Reminder: Tonight is the Seattle City Council and Mayoral candidate community forum, where candidates will discuss issues relevant to the neighborhood, including access and cost for the SR-99 corridor and tunnel, crime and other public safety concerns, the future of industrial lands and the maritime industry, as well as controls on the rate of growth and development. Co-sponsored by the Ballard and Magnolia/Queen Anne district councils, the candidate forum will be moderated by C.R. Douglas of Seattle Channel. The forum is being held at the Ballard High School auditorium. Doors will open at 6 p.m., forum begins at 6:30.
Mayoral and City Council candidate forum tonight
Mallahan and McGinn are also debating each other in a forum at Central Library today at 5:30pm – 7:00pm. I'd imagine they will be late arriving to the Ballard High event. Probably 7:30 at the earliest.
Can we write in Nickels rather than one of these clowns?
City council candidates go first, Mallahan and McGinn are scheduled to start at 7:40.
Wag: yes, you could, and I've considered doing that myself. But it would – alas – be a wasted vote. As a former Nickels supporter, I am leaning toward Mallahan because he seems to have a more positive outlook on what city government should be about. The other guy seems pretty polarizing, and we've had enough of that.
Either way, I hope people will turn out and hear what these guys have to say. There's a lot riding on the outcome of this election.
I agree about the polarizing way McGinn comes across. His idealism would be nice if there was some pragmatism as well. Many things he says regarding the tunnel project are very misleading if not outright lies and his bone thrown to Ballard of a rail line is ridiculous. If was working for Greenwood where was he during the monorail campaign? Mallahan comes across as more strait forward. I've lived here 55 years and don't have ties to either guy.
By “Strait forward” you mean very vague and lacking any sense of direction on any given subject, right?
Maybe I have missed where he answers questions out right, but anything I have seen him say is very much answered like a slippery politician.
Hi Bangoskank, Nice handle by the way. It's true there is much to learn about Mallahan but he appears to communicate well and listen. His priorities are similar to McGinn's. I just don't like massive misinformation campaigns like the McGinn's tunnel talk. He is absolutly distorting the truth. I have not seen Mallahan demagogue an issue like that. I find it disturbing. Don't you?
Here's the thing, Mallahan doesn't actually say anything except platitudes like, “effective management” and “drive efficiencies.” He's shifted just about every position he has to satisfy the political and business establishment (see mercer st. and incentive zoning after a “talk” with Vulcan as an example) and will say anything to anyone just to get elected. Add this to the facts that he wouldn't even be in this race if he hadn't dropped $200,000 of his own money to buy his way through the primary, ran an anti-Nickels campaign during the primary but has now adopted all of Nickels policies and donors, is now now running a completely insider establishment campaign and avoiding talking to the voters at all costs (because pretty much every time he opens his mouth he loses votes – you will see this tonight), missed voting in 13 (13!) elections since 2000 and has zero history of civic involvement, and you get one of the weakest candidates for Mayor this city has ever seen.
Please, go tonight, listen to Joe and Mike; I'm pretty sure you'll see one guy who's spent his life working on the issues that matter to our City, understands these issues in a deep and complex way, has spent his entire campaign reaching out and talking with voters while introducing a pile of bold and innovative policy proposals; and then you can watch Joe rattle off talking points and get completely flustered when he gets off script (because he has no idea what he's talking about). But that's just my humble opinion, please learn more and decide for yourself.
” satisfy the political and business establishment”
You mean people who employ people in this town? Sorry, but the fair trade, hemp importing, all organic cafes do not provide the good paying jobs this town needs.
'Drive Efficiencies' sounds like meaningless execu-speak to me. I agree, listen to them and see which one isn't just blowing smoke up our arses.
Who does? A big corporation that laid off myself and many others? Well, they aren't hiring now either. Still too afraid to open up positions.
Malahan may not be great about specifics, but the specifics I hear from McGridlock convince me I'd vote for ANYONE before handing the city to him.
It's possible that Malahan might do some bad things. But McGridlock is PROMISING to do bad things. That makes it pretty easy to know who to vote against: the guy who's running on a platform to destroy our highways.
I think the massive misinformation campaign is telling people that there will be no cost overruns, as the Governor and other tunnel supporters are doing. As it stands Seattle is on the hook for all cost overruns (for a state highway!) on top of $930 million of taxpayer dollars.
Cost of tunnel includes a 27% overrun. The Beacon Hill tunnel was 22% underbudget. There's a bus tunnel under the city that adds to the knowns involved. Mallahan is saying that he would deal with overruns if they occur and that he is pushing for reviewing the legality and constitutionality of the city paying in the unlikely event. The 930 bil is McGinns red herring since it will be spent for street, seawall, utilities, transit even if there was a street only option.
AnnabellMarie, I think they're both nice guys with good intentions. McGinn to me comes across as a good activist city council guy not a manager or Mayor. He puts out high ideals which are necessary to discuss but he the realities of job creation and transportation corridors that effect everyone are serious issues that I see Mallahan able to deal with. His stance on the tunnel to me show a lack of willingness to embrace a balanced picture. With the tunnel I'll be able to ride my bike downtown better than today but not with the street option.
Hi Runnerbob, you must also enjoy horror novels, Straub or King perhaps? Neato!
As for Mallahan and his communication skills, that is something we usually assume a politician is good at, or at least faking it. Maybe I should start by saying I'm still not sold on either candidate, they both have very strong and weak points. I have seen Mallahan dodge a good number of questions in that politician bait and switch style of conversation changing. I have seen him vaguely state his stance on several issues, by vaguely I mean I rarely know where he stands on issues.
I have been researching all of the proposals for the viaduct replacement for quite some time now. I have had the great opportunity, through school, to speak with representatives of the 3 major proposals. All at separate times unfortunately. The tunnel has been the proposal that sounds least appealing due to similar tunnels that have been built in similar situations in different cities. What specifically do you believe McGinn is distorting about the tunnel?
Bangoskank, McGinn is saying the 930 mil is what seattle is paying for the tunnel plus all the cost overruns. The 930 mil is for work that is required by the city to accomplish in any case tunnel or not and includes items like a streetcar on 1st Ave that both candidates don't want. The items in the 930 number are for seawall replacement which requires utility movement street repairs and some transit. To claim that number goes away if no tunnel is built is an outright lie as far as I can tell. This isn't just spin. Additionally he claims we will be stuck with all the cost overruns when the budget in the bill includes a 27% buffer for overruns that are unlikely to occur (my and others assumption of course see link to Dave Ross trscrpt: http://www.discovery.org/a/10541 ). It also appears to be unconstitutional to have the city be forced to pay for an overrun on a state hywy anyway (again not absoluty certain yet). His website exlaims 4.2 bil and throws scare tactics about taxes implying things that just aren't true. It's the sort of thing I got very tired of with GWB and I'm surprised that McGinn is putting his integrity on the line like this. It doesn't make him look trustworthy to me. I don't mind him having different ideas that I don't agree with but I don't like people lying to me.
Bangoskank, one more thing is this discussion of no downtown exits. On one hand the wants to have a street option that pours everything into downtown streets and at the same time says the tunnel does nothing because it doesn't have those exits. There are exits at both ends of downtown that put those who want to go there onto the same grid he wants them on WITHOUT the through traffic. Of course this tunnel is not perfect but it is a solution and a beautiful compromise. It beautifies the waterfront, provides a throughway, it makes the city more bikeable, it scrubs exhaust, it provides open space for many options including parking at either end of downtown near the entrances. I frankly don't get why people can't come together on the positives here.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
Well first off, let's start with the 930 million that will be necessary for any solution regarding the Viaduct removal process. First and foremost, I would hope that McGinn is not running around stating that this is the cost of the deep bore tunnel as the actual cost is almost 5 times this amount for the largest diameter tunnel to ever be proposed. I believe the latest estimate is at 4.3 billion (almost twice what it would cost to re-build the viaduct)? By far this is the most expensive solution to the removal of the viaduct, this is an unquestionable fact. The price tag on this 1.7 mile long tunnel is one of the largest proposed for it's size…. ever.
In short, I agree with you, if McGinn is saying 930 million is all it will take to put in the tunnel, he needs to be taken down. I don't think that this is the case, I'm assuming you may have misunderstood him… or caught the wrong context of a conversation. I would assume someone who is as opposed to the tunnel as Mike McGinn is would not leave that stone unturned.
Now, if you're saying that he is misleading people by saying that this price tag for removal of the viaduct and to improve the current through streets in down town and the I-5 corridor to help us through the upcoming years with out SR99 will just disappear with the tunnel proposal, I would agree. I have not seen or heard him say that, but to think that he would think the Seattle people are stupid enough to believe something as asinine as that… is kind of ridiculous.
I can see a lot of reasons as to why people would not come together on this. All of the plans are flawed in some way ; the one we are currently going after seems to me, to be the most flawed.
B, I'm saying Seattle's expense in this, not the 2.4 bil for the tunnel put by state etc., is part of projects that Seattle will pay for anyway: State and others 3.1 Bil that I know of and Seattle for the 930 mil for sea wall etc. He also speaks of that 2.4 from the state being there no matter what and that ain't so either.