There’s a new UW poll on the mayor’s race.
The basics: Mayor Nickels leads the pack at 23 percent. T-Mobile executive Joe Mallahan comes in second at 11 percent. Former Sonic, James Donaldson is at 10—and city council member Jan Drago and Sierra Club leader Mike McGinn tie at 9.
Here’s a noteworthy stat: Lefty McGinn beats the other candidates among Republican voters, getting 15 percent. It makes sense when you think about it: Even though he’s attacking Nickels from the left with a hippie dippy green message, McGinn is also hyping an anti-tax message. He’s made the tunnel ("the biggest tax increase in Seattle history" he calls it) his central issue.
Asked about his appeal among Republican voters, McGinn says, "The tunnel is a boondoggle. It’s a waste of money. In Seattle, it turns out, I’m the fiscal conservative. All the other candidates are for the [$4.2 billion] tunnel."
The poll also found—and this could be good news for McGinn—that Alaskan Way is the issue voters said would "most influence their vote."
Tweet
He also is more aligned with developers because he does not support developers being required to provide any public benefits when they get an upzone.
The upzone makes their property a lot more valuable and Nickels has contended that ‘growth should pay for growth’ and that when a developer gets a big increase in value by the act of the City rezoning their property that they should return some of that value back to the community by way of affordable housing, open space, community amenities, etc.
McGinn has argued loudly against making developers return that increase value by way of providing amenities to the public. That is a much more right wing stance on a very important city issue.
Urban Planner @ 1:
I disagree with your assessment of McGinn’s position regarding concessions from developers.
I have been at many meetings with McGinn in which this issue was discussed. I have never heard him say that developers should not be required to provide a public benefit in exchange for a rezone. However, I have heard him argue that the community in which the rezone occurs should have a say in what that specific public benefit is.
@1 Alarming if that’s true — density for density’s sake as a development philosophy is just stupid, and giveaways to developers are giveaways to developers, whether it’s through handouts or upzones or “incentives” or what have you. Do you have a source for this position re: McGinn? If true, it’s more than enough to tip my vote.
On another note, how many anti-tunnel McGinn voters believe he’s for a rebuild vs. for surface/transit? I think his anti-tax support is way weak, and if he advances on that basis, his green positions are going to sink him with those same voters. So it could work to get him out of the primary, but it seems like a losing electoral strategy in the general.
Why do polls of likely primary voters insist on asking the head-to-head question, when it’s a much different electorate which makes that decision?
Oh please.
Being environmental is hippie dippy?
Not wanting to waste a few billion is republican?
Try to get some fresher cliches, wouldja?
@1 – Urban Planner
That characterization is false.
Mike supports what is called incentive zoning, which requires public benefits in exchange for upzones. He’s clear that it should be flexible enough to meet the unique needs of neighborhoods.
In fact, he championed it in his own neighborhood of Greenwood, where he led a planning process for the business district that laid out the public benefits they would like to see in exchange for potential upzones. Greenwood is now seeing redevelopment that is converting parking lots to mixed use development, walkable streets and natural drainage for stormwater.
@1 That’s a rather explosive charge to just drop without citation. Either cite or shut up.
True. But the number does indicate that he’s appealing to conservatives, which makes for a perculiar base.
put down dr. suess “the better butter battle” and grow up.
What I want to know is who are the 2% of “likely voters” who have never heard of Barack Obama?
Maybe this is just an echo of Mike McGinn’s participation in the bizarre 2007 anti-RTID eviro/developer coalition that included eastside republican developer Kemper Freeman.
On second thought, that’s probably a stretch.
@1 Wow. Are you getting *paid* to write this lie? Or do you just work for one of the firms that stands to profit from the tunnel?
I can say that I worked with McGinn for years, and he’s worked to get public benefits from developers. He actually appealed the permit for the Greenwood Safeway because they weren’t mitigating the impact on pedestrian safety & walking. Subsequently, he negotiated with the developer getting them to pay a huge sum of $$ into a sidewalk fund that in turn spurred the city’s most innovative sidewalk projects in 2002-4. Look up the Greenwood urban village plan and read the language there–credit is due to McGinn as president of the Greenwood Community Council.
Furthermore in 2006, Mike McGinn was at the table with me and Steinbrueck when we were discussing how to respond to the Mayor’s upzone proposal. Nickels came in pandering to developers with a $10/sq ft fee and narrow mitigation measures. I distinctly remember Michael saying “We shouldn’t leave any money on the table.” Steinbrueck’s amendment passed, raising it to $19/sqft and increasing the list of appropriate improvements.
Mike McGinn cares more about obtaining neighborhood benefits from new development than any other candidate out there–and he knows how to work with all parties to achieve it. Thank you Mike for being a leader on this issue!
I get really mift when people misspell peculiar.
I will add my name to the chorus on this thread and call @1 an outright liar. I worked closely with McGinn as last year’s incentive zoning legislation worked it’s way through the Council and McGinn consistently argued for more neighborhood say on the benefits developers should provide in neighborhoods receiving upzones. Please stop making false and baseless accusations.
+1 agreement
I just donated $10 to McGinn. And I fart at Republicans and pee on their lawns.