During the past boom they were pushing to have Terminal 46 and the Pier 90/91 uplands turned over to developers. Never mind that Terminal 46 is an active container terminal and the pier 90/91 uplands are incredibly valuable to the right user as they have access to a deepwater dock and a large rail yard. As far as I know the City would rather port land either remain as maritime/industrial use or become park land if there are no maritime or industrial users. With the pier 90/91 uplands I believe the surrounding residents in Magnolia and Queen Anne would rather the land remain in industrial use rather than be turned into a bunch of condos and offices.

If the port is silly enough to allow residential development in the pier 90/91 uplands I can’t wait for the new residents to start complaining about how “ugly” the nearby BNSF yards and shops are and about the noise, odor, and pollution they generate.

Two things I’d love to see the port push for is truck and rail access across SR-99 from the large BNSF intermodal facility next to SODO center to Terminals 30 and 46. The other is restoring Waterfront Trolley service with a possible extension to Amgen and the pier 90/91 cruise ship facility.

On transit:
* He’s on the Board of Sound Transit and campaigned vigorously for Prop 1 last year.
* As Transportation Chair, he led the Council to approve the Rainier Valley Community Development fund and TOD and SAP planning.
* He RESTORED funding several times for the City’s membership in the Transportation Choices Coalition.
* He supported the Transit Now campaign and has always argued for more Metro service hours for Seattle.
* He’s endorsed by pro-transit organizations: he got an early endorsement from the Sierra Club and won the sole endorsement from WA Conservation Voters and the Cascade Bicycle Club.
* Yes (Chris), Richard did in fact work with Cary to put the surface+transit option on the table and was able to get the state leg. to include funding for improvements that are necessary for transit and mobility no matter which viaduct fix ever gets built.
* When he doesn’t ride his bike to work, he takes the bus.

On land use:
* He was into smart growth/sustainability before it was cool: he’s a founding member of Sustainable Seattle and a former editor of Yes Magazine and has always promoted density and mode shift.
* To wit, before becoming a member of the Board, he worked with the Roosevelt neighborhood and Dwight to persuade the ST Board to switch the preferred alternative of the Roosevelt station from next to I-5 to the business core (until then, a majority had been leaning toward the freeway site).
* Speaking of High Point, Richard helped write its green building specs, having initiated Seattle’s Green Building program.

He’s also demonstrated bold leadership for bike/ped infrastructure and policy. Yes, he’s an incumbent, but a good one! http://www.richardconlin.com

Why pay attention to the Port of Seattle races?

The Port of Seattle owns some 4,000 acres in King County. With an enormous budget and 20+ public relations staff the Port is able to influence (or bully) transit decisions around the county to benefit its own agenda. The Port is unduly influenced by mega-developer Bob Wallace, Holland America, and the largest terminal operator in the country, SSA-Carrix. The Port often spends its taxpayer funds ($76 million) to benefit these customers instead of the County.

What are the impacts of these influencers?

-> Seatac and Burien where the Port lets its properties turn into jet ghettos and families are woken up every night by landing planes, despite Port promises that the third runway would be used only in “inclement weather.”
-> South Park, White Center, Delridge and Georgetown where the Port forces its truck drivers to park their old, dirty diesel rigs.
-> Queen Anne, Ballard and Magnolia where the cruise ships blast diesel smoke from Terminal 91 (no plugins, still) and Interbay where industrial lands remained under utilitized.
-> Waste of taxpayer dollars to cover the Port’s profit losses and charges of civil and criminal fraud against the Port’s staff as they make special inside deals.

Who will change this?

Max Vekich – former 4-term state house member, chairman of the transportation and agriculture committee, current member of the Longshore Union with 20 years of port experience, Max knows how the Port runs and will bring meaningful oversight to this bloated agency. Will be a voice for the men and women working on the docks and at the airport. Endorsed by King County Democrats, Sen. Maria Cantwell, Rep. Jay Inslee, and many local unions. His main opponent, monorail operator Tom Albro, has been endorsed and received money from SSA-Carrix, Holland America and mega-developer Bob Wallace.

Rob Holland – former chair of the 37th Dems, worked in transportation logistics at Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, worked for a biofuel company, will be a voice for the Port’s neighborhoods and impacted communities. Endorsed by Sierra Club, King County Conservation Voters, and many others. His main opponent, David Doud, works for mega-developer Bob Wallace.

John Creighton – incumbent, business lawyer, more open to environmental and labor issues than any other sitting Port Commission. Was originally elected by the business community but has changed his tune as he’s watched the Port in operation. Now he’s endorsed by the King County Labor Council, Sierra Club and many others. He is unopposed.

Jan Drago – NO. Never.
Greg Nickels – NO. Never.

However, Mercer is just one of many problem points in the city and I think a couple thousand dollars worth of paint would do enough until we have more funds available, so I’m with Nick Licata on this one. The millions would be better spent on bicycle master plan or HOV projects. (Once we kill the tunnel we can dismantle the Mercer/Aurora/Broad mess and reconnect Uptown and South Lake Union anyway.)

As someone who has ridden various portions of the 48 regularly during my 22 years in Seattle I can tell you the 48 has needed to be split like the 43/44 and 7/49 for that entire time. Hopefully by turning the 48 around at Mt. Baker it will be a bit more reliable than it currently is. Some people may loose a single-seat ride from MLK to 23rd, Montlake, the U-District and Greenlake, but they also gain a single seat ride to MLK through the CD, Capitol Hill, SLU, and the Seattle Center as well as a single seat ride to Beacon Hill.

To vote for or against a particular candidate because of the presence or lack of a single seat ride seems to me to be silly in the extreme. For the most part route planning is done by staff and is hardly the crass political decision you make it out to be (the whining that saved the 42 at the expense of better service on the 9 notwithstanding)

Though apparently not quite to the extent Mike O’Brien is.

[Voter],

Thank you for sending me Jessie’s statement.
Her mailing reminds me that the mark of a good campaigner is to keep hammering away on a nail, even if it isn’t there. Because, over time all that people will hear is the banging, and they’ll never notice that there isn’t a nail.

Such is the case of the Sane vs Sound Transit lawsuit. Councilmembers Peter Steinbrueck and I, along with a host of other elected, asked that there be an audit of Sound Transit’s financing nine years ago when it appeared, and turned out to be true, that there wasn’t sufficient funds to build the light rail link as promised to the voters. We did that as part of a loose group of concerned citizens called Sane Transit, a group with no formal membership., or dues, or by-laws, an organization that would make the 36th District Democrats’ organization look like General Motors.

Sane Transit as an entity was later named in a lawsuit to force Sound Transit to go back to the voters to seek approval of the scaled down Light Rail version that was being built. By that time, I and other electeds had moved on, and not parties to the lawsuit. The only actual party in the lawsuit was one individual, a Mr. Baerwaldt, represented by Bradley Bagshaw.

The records are clear, the newspaper accounts are there to read and the case filing is public. This was all explained politely to Ms. Israel. So, I am perplexed as to why she continues this accusation that was mailed to the members of the 36th that, to quote “he partnered with Rob McKenna and Maggie Fimia to sue Sound Transit”? I guess it’s because the sound of a banging hammer gets attention, even when there is nothing to bang away at. I personally think that there is already too much noise in politics and not enough results.

Sincerely,
Nick

Surely one of the coolest political developments of 2000, Sane Transit attracted lefty city council members like Nick Licata and Peter Steinbrueck, and Nicastro’s failure to join her maverick cohorts left us (and others) sorely disappointed. “I worked with her early on, and she asked good questions about Seattle’s financial exposure,” says Rob McKenna, King County Council Member and anti-Sound Transit hero. “Since then we haven’t seen her. She appeared to be poised to go public with her reservations and that didn’t happen.”

It is revisionist history to say that Nick didn’t work actively with Sane Transit and others to try to kill ST. He sponsored several bills to try to make it difficult for ST, including one to require they had all federal grants in hand before agreeing to transfer the bus tunnel.

And I am not saying this because I now support Jessie. Nick pissed me off at the time on this issue, and I knew from friends active in Sane Transit that he worked closely with them and light rail haters Maggi Fimia and Rob McKenna.

I’ll take some candidates who are willing to take a look at costs and accountability and have them run / oversee transportation agencies that do the same. Nickels-NO! Drago-NO!

I am grateful that Nick questioned the largess of putting a freeway in on Mercer St. and a tunnel for CARS and no downtown exits. I am grateful every single time he questions how money is going to be spent and how it was spent.

I’m not against spending money on transit. I am completely against mismanagement of my money. We are being rolled by SDOT and Sound Transit and King County.

The change we need is fiscal restraint and accountability. I don’t see who that is in the mayoral candidates or in the county executive race. City Council, I’ll take Licata for sure and whoever else knows how to balance a checkbook.

You win the prize for actually including useful and relevant links. All others, take note.

Even if his fingerprints aren’t on the knife it sure does look like he was trying to help kill Sound Transit (or at least kill Link) during some of the agency’s darkest days.

(PS a big fie on Rob McKenna and Maggi Fimia for voting down Ron Sims proposed tax to help fund Link to Northgate. If the tax had passed it is quite likely Link to Northgate would be opening in 2016 rather than 2020.)

Mind you I’m someone who was inclined to support re-electing Nick but at this point I’d have to say I’m in the “undecided” column.

My opponent, Nick Licata, has been more concerned with stalling progress, than proactively championing new ideas and coalitions that can move our city forward. In fact, he partnered with Rob McKenna and Maggie Fimia to sue Sound Transit and it almost killed our chances at bringing light rail to Seattle.

From a candidate interview here: http://sableverity.com/2009/07/05/results-city-council-online-candidates-forum/

Seattle Times article from Sunday, October 8, 2000 detailing the history and “membership” of Sane Transit: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20001008&slug=4046810

I remember Fimia being one of the big rail skeptics and McKenna has a long history of being pro-road and anti-rail, but I had forgotten about both Nick Licata’s and Peter Steinbrueck’s involvement. At least in Peter’s case he’s redeemed himself with his work on fighting an elevated Viaduct replacement.