Seattle City Council Position No. 8: PubliCola Picks Mike O'Brien

"divisiveness," sorry, my bad. :)

The strained relationships between City Council, the city departments and the Mayor's office need someone who is familiar with the government system from another angle: Bobby Forch is a long-time City employee with a proven track record of getting things done despite the bureaucracy. As councilmember, he would bring unique knowledge and perspective about City programs and policies to the group.

Additionally, Bobby is skilled at forging relationships and finding commonalities between differing perspectives - there is so much diviciveness on all sides of City government right now, I am much more interested in seeing a uniter on Council than I am a corporate wonk with fun new economic ideas on how to play with government business models.

Bobby is a good friend - but I'm a longtime City employee, too, and I wouldn't speak out for him so passionately unless I was sure he could make a huge difference in Seattle politics. He absolutely can, and will!

This post has been up 18 hours and David Miller has not commented.

I am going with Royer!

Another single issue candidate....he says he is agains the tunnel because it costs to much....what is his plan? How will he pay for it? Let's get real and elect someone that has a wide range of ideas nmot a single idea of not building a tunnel....let's see some real ideas for a change....

Being a CFO of a law firm is not that impressive. He pays the rent on the building, creates paychecks, and deposits money in the bank.

I agree with Jenny, not much substance behind the "pretty boy" talk.

John Niles, your numbers don't parse.

In fact, on your site, your numbers only make sense if you limit your comparison to actual operations emissions (energy used powering light rail vs. a comparable number of cars' tailpipe emissions).

They don't count the non-tailpipe emissions of cars and the emissions associated with auto infrastructure (if I'm remembering the numbers correctly tailpipe emissions only make up 60% of the average car's lifetime emissions, and about as much CO2 is spent building and maintaining the infrastructure to support that car as to build, maintain, operate and dispose of it -- not to mention the CO2 impacts on land use, public health, etc. of car dependence).

Leaving completely aside the questions of land use (and whether light rail supports density better than more cars), I'd say (back of the envelope) that your estimates leave off 70% of the impact of cars, and that therefore, we're looking at something more like at most 20 years -- and at the end we own a much better asset. Add transit-oriented development at high densities and we're looking at a matter of a few years.

Light rail, even built in a tunnel, kicks cars butts on climate emissions.

Candidacy started off strong and then waned when he became a one issue guy (at least he is not McGinn).

O'Brien advocating City Light becoming carbon negative is a smart point given the huge emissions of light rail subway construction underway, a program he supports, along with stopping the new CBD bypass tunnel for motor vehicles.

This candidate has probably read the North Link Light Rail Record of Decision from U.S. DOT which lays out the dirty secret of building train tracks in a bored tunnel:

A half century of light rail operations will be needed to yield carbon savings from train riders that eventually make up for the carbon generated by the energy for a decade of bored twin tube RR tunnel construction from downtown to Northgate.

The payback for the global climate from the Sound Transit tunnel will be a longer time if cars evolve over the next half century to generate less CO2.

I have listened to Mike O'Brien at several forums and have spoken with him face to face. I have determined that he is either stupid or disingenious - either way I would not vote for him...here is why;

Whenever questions of funding 'this city program' or prioritizing 'that city initiative' come up he points to the 3 billion spent on the viaduct replacement as his cash cow for doing this. He talks like this money is in the City General Fund and can just be transfered to whatever program he's being asked about. Either he does not understand where the money comes from and the strings attached or he is purposely being dishonest. Also, 'no deep bore tunnel' is the only thing he talks about. He's a one hit wonder :(

Jeez sorry for the long post. I didn't realize how long it was til I pressed "submit."

A predictable pick, but a very quixotic explanation.

First, how does believing in the government having a role in regulating the economy make one a Marxist (which is not the same thing as being a socialist)? Perhaps we (excluding the State Democrats) are all New Deal liberals again, after a 40 year nightmare of neoliberalism?

Second, since when did O'Brien talk about the economy in terms of equity and fairness? I must have missed this on the campaign trail, because all I've ever seen him talk about is the environment. Jobs? Nothing. Affordability registers close to zero in his talking points, at least so far as I've seen. Cash bonuses at a firm to discourage use of SOVs is hardly the same thing as economic populism, let alone economic radicalism. How does his MBA make him a progressive again?

Saying we need good transit, while promoting the development of market and above-market rate housing as if a rising tide of "density" will lift all boats, simply isn't good enough. It's the typical corporate enviro greenwash that has become so rampant in this city.

The problem, it seems, is that when publicola hears politicians bring up class, it either thinks "organized labor," or "old school" politics, whatever that is. Are renters old school? Are people who can't bike to work because they need to drive their kids to/ from daycare "retro"? How do you talk about the needs of these people without bringing up downtown developers getting the lion's share of the attention of City politicians?

No doubt O'Brien is smart and creative. David Miller is even smarter, though does sometimes push a little too hard in the no-new development/ save the trees direction for my taste. Either would accomplish a great deal, and be better than Royer and Rosencrantz.

Bobby Forch isn't as forceful as either Miller or O'Brien, and I think is still finding his voice. But I think I'm gonna vote for him, for a couple reasons.

First, he's not just a "transportation manager." His job has been to help the City of Seattle support minority businesses. He knows that job creation is also about ensuring equity in who receives city jobs. Second he may not be a policy wonk, but his family's working class background, and his own experience working his way into the middle class, makes him familiar with, and responsive to, the needs of people in Seattle who have little to no voice on the Council right now.

This isn't just about race, though race and class are connected. What's impressed me about him is that he's at least shown a willingness to listen before making snap judgments, and show an empathy for the needs of people who aren't already represented in City Hall.

Yes we need to save the planet from global warming. But you can't do that if you gentrify all the working people into burbs with no real transit service. We can't just keep talking about the environment without also talking about social justice. Forch can be too vague, but he does at least try to talk about both.

if its name is Mike -- we say vote for it.

Good pick. (All good picks so far, IMHO.) I've been impressed with O'Brien, though I do worry that he'll be far too willing to turn to market-based incentives instead of employing straightforward regulations when that's the more direct way to solve a given problem. (Market-based solutions haven't even worked to solve the problems of the market itself, I'll point out.) Which is why pairing O'Brien with old-skool David Bloom seems like such a compelling option for new blood on the council. The thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis when those 2 take up an issue will be just the kind of approach the city needs.