33 p.m. Inappropriate
Here's what's been good about Nickels:
1. Separating the executive powers of city departments from legislative influence. The council tends to hamper things and slow things down, so Nickels has done a good job at cutting out the council as a "middle man" when possible.
2. A clear *start* at moving away from ineffectual Seattle-style consensus politics, i.e. making unilateral decisions when a decision just needs to be made.
3. Leadership on green issues.
Here's what's been bad about Nickels:
1. Loss of focus on the core purposes of city government, i.e. to maintain order and to maintain infrastructure. Too *much* of a focus on green green green leaves roads in disrepair, sidewalks unlaid, and traffic issues unresolved. The focus on bike lanes over sidewalks is a bit baffling. (I want both, but sidewalks ought to come first.)
2. Poor communication with constituents--too many press ops. You don't see him in neighborhoods around town, etc.
3. Weak leadership in city department management posts (e.g. Grace Crunican and several others at SDOT).
4. He's not as charismatic as the best mayors are.
5. Although he has started moving away from Seattle consensus-style leadership, which is a good thing, he hasn't gone far enough in that direction. Another personality might have real success in changing Seattle's political climate long-term if we can get someone who isn't afraid to ditch ineffectual consensus-style leadership once and for all.
I could go on, but I see room for a strong contender to run against Nickels on these areas in which he hasn't done well. I'd be open to someone new who shows promise in those areas, myself. I'm not a big fan of Nickels's.
Posted Mon, Feb 9, 7:59 a.m. Inappropriate
One could believe that since the two Gregs were so close during previous campaigns, that they have conspired to have Smith run as a way to make the Mayor look more liberal and community-friendly, as opposed to the developer mentality of Smith. And, by having Smith run, it separates the two Gregs so the mayor can't be accused of being developer-friendly.
Just a hunch!
Art
Posted Mon, Feb 9, 12:30 p.m. Inappropriate
I'd write in Kermit the Frog before I'd vote for Greg Nichols. All I have to say is South Lake Union wins and infrastructure in the rest of the city loses.