McGinn v. Mallahan at Cinerama
At their first one-on-one debate at the Cinerama theater in downtown Seattle this afternoon (video available here), mayoral candidates T-Mobile executive Joe Mallahan and Sierra Club activist Mike McGinn sparred over job creation, zoning rules, the proposed waterfront tunnel, and the role the mayor should play in the Seattle school district, among other issues. Some highlights:
• Mallahan seemed far more open to the idea of expanding roads than McGinn, who supports the surface/transit option (now, apparently, dubbed the “I-5 transit solution”) for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct. In response to McGinn’s statement that “commerce runs on fiber optic cables,” Mallahan responded, “it also rides on roads and rails and shipping … The worst thing we could do for this economy is to slow the movement of people and goods through Seattle.” Mallahan then expressed his opposition the so-called “head tax,” a $25-per-employee tax that pays for transportation improvements (and exempts employees who don’t drive to work alone). McGinn supports the tax.
• McGinn and Mallahan disagreed strongly about whether the $930 million the city has pledged to help build the Alaskan Way tunnel constitutes a “tax increase,” as well as whether the tunnel—agreed upon by Nickels, former King County executive Ron Sims, and Gov. Christine Gregoire last year—is a “done deal.” Mallahan said McGinn had “done an extraordinarily effective job in framing this as a tax increase,” which Mallahan says is not accurate. He adds: “That decision has been made and we’re moving forward. I think the role of the next mayor of Seattle is to deliver that project on time and hopefully under budget and ensure that the impact to businesses is minimized.” He said the decision to build a deep-bore tunnel was the result of a “long process” and that the city shouldn’t revisit that decision.
McGinn responded that the city “is going to have to come up with … that $930 million and we haven’t done that yet.” He added: “We did have a long process, and I think that process culminated in a vote that said we didn’t want a tunnel.” Voters rejected a different version of the tunnel in 2007 by a margin of 70 percent. (Although he didn’t say so in today’s debate, Mallahan has argued that the surface/transit option would also require a tax increase).
• Both candidates offered their ideas for cutting the “fat” in the city’s budget. McGinn said he would eliminate “duplicative” positions—human resources staffers in various city departments, for example, whose jobs duplicate the city’s human resources department—and cut the number of “political appointees” in half, which he said would amount to about 200 city staffers.
Mallahan said he would “look for sustainable cuts,” eliminate many city consultants (whose pay, McGinn pointed out, is not included in the city’s general fund), and get rid of “people with big titles who don’t have a lot of value to add,” such as some of the city’s 300-plus executive-level staffers.
• In a somewhat confusing response to a question about incentive zoning (which provides additional building height to developers who pay for things like affordable housing and parks), Mallahan said he did not support incentive zoning, “which results in suboptimal [building] heights,” but would support “just straightforward taxes and fees, both on developers and on the citizens of Seattle,” to pay for affordable housing and other benefits. McGinn says he supports incentive zoning regulations, but would want to make them more “flexible” in the neighborhoods (giving developers incentives for things other than additional height, for example).
In response to a questionnaire from the Downtown Seattle Association during the primary season, McGinn responded “yes” to the following question: “Will you initiate reconsideration of the city’s 2008 citywide incentive zoning decision? Would you support examining incentive zoning policies on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis in conjunction with action on legislative rezones vs. adopting one policy citywide prior to consideration of legislative rezones?”
• The candidates also diverged on the question of how to fix Seattle’s faltering public schools. McGinn said that if the schools didn’t improve in his first couple of years as mayor, he would consider taking them over, but added, “We would have to make the case to the public and let them evaluate that [idea] themselves.” Mallahan said he would not take over the schools, but would lobby the legislature to “have the state meet its [financial] obligations” to pay for public education in Seattle.
• Asked “Which streetcar will you throw yourself in front of?” (Mallahan opposes streetcars as too expensive, preferring bus service), Mallahan responded that his main target is the First Avenue streetcar, which he claimed was part of McGinn’s preferred surface/transit proposal for replacing the viaduct. (Mallahan, who interrupted McGinn loudly and frequently, stage-whispered, “That, by the way, is capital funding, not operation and [maintenance] funding.”] McGinn did not get an opportunity to answer the streetcar question, but he opposes the First Avenue streetcar and supports the one on First Hill.
Tweet
Whenever I see Joe Mallahan speak, it reminds me of a young John McCain trapped in the music video for Bjork’s ‘It’s oh so quiet’
the January deep bore agreement between the three executives included a one-percent MVET to fill the Metro fiscal deficit. Where is that? The Legislature and Governor did not fulfill the agreement on that piece. Has the Legislature fully funded the deep bore? What if the cost estimate is more than expected in January?
another interesting margin for incentive zoning: spending the funds on sidewalks in addition to affordable housing or open space.
I nominate @1 for comment of the day.
McGinn looks pretty goofy in “print” here. “I-5 transit solution”? Really? Eliminate political appointees? Isn’t that another way of saying, “getting rid of staffers that don’t agree with me politically?” It sounds an awful lot like the executive of a non profit has a narrow focus on staffing issues.
1 out of every 3 jobs in Washington is trade dependent. Freight logistics is 10% of the economy nationally, more so in a trade dependent state. The tired “surface-transit” “option” is a road to job loss. Job loss, equals less tax revenue, and less people spending their wages in Seattle. Less tax revenue = budget deficit. This will exacerbate the already depressed economy.
McGinn is going to have his ass handed to him by West Seattle, North Seattle, and the south end. Convincing a majority of Seattle that we need to revisit the viaduct issue for 4 more years is a tough sell. McGinn’s only option is to do it anyway, and them claim the majority supports his position, when in fact they do not. His rhetoric already is headed in that direction.
It seemed pretty clear that McGinn knows a lot more about a lot of things in comparison to Mallahan.
The zoning question is key: if we can’t influence the way that developers build, we will not be able to create affordable housing. We will not be able to get things like wider sidewalks, pocket parks, etc. And we will not be able to house people in the city. “Taxes and fees” from developers do NOT create the kind of mixed-use livable neighborhoods for all income levels that we need.
This is only one of the many reasons why I’m supporting McGinn…the more I hear from Mallahan the more polarized I get.
The implication that the Head Tax supports any “transportation improvements” that help move freight is comical.
Governor said the mvet transit was not a deal breaker on the same day the under secretary said he was leaving for DC.
It is pretty much expected that this will be proposed in the short session next year.
I am going to have to find some video.
“Mallahan said he would not take over the schools, but would lobby the legislature to “have the state meet its [financial] obligations” to pay for public education in Seattle.”
Holy cow, I agree with one thing that Mallahan said!
The long public process about the viaduct — or at least the most recent round — culminated in the three Departments of Transportation recommending either surface / transit / I-5 or an elevated waterfront highway in December 2008. The DOTs running the process didn’t recommend the tunnel, and while many stakeholder participants liked it, lots of us did not.
The technical analysis proved that the tunnel doesn’t do a better job providing mobility than surface / transit / I-5; both options work. Gregoire, Nickels, and Sims were the deciders, though, and they decided on the tunnel for a variety of reasons, many of them political and happening outside the public process.
What is interesting for moving forward from here, though: while there was this big promise of working together in January 2009, the State DOT is limiting its involvement to the bypass tunnel primarily (they are also on the hook to rebuild Alaskan Way surface street to Seattle’s specifications), and the City and County are currently responsible for all the other street projects and transit projects that will be crucial for local mobility.
Whatever his view of the bypass tunnel, the future Mayor of Seattle needs to make sure people can get to downtown and are able to move around within the city. The streets and transit projects identified in the recent technical analysis need to be done and need funding still. The next Mayor will need to secure some big wins for Seattle, and fast: authority to raise funding for more transit, a funding package to pay for fixing the seawall, and funding for necessary city street improvements. That is a daunting challenge.
@8: Link to video is now posted.
Gee, great answer on schools, Mallahan. Where have you been the last, say, 10 years? At least McGinn has a thought about it. More and more McGinn looks like the one to vote for. And look, he can’t just undo, all by himself, the tunnel plan.
“The technical analysis proved that the tunnel doesn’t do a better job providing mobility than surface / transit / I-5; both options work.”
IIRC, this is because freight traffic to and from the Port doesn’t use the Viaduct as is; they’re also not going to use the tunnel to go where it goes.
As for non-freight mobility, a majority of Viaduct trips are going to or from downtown. A tunnel under downtown, with no exits or entrances, does nothing for those trips.
Trips to and from downtown will be – functionally – using I-5/surface/transit, without the benefit of the investment in improving I-5, the surface routes, and transit, that not building the tunnel would allow us to make.
It’s a Potemkin tunnel. It should die.
Steve Scher sucked as moderator.
Next time instead of just streaming the video Chris Pirillo should be the moderator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFLQu5ZBDDc
@12 – I agree that McGinn would be unable to undo the tunnel all by himself and that this, by itself, is not enough reason to vote against him. But this article makes him sound like a wack – to say that “commerce runs on fiber optic cables” leaves me with an uneasy feeling about the man. Commerce lives and dies on moving things – you cannot deliver raw building materials or groceries via the intertubes, for that we need viable transportation not dreams.
I may have just missed it so far during the campaign, but has McGinn stated under what authority he would take over the schools? What’s his criteria for improvement and then plan to make the schools better if they fail to meet those criteria? Also, how’s the city’s budget look for the protracted legal battle should he attempt a takeover?
Action is good, but I’d like to know he’s actually thought about this beyond that it’s a bold campaign proposal designed to get him attention.
@4, you realize we’ve studied the bejesus out of freight logistics on the corridor, right? Perhaps you should look at these studies from wsdot.wa.gov (these are huge PDFs of course): Freight Segmentation Report. Check out pages 8 and 18 (PDF numbering, the pages are labeled 4 and 14). Freight is about 4.8% of current Viaduct traffic. Much more of the traffic uses I-5, which McGinn wants to improve by closing the Convention Center exit.
But, what do the companies want, really? Well hey, we asked: AWV Industrial Centers Survey: “the businesses surveyed recognize commuter solutions to driving alone have the best chance of reducing congestion.” Huh, they didn’t want a new toll highway, they want to reduce SOV trips (i.e., by funding transit).
I am so tired of hearing about this issue, but it’s clear we’re in for several more years of it whichever candidate wins.
McGinn doesn’t need to take steps or do things to kill the big-bore viaduct tunnel. It will die of its own weight as the engineering details are done and the costs and risks become known. It just isn’t going to happen.
The real question is, which of these candidates is best equipped to help craft a workable alternative solution when the tunnel plan goes down?
I hope my handle warned you…
I was at the debate today and thought that it was a great chance for both of these candidates to introduce themselves to the voters of Seattle, and, walking out of Cinerama, I thought that both candidates did a pretty good job.
The thing that struck me as odd on hearing it the first time and then again re-watching it this evening was the contrast in the use of the word “we.” When McGinn was talking about we, he was talking about things that he actually participated doing: we used community benefit agreements in Greenwood, we helped get a Parks Levy passed, we are smart and creative (meaning the citizens of Seattle).
Contrast that to when Mallahan said “we:” he didn’t seem to know what the word meant. On two instances he said “we” to place himself in groups that he actually wasn’t a part of. The first was when he spoke about “we in labor.” Ok, yes, both candidates want to have labor backing but to say “we in labor” is a flat out mis-representation of the truth. It’s presumptuous at best and deliberately deceitful at worst.
The other one, and as a parent-to-be this is the one that really got this diatribe rolling, was when Mallahan said something to the effect of “that’s why we passed the Families and Education Levy.” Ok, we, the voters of Seattle passed the levy because we cared about our students, but guess what….Mallahan didn’t vote on that levy. (Thanks Mayor Nickels: http://www.gregnickels.com/index.php?page=news&full=70) To say you care about education but don’t even have the decency to show up and vote for it ….and then to say that you were part of a voting block that did support Seattle families…I am sorry, but that is the height of arrogance and irresponsibility.
While for general observers, today’s debate may have been a draw, Mallahan did much to persuade me not only to not vote for him for Mayor, but not to vote for him for anything, ever.
I predict that by this time next year, no matter which of these two wins, Seattle will be saying “what the fuck were we thinking?”
Sad truth; neither of these well-meaning gentleman has what it takes to manage a complex munincipal structure facing unprecedented economic challenges and ongoing dilemmas of social equity, smart growth and balancing neighborhood concerns with the overall civic interest.
The best strategy for those who really care about Seattle is to force substantive debate on real issues during the campaign and hope whoever wins hires capable and seasoned staff that can work with the Council to limit the damage of amateur hour at City Hall.
@ 18 says
Saying “the tunnel will die of its own weight” over and over again, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, is the same thing as saying “Om-mani-padme-hum” or “Nam-yo-ho-renge-kyo,” and is likely to have the same effect. That brand of faith-based politics has characterized McGinn’s entire campaign throughout.
The “workable alternative” that the Legislature is going to “craft” is a retrofitted Viaduct, if McGinn is allowed to stall the tunnel long enough to drive up costs beyond practibility, which I suspect is his true strategy.
Neither of them is “best qualified.” Seattle is fucked for next four years. They might as well have elected Tim Eyman.
State highway, bitches! Not your call. Go throw yourselves in front of the bulldozers or something.
@22 Just because it’s a state highway doesn’t mean Seattleites don’t have a say–we are state residents, after all. There’s a large public process that has to happen before the tunnel could even happen, and there will be plenty of hurdles that come up in that process. When legislators say that it’s a “done deal,” I often wonder if they’ve forgotten about the whole environmental impact process that the project will have to go through. As a legal matter, this project is required to continue with public process, and is in fact NOT a done deal. If it were, that would render the review process moot.
@ 23:
Suit yourself. I’ll wave to you when I cruise by at 50 on the retrofitted Viaduct.
@24: you’re going to pay the tolls just for the joyride?
McGinn’s shoes were a vast improvement from those horrid brown clunky things he wore to his tuesday press conference. I can only hope that my nagging is paying off.
@ 20 – LOL
McGinn (who I interviewed early on because he was the only candidate talking about education and I write for an education blog – saveseattleschools.blogspot.com ) knows very well he can’t just say the city will take over schools. The Legislature would have to pass a law for it to happen BUT they can pass it just for Seattle. Don’t forget Nickels and Murray brought this up a couple of years ago as well.
I think McGinn is not thinking along the lines of “running” the district but rather the mayor might hire the superintendent (using people from the city who have experience with hiring and firing rather than the Board who may or may not) and/or appoint some of the Board. That would make BOTH the Board and the Mayor accountable.
As a long-time district watcher, it’s hard to know what would be best. Mike Bloomberg in NYC is doing a passable job and it seems like NYC might be doing better. The jury is out in LA.
What McGinn put forth to me is “How can a mayor NOT care?” If citizens are expressing discontent to both the Mayor and the City Council, what is the Mayor to do? The City Council and the Board don’t even meet on a regular basis anymore. It’s pathetic. We have a semi-new superintendent with a big (well, huge) new strategic plan, a new Chief Academic officer and a new student assignment plan (that will change the WHOLE ballgame). If these things do not work out in a couple of years, I might join the cry to have the City take over the schools.
SDOT and other Seattle agencies need major revamping. There are totally incompetent folks everywhere in that agency. It’s not just higher level staffers. There’s a multiple agency pissing match going on in the rights of way. sDOT can make 7 blocks on Greenwood Ave N cost $12Million and there’s already a street there. McGinn is not going to address that because he likes to hopscotch over to stuff he knows nothing about or in lieu of addressing the things he would need to address. Not addressing SDOTs massive inefficiencies is business as usual, politics as usual status quo which is what I expect from him and what we got in Greenwood from him.
Dissing the idea of the convention center expansion is ridiculous. It’s the most profitable convention center in the country. The WSCTC and The Convention and Visitors Bureau are responsible for many of the dollars spent in our city. He has no business sense at all.
The destructive trail McGinn left at Greenwood Elementary when he didn’t like the principal was exactly the tantrum tirade you can always expect from him. That was one of his first “campaigns”. Let’s see if I can shut this school down kind of stuff. Lovely. It takes more than putting the screws to folks to run a city.