The two fresh-at-this mayoral candidates are starting to trade shots across each other's bows. Before, they could just aim torpedoes at the Good Ship Nickels; now they have to test each other's punches. Today's example was a tiff over a proposal from Mike McGinn for hurry-up transit to the unserved neighborhoods. Joe Mallahan riposted quickly:
“Light rail is a critical service that not only gets people out of their cars and off the roads, moving more quickly, but also promotes economic development along its lines. We need more mass transit investments but light rail is a regional transportation system and all additions need to be integrated into our existing transit network.
“When someone proposes a plan of this size, the responsible thing to do is let voters know how much it will cost and how he’s going to pay for it. Mike McGinn won’t be honest with voters about how much his proposal will cost and suggests putting this haphazard measure on the ballot the same year Seattle’s Family and Education Levy is up for renewal. I think the last thing we should do is pit kids against mass transit solutions.
“Voters approved a Sound Transit package last year that included studies for expanding mass transit options in other parts of the city. I will advocate for expediting those plans and work with Sound Transit to move forward in a responsible manner.”
To which McGinn quickly returned fire:
"In his response criticizing my light rail expansion proposal, Joe Mallahan made the accusation that we would be pitting 'kids against transit.'
"Mr. Mallahan's comment is uninformed. Seattle voters routinely pass multiple measures on the same ballot. Two recent examples include:
"Nov. 2008 - Seattle voters passed the Parks Levy (59% Yes), the Pike Place Market Levy (61% Yes) and Sound Transit 2 (70% yes in Seattle) at the same time with large majorities.
"Nov. 2006 - Seattle voters passed the Bridging the Gap Levy (53% Yes) plus King County's Transit Now (69% Yes in Seattle).
"My question for Mr. Mallahan is would he vote for a good light rail package and an education measure if they were on the same ballot?
"I also find it somewhat ironic that Mr. Mallahan is trying to raise concern about the Families and Education Levy (passed with a 62% Yes vote) as an excuse to not move forward on light rail. County voting records indicate that Mr. Mallahan has missed ten important elections since he moved to Seattle nine years ago including the last Families and Education Levy in 2004."
The difference in tone is apparent, with McGinn heavier on the sarcasm and the gratuitous insults, as well as the punchy data. This lawyer knows how to address a jury and score points. Mallahan, meanwhile, is trying (aided by his grave tone) to plant in voters' minds that McGinn is flaky, a sound-bite politician versus the stay-with-the-program manner of Steady Joe. If McGinn risks getting whistled for low blows, Mallahan flirts with B-O-R-I-N-G.
Underlying this positioning is the question whether voters, stunned by the Town Hell events and "You lie!" taunts, will find McGinn's snarky manner off-putting or refreshing.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email





Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Sep 16, 10:28 p.m. Inappropriate
Brewster begins with a naval analogy, but shifts to boxing. the reported parries from McGinn do not seem low blows, but rather sharp counter punches, based on facts and a better understanding of Seattle's recent political history, against an oppenent who has flung a weak response. A low blow is nasty and illegal. your examples reveal relevant facts about Mallahan: that he has been an intermittant voter and that he did not know that multiple measures have passed in several years; they directly relate to the Mallahan response to the McGinn proposal. They do not seem gratuitous.
Today, Seattle LRT is planned and funded by a regional government. When ST extends LRT to Northgate its ridership will increase greatly, and most LRT trips will be intra Seattle trips. If Seattle raised its own funds, it could buy much better transit from Sound Transit or Metro or both. McGinn is sharp. Please contrast that to your Drago piece of a few months ago. she asserted Seattle could escape the 40-40-20 new service allocation puzzle by changing mode to streetcar; instead, she made the situation worse.
Posted Thu, Sep 17, 8:09 a.m. Inappropriate
If the choice is between tone or substance, I would choose substance. McGinn seems to think we are still living in the pre-meltdown economic bubble and can afford everything: light rail everywhere, redundant public broadband service, a city-operated school system. This when the city is facing a significant long-term budget shortfall. And he makes no mention of the concern that Seattle has become an unaffordable living place for many people.
Posted Thu, Sep 17, 8:44 a.m. Inappropriate
Obviously Mr Brewster you don't the meaning of snark. The Stranger's style is snark. Pointing out your opponents poor voting record and erroneous thinking is campaigning.
Mallahan is the candidate of the business interests who run Seattle. Of course Mr Brewster will disparage McGinn's campaign style.
Posted Thu, Sep 17, 9:46 a.m. Inappropriate
I'm a little baffled that this article doesn't really address the topic they were discussing: the idea of a 2-year plan for greatly expanded light rail on the west side of the city using existing right of way. As the Times reports, this is more like Portland's $576m Green Line MAX than SoundTransit's multibillion Central Link:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009882057_mcginnlightrail17m.html
Would SoundTransit we willing to plan such a system? Would we vote for it if so? I'm not sure, but my gut feeling is "YES" due to the overwhelmingly positive vote on last year's Proposition 1 inside Seattle:
http://seattletransitblog.com/2008/11/24/partial-prop-1-vote-breakdown/
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 8:17 p.m. Inappropriate
"McGinn mentioned the possibility of funding the light-rail extensions with car-tab taxes, sales taxes or other taxes."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2009879532_mike_mcginn_wants_more_light_r.html
which tax, how high, for how long
if it is car-tabs, good luck getting mvet authority from the state.
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 11:47 p.m. Inappropriate
Just stop with the "fresh-at-this" condescension. And what is this "Good ship Nickels" nonsense? Cigar boat more like. Sound Transit has considered light rail to these neighborhoods, so McGinn isn't out of line. Monorail is more appropriate, run along the Waterfront. SMP seemingly rigged the studies to produce a route that would be too expensive. Sound Transit and SDOT knew better and went along with the scam. City Hall needs a clean sweep, not an heir apparent.
Posted Sat, Sep 19, 1:49 p.m. Inappropriate
My simple advice for Mike McGinn is to propose things that happen in the future in more open terms; civic aspiration, and an alternative idea to stopping the tunnel, should have been that message.
Joe Mallahan's response was spot-on, but uninspiring. In Mr.Mallahan's transportation messaging, and his direct response to McGinn's proposal, he has to express the broader ST transportation message, couched in perspective that would directly benefit McGinn's proposal. More simply, reduce McGinn to a subject matter expert voicing a poorly formed proposal. Mallahan should have taken the proposal's positive attributes and placing them into broader policy, being the policy maker. That's what a mayor does do, after all.
Mr. Mallahan's response was to fight the rough edges of McGinn's slightly ham-handed proposal, it should have been asparational, placed into the ST context of win-win pain-gain spreading. Place the idea in the appropriate broader scale. For a guy espousing project management skills he, quite frankly, choked on that answer. Project management is the discipline of planning, organizing, and managing resources to bring about the successful completion of specific project goals and objectives.. The resources are tax payers that need meaningful transportation solutions. The project scope is big, and pitting it against resources for children, as Mallahan did, failed to provide a right-sized policy solution.
The more inspiring massage both missed was that by working with ST the western parts of Seattle could, and should, start thinking about light rail in ways that Bellevue and Redmond currently are. In Two years we should know where we want to have light rail progress in Seattle, and what it will take to make that happen for the citizens of Seattle.
There, a little ST, mention the broader ST idea, how do we fit in and play along, and an aspiration for Seattle.
Realistic and inclusive aspirations are what this election, and many others, are about.
Honestly, it is not that hard to express the direction you want to go in open terms that are inclusive and realistic to the broadest number of voters.
http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/2009/09/crosscuts-david-brewster-tone-test-for.html