STB is going to tackle its primary election endorsements over the next few weeks. This is your chance to influence that process.
Feel free to link to anything we should know about a candidate we like (or don’t like) in the comments. Here are the things not to do:
- Address an issue other than transit or land use.
- Reference a candidate for King County Exec or Seattle Mayor. We’re tracking those races, thanks.
- Link to anything from Publicola. That’s required reading at STB HQ, so we’re already well aware of it.
Thanks!
Dorsol Plants (Seattle City Council Pos. 4) may be a long-shot, but he’s going to be MUCH better on our issues than his opponents. [Full disclosure: I’m an unpaid consultant for him]
He gets the issues with the Viaduct replacement. He’s pro-transit because he rides the bus every day. When he needs a car, he uses Zipcar. Filling in our missing sidewalks is one of his main issues that he talks about on the trail — because it’s part of the City meeting its promises to neighborhoods, creates safe routes for children and seniors, and promotes livable neighborhoods.
For Position 4 Bloom doesn’t look too bad, certainly better than Bagshaw.
I didn’t know that about Dorsol. That’s a really good question to pose to candidates: how many trips did you take in the last week on the bus, versus how many by car? I think there’s a big difference between people who talk about transit, and those that actually use it.
Would love to see similar question asked about walk/bike trips as well – I know STB is all about transit, but we need to encourage the connections between these modes to extend transit’s usefulness. Dorsol seems to get it.
I think Mike O’Brien is the best choice for Position 8. He was a strong leader at Sierra Club, saying no to the highway expansion part of Roads and Transit, and then following through as promised to help Sound Transit win on their own. He was an excellent force on the viaduct stakeholder process, making a compelling case for transit, I-5 fixes, and local street improvements instead of more pavement. He is focused on compact growth, affordable housing, and a transportation system where all you need is a transit pass and a bike — and understands how all these issues are integrated. I’ve worked side by side with him for several years, and can attest that he’s got that winning mix of skills Seattle needs in leadership: smart, effective, high-integrity, and ready to do the hard work to achieve a better future.
Damn Cary you’re making my decision on the Position 8 race even harder. I’ve been leaning toward David Miller because he is a neighbor and from what I’ve seen with his work on the Maple Leaf reservoir lid park and Waldo woods.
Though truth be told Mike is probably better both on density and transit.
I am with you on Mike O’Brien for Position 8! He has consistently demonstrated his ability to lead with a vision – which will serve us all well on City Council. In addition to Mike’s commitment to finding transit oriented solutions, he is an advocate for smarter land-use decisions. Mike’s work as a founding board member of Seattle Great City Initiative (now Great City) further demonstrates his understanding that a big piece of the answer to our transportation and climate change woes is living in more compact communities.
PS Cary when are you going to run for office? You are exactly the kind of awesome leader so sorely needed in elected office.
Seriously, Cary… How many times do folks have to plead with you? :-)
What’s the scope of the endorsements you’re soliciting information on? City of Seattle only? King County? Metropolitan Puget Sound? Any position in the state that affects regional transit planning and execution?
I would say the Central Puget Sound area.
Ginsburg was pretty good on transit when he was interviewed on KUOW.
His website doesn’t make it clear which seat he’s gunning for:
http://www.davidginsberg.org/meet/meet.html
David is running against current Seattle City Council member Richard Conlin in Position 2. [Disclosure: I’m also working with him.]
He likewise “gets” the transit issues. He’s also good on “green” issues and lives with his family in the High Point community, which he often cites for examples of a number of good community development ideas.
Wasn’t Conlin one of the first on the council to back surface+transit?
That said I’m not a big Conlin fan. Heck I’m not a big fan of any of the current council members with the possible exception of Sally Clark.
http://www.davidginsberg.org/transportation/transportation.html
Jessie Israel, who coincidentally has a really cool first name, is exactly the kind of candidate this blog should love. I don’t have a link handy but I just thought I’d send her some love. Also – who the heck likes Nick Licata anyway?
I like Jesse, she’s smart and seems like she can actually get stuff done.
I really wish she was running for one of the other council positions, I like Nick and have a hard time supporting anyone opposing him no matter how good they are.
If Jessie was running for any of the other 3 council positions she’d be my first choice in a heartbeat.
Hmm I may have to reconsider my views on Nick. I had forgotten about this:
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.
Chris,
You win the prize for actually including useful and relevant links. All others, take note.
I saw Jessie Israel’s attack against Nick Licata in the comments thread on another blog. Since I figured she wouldn’t make the attack without at least something to back it up I decided to research it using the almighty google. Since I figured others might have the same difficulty believing the attack without some proof I decided to include links. Besides I’d forgotten what an unholy alliance of monorail boosters and anti-transit cranks Sane Transit actually was.
For the record, I like Nick. I like Jessie, too, but she’s only in this race as a blatant pawn of Cathy Allan.
How is Jessie a pawn of Cathy Allen? Jessie strikes me as someone who is quite capable of thinking for herself.
Please follow the Moon recommendation for O’Brien. He is smart and articulate and has the best positions on both transit and land use.
Greg Nickels, lifetime leadership of Sound Transit (when it was popular and not). Done.
I have been a long time supporter of Nick, but I am supporting Jessie this year because I can no longer support Licata on transportation and land use issues. Two of the most critical decisions we have grappled with over the last decade are the replacement of the viaduct and building light rail.
On both issues Nick was flat out wrong. He favored a retrofit or a new elevated viaduct for years. On light rail his record is even worse. A few years ago Nick was actively working with the nutballs at Sane Transit to try to kill Sound Transit. He has never supported light rail and still has enormous skepticism about Sound Transit, which is by all current accounts, a pretty well run agency.
On land use Nick has hardly been an advocate for density and is often reflexively opposed to development.
Nick does many fine things, but if transit and land use are your issues, than you shouldn’t support Nick.
I’m not going to argue in favor of one or the other here… BUT, Jessie supporters really need to stop spreading this strange misunderstanding that Nick was working “with” Sane Transit, or “sued Sound Transit.” His involvement with that group was very different than the lead he took on, say, opposing public funds for the Sonics.
Well Nick was a member of Sane Transit along with Emory Bundy, Rob McKenna, and Maggi Fimia. Sane Transit did indeed sue Sound Transit.
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.
From Josh Feit in the Jan. 25, 2001 issue of the Stranger:
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.
Here’s an email forwarded to me that Nick Licata wrote in response to a voter asking about Jessie’s accusation (in an email to 36th district democrats members) that he “sued Sound Transit”:
[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
Take a look at this video of Rob Johnson for Mayor Nickels….
No helmet!
How about someone from STB running for a position?
Mike O’Brien, running for position 8, has been a courageous leader working for more transportation options. Whether we look at the impacts on livability, or climate change, or the economy, it’s clear that we need to rethink how we do transportation. Mike gets that. Here are the top three reasons for STB to endorse Mike:
1) Led the fight against the multi billion $ roads expansion in
the RTID package then fought hard to bring back a transit only
package in 2008.
2) Served on the viaduct stakeholder committee and constantly
advocated for investments in alternatives to driving such as
transit and bike lanes, but also in getting creative with how we
use transportation demand management tools.
3) Has been a regular bike and transit user for years. His
family of four only owns one car and they only drove it 5500
miles last year. They even gave up their only car for one month
last summer.
To be fair David Miller is an avid bike rider as well: http://millerforseattle.org/about_david.html
Though apparently not quite to the extent Mike O’Brien is.
Sound Transit is a runaway train when it comes to costs. Like SDOT and King County (yes, think about who and what they have or have had in common), we’re talking completely arrogant attitudes where costs skyrocket. Quality suffers and no one is held accountable. To watch LINK now rob bus riders of the continuity of the 48 line in order to transfer them to LINK is not what LINK was supposed to do. I’m disgusted with that. Transfers suck.
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.
Metro decided what service revisions it was going to make in SE Seattle not Sound Transit.
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)
If you call what Metro is doing “revisions”, I’m disappointed. That is exactly the Kool Aid they’re offering. It’s quite political actually and completely relevant to the upcoming election.
While I personally don’t think two-way Mercer is a good use of limited current funds, I would like to add that it’s hardly a “freeway” project. I work at 815 Mercer (UW SLU) and both Mercer and Valley are currently very unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists, not to mention confusing for drivers. There are few crosswalks and the whole street is laid out like a long I-5 ramp, encouraging drivers to attempt to squeeze across on a yellow light, often blocking the crosswalk and trolley tracks.
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.)
Yes. Well Mercer St is wider than Aurora Ave N and narrower than I-5 so I classify it as a freeway even if technically it is the size of a state highway. They call it “connecting the grid” and they shrub it up and all. Connecting the complete mobility of automobiles through the heart of what is suppposed to be our newest neighborhood. You’d think we would evolve wouldn’t you?
Jan Drago – NO. Never.
Greg Nickels – NO. Never.
Endorse Max Vekich, Rob Holland and John Creighton for Port of Seattle Commission.
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.
I agree with this recommendation. I know Rob and Max and believe they would bring necessary reforms to the Port. I don’t know John, but hear good things about him too.
I also agree that Rob, Max, and John are the best candidates the get the port up and running. David Doud (a know republican) is running against Rob in the position 3 race. His core arguement is that he wants to leverage the ports assets (allow for the development of commercial real estate on port property) to gain funds. In case he hasn’t been paying attention, the real estate market has taken a dive, and the port has never made any money of such ventures in the past.
Lordy, I would really hate for the Port to further cave to the pipe dreams of developers.
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.
Back to Position 2, I urge you to endorse Richard Conlin (whose campaign I manage).
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